Should Rumsfeld Leave?
 

What do we think the grunts and mid-level officers feel? How much responsiblity does Rumsfeld need to take for the past 3 years in Iraq, by what he has done and more importantly what he has not done?

The administration would actually have to believe something was wrong in Iraq to remove him. Our present maintenance of heading, done without actually saying "stay the course", would not lead me to believe any changes are coming. I voted for shot, since that is a common punishment for treason.

ditto re:treason, the treacherous traitor.

A true villain. But somehow it always seems like the true antagonists get to live. If you shoot him you might be surprised when he just gets back up again.
"Brains.........." *Slurp*

Let's recall that the brain-dead moron that picked the current brain-dead moron will be the brain-dead moron to replace the outgoing brain-dead moron with a new brain-dead moron.

So unless you are reasonably certain that the new brain-dead moron will be an improvement over the old brain-dead moron, you might want to refrain from asking a brain-dead moron to choose another brain-dead moron. Law of averages and all, you know.

No...let him die where he sits...Monday at 10am....from a lightning bolt. :thumbsup:

Rumsfeld was so brain dead - so much in denial - that troops in Iraq literally had to ask him why they did not have armored humvees. We later learned the company that makes this armor simply had no contracts even though Rumsfeld said Humvees were being armored as fast as possible.

When looting was widespread, Rumsfeld denied. When an insurgency started in Summer 2003, Rumsfeld invented an Al Qaeda enemy. When the police and military were fired, Rumsfeld denied he was even violating military principles from 500 BC. As Anbar was being lost to insurgent, Rumsfeld invented this myth about Syrian complicity. As all reconstruction was halted or sabotaged, Rumsfeld insistedwe were ignoring the successes. When fraud on massive scale was ongoing - especially with Halliburton and its subsidiaries, Rumsfeld denied. When torture and international kidnapping was practiced regularly, Rumsfeld said it was not torture. When generals repeatedly demanded more troops, Rumsfeld said anyone who needed troops need only ask. When Bremmer could not even leave Iraq using a 5 mile road from Baghdad to the airport, Rumsfeld insisted Iraq was secure.

Should Rumsfeld step down? No. Iraq should get worse so that every teenager and 20 year old never forget these lessons from Nam. Time to know what would happen and to avoid defeat was 4 years ago. 4 years ago when planning for the peace was terminated by Rumsfeld. Many Americans now must die so that Americans learn how dangerous this 'big dic' mentality can be, how easy Cellar dwellers were drawn into the Dark Side, and how hard it is for 'big dics' to admit defeat when others are doing the dying.

Leave Rumsfeld there until even Urbane Guerrilla and MaggieL cannot deny reality. Therein lies the real reason for Iraq. Those troops did not choose to die in Iraq. We put them there as demonstrated in Cellar posts of 2002 and 2003. Let Rumsfeld make it only worse so that the most important lesson is not lost.

Yes, but the degree of scrutiny placed over the next pick would be intense. And, as we learned from Harriet Miers, the White House can change course if they are hit on the nose with a rolled up newspaper often enough. Congress still holds the purse strings to this war, and if they make it clear that they will fold up and leave unless a suitable replacement is found, than GWB would have no choice.

Congress is the White House's enabler. Except for tapping and torturing, it is still Congress that has most of the authority to prosecute a war. GWB would not be able to pick a Rumsfeld clone, which is why he has been resisting making the change, because any competent successor would tell him what a complete idiot he's been for the past three years.