 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 07 May 04 - 08:48 PM "Would an honourable person in that situation feel honour bound to offer their resignation?" That's really the bottom line, isn't it? And I paraphrased Rumsfeld incorrectly; not 'probably'. He said (and I quote) "It's possible", but as you say dianavan, the damage has been done. CBS has said that they held the pictures back twice at the request of the Pentagon, which spanned a period of about a week and a half, I think. CBS showed the pictures only after telling the Pentagon that they were about to come into the public domain, elsewhere. Seems they could have sold a lot of cars and a lot of toothpaste... ... a lot earlier. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 07 May 04 - 09:57 PM Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld offered "my deepest apology" Friday to Iraqi prisoners abused by sadistic military personnel and warned that videos and photos yet to come could further inflame worldwide outrage. AP Photo Reuters Slideshow: Abuse of Iraq Prisoners Investigated Rumsfeld Takes Responsibility (AP Video) Latest headlines: · Libya Denounces U.S. Criticism of Trial AP - 6 minutes ago · US Soldier Says Her Job Was to Make Prison 'Hell' Reuters - 14 minutes ago · Fresh Charges of Prisoner Abuse Hit UK Troops Reuters - 23 minutes ago Special Coverage WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld offered "my deepest apology" Friday to Iraqi prisoners abused by sadistic military personnel and warned that videos and photos yet to come could further inflame worldwide outrage. AP Photo AFP Slideshow: Abuse of Iraq Prisoners Investigated Rumsfeld Takes Responsibility (AP Video) Latest headlines: · Rumsfeld apologizes for prison scandal; 20 Iraqis die in firefights http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040508/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_prisoner_abuse_9: WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld offered "my deepest apology" Friday to Iraqi prisoners abused by sadistic military personnel and warned that videos and photos yet to come could further inflame worldwide outrage. "It's going to get a good deal more terrible, I'm afraid," he said glumly in congressional testimony televised throughout the Arab world as well as in the United States. He said the Iraqis who were mistreated will receive compensation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Bobert Date: 07 May 04 - 10:20 PM Okay. let's do a little review here.... We invaded Iraq because it was getting ready to launch a nuclear attack on the US. Remember Condi "Mushroom Cloud" Rice's warnings? Well, that was a lie. No, we invaded Iraq because it had WMD's it was getting ready to unleash on the US. Well, that also was a lie. Links to Al Quida? Lie. So when all the the other lies wouldn't work Bush's folks came up with the "Saddam was a bad man" story and now they are not only doing the same stuff but doing it in the same prison in Iraq???? Hmmmmmmmmm? Just what am I missing here??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 07 May 04 - 10:34 PM "He said the Iraqis who were mistreated will receive compensation" Blood Money, I suppose. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 07 May 04 - 10:37 PM "Just what am I missing here???" Oh Bobert, get the ol' West Ginny Slide Rule, out there and let's all have a wee gander at it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 07 May 04 - 10:47 PM Hey, sorry. A lot of other stuff got picked up on my cut and paste excerpt. I especially liked "he said, glumly". On the other hand, they say if you can fake sincerity you got it made. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 07 May 04 - 11:00 PM 'glumly'.... Great word. Sort of denotes ... 'sad resignation' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 08 May 04 - 02:16 AM Compenstation? What kind of compensation can you give a Muslim (or anyone else for that matter) for that kind of humiliation? No Rummy - in the middle east, compensation and apologies do not equal justice. Justice will be served when Rumsfeld endures a similar form of degradation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 May 04 - 07:29 AM "Sad resignation" - yes please. Immediate sad resignation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 08 May 04 - 09:25 AM If ever there were a living example of instant karma, I think this baby qualifies. As Bobert says, first the reason for war was imminent threat of attack on the US and WMDs. Then when all of that was proved to be nonsense, Bush hit the road to say "Saddam Hussein was a bad man. Saddam Hussein tried to kill my dad". So word gets out that we are using the very same torture chambers Saddam used, for the same purpose, and... suddenly they're sorry??? And after that debacle of a hearing (maybe the pundits thought Rumsfeld did well, but it was glaringly obvious that all the DOD masters combined couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again. The kept mouthing the words 'chain of command chain of command AAWWKK!' and couldn't explain what exactly that chain of command