News Don Rumsfeld Resigns; Robert Gates Takes Over Pentagon

[Astronuc]

The Don has gone.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is stepping down and former CIA Director Robert Gates will take over at the Pentagon and in prosecuting the war in Iraq.

Gates is a good choice. Too bad it wasn't done sooner - like 3.5 years ago.

 

[Rach3]

This the man fearless enough to go to war with one-fifth of an army, too courageous to heed dire warnings from his own generals, too tough to request extra armor for his soldiers. And he runs away from a few Democrats led by a woman. Makes you think.

 

[turbo]

Does this Congress have the will to bring articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney? President Pelosi has a nice ring to it, and she's next in line.

 

[Rach3]

President Pelosi has a nice ring to it, and she's next in line.

That's a wonderful idea, in fact I thought of it first. My thread is here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=142860

 

[Astronuc]

Rumsfeld quits
Reuters 13:24 ET, Wed 8 Nov 2006
http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN08307718.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the controversial face of U.S. war policy, quit Wednesday after Democrats rode Americans' anger over Iraq to victory in Tuesday's congressional elections.

Just days after declaring his strong support for Rumsfeld, President Bush said he agreed with his top war manager that it was time for a new perspective.

Bush said the current Iraq policy was "not working well enough, fast enough." ******! It's not working - period - and it hasn't been working!

He said Rumsfeld would be replaced by former CIA Director Robert Gates, a member of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan group that is assessing alternative strategies for Iraq.

Tuesday's elections gave the Democrats control of the U.S. House of Representatives and results by Wednesday had moved them within one seat of victory in the Senate.

The slap to Bush's Republican Party was driven largely by voter anger over Iraq, where more than three years of combat have failed to stop violence plaguing much of the country.

Americans voted just days after the military saw its highest monthly death toll in almost two years. The total U.S. military death toll since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 is currently 2,839.

Democrats, who have long called for Rumsfeld to go, praised Bush's decision to replace him.

"I think it will give us a fresh start," said Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, set to be the next speaker of the House.

 

[Cyrus]

Ba-haaa-haaaa-haaa-haaaa-haaaaaaaaaa...

 

[Astronuc]

Behind Rumsfeld's Fall: The Perils of Hubris
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1556617,00.html

Analysis: The Defense Secretary was saved by the 9/11 attacks, but fell short in his effort to remake the military and overreached in Iraq

By MARK THOMPSON/WASHINGTON

Donald Rumsfeld was dispatched to the political gallows Wednesday as swiftly and surprisingly as his arrival there, for a second tour, was nearly six years ago. A hard-nosed businessman, tough political infighter, and Dick Cheney's mentor, he was a good choice to retool a Pentagon that had grown fat and complacent since his last tour as Pentagon chief ended in the Ford administration.

While I agree the intent was correct, the execution stunk. Donny Boy blew it big time!

But he quickly stumbled in his stubborn effort to remake the Pentagon. He, and the Bush administration, failed to make the tough choices necessary to build a 21st century fighting force. Instead, they stuffed billions of dollars into 20th century weapons system that sprang from the drawing board when Russia was still the Soviet Union. As F-22 attack planes and Virginia-class submarines consumed the Pentagon's purse, there weren't enough soldiers to prevail in Iraq — and those dispatched lacked the necessary armor to do their jobs.

They lack sufficient body and vehicular armor to prevent injury and death. They did their jobs as best they could under the circumstances. The people in the Bush administration handicapped - ney abused - the military.

It's hard to recall it now, but Rumsfeld was on the ropes before the 9/11 attacks. His roughshod treatment of many in the military — fairly or unfairly — had many officers, especially in the Army, setting their bayonets into place by the middle of 2001. It was only the al-Qaeda attacks that saved Rumsfeld's job later that year, many Pentagon insiders believe. Overnight, he achieved pop-culture status, his stern countenance and parrying of press questions bringing him a peculiar kind of Washington fame in those scary weeks following 9/11. Yet it was the pair of wars launched in the wake of those terror strikes that, over time, highlighted on a far bigger stage his short-sighted and subordinate-ruffling demeanor.

