Wow....Rummy steps down...

[LoneWolf]

Check out this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/ ... index.html

Personally, I think that no matter what, most cabinet positions are just yes-men/women for the Preisdent anyway (read: if people are upset about war, they should go further than the SecDef and blame the man at the top), but it does show you how the current administration appears to be scrambling to cut its losses in the court of public opinion.

Side note: I think there should be one rule established in cabinet positions --we should require that any potential Secretary of Defense have previous military experience. If your job is to work with the military, you should understand it from the viewpoint of someone who has been a member of it. Thoughts?

[Justin42]

While I agree in theory, the only problem is someone with military experience is it kind of weakens the tradition of "civilian oversight", not to mention the huge rivalries within the different branches of armed service-- would the Army like someone from the Navy being the secretary of Defense, etc...

It's a fine line.

[Ian]

I think there are enough civilians in a president's cabinet. Having one military man would probably be a good thing. If they've made the military their career, most likely they're not going to have conflicting [business] interests.

[ItalianJob]

I'm not sure a military man will give peace a chance when needed...

[Spazmogen]

Canadian newspapers this morning are saying Rummy was told to step aside for the good of the party. Kind of sounded like taking one for the team, so to speak.

[LoneWolf]

I'm not sure a military man will give peace a chance when needed...

"Let him who desires peace, prepare for war." -Flavius Vegetius, 375 AD

I look at the above quote, because I think your idea of what a military man is may not be correct. The most important part of a military force is preparation. War can be fought as an invasion force --but it can also be fought defensively. The military isn't about desiring war --it is about preparing for war in case it is necessary. (I'm not going to open the can of worms about what is and isn't necessary --everyone's got an opinion on this one, and even when they've got one, it can be subject to change. I know mine has over the years).

If anything, I think a military man is more likely to give peace a chance. Especially if he has combat experience. Good generals don't like sending people to die. Good commanding officers shudder at the thought of writing letters to a parent/spouse/etc. that their family member has been killed in action. I think that once you've seen death, the desire to avoid unneccessary death becomes that much more earnest.

However, that same military man knows best how to prepare when all diplomatic means are exhausted, or if it becomes clear that an invasion is inevitable. I think that person is more likely to consider what needs to be done to prevent losing more lives than needed, as well as to make sure a military campaign is fully committed and successful (i.e., if we really do need to go somewhere, how to do it and get it done, rather than do an LBJ in Vietnam), and to not underestimate the job at hand. He'd also be the one to ensure that members of the military have the equipment they need to get this job done effectively, and with the least amount of risk.

Finally, as Ian said, it is one cabinet post out of an entire cabinet. I'm not advocating a cabinet of military personnel, but one member who has perspective that other members may not.

[ItalianJob]

Okay. I just hope such a wise and balanced guy exists in this playground today...

"La guerre est une chose trop grave pour la laisser aux militaires. (Georges Clémenceau)"
A (poor) translation could be : "The war is a too serious thing to leave it to military men."

[jase]

This bothered me.

Just lately I've been tuning into the US "Price is Right" on CBS over the web when I come home from work. Bush's press conference about Rumsfeld pre-empted the show, most annoying.

[Dartman]

Glad he's gone, lets just hope the new guy does a better job and doesn't rubber stamp everything that comes through or second guess what the troops in the field really need.
One more liar gone!

[Ian]

Glad he's gone, lets just hope the new guy does a better job and doesn't rubber stamp everything that comes through or second guess what the troops in the field really need.

I can't believe that our soldiers still don't have the armor and stuff they need. If Rummy had a kid over there, you know they'd have so much armor they'd look like friggin' Robocop.

[stix]

Good riddance to Rumsfeld, the arrogant bastard. This is just politics as usual for Bush; remove Rumsfeld to take the fall for Bush's catastrophic policies.

[LoneWolf]

Good riddance to Rumsfeld, the arrogant bastard. This is just politics as usual for Bush; remove Rumsfeld to take the fall for Bush's catastrophic policies.

In that same vein, I'm hoping that Bush is capable of realizing the current election results for what they are. I don't believe the US has suddenly turned completely Democrat (quite obvious, since the majority in the Senate is quite narrow), nor that the Democrats "won" as some naive Democrat senators proclaim (or perhaps it isn't naivete' so much as it is grandstanding and preaching to the choir). It was more of a loss for the Republican party than it was a win for the Democrats.

What I think Bush has forgotten is that even the President has a boss. The President's (and Congress') boss is the voting citizens of the United States of America. Once elected, the President's job is to work with the "boss" to achieve what they want. Admittedly, there are times when those wishes aren't clear, or when they are divisive. However, I just don't see Bush as even having listened to his boss --rather, once given a job, he has decided that his ways are the right ways, whether his boss agrees or not. He's also clearly communicated to us through his decisions that corporations influence his decisions more than the will of the voters, except in cases of extreme backlash. The environment has gotten short shrift. Our privacy is being further invaded, and our rights further eroded --and no matter what protest it generates, it doesn't seem that he truly cares about the wishes of (once again for effect) his boss.

When you deliberately disrespect your boss, you deserve the consequences. That goes for members of Congress as well, regardless of party. I think this election showed a desire to limit the power of the executive office in response to that disrespect. I just hope that the President (and the rest of Congress) "gets the memo" for just a little while longer than the usual memory-span they seem to have.