was. They couldn't say who was in charge, who gave the orders, what the orders were... And the report had been sitting on their desks for two months. But the pundits aren't even talking about any of that. They aren't picking apart the testimony. They are saying "he apologized, and acted all humble". As if an insincere apology and contrived horror about the scandal was going to convince anyone of anything. Apparently he wasn't horrified enough at the suggestion of torture by our troops to read the reports or to bother to have a look at the photographs until the night before he was summoned to the Hill. So why aren't any of the pundits talking about this debacle in those terms? It is obvious the entire Bush administration Iraq strategy is dissembling before the eyes of the world, yet in Washington DC, they act as if nothing matters but the cynical, contrived mea culpas for the cameras. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,jaze Date: 08 May 04 - 09:37 AM Rumsfeld told the committee he only saw the pictures seen round the world at 7:30 last night. I find that very damning. This wasn't an important enough issue to bother with? That right there shows the problem with this administration. I think it will be a long time before America lives down the shame of this unholy mess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 08 May 04 - 10:05 AM Apparently, he either misplaced that pesky CD, or maybe the underlings just won't give him the photographs and videos. Rumsfeld's remarks, from today's Washington Post: "Summoned to Capitol Hill for a bipartisan trip to the woodshed over the Iraq prison abuse crisis, the man who has spoken so often of transforming the world's largest military testified that he has been trying for "days and days and days" simply to get a CD copy of the Abu Ghraib photographs and video -- but has not been able to find one. "The disc that I saw that had photos on it did not have the videos on it," Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. All the pictures, both stills and video, have been in the hands of military investigators since January, he told Congress. But the secretary has had trouble getting hold of them. Rumsfeld testified that he and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, finally saw the stills Thursday night, more than a week after CBS broadcast the first images of U.S. soldiers humiliating and threatening naked Iraqi prisoners. This image of a powerless secretary unable to summon up a cheap piece of plastic in the face of a "catastrophe," as Rumsfeld described the prison scandal, was a long way from the boldly assured Rumsfeld of a year ago. Back then, during the U.S. military's lightning drive on Baghdad, the civilian architect of two wars in two years described a computerized force in which data leapt from soldier to satellite to smart bomb, in which unimaginable firepower was just a few keystrokes away." ...yada yada yada |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 08 May 04 - 10:08 AM Sorry, I meant to include this part too, because the writing is just so snappy for the Post: "Rumsfeld was a sort of Achilles for the Information Age, and his bold assurance won him a place among People magazine's sexiest humans. President Bush nicknamed him "Rumstud." Like Achilles, he had a vulnerable heel. Rumsfeld returned over and over again to the idea that the military has effectively handled the prison crisis as a criminal matter but failed to realize that those pictures were, themselves, high-tech dynamite. One-stripe soldiers could zip the disastrous images through the ether, but the Pentagon could not get them onto Rumsfeld's radar screen at even an 18th-century pace." --------------------------------------- Anyone else hear the faint sound of "Taps" ringing in the distance? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: DougR Date: 08 May 04 - 11:47 AM AMos: you don't agree with me? So what else is new. I regret, though, that Rumsfield is probably going to have to go. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 May 04 - 12:33 PM Does that mean, Doug, that, while you regret that he will probably have to go, you accept that it is right that he should go? Or does it mean that you regret that he will probably have to go, and do not think that it is right that he should have to go? Rumsfeld has specifically said that he accepts full responsibility for what happened in the torture rooms. When we accept responsibility that normally implies that we accept that it is right that we should be penalised. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Charley Noble Date: 08 May 04 - 02:57 PM He's going, and there's no coming back, except for his book contract. And I do hope he makes good use of his poem as a preface. Of course, it would be tactically nice to keep him hanging around as Defence Secretary for the Bush Administration to further stink up the air during the General Election. But that's unlikely. At least Doug R. appreciates his sheer brilliance and that should provide Donald R. some solace while he's polishing his memoirs. Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: DougR Date: 08 May 04 - 04:36 PM McGrath: It means I regret that he probably will have to go. I think it depends, though, on how much pressure the media puts on him either to resign, or on Bush to fire him. While it's true the "buck" stops here (with Rumsfield)no fair minded person, I believe, thinks he condones such behaviour from our troops, and had he known about it sooner, I'm certain he would have nipped it in the bud. I do not believe either he, or the military command, can be faulted for not taking action as soon as they knew about the abuses. Sometimes, for the over-all good, a key executive should stick around rather than make a symbolic resignation in order to appease the critics. It has become a political thing now, and likely will be more so in the future. I just saw a Washington Post poll that showed that 69% of those polled thought he should NOT lose his job. With more, and likely, stronger stuff coming out in the next few days, though, that opinion poll result could change very quickly. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,Frank Date: 08 May 04 - 05:39 PM Probably. But it won't make any difference on the ground in Iraq. That's still a lost cause. Rumsfeld can be replaced by someone equally disingenuous at the least and more obnoxious at the most. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Greg F. Date: 08 May 04 - 06:01 PM Yup, ya gotta love that there Dee-mocracy and Amerkun Way of Life life the good old U.S. of A is a-bringin to Eye-Rack. I'm sure they deeply appreciate it. God Help America. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 May 04 - 06:39 PM "Does that mean, Doug, that, while you regret that he will probably have to go, you accept that it is right that he should go? Or does it mean that you regret that he will probably have to go, and do not think that it is right that he should have to go?" "McGrath: It means I regret that he probably will have to go." That's what I call a neat politician's answer, Doug. Completely evades the question. I think there are a lot of people who suspect that the treatment given to those prisoners was the direct result of instructions given to the guards by people in military intelligence to soften them up before interrogation, and the techniques used were consistent with those which have been reported in many settings where US military intelligence have been involved - for example depriving prisoners of clothing as a way of humliating and disorientating them. I doubt if Rumsfeld paid any particular heed to the actual details of what people were doing in response to these kind of instructions. However I think he was in a position to ensure that stringent limits were placed on what subordinates could do, and that it was part of his responsibility to ensure that this was effectively done. And on a normal understanding of language, he has accepted this - he has stated that he accepts full responsibility, and I cannot see how this can mean anything less than that. ................... "...no fair minded person, I believe, thinks he condones such behaviour from our troops, and had he known about it sooner, I'm certain he would have nipped it in the bud. I do not believe either he, or the military command, can be faulted for not taking action as soon as they knew about the abuses. Well, maybe - but here once more is a link to that And here is what the IRC director of operations has to say: "It is clear that our findings do not allow to conclude that what we were dealing with here in the case of Abu Ghraib was isolated acts of individual members of the coalition forces. What we have described amounts to a pattern, a broad system." I think most people would see him as a "fair-minded person". I think there are a lot of people who suspect that the treatment given to those prisoners was the direct result of instructions given to the guards by people in military intelligence to soften them up before interrogation; and the techniques used were consistent with those which have been reported in many settings where US military intelligence have been involved - for example depriving prisoners of clothing as a way of humliating and disorientating them. I doubt if Rumsfeld paid any particular heed to the actual details of what people were doing in response to these kind of instructions. I am sure he was surprised to see the photos, andnthat he found them very distressing. However I think he was in a position to ensure that stringent limits were placed on what subordinates could do, and that it was part of his responsibility to ensure that this was effectively done. And on a normal understanding of language, he has accepted this - he has stated that he accepts full responsibility, and I cannot see how this can mean anything less than that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 May 04 - 06:41 PM "Does that mean, Doug, that, while you regret that he will probably have to go, you accept that it is right that he should go? Or does it mean that you regret that he will probably have to go, and do not think that it is right that he should have to go?" "McGrath: It means I regret that