Well it's Bush lack of concern and lack of inquistiveness, and probably delusional thinking that allowed Rumsfeld to stay on.

Don's needs to go home and enjoy his $ millions and five houses.

Meanwhile more than 2800 US troops aren't returning and thousands more return with injury and questionable support from the administration.

 

[BobG]

The Don has gone.

Gates is a good choice. Too bad it wasn't done sooner - like 3.5 years ago.

Why a person with CIA background instead of military? Intel is obviously more important than ever before, but we already have a Director of National Intelligence. Since we still need to resolve things in Iraq, I would have expected someone with more experience dealing with the military.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think this is the best day that I've had in six years. Tsu and I both noted that this morning we felt like kids on Christmas morning who couldn't wait to see what Santa brought.

 

[turbo]

Why a person with CIA background instead of military? Intel is obviously more important than ever before, but we already have a Director of National Intelligence. Since we still need to resolve things in Iraq, I would have expected someone with more experience dealing with the military.

Good point. Naming Colin Powell to be Defense Secretary would have been a smarter move, and it would have given Powell an opportunity to redeem himself after feeding the UN lies regarding the non-existent Iraq WMD. Powell is popular enough that if a Democrat succeeds Bush, he would probably be kept on in the post, especially if it looks like he's doing a god job trying to clean up Rummy's mess.

 

[BobG]

It's kind of strange timing to announce Rumsfeld's resignation the day after the election. I thought that day was normally reserved for defeated candidates to accept a plea bargain in whatever scandal was dogging their campaign.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This the man fearless enough to go to war with one-fifth of an army, too courageous to heed dire warnings from his own generals, too tough to request extra armor for his soldiers. And he runs away from a few Democrats led by a woman. Makes you think.

You just made my list of all-time favorite quotes.

 

[Astronuc]

Long Overdue Departure for Rumsfeld
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1556714,00.html

Analysis: If Bush had acted sooner, he might have helped the G.O.P. when it mattered. More importantly, by starting to change Iraq policy, he might have saved lives.

By JAMES CARNEY/WASHINGTON

Give President Bush credit for being honest about his dishonesty. Last week he told reporters for the top wire news services — the AP, Reuters, Bloomberg — that Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were doing fabulous work and would remain in their jobs as Defense Secretary and Vice President right up to the end of Bush's second term. Today at his post-election press conference the President more or less admitted he was lying, at least about Rumsfeld.

It's not a surprise that Rumsfeld finally resigned — to be replaced by former CIA chief Robert Gates. What is surprising is how long it took. Well before the Army Times and Marine Times called for his resignation — even before John McCain declared he had lost confidence in Rumsfeld — the brash Secretary of Defense had lost almost all his allies inside the White House. Just the mention of his name would cause aides to the President to grind their teeth and roll their eyes. He had become a liability to the President, and his advisers knew it and resented it. If the choice had been theirs', Rummy would have been shown the door months, if not years, ago. And that was the White House. Rumsfeld never had allies in the State Department.

After Bush declared his unbending support for Rumsfeld last week, it was telling how few aides and advisers to the President were willing to reaffirm what the President had said. When asked about Bush's Rumsfeld comments, one official didn't try to hide the pain the question caused him. He wouldn't talk about it. He and others made it clear that the President said "what he had to say." In other words, Bush's support for Rumsfeld would last only until the last polling station closed on Tuesday night.

Since it came just minutes after Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi called for new civilian leadership at the Pentagon, the announcement of Rumsfeld's firing might be seen as an act of political expediency, a sacrificial offering to the newly powerful Democrats on Capitol Hill.
. . . .

The criticism is coming fast and furious.

Some background on Robert Gates:

Robert Michael Gates (born September 25, 1943) is an American intelligence official, currently nominated by President George W. Bush for the position of United States Secretary of Defense. Gates served for 26 years in the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council. Under President George H.W. Bush, he served as Director of Central Intelligence. After leaving the CIA, he wrote his memoirs and became president of Texas A&M University, serving on several corporate boards. Gates served as a member of the bipartisan commission headed by James A. Baker III, the Iraq Study Group, that has been studying the Iraq campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates
Unfortunately this page has been vandalized.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's kind of strange timing to announce Rumsfeld's resignation the day after the election. I thought that day was normally reserved for defeated candidates to accept a plea bargain in whatever scandal was dogging their campaign.

Well, it was likely planned if the dems won as both red meat, and to avoid the sec of defense being on trial. There will be subpoenas.

 

[Astronuc]

I think this is the best day that I've had in six years. Tsu and I both noted that this morning we felt like kids on Christmas morning who couldn't wait to see what Santa brought.

Funny, that's the same sentiment expressed by my father.

 

[BobG]

Well, it was likely planned if the dems won as both red meat, and to avoid the sec of defense being on trial. There will be subpoenas.

Not until the new Congress takes office in January.

I would have expected them to wait at least until next week. The whole day looks like 'the surrender'. Rumsfeld's resignation. Hastert announcing he won't run for minority leader. The house is being cleaned immediately.

 

[BobG]

So who is Rumsfeld's replacement?

In choosing Robert M. Gates as his next defense secretary, President Bush reached back to an earlier era in Republican foreign policy, one marked more by caution and pragmatism than that of the neoconservatives who have shaped the Bush administration's war in Iraq and confrontations with Iran and North Korea.

Soft-spoken but tough-minded, Mr. Gates, 63, is in many ways the antithesis of Donald H. Rumsfeld, the brash leader he would replace. He has been privately critical of the administration's failure to execute its military and political plans for Iraq, and he has spent the last six months quietly debating new approaches to the war, as a member of the Iraq Study Group run by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton.

By choosing Robert Gates as his new Defense secretary, President George W. Bush is once again turning to a trusted warhorse from his father's administration. But the Gates nomination also could remind the new Democratic Congress about controversies from the George H.W. Bush era as well.

Gates was investigated during the late 1980s and 1990s by independent counsel Lawrence Walsh over whether Gates had told the truth about the Iran-contra affair, which occurred during his tenure as deputy to Ronald Reagan's CIA director, William Casey. . . .

Gates was again nominated by President George H.W. Bush to be CIA chief in 1991, setting off an intense and spirited confirmation hearing. . . . Gates also was publicly accused by former CIA subordinates of slanting intelligence about the Soviet threat -- a criticism that evokes an eerie parallel to accusations hurled against the current Bush administration over its handling of pre-war intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Al Qaeda.

Some good comments about his past and some bad. Considering his work on the Iraq Study Group with another pragmatist from Bush 41's staff, hopefully Shane's comments are more relevant to today.

 

[Astronuc]

He has been privately critical of the administration's failure to execute its military and political plans for Iraq, and he has spent the last six months quietly debating new approaches to the war, as a member of the Iraq Study Group run by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton.

The second paragraph is quite relevant. I am counting on Gates listening to the military. Texas A&M has a largely ROTC program (Corps of Cadets), and I expect that to be a positive influence on Gates.

 

[Pythagorean]

Why can't we vote for cabinet members?

I suppose I can admit that I wouldn't know how to vote for, so I can kind of see why it's a representative decision, but is there more to it?

 

[turbo]

Why can't we vote for cabinet members?

I suppose I can admit that I wouldn't know how to vote for, so I can kind of see why it's a representative decision, but is there more to it?

The President picks his own cabinet members and then your representatives in Congress get to vet them, so you (theoretically) do have a say in their confirmation if you can accurately predict what your scum-sucking son of a b... er, Congressional representative is going to do when confronted by a very bad nominee. In practice, there is very little advise-and-consent going on at this level.

