Anybody heard anything?

Mmmm. Lieberman to replace him?

Or Santorum.

Oh, I guess Ed did.

But I doidn't think linking an LGF commenters post that Fox News said he was resigning was good enough, so you won the Hippo award.



However, I suspect I can find 4 other URLs in the enxt hour, to steal your thunder. But I won't. I'm too civilized.

Just announced - need new leadership.

Bob Gates new SecDef.

Rumsfeld is a good man, but I think he was a bit too optimistic on troop levels needed to win in Iraq. If there had been enough troops in Iraq (and it isn't all Rumsfeld's fault- the Turks refusing us a Northern Front didn't help) to crush the first signs of an insurgency, I suspect the US would be out of Iraq already, and getting ready to deal with bigger fish, Iran and North Korea.

But other than that one key mistake 4 years ago, I think Rumsfeld has been doing a pretty good job.

Damn, damn, damn.

I really like this guy, I hope we get him back when he's done. Arrgh!

"There seems to be a growing number of rumors in the media and around campus that I am leaving Texas A&M to become the new director of national intelligence ('Intelligence Czar') in Washington, D.C." The message said that "To put the rumors to rest, I was indeed asked to take the position, wrestled with perhaps the most difficult -- and close -- decision of my life, and last week declined the position."

wikipedia

GOP Says Rumsfeld Is Stepping Down

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon, Republican officials said Wednesday.

Officials said Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, would replace Rumsfeld. The development occurred one day after midterm elections that cost Republicans control of the House, and possibly the Senate, as well. Surveys of voters at polling places said opposition to the war was a significant contributor to the Democratic victory.

But other than that one key mistake 4 years ago, I think Rumsfeld has been doing a pretty good job.

Me too, Ed. The man is a tireless worker and a patriot, he has given so much of his life to gov't service. I really admire him.

He has made mistakes, no war is run perfectly. But the left's hatred of him knows no bounds and they won't be happy until he's gone.

Bush is clearly showing no sign of even beginning to understand the message delivered last night if some sad CIA bureaucrat is the best he could come up with for SecDef.

Then again, I agree with Robert Heinlein: No "Department of Defense" has ever won a war or will ever win a war."

He wrote that 47 years ago and it's still correct.

One other thing in Rummy's defense (well designed plan to topple Saddam in Baghdad, not so well planned idea for the insurgency) was that Bill Clinton more than decimated the military. Rummy could only use so many troops in Iraq, even with massive call-ups of the Guard and Reserve, and still safeguard the rest of America's interests because during the previous 8 years Clinton used military cuts to permit a huge growth in domestic spending and still claim a balanced budget.

I just saw that the Democrat won the Senate race in Montana.

Gates is such a laughable nominee, it really closes the need for any furhter discussion on the topic "Does Bush get it?"

The answer is clearly "no." Pathetic.

It enrages me when the Democrats made that a platform of theirs...not enough troops or equipment...when they're the ones who did it!! They're the ones who savagely cut the military in the 90's. Gee, I wonder why people think they dont support our troops??

How the fuck does a democrat win an election in Montana?!

What did Rumsfeld do in 6 years to reverse what you call Clinton's decimation of the military and what others call the post cold war peace dividend begun by Bush 41 ?

Can someone refresh my memory as to who is Bob Gates? I keep thinking of Bill.

And why did the job of getting this message out have to fall on the bloggers and not the Bush Administration itself? Another clusterfkc in the PR war.

Well, Democrat Bill, defense spending has gone back up since the WoT started, but the Iraq war started only 2 years into Bush's term, and you can't repair 8 years of damage that fast, and with a war on, money that could be spent building up the forces gets used on operations.

Clueless Ed

Found this poking around for info on Gates...

Bob Gates

Exactly. Thats why I'm also so angry at the Republicans too. Those fucking idiots. They had it. They had the House, the Senate, and the White House. The whole enchilada. And they screwed it up. They wasted their golden opportunity. And they allowed the Dem smear campaign to run unchallenged. Fuck this. Next time I'm voting Klingon.

Kevin, instead of making such lofty statements and simply expecting the rest of us peons to understand or agree, why don't you tell us just why Mister Gates is such a poor choice.

While you're at it, perhaps you could stoop to offering the president a clue, as to who you, in your obviously infinite experience in military and political matters would have chosen?

Rumsfeld now holds the almost certainly one-time distinction of being both the youngest (under Gerald Ford) and oldest (under GWB) secretaries of Defense.

I really can't say this guy has me hootin' and hollerin'. Seriously, I do think that he's another mistake that Bush makes by appointing his family friends and such.

I might seriously (not that I'm an expert or play on on TV, and I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn) have considered leaking to Wes Clark about two months before the election that Rumsfeld was going to resign after the results were in and saying that if he could shut his fat, politicking trap long enough about the "failures" he might get the position.

Gets that Dem claim to military support under control while also keeping them from attacking military decisions since their boy is at the helm.

Course, it might not work, but it's an idea.

# 26 - Siddhartha Vicious

It does not require infinite experience in military and political matters (though, as a former sailor and political-officer coned Foreign Service Officer, I possess some measure of real-life experience in both matters) to see that the appointment of a man whose career epitomizes the current national security status quo--the same status quo that has led us to this point--is unlikely to be the man to challenge that status quo's disastrous assumptions.

As to who, exactly, such a person would be, I haven't a clue, though the "who" