BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 11 May 04 - 11:54 AM

DougR - The military is famous for the phrase "The Captain Goes Down With The Ship" (Not to be confused with the Capt. Goes Down on the ship which is totally different, and also violates the don't ask don't tell regs.) Quite a few skippers have been scuttled because the persons in their charge ran into another vessel or did something while they, the captain, were asleep in their cabins. It happens all the time.

What happened, happened. That he may or may not have known what was going on doesn't necessarily matter. According to accounts from the Red Cross they warned the pentagon months ago that this sort of abuse (torture) was going on. That the people they told didn't pass it up the chain is as telling as Rumsfeld not checking on the conditions of the prisons. Certainly someone up above must have thought about it once in awhile. Holding a portion of the indiginous population and caring for them must be somebody's concern. Or was it as half assed as the rest of this seems to be?

So where does the buck stop? I can tell you that if it were my ship I'd be writing my last will and temperment!

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 11 May 04 - 11:41 AM

YES YES YES A THOUSAND TIMES YES!

Do I make myself clear?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: DougR
Date: 11 May 04 - 12:39 AM

Ebbie: you have my blessing to use "Horse Pucky" anytime you think it is an appropriate response.

Carol C: If that's how you interperet my posts to this thread, that's your problem. I am as upset about the prisoner abuse as anyone else. I do not view it as Rumsfeld's fault. I think he was in Washington at the time. As CEO of an organization employing over a million people, I doubt it would be possible for him to know everything that is going on in every facet of the Defense Department at any given moment. The people who should be held responsible are the people who were directly in charge, and could have stopped the abuse.

Amos: still only opinions, my friend, just opinions.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 May 04 - 10:50 PM

No.... The Military/Civilian personnel who are involved in doing these crimes should be subjected to Court Martial. Senior Officers who are responsible for the conduct of their soldiers actions in these prisons should resign immediately. Rumsfelt and Bush are losing all credibility. The USA has been degraded and demeaned internationally because of the illegal actions of these people. The voters can deal with them. Unless these people are brought to trial and delt with severely, the USA will never regain face. A stern example should made of their cowardly and inhumane treatment of prisoners. The USA will never again get international support for military action if these crimes go unpunished. These photographs show a degree of inhumanity that cannot be condoned. It is one thing to use force when unavoidable, it is altogether another thing to "enjoy" doing it. Somewhat reminiscent of Nazism, and as such has no place in the modern world.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 May 04 - 09:23 PM

I have finally thought of a usable title: Precedent Bush. And now that precedent has been set, all the Supreme Court's admonitions not to apply it in the next case will sound emptily into hollow canyons.

(Doug, you're right- I appropriated horse pucky from you- if you are using it for the same reason I am, we're both sparing the Mudcat some strong language.)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 04 - 08:36 PM

It never fails to amaze me how, when some Republican comes under fire for whatever reason, Repulicans and conservatives haul that sillyassed blue dress out of the closet and wave it around. If they don't manage to get us all killed in the meantime, it looks like we'll still be hearing about it five hundred years from now.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 May 04 - 03:59 PM

Simplest explanation for Bush's "loyalty" - presumably Rumsfeld knows where the bodies are buried.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 04 - 03:03 PM

Doug:

I am honored, sir. I grant you that it is only my opijnion that Mister Bush is a two-faced murderous son-of-a-bitch, although I believe others who know the senior Ms Bush would confirm the only part in doubt.

It is not my opinion how many lives have been wasted because of his actions. It is not my opinion how much money it has cost us to worm our way deep into Mesopotamia and fend off the incensed locals. It is not my opinion that so far, we seem to have done more harm than good, with the sole exception of overthrowing the Baathist regime.

It is not my opinion that he falsified information repeatedly to support his desire to start a war.   Think of it as you will, if he had any alternative, he has blood on his hands.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 May 04 - 02:31 PM

DougR, the impression I am left with after reading your posts to this thread (based on your opinion that Rumsfeld is doing a "competent" job as Secretary of Defense, is that, in your opinion, torture and abuse of prisoners, and violations of the Geneva Convention by representatives of the US (both governmental as well as "private contractors") is a good thing and that these things are a part of what constitutes "competence" in a Secretary of Defence.

Whether or not you intend this to be your meaning, that's the way it comes across to me, at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: DougR
Date: 10 May 04 - 01:53 PM

Mick: yes, I served one year of active duty with the 2nd Armored Division and four years in the active reserve (National Guard).

Ebbie: stop stealing my lines (horse pucky!) :>) And also if you think this thing is not being politicized by the Democrats, turn on your TV to CNN or Fox News Network.

Amos: your charges against Bush are just that. They are YOUR opinion, nothing more. True you have a lot of followers here on the Mudcat who agree with you but that proves nothing. You may be the only person on this forum who is more opinionated than I am.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 04 - 01:35 PM

Now that brazen two-faced SOB has the gall and flat effrontery to assert that Rummy is owed a debt of gratitude by the United States. For what? Why, for helping Bush launch a uniulateral invasion and spill the guts of thousands on the sands of ancient nations, deprive hundreds of Americans of their sopns and daughters and wander into a swamp of political quicksand with nothing but very expensive exits. Wodda debt o' gratitude that is. The pack of them should fold their tents and get the hell out of town. I spit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 May 04 - 01:29 PM

The secret ICRC report is now available in the web (Wall Street Journal). Rice has been informed personally, Powell has been informed personally, Wolfowitz has been informed personally.

And they all did keep that to themselves? Not easy to believe.

Some people in the government have done more damage to the long term interests of the USA than any group explicitely planning to do that.

Rumsfeld will have to go, and I guess quite soon.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:24 PM

Should I point out that the perjury case only existed because lawyers for Paula Jones violated "discovery" rules? Should I point out that the perjury case only existed because Ken Starr involved himself without authorization into the Paula Jones case and provided the evidence that the Paula Jones lawyers used and violated discovery rules? Should I point out that it was a Republican held house and senate that decided not to force Clinton from office (most likely because it would have given Gore a chance to prove that he could lead effectively, put him in the incumbent position at election time, and effectively ended their one "moral high ground" playing card before the election?).

What Clinton did and what the current Pres. is accused of, while being the same in literal interpretation are miles apart in severity, culpability and gravity. If it is true that he lied, falsified reports, misled the American public and the world in order to go after Saddam Hussein, then he is responsible for all that has followed. If he has kept people out of the loop and others have kept him out of the loop, then he is not an effective leader and is responsible for allowing this situation to occur. It isn't a blame game, its simply a case of "The buck stops here".

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:16 PM

Bush will just not admit a mistake involving him or his Cabinet.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:09 PM

I imagine he's been told that losing Rumsfeld would be even more damaging to Bush's chances in the election than keeping him. I suspect he's wrong there.

In fact, I think it's pretty certain that, after holding on a while, there'll have to be a u-turn, and Rumsfeld will have to go anyway, which is the worst outcome of all for Bush's administration. Which makes it the best outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:00 PM

Bush is giving Rumsfeld high praise in a current new conference.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 May 04 - 11:56 AM

Good point dianavan.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 May 04 - 11:40 AM

beardedbruce - The U.S. has weapons of mass destruction. They have used them before but I don't where they are. Since they have an unelected president with a religion different than mine, does that give me the right to invade in an effort to restore democracy? Does that give me the right to kill innocent people and to subject prisoners to abuse and degradation? If I don't, do you think they might kill me?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 10 May 04 - 10:13 AM

"I did not make the call- the US did
Yes, and I said it was not their call to do so.

"And the UN was so effective in Serbia, and Rwanda, and Cambodia...

Well the US have proved (even though they promised that this was not the case at the beginning of hostilities), that they can't go it alone.

But by all means, beardedbruce, have your country go it alone.
If it was up to me, with the arrogance I see attached to some people's view of America's involvement in Iraq, I would be inclined to say: "There you go, boys.... good luck!"

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:57 AM

I did not make the call- the US did.

And I was talking about the 91 cease fire...

"Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Jim McCallan - PM
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:39 AM

Temporary end to hostilities?

"Hostilities will only end when we all get out of there, and maybe internationalise it a bit better, bb "

And the UN was so effective in Serbia, and Rwanda, and Cambodia...

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:39 AM

Temporary end to hostilities?

Hostilities will only end when we all get out of there, and maybe internationalise it a bit better, bb.
Have you not figured that out, yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:36 AM

Still wasn't your call, bb.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:35 AM

Jim,

Actually, we did. The ceasefire was a TEMPOARY end to hostilities, based on certain things being done by the Iraqis. When they failed to do them, the original resolution authoizing force was still in effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:32 AM

They invaded Kuwait back in 91, remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:30 AM

"under UN mandate we had the right and responsibility to invade"

Not on your own, you hadn't.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:29 AM

I think all this killing started when we went in there, bb.
The civilians had their water supply poisoned from Day 1, remember?

The war started long before Fallujah.
How much did you expect them to take?

Rumsfeld directed this war, beardedbruce, and his judgement has been called into question on several occasions.