 

[devil-fire]

Why a person with CIA background instead of military? Intel is obviously more important than ever before, but we already have a Director of National Intelligence. Since we still need to resolve things in Iraq, I would have expected someone with more experience dealing with the military.

might this have to do with relevance of intelligence in the developing iran/korea situations?

 

[Cyrus]

The Don has gone.

Gates is a good choice. Too bad it wasn't done sooner - like 3.5 years ago.

Errr, are you sure about this? I heard on the radio that Gates was turned down by the largest vote ever for the CIA in regard to a position as (director?). (31 voted no, more no votes than any and every predecssor combined).

Also, that he put more spin on the Iran Contra scandal than Rums. He was lying to the public long before Rums.

Essentially, he was selected because he's loyal puppet time and time again.

I will link the site where I heard this later.

 

[Cyrus]

Here you go:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/09/1444242

Melvin Goodman, former CIA and State Department analyst. He is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and director of the Center's National Security Project. From 1966-1986 he was a senior CIA soviet analyst. In 1991 he was one of three former CIA officials to testify before the Senate against the nomination of Robert Gates as director of central intelligence. Goodman is co-author of the book, "Bush League Diplomacy: How the Neoconservatives are Putting the World at Risk."

MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, I testified, Amy, against Bob Gates for one very simple reason: Bob Gates, over the period of the 1980s, as a deputy for Intelligence and then as a deputy to CIA director Bill Casey, was politicizing intelligence. He was spinning intelligence on all of the major issues of the day, on the Soviet Union, on Central America, on the Middle East, on Southwest Asia. And I thought this record, this charge, should be presented before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

I think also it’s important that Bob Gates is a graduate of the Iran-Contra class of 1986. And the reason why he had to withdraw his nomination in 1987 was simply because the majority of the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, when Ronald Reagan nominated Gates as CIA director, did not believe Gates’s pleas that he knew nothing about Iran-Contra and this was happening around him, but he wasn’t part of it.

And, of course, in 1991, he attracted 31 negative votes, more than all of the votes against all of the CIA directors in history going back to 1947. So I think the committee believed that he was spinning the intelligence, and there was this great controversy, but the Republicans held the line. They made this a loyalty test to President George Bush, and so he was confirmed. But 31 negative votes was very significant.

I'm not going to put the rest, you all can read or listen to it for yourself if you want to.

Sounds like more of the same to me.

Texas A&M has a largely ROTC program (Corps of Cadets), and I expect that to be a positive influence on Gates.

Isn't that like saying, "well he was a boy scout." Nice, yes, but irrelevant in terms of the bigger picture.

Apparently Germany wants to hold a trial for Rumsfeld for war crimes. Hell, why not. Torturing people and changing the laws to try and get away with it constitutes a war crime in my book.

 

[Astronuc]

Certainly there were better choices for CIA director, e.g. Sam Nunn would have been a much better choice.

The vote in 1991 was very policitized, as of course many votes are. The enmity between Reagan's and Bush's administrations and the Democrats in Congress was strong, particularly in the wake of Iran-Contra.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.



I wonder if Cheney will step down next?

 

[marlon]

Any USA people here that regret that Rumsfeld is no longer in position ? Just wondering...


Also, is Rumsfeld of German origin ? I just ask because his name is a common German name.
marlon

 

[Skyhunter]

Why can't we vote for cabinet members?

I suppose I can admit that I wouldn't know how to vote for, so I can kind of see why it's a representative decision, but is there more to it?

You answered your own question.

With a normal president, he chooses his cabinet for their expertise and similar philosophy. Bush seems to not care about the first criteria.

 

[Astronuc]

Apparently (according to a Wikipedia article), Rumsfeld's great-great-grandfather Heinrich Rumsfeld (Rumpsfeld, apparent name change in US registry) emigrated from Weyhe near Bremen in Northern Germany in the 19th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld#Background_and_family

He was an Eagle Scout. Hmmm.

http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/secdef_bio.html

DOD website - www.pentagon.gov

 

[turbo]

Any USA people here that regret that Rumsfeld is no longer in position ? Just wondering...

I have not spoken to a single person yet that is sorry to see him go, and that includes older ex-military folks (WWII, Korean War, 'Nam). Personal conversations aren't a real good indicator, but I'll bet that the subject of his dismissal will show up in a poll somewhere soon, and you'll have a quantitative answer.

 

[Astronuc]

Among US troops in Iraq, mixed reviews of Rumsfeld's resignation
By Scott Peterson and Tom Peter

BAGHDAD – The two US Army soldiers were shocked when the morning paper was delivered Thursday to their sand-enclosed checkpoint in Baghdad.

"Rumsfeld Resigns," blared the headline in "Stars and Stripes," the military's newspaper. There was surprise. Then uncertainty. Then a return to realities that include an Iraqi death toll of more than 2,500 each month despite the US presence.

"I always backed the president and Rumsfeld ... but ... they misunderstood what Iraq was going to be," says a bulky soldier, keeping his rifle trained down a busy road. He spoke on condition of anonymity. "The situation is such that if we left now, it would be even more [screwed] up."

"I don't think anything is going to change," says the private first class. "I was reading [in Stars and Stripes] ... about, if you go into someone's house and mess it up, you've got to do the cleanup."

"There's no sense getting excited about [politics]," he adds, "because there is nothing you can do."

Reactions to the Democrats' sweep of Congress and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's resignation ran the gamut among some of the 144,000 US troops in Iraq who have seen popular support for the war slide in recent months.

Iraqis widely favor the change, pinning more blame for every US mistake - from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal to allowing insurgency and sectarian violence claim tens of thousands of Iraqi lives - on Mr. Rumsfeld than on President Bush.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1110/p11s01-usmi.html?s=yaht

The opinions are varied as one would expect.

 

[Yonoz]

I'd like to hear how you think this change will be felt?

 

[Astronuc]

Hopefully the JCS and combatant generals will be heard by the president.

Hopefully Gates will support the Pentagon where he needs too. Transformation is necessary, but it's got to be done right.

Gates needs to work closely the State Dept, NSC and other departments to develop a cogent plan to deal with Iraq. Whether or not the patient can be 'saved' is another matter - including what is meant by 'saved'.


As for unintended consequences, the US invasion and occupation has complicated matters, vis-a-vis the conflict among Sunni and Shii.

Bahrain Debates How to Bridge Sunni-Shiite Divide
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6466910
by Peter Kenyon

Morning Edition, November 10, 2006 · As Iraq's newly empowered Shiite majority struggles to take control of the country, Sunni Arab leaders in other countries with significant Shiite populations have grown increasingly nervous. The Persian Gulf kingdom of Bahrain, for instance, is ruled by a Sunni-led government, despite the island's Shiite Muslim majority.

Had the US quickly stabilized Iraq 3 years ago, the issue may not be as complicated as it is today.

 

[marlon]

 

[Astronuc]

Rumsfeld Gets Cute At The Podium Cute. Now I have to dry my eyes.


On a more serious note - Rumsfeld addresses students and faculty at Kansas State University.
http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/wordforword/2006/11/10 (realmedia required)

November 10, 2006
Just hours after the election results were in, Donald Rumsfeld was out. Following heavy Republican losses in the midterm elections, President Bush announced Nov. 8 that his secretary of defense was resigning.

I agree with some of what he says, but somehow he just doesn't get it (and neither does Bush), and unfortunately, he and Bush believe their own propaganda.

This guy had a chance to do it right, but blew it big time.

 

[scott1]

I think this is the best day that I've had in six years. Tsu and I both noted that this morning we felt like kids on Christmas morning who couldn't wait to see what Santa brought.

This is better then Christmas!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A personal, final comment on Rummy until the trial begins. You may note I have always refused to show Rummy one bit of respect. That's why I never use his proper name. There are many very good reasons for that and here's one of them.

