Buh-Bye Rummy

[HummerHippy]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15622266/?GT1=8717.

Well, if you can't stand the heat...

And what's interesting, I looked on foxnews.com, and this story isn't even on there yet.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Interesting change. Just a few days ago, Bush wanted him to stay on for the rest of his term. I guess either Bush finally got the message on Iraq or it was all planned in advance as an election strategy for party solidarity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061101/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Isn't it ironic though? Replacing Rumsfeld before the election might have kept enough swing voters from voting democrat. Bush could have maintained Republican control on the Hill by listening to the American people instead of ignoring them.

[DennisAJC]

Removing Rumsfeld months ago would have changed the outcome of this election.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

Isn't it ironic though? Replacing Rumsfeld before the election might have kept enough swing voters from voting democrat. Bush could have maintained Republican control on the Hill by listening to the American people instead of ignoring them.

Yeah and told every American Military person that their boss' job is at the whim of politics.

[PARAGON]

Ever heard of integrity?

The American troops in combat need to know that their leaders have it.

[Wisha Haddan H3]

Keeping Rumsfeld onboard is more about loyalty than integrity. Integrity keeps you on mission. Loyalty keeps friends on staff who don't get the job done.

The troops won't lose confidence in Bush as long as they know he has a plan, will stay on mission and will complete the mission. In this case, the mission was to depose Saddam Hussein, provide for democratic elections, train an iraqi army to fight insurgents and turn the reins over to the new iraqi government with a small US occupying/advising force. Four years later, Rumsfeld hasn't finished the job and the end is still out of sight.

As a matter of integrity, Pres Bush should have replaced him long ago so he could achieve his goals in Iraq. Integrity isn't perpetuating a losing strategy just because you won't fire your friend. Integrity is saying, I'm on a mission and you're not getting it done.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

Keeping Rumsfeld onboard is more about loyalty than integrity. Integrity keeps you on mission. Loyalty keeps friends on staff who don't get the job done.

The troops won't lose confidence in Bush as long as they know he has a plan, will stay on mission and will complete the mission. In this case, the mission was to depose Saddam Hussein, provide for democratic elections, train an iraqi army to fight insurgents and turn the reins over to the new iraqi government with a small US occupying/advising force. Four years later, Rumsfeld hasn't finished the job and the end is still out of sight.

As a matter of integrity, Pres Bush should have replaced him long ago so he could achieve his goals in Iraq. Integrity isn't perpetuating a losing strategy just because you won't fire your friend. Integrity is saying, I'm on a mission and you're not getting it done.

Don't Clinton-speak this. YOU said it was ironic and if the President would have replaced Rumsfeld before the election, it would change the outcome.

He didn't sacrifice morale for political gain. You hide your true political position behind your words. That is cowardly.

You are a partisan Democrat and don't practice what you preach.

[GLBLWARMR]

Originally Posted by PARAGON

Ever heard of integrity?

The American troops in combat need to know that their leaders have it.

I partially argree. The SecDef is so far removed in the chain of command that a lot of what happens at that level is never seen down at the troop level. As long as our immediate command is in control we are pretty happy. The only ones that really have anything to do with the SecDef are the flag level officers.

[PARAGON]

Originally Posted by GLBLWARMR

I partially argree. The SecDef is so far removed in the chain of command that a lot of what happens at that level is never seen down at the troop level. As long as our immediate command is in control we are pretty happy. The only ones that really have anything to do with the SecDef are the flag level officers.

I was referring to someone even further removed, the Commander in Chief.

Overall, at boot on the ground level, if the decision makers are seen to come and go at the very whim of political gain, then their purpose feels negated because they are no longer truly serving America, but would be serving for a political party.

[KenP]

Originally Posted by Wisha Haddan H3

Interesting change. Just a few days ago, Bush wanted him to stay on for the rest of his term. I guess either Bush finally got the message on Iraq or it was all planned in advance as an election strategy for party solidarity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061101/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Isn't it ironic though? Replacing Rumsfeld before the election might have kept enough swing voters from voting democrat. Bush could have maintained Republican control on the Hill by listening to the American people instead of ignoring them.

Bush said he didn't want it to effect the election bacause it would have looked like a political move on his part. I think that's pretty honorable if you think about it.

[KenP]

Originally Posted by HummerHippy

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15622266/?GT1=8717.

Well, if you can't stand the heat...

And what's interesting, I looked on foxnews.com, and this story isn't even on there yet.

Fox was talking about it BEFORE Bush's 11am Q&A, even saying Bush would touch on it during his talk.