Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rumsfeld resigns

Rate this topic


The Wrath
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/08/D8L91NV00.html

The cool part is that they're getting the president of Texas A&M (Whoop!) to take his place. Maybe Gates will finally tell the military to take the gloves off and kick some ass.

This underscores two things that has caused me to rethink my support for Bush back in 2004. The first point is that the timing of this resignation stinks of a pragmatic move in order to save face with the opinions of the majority. Rumsfeld's replacement may prove to be 10 times more effective than his predecessor was, but if this be the case, he should have been brought in right after Bush was re-elected. The second point is that Bush is talking about reaching out to these self-loathing Socialists that now control the House of Representatives, which tells me that his principles as a proponent of fiscal sanity were a complete farce. Maybe after 2 years we'll get someone who has the balls to kick the hell out of these moonbats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know much about Gates' politics, but I know that he has been a very popular president of A&M. That, of course, says nothing about how he will perform at his new job, but I can say from experience that he is much more personable and charismatic than Donald Rumsfeld.

When I get off work, I'm gonna do a little research on his record at the CIA, then I'll form my opinion of how I think he'll do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know much about Gates' politics, but I know that he has been a very popular president of A&M. That, of course, says nothing about how he will perform at his new job, but I can say from experience that he is much more personable and charismatic than Donald Rumsfeld.

When I get off work, I'm gonna do a little research on his record at the CIA, then I'll form my opinion of how I think he'll do.

I'll look forward to seeing what you find out, because the issue of national security and terrorism is a bit more serious than all the other nonsensical issues that everyone seems to be obsessed with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's done a pretty pitiful job fighting this war.

I don't understand why people think this. I have a bunch of friends who are Iraq vets and they've all told me the same thing. The media's take on the war isn't even close to being accurate. They all say it's not nearly as bad as it's being made out.

So either the Democrats are lying to me (it wouldn't be the first time) or a bunch of Marine Corp and Army vets are lying. Gee, I wonder which one is telling the truth... :)

That was a stupid move to get rid of him. First it was obviously a move to appease the Dems and it was also done at the expense of the military. Not only does it validate their cause in the minds of the enemy, but the timing was also very poor. The new guy will only have two years to get anything done before there is another change in management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The war has been a pitiful effort from the get-go. That applies to the leaders, not to the actual military. We could have had this conflict finished in under a year, but instead decided to pussy-foot around for 3 years (and counting) while we try to bring republican government to people that don't want it and democracy to people who will use it to install an Islamic theocracy.

If you fight a war, then you make up your mind to fight a damn war. Rumsfeld shares a large part of the blame for our current misconceived strategy.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care too much about those senators that lost their jobs, they were just as socialist as their replacements anyway. But Rummy was a hero of mine. Bummer.

Rumsfeld was one of the better Secretaries of State in regards of encouraging more spending in areas to help improve technological advances and overall planning, particularly considering the post-Vietnam environment still present in the government. However, his policy decisions are heavily dependent on Bush's lack of a will to get to the source of the problem. Ever since Jimmy Carter originally allowed these violent warlords to take control of Iran, no one has really had the stomach to suggest a more radical solution to the problem, one that will actually solve the problem permanently.

Rumsfeld has ultimately been a failure, just as President Bush has been a failure. The President has been a supplicant of the UN and an Internationalist at heart, and that has been both his and Rummy's downfall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could have had this conflict finished in under a year, but instead decided to pussy-foot around for 3 years (and counting) while we try to bring republican government to people that don't want it and democracy to people who will use it to install an Islamic theocracy.

I think that was probably Bush's policy more than Rumsfeld's. I liked Rummy because of (my perception of) his epistemology. Watching his press briefings on c-span, he was extremely logical and even explicitly philosophical at points. He was a very clear articulate speaker who took a long range view of things. And we wasn't one of the religious Republicans either (at least not obviously so).

Edited by ian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa, how do you know what his epistemology is by watching him speak on c-span? I'll grant you that Bush is more responsible, but you can't absolve him of the blame. I do admit, however, that it looks like he was basically offered as a sacrificial lamb to the democrats, which kinda pisses me off. At the same time, however, I think it's time to give someone else a shot at managing the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa, how do you know what his epistemology is by watching him speak on c-span? I'll grant you that Bush is more responsible, but you can't absolve him of the blame. I do admit, however, that it looks like he was basically offered as a sacrificial lamb to the democrats, which kinda pisses me off. At the same time, however, I think it's time to give someone else a shot at managing the war.

I've watched some of Rumsfeld's press conferences, he would literally poke holes in their illogical/pragmatic lines of questioning, it was a breathe of fresh air from the endless supply of Cabinet people who would either accept the premises of the media or try to match their illogic with bromides. However, what Rumsfeld did in those interviews is probably something that many people with his credentials in military expertize could do, all you need to do is not care what people think of you and keep to the facts.

Rumsfeld is getting old, and no one is probably more happy about his exodus than he is. Many people hated him for what he tried to do for us, as they hate anyone who attempts to defend what we have, regardless of the fact that his failures were many. I'm not going to be leaving much blame on him, he did his best, which is more than I can say for any pinko democrat who has ever held that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must confess that I don't know that much about what Rumsfeld has and has not done. All I know is that I am deeply unsatisfied with the way the war has gone, and it seems like he would have the authority to make it go better than it has.

He very well might have had the authority to have wiped out all of the bad guys in Iraq, but unfortunately we have a population that would consider that to be politically incorrect, his powerlessness underscores the poison of multiculturalism, and more generally speaking altruism. He himself may have been an altruist to some degree and probably did not make a connection between Saddam Hussein and citizens in Tikrit, Fallujah, or Mosul who helped him obtain and consolidate power. Republicans, by nature, are pragmatists and thus they can't distinguish between a supporter of tyranny and a victim of it unless that person has a gun in their hand and is shooting down our soldiers.

I actually had a debate with a member of my band on this subject, who happens to be a registered Democrat, and he went on and on about how it was wrong to judge other cultures because they weren't like us. I went into a rather graphic description of what a woman goes through when she gets a female circumcision and he had nothing to respond to it with, I trully think he had never been told what actually goes on in many of these countries, and how nonsensical Rousseau's concept of the Noble Savage actually is. The reason why our foreign policy is so weak willed is because the population in this country is ignorant of what goes on in the world, they assume that everyone lives the same way we do.

I'm not making excuses for Rumsfeld, he didn't do what needed to be done, but I think the problem we have is a good deal larger than what goes on in the Cabinet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...