I have worked with more guys like Rummy than I care to remember. His peronality is typical of the arrogance seen in many business managers - the "can do" types who are always so sure that others "can do" no matter how impossible the task. You find a lot of these types as entrepreneurs. If they happen to land on the right approach or solution [like a blind pig finding a mud hole] then they look like geniuses who possesses some sort of mystical vision. But they are really just as confused as everyone else and too arrogant to know it. They disrupt or ruin other people's lives [or get them killed] while declaring: CAN DO! CAN DO!

Good riddance Rummy. You've done enough damage for one lifetime.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This seemed the best place to post

 

[Astronuc]

Bush faces GOP ire over Rumsfeld timing
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_rumsfeld

WASHINGTON - The White House is trying to soothe Republicans who say the party might have fared better on Election Day if President Bush had not waited until after the vote to oust Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"You could argue that either way, of what political effect an earlier decision on Secretary Rumsfeld would have had. But it doesn't matter," White House chief of staff Josh Bolten said Sunday.

"The president correctly decided that this decision does not belong in the political realm. And a decision as important as your secretary of defense should not be made based on some partisan political advantage. It would send a terrible signal to our troops, to our allies, even to our enemies," Bolten said.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has suggested that if Bush replaced Rumsfeld two weeks before the election, voters would not have been as angry about the unpopular Iraq war. Republicans would have gained the boost they needed, according to Gingrich, to retain their majority in the Senate and hold onto 10 to 15 more House seats.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, agreed with that assessment.

Bush should have removed Rumsfeld "as soon as he had made up his mind. And that's a hard thing to calculate. But it's highly doubtful that he made up his mind between the time the election returns came in on Tuesday and Wednesday when Rumsfeld was out."

"And if Rumsfeld had been out, you bet it would have made a difference," Specter said. "I'd still be chairman of the Judiciary Committee."

Does it seem the republicans who lost the election are more concerned about the personal matters than they are taking care of the peoples' business. Why didn't they do something 3.5+ years ago when the nation was planning to go to war?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the important thing is that certainly no one can doubt now that when Bush says something, it means nothing.

 

[Astronuc]

I think I will probably have to retract my comment about Gates being a good choice. His involvement in the CIA under William (Bill) Casey is problematic. Gates apparently contributed to the politicization of the organization and the evisceration of the organization of anyone who opposed his plans. Bush I and Bush II (moreso II) apparently used their administrations to reform the intelligence services, not to improve the accuracy or objectivity of the intelligence, but rather to fabricate and falsify the intelligence, which essentially undermines the government, the Consititution and the national security.

Under Casey, Gates purged the intelligence analysts who refuese to embellish (falsify) the assessments of the Soviet Union and other nations, in order to justify the buildup of the US military (under Reagan and Bush I). Apparently, Gates also arranged for cluster bombs to be sent through a Chilean arms merchant to Iraq.

Robert Gates, George W. Bush’s choice to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, is a trusted figure within the Bush Family’s inner circle, but there are lingering questions about whether Gates is a trustworthy public official.

The 63-year-old Gates has long faced accusations of collaborating with Islamic extremists in Iran, arming Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq, and politicizing U.S. intelligence to conform with the desires of policymakers – three key areas that relate to his future job.

Gates skated past some of these controversies during his 1991 confirmation hearings to be CIA director – and the current Bush administration is seeking to slip Gates through the congressional approval process again, this time by pressing for a quick confirmation by the end of the year, before the new Democratic-controlled Senate is seated.

If Bush’s timetable is met, there will be no time for a serious investigation into Gates’s past.

Fifteen years ago, Gates got a similar pass when leading Democrats agreed to put “bipartisanship” ahead of careful oversight when Gates was nominated for the CIA job by President George H.W. Bush.