he probably will have to go." That's what I call a neat politician's answer, Doug. Completely evades the question. ................... "...no fair minded person, I believe, thinks he condones such behaviour from our troops, and had he known about it sooner, I'm certain he would have nipped it in the bud. I do not believe either he, or the military command, can be faulted for not taking action as soon as they knew about the abuses. Well, maybe - but here once more is a link to that And here is what the IRC director of operations has to say: "It is clear that our findings do not allow to conclude that what we were dealing with here in the case of Abu Ghraib was isolated acts of individual members of the coalition forces. What we have described amounts to a pattern, a broad system." I think most people would see him as a "fair-minded person". I think there are a lot of people who suspect that the treatment given to those prisoners was the direct result of instructions given to the guards by people in military intelligence to soften them up before interrogation; and the techniques used were consistent with those which have been reported in many settings where US military intelligence have been involved - for example depriving prisoners of clothing as a way of humliating and disorientating them. I doubt if Rumsfeld paid any particular heed to the actual details of what people were doing in response to these kind of instructions. I am sure he was surprised to see the photos, andnthat he found them very distressing. However I think he was in a position to ensure that stringent limits were placed on what subordinates could do, and that it was part of his responsibility to ensure that this was effectively done. And on a normal understanding of language, he has accepted this - he has stated that he accepts full responsibility, and I cannot see how this can mean anything less than that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 May 04 - 07:07 PM The link to the International Red Cross went missing in that last post. Here it is: Red Cross describes systematic abuse in Iraq |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: LadyJean Date: 08 May 04 - 11:33 PM Bush's whole God damned cabinet should resign and so should he! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Metchosin Date: 09 May 04 - 03:48 AM "(with Rumsfield) no fair minded person, I believe, thinks he condones such behaviour" Why would the the current US administration bother to set up Guantanamo, for the express purpose of circumventing US human rights laws, if it was not to condone this kind of behavior and avoid scruitiny? The telling thing regarding the Iraqi pictures, is that the pictures were taken in the first place. It indicates that those involved, obviously believed that the pictures would, be not only socially acceptable to their peers, (thumbs up) but acceptable to those of higher authority as well. The whole fiasco is tragic, including the fact that the lower ranks of the service people, who were involved, are going to be made the primary scapegoats for the whole situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 09 May 04 - 12:38 PM Primarily, he and his deputy, as well as his senior, Mister Bush, dragged the nation in to a war that was not necessary, and unleashed the forces of violent, lethal American arms against innocent people. To justify all these horrible acts because we were "at war" is a complete whitewash of the fact that we had no business loosing the vicious dogs in the first place. There's the first crime (other than stealing the election and bribing the media). A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 09 May 04 - 01:08 PM Today's news says that 75 % of Americans think Rumsfeld should NOT resign. Which brings up a couple of questions to me: * Is it possible that "they" are right and I am wrong in my opinion of this matter? * Is it possible that "they" are right and I am wrong in my opinion of this Administration? How can I be sure? Every fibre of my being says that some of these things are so totally WRONG that there should be no arguing the point- but what if I am the one who is wrong? Convince me, OK? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 09 May 04 - 01:26 PM Wrong about what, Eb? That murder is barbarous? That unilateral invasion is uncivilized? That the leader of the so-called free world ought to be literate? That torturing people is criminal? No, I think you are perfectly right. It's just you can't expect mass majority approval of your analysis if the popular position depends on avoiding analysis at all costs. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 May 04 - 02:40 PM There may be some of Americans who don't think that Rumsfeld has done anything that should make him resign (or be sacked) - but I think you'd find precious few other people on the planet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Peace Date: 09 May 04 - 02:59 PM The soldiers involved in that type of interrogation should be yanked aside by their short and curlies, tried and sent to jail. What's the problem? The leaders of the soldiers involved in that type of interrogation should be yanked aside by their short and curlies, tried and sent to jail. What's the problem? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: DougR Date: 09 May 04 - 03:19 PM McGrath: Sorry you felt I did not reply to your question. I'll try again. I think Don Rumsfield is a very effective Secretary of Defense. I think he has done a good job, and could continue to do a good job. If he resigns or is fired, it will be because of political expediency not because he is inept. Now. Is that clear? Unfortunately, we are in an election year here in the U. S. The Democrats have seized on this issue because they don't have much else to fault Bush for. The economy is booming, if the present trend continues, the loss of jobs experienced since Bush took office will be completely back to where they were prior to the last election, and if things continue to improve in Iraq (and they are!)Bush will re-elected. The one issue that could sink him in my opinion is this one with the cruelty of treatment of prisoners. If the Democrats are successful in keeping this alive in the press, it could be the undoing of the president. I think it's time to drop it, give the military an opportunity to clean up their own mess and move on. There are few countries in the world where something like this would be aired in public. That is the U. S. A. way. It will be some time before the scars are healed, perhaps they never will be because it gives the U. S. bashers both hear and abroad ammunition to berate our country. We need to get back to fighting the terrorists and forget the politics. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Ebbie Date: 09 May 04 - 03:32 PM "If the Democrats (?? are successful in keeping this alive in the press, it could be the undoing of the president. I think it's time to drop it, give the military an opportunity to clean up their own mess and move on. "We need to get back to fighting the terrorists and forget the politics (?? )." Doug, I would be embarrassed to think of this "mess" in partisan terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 May 04 - 03:35 PM Here is a link to an opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph, the quality right-wing newspaper in England: "...I found it rather confusing, however, when Mr Rumsfeld also indicated that he would "resign in a minute" if he felt he could not be an effective leader. On that basis, he should be gone already: he has already proved an ineffective leader, and will be much less effective in the wake of this miserable scandal. For what has leaked out of Abu Ghraib, along with the stomach-churning whiff of chaos and sadism, is the fundamental incompetence in the running of the US military from the top down... "...There are stupid, small-town bullies with sadistic impulses in every army. The true test of an army is whether its command structure can keep the worst impulses of its soldiers in check. Mr Rumsfeld told America ruefully last week. 'It happened on my watch.' No it didn't. It happened while he wasn't bothering to watch, and that is the most disturbing thing of all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,guest from NW Date: 09 May 04 - 04:02 PM one of the most heinous things about this whole mess is that this administration and dept. of defense are hiring out prisoner interrogation to private firms that are not accountable to military law. this is reprehensible and indicitive of the lack of control, lack of morality, and sheer callousness of these criminals. and that's what they are. of course the repubs want to spin it as "political, no big deal, it's being taken care of so get back to your SUVs and wal-mart shopping, etc." but it cuts to the core of the immorality of these crooks. nothing matters but their agenda. the methods of humiliation used on the prisoners indicate a deeper understanding of muslim taboos than the privates and seargents, who never even heard of the geneva convention according to their words, could possibly have. in other words, they were told to do these things by some superior authority. did you notice in the senate hearings how, when questioned on the chain of command by mccain, rumsfeld asked his general in an aside "did we bring the chart we made up for that", the general replied " oh, no i forgot it!", rumsfeld goes "oh,my" and proceeds to evade the question mightily. could even a person as partisan as dougR, who maintains the competance and effectiveness of rumsfeld, believe that when coming to a hearing of this magnitude where this subject was so important and anticipated that they charted it out, that someone would "forget" it? c'mon. if rumsfeld actually accepted responsibility for anything he would resign immediately. he's a liar and a criminal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Big Mick Date: 09 May 04 - 04:17 PM Doug, you know that I think well of you, but you have got to be kidding. I am not asking this in a demeaning manner, but have you ever been in the military? Maintaining a sense of honor, decency, and respect for the dignity of others is very difficult in a war zone. Especially a