We are supposed to be the civilised ones.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:28 AM

True. But we WERE in a state of war with Iraq, from 1991. When they violated the terms of the ceasefire, under UN mandate we had the right and responsibility to invade.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:22 AM

Well until they are found, beardedbruce, they cannot be used as 'evidence', unfortunately, and we have had too mant 'leaps of faith' already in this war.

Remember the precedents....

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:22 AM

Jim,
"Well, maybe we should make the next move, beardedbruce, and stop killing them, first."

I thought we had, unless they shot at us. I guess the 4 contractors killed, being on our side, are not really human?

We HAD stopped shotting, unless attacked. They attacked us, we shot back. This does not take a rocket scientist to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:16 AM

Dianavan:

I have little faith in either God or G Bush. But you cannot ignore the facts: Saddam had WMD, used some, and was unable, or unwilling to show even under threat of invasion that he had destroyed the remainder. When they are used, it will be a little late to say "I told you so."

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:15 AM

I think I shall too, Bruce.
But I don't think it is right to kill a lot of people, in the off chance that some of them might be thinking of killing me.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:13 AM

At least take the fight to the right ones, there, BB -- or you'll end up multiplying the numbers of those who would like to see you offed.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:11 AM

So, I should let them kill me without a fight??? I guess that is one way- but the Jews learned in WWII that that did not stop them. They killed us when we fought, too, but why make it easy for them?

I do know how to insure world peace- but total destruction of the world is a little more than I want.

I think that I shall reserve the right to kill anyone who attacks me.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:09 AM

Oh, horse pucky. Read www.snopes.com.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:07 AM

beardedbruce, you say, "When the missing weapons of mass destruction are found..."

You are a true believer if I ever heard one!

Given that statement coupled with, "...there are still people out there who would kill me, not for what I have done, but because I am not like them", I'd say you are a victim of fear as well. I am truly sorry for that because it has obviously clouded your judgement.

Some people put their faith in God, others seem to have put their faith in George Bush and his administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:05 AM

Well, maybe we should make the next move, beardedbruce, and stop killing them, first.

As there'll always be someone around wishing to kill us; be it a mugger on the street, a kid with a gun, or a terrorist from wherever, don't you think we should try to stop the cycle a bit?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 May 04 - 12:01 AM

Vince Foster...

and there are other suspicious deaths related to the Clintons... Not much hard proof, but that has not been needed to accuse Bush, has it?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 09 May 04 - 11:57 PM

"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? " --bb

"Murderous," I think does not apply.

"Liar and a fraud" applys to some degree to all our presidents. I believe George Washington padded his expense accounts.

And there are different degrees of lying: I was raised in the old school, where a decent man does not mention the woman's name in a case such as this.

But if it all should apply to Clinton, plus arson and sabbath-breaking, that does not excuse Bush's actions.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 04 - 11:49 PM

My hopes????


Whirled peas.

The problem is that there are still people out there who would kill me, not for what I have done, but because I am not like them.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 09 May 04 - 11:37 PM

Well, I suppose we will cross that bridge again, when we come to it....

At the minute Rumsfeld has admitted that the buck has stopped at his desk, for the time being.
Given the precedent that could be set if he doesn't resign, what are your hopes for the future?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 04 - 11:37 PM

The Grand Jury was investigating another case. This was NEVER just between three people.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 04 - 11:33 PM

Amos:
The charge was purjury in a Federal Grandd jury- something the rest of us would be thrown in jail for a number of years for.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 May 04 - 11:31 PM

The problem becomes determining what is wrong and what is right. Reasonable people have been know to disagree about this.

When the missing weapons of mass destruction are found, say after being used in France or England, will everyone then decide that the US did not act swiftly enough to invade Iraq? We did give him plenty of time to remnove/hide them.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 04 - 11:29 PM

Well, somehow I think lying about the private fellatio and the stain on the blue dress -- a situation which should probably never have gone beyond three people -- is a LOT different thyan ltying about a dramatization that spills gore on the sand and ends thousands of lives, including those of chioldren, women, civilian bystanders and maintenance personnel. The order of magnitude is just completely incomparable. Surely this is blindingly obvious? Are we so addicted to the mechanisms of rationalization and justification and selective ignoral that we can really entertain the assertion that the two lies are of comparable weight? My Gawd.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Should Rumsfeld Resign?
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 09 May 04 - 11:26 PM

Oh no, I'm not suggesting that Republicans should not have the same rights..., and as not being from the US, I hold no particular coat for the Democrats, neither.
And it is true that as I am not as fluent in US body politic as you all are, some of the subtleties may escape me, from time to time.

But too much precedent is wrong, whichever way that goes, in my opinion, and two wrongs don't make a right.
Especially when the stakes are so high.

Jim

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.

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: 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 - 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 - 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