In 1991, despite doubts about Gates’s honesty over Iran-Contra and other scandals, the career intelligence officer brushed aside accusations that he played secret roles in arming both sides of the Iran-Iraq War. Since then, however, documents have surfaced that raise new questions about Gates’s sweeping denials.

For instance, the Russian government sent an intelligence report to a House investigative task force in early 1993 stating that Gates participated in secret contacts with Iranian officials in 1980 to delay release of 52 U.S. hostages then held in Iran, a move to benefit the presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

. . . . .

Teicher described Gates’s role as far more substantive than Rumsfeld’s. “Under CIA Director [William] Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA authorized, approved and assisted [Chilean arms dealer Carlos] Cardoen in the manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq,” Teicher wrote.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/110906.html

How is it that Saddam Hussein used to be a close friend and now is an enemy - when all along he's been the same despotic and homicidal person?

 

[BobG]

I think I will probably have to retract my comment about Gates being a good choice. His involvement in the CIA under William (Bill) Casey is problematic. Gates apparently contributed to the politicization of the organization and the evisceration of the organization of anyone who opposed his plans. Bush I and Bush II (moreso II) apparently used their administrations to reform the intelligence services, not to improve the accuracy or objectivity of the intelligence, but rather to fabricate and falsify the intelligence, which essentially undermines the government, the Consititution and the national security.

Under Casey, Gates purged the intelligence analysts who refuese to embellish (falsify) the assessments of the Soviet Union and other nations, in order to justify the buildup of the US military (under Reagan and Bush I). Apparently, Gates also arranged for cluster bombs to be sent through a Chilean arms merchant to Iraq.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/110906.html

How is it that Saddam Hussein used to be a close friend and now is an enemy - when all along he's been the same despotic and homicidal person?

I'm still not sure one or the other whether Gates is a positive development or negative one, but one part of the article probably explains the timing of Rumsfeld's resignation:

Gates skated past some of these controversies during his 1991 confirmation hearings to be CIA director – and the current Bush administration is seeking to slip Gates through the congressional approval process again, this time by pressing for a quick confirmation by the end of the year, before the new Democratic-controlled Senate is seated.

If Bush’s timetable is met, there will be no time for a serious investigation into Gates’s past.

Would Rumsfeld be resigning if Republicans still held control of the Senate?

All in all, if this slips into the new year with a prolonged investigation into Gates, then it puts Bush 41's reputation on the line, as well. Bush 41 did something I didn't think could be done when he assembled a truly international coalition, including other Middle Eastern countries, to oppose Iraq and managed to keep Israel from retaliating against Iraqi missiles. He was also realistic about the prospects of an invasion of Iraq. On the other hand, had the US had better, clearer communication with Iraqi diplomats, Iraq probably would have never invaded Kuwait in the first place.

 

[Astronuc]

http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_saddamhusseinandaprilglespie21703.html

IRAQ: Saddam Hussein and Ambassador April Glespie

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Miles Seeley says: "I remember Ambassador April Glaspie meeting Saddam shortly before he invaded Kuwait. The Iraqis said they had a tape of the conversation, during which Saddam recited his complaints against Kuwait (slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields for example) and his alleged attempts to resolve them peacefully. Then he asked what the US reaction would be if he invaded Kuwait. Glaspie allegedly replied that it was not our business and did not involve us, or something like that. There was Congressional hearing later, and the State Department denied the Iraqi tape was legitimate. At the time I thought the whole thing smacked of a coverup by State, although I had no real evidence. I would be most interested if any WAISers know more". RH: Phili`Terzian said the story was a canard. Did the State Department issue its own version?

I saw a video of one of Glaspie's meetings with Hussein. All she had to do was say "Stay the h*** away from Kuwait"! When Hussein started sending Republican Guard units southward toward the border of Kuwait, Bush could have easily told Hussein - NO! The US had months to stop Hussein. Bush had plenty of time to dispatch a carrier group or two to the Persiand Gulf/Indian Ocean - but no - nothing - nada. And the rest, as they say, is history.