warzone where one cannot distinguish the enemy from the friendlies. And most of the time the enemy/friendly designation is fluid, due to the simple need to survive and protect one's family. Soldiers are usually very young, or very inexperienced, and facing life and death situations for the first time in their lives. The only thing, other than their survival ability or will, that they have to rely on is the senior non coms and officers. It is up to them to establish the type of regimen and discipline necessary to retain one's sanity, soul, respect for others (especially the indigenous civilians)and still be effective in the fight. Remember that fighting and killing is the worst job one can be asked to do. Without effective leadership and systems, warriors will slip into the darkest areas of their personalities. This is inevitable when one is killing and watching buddies be killed. In other words, it is up to the Commanders to be moral people, establish that standard, and have systems in place to protect that. When we go to war, supposedly it is in support of, and for the furtherance of, universal ideals of decency and is a reflection of what we stand for. That is why it is NEVER OK for someone claiming the moral high ground to use the excuses that Rumsfeld is making. It does not matter how effective he has been. He failed in the critical test. The whole mission was to bring our supposed superior society and its benefits to these Iraqui's, freeing them from that which they had suffered under. Yet our troops, led by General Karpinski, Military Intelligence, and Rumsfeld, demonstrated the hypocrisy of our views. They committed the act that soldiers taking the high moral road cannot, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, make. They used the ends to justify the means. But the means were in direct conflict with the mission. He must go. There is no other option. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,peedeecee Date: 09 May 04 - 04:22 PM Question: everyone on the board knows Doug R better than I do: does he live in the same reality as everyone else? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: dianavan Date: 09 May 04 - 04:49 PM Whenever there is war, there is always a thriving black market. In this day and age, porn is very lucrative. What is most disturbing about these videos are the ones that haven't been seen by the public at large. I have resisted expressing this very scary thought but we all know that this is just the tip of the iceberg. "Snuff" videos are sure to follow. If the Bush Admin. ordered the media to withold these pics for weeks (maybe months), I am sure there are videos and pics that will never be made public. Please bring home the troops. Nobody signed on to go to hell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST Date: 09 May 04 - 04:53 PM just do a search on kazzaa |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 May 04 - 05:01 PM Picking on Doug in this instance is to miss the point entirely. The point being that, according to the polls, 70 per cent of Americans share his view that, regardless of the things that have gone wrong "on his watch", for which he has admitted "full responsibility", Rumsfeld should not resign. However Doug is a lot more in touch with reality than most of them, it appears, since he accepts, while regretting it, that in fact Rumsfeld will have to go. I'd say that's pretty certain. People just don't survive these kind of things without resigning. Possibly "for reasons of health" or something like that. If anyone wants to put a bet on whether he goes or stays, this site is the place. (Just put Rumsfeld in the search engine.) I reckon a bet on him going would be a reasonable investment, whether you welcome his going or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 09 May 04 - 05:24 PM The Democrats have seized on this issue because they don't have much else to fault Bush for. The economy is booming, Forgive me, DougR, but you must be dreaming. There are scores of major offenses, negligence and downright crimes for which George Walker Bush could be cited. Invasion of foreign countries on false pretenses; corrupting the electoral process; bearing false witness; dereliction the duty to defend the Constitution; causing the death of subordinates through negligence; murder of civilians by proxy. Those are just a few of the larger items. He should have been impeached before our first tank crossed from Kuwait into Iraq. Why? Because he is a liar and a fraud as well as a murderous, double-faced son of a bitch. That's why. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Peace Date: 09 May 04 - 06:10 PM Two things. DougR usually thinks about what he says and believes what he says. He and I do not agree on much, but I know where he is coming from and I think he has integrity. Amos, if I could agree with you more, I don't know how. Ditto that. I am glad you said what you did about the present American administration, because I know that if it had been me I would not have been as polite as you. Bruce Murdoch |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 04 - 07:25 PM Amos: "He should have been impeached before our first tank crossed from Kuwait into Iraq. Why? Because he is a liar and a fraud as well as a murderous, double-faced son of a bitch. That's why." We already established, in the previous administration, that none of these things are reason to remove a president. Funny how the actions of a political party in the past come back to bite them in the ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Amos Date: 09 May 04 - 07:44 PM Oh -- bb -- really, now!! Your innuendo is so off-base it can't even stretch!! You imply that somehow the democratic party was just experiencing its own karma when its people got dragged into an injust war? Just cosmic payback? I wouldn't have dreamed it in a million years!! Besides, what we demonstrated in the previous administration, if you will recall, is that an impeachment process should be undertaken for Presidents who lie in office. Now, as the latest bumper sticker has it, "We are ALL wearing the blue dress". A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 09 May 04 - 08:01 PM I'm hearing faint rumblings that some British MPs are calling for Blair's resignation. Don't know what to think about that, just yet... Geoffrey Hoon (Secretary of State for Defence ), maybe; but he should have gone long ago, in my opinion. Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: GUEST,TIA Date: 09 May 04 - 10:04 PM BeardedBruce: I agree that lying about a blowjob is every bit as evil as lying several nations into a war costing hundreds on one side and thousands on the other, and replacing a torturing tyrant with torturing occupiers. Unfortunately, unlike most other males, I have lied about a blowjob, so I am doomed to hell with the warmongers and torturers (and it wasn't even that great a blowjob). But, I suppose that I am now free to kill and torture for the rest of my life with no fear of the everafter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 04 - 10:40 PM So, let me understand this. If a president commits purjury in order to benifit himself, this is ok and no action should be taken. If a president makes a decision based on the information he has, and that information is later found to be suspect, it is an impeachable offence? Of course, at the same time he should have taken action to prevent something that he did not have actionable information, to prevent a terrorist action. I think I see a double standard... BTW, check the articles of impeachment for Nixon and Clinton... I guess one might have to say that Nixon was a more honorable person. Must have been the Quaker in him ( see other thread) Anyway, the term was " liar and a fraud as well as a murderous, double-faced son of a bitch. " Does any of this NOT apply to Clinton? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 09 May 04 - 10:49 PM "If a president commits purjury in order to benifit himself, this is ok and no action should be taken" I think action was taken, wasn't it? Jim |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 04 - 10:59 PM Impeachment is the act of bringing the charges. The Congress determined that no action was needed. That is what I meant when I said "We already established, in the previous administration, that none of these things are reason to remove a president" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: Jim McCallan Date: 09 May 04 - 11:04 PM I would imagine things like that should be decided on a 'case-by-case' basis, wouldn't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 04 - 11:08 PM My major complaint over the House proceedings was the inconsistant efforts of some Democrats. Just the week before the story about Clintomn broke, there was a half-page editorial by the woman congresswoman from CA about a high-ranking (single) general who asked out a (somewhat)lower ranking woman officer. She DEMANDED that he resign, and threatened charges against him as well. This woman later stood in the House and said that the purjury in a court of law was a "personnal matter" and should not be brought to trial ( in the Senate). The Democrats have thus stated that the rule of law does not apply to the sitting president. I think it is important for BOTH parties to remember that the precedents that they establish can be used against them at some other time. American law is built on precedent. I truely fear the Patriot act, not because of what the current administration might do, but because of the precedent. If President Hillary decides that children should be removed from parents and raised by the state to get the "proper" environment, there is a lot less room to complain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign? From: beardedbruce Date: 09 May 04 - 11:13 PM Jim- we crossposted. I agree, a case by case basis. But the law acts by precedent. Perhaps individuals SHOULD resign- but perhaps not. Clinton felt he didn't need to- are you saying that Republicans do not have the same rights to make decisions as Democrats? If charges are brought, and there are convictions, they WILL be removed from office. If there is not enough evidence to do so, the decision to resign rests with them. |