 

[Gokul43201]

Now that Rumsfeld's announced his retirement, it seems that the military brass in Iraq are slowly emerging from the woodwork and admitting to early mistakes like not putting more troops on the ground following the invasion.

According to Gen. Abizaid:

"General [Eric] Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations,"

Makes you wonder whether this is purely from hindsight, or if there were folks in the Military that were loath to stepping on Rumsfeld's toes.

"General Shinseki was right"... but he was fired for speaking up!

 

[Astronuc]

According bob Woodward, Jay Garner told Rumsfeld that the US needed more troops, and he mentioned that it was a mistake to exclude former Baath members (below a certain seniority level) and the Iraqi army. When they both went to see Bush, Garner declined to repeat his comments to the president in front of Rumsfeld.

I think all of the military has just assumed that the presdient wholly supported Rumsfeld and that to challenge Rumsfeld would essentially be going against the president, who is Commander in Chief, and would therefore be career suicide.

 

[Skyhunter]

Classified memo

According to the NY Times, Rumsfeld told Bush that the Iraq strategy was not working.

“In my view it is time for a major adjustment,” wrote Mr. Rumsfeld, who has been a symbol of a dogged stay-the-course policy. “Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/world/middleeast/03military.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Text of the memo.

Is this why Bush said; "We have never been 'stay the course'."

Except...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/stay-the-course-video/

 

[BobG]

Gates's appearance before Congress was promising, at least.

It will be interesting to see just how independent Gates is once in office. Or is Gates's selection an indication that Bush is really changing direction on Iraq? He seems to have made some interesting moves lately: the resignation of Rumsfeld, the resignation of John Bolton, and a meeting with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of SCIRI in Iraq.

If this is an indication that Bush is making major changes in how he handles Iraq and foreign policy, it has to be a positive development, even though I wonder if he waited so long to make adjustments that it doesn't matter any more.

 

[physics girl phd]

I think I will probably have to retract my comment about Gates being a good choice.

Good for you. I'm afraid everyone is so joyous to see R. gone that they aren't looking well enough at G.

Besides your remarks, something I heard last night that PEEVES me:
He talked about the sacrifice he has to make in SALARY and JOB SATISFACTION leaving his post at Texas A&M to take the job.

WHAT? Shouldn't he instead be talking about how he is honored to take the position and looks forward to tackling complex problems? There's a war going on, he doesn't have new ideas (talks about piecing together old ones) and he's worried about JOB SATIFICATION and PAY?

 

[Astronuc]

Good for you. I'm afraid everyone is so joyous to see R. gone that they aren't looking well enough at G.

Besides your remarks, something I heard last night that PEEVES me:
He talked about the sacrifice he has to make in SALARY and JOB SATISFACTION leaving his post at Texas A&M to take the job.

WHAT? Shouldn't he instead be talking about how he is honored to take the position and looks forward to tackling complex problems? There's a war going on, he doesn't have new ideas (talks about piecing together old ones) and he's worried about JOB SATIFICATION and PAY?

I don't know if that was what he meant. I think he might have been trying to say that he felt the job was so important, so he was willingly making a sacrifice.

I heard some of Gates's comments on the radio, and he was indicating that the Iraq Study Group report contained no new ideas, i.e. other words, we have heard all the different proposals already, but what he hopes to do is put together the best parts of all those ideas.

Gates also mentioned that he wants to talk/listen to the field commanders concerning there needs. That is a giant improvement/leap forward from the current situation.

At least he didn't say "We are winning in Iraq." Hopefully, he does have a 'realistic' perspective on the matter.

And I want to know - Why the heck wasn't there a bipartisan study group four years ago when plans were be developed (without a subsequent plan to stabilize the country). I mean, when one commits a nation to war, perhaps the most significant action in which a nation or people is involved, one better darn well think very hard and very deeply about it, especially when it costs $100 billion/year and much more importantly, costs the lives of 10's of thousands of people, many of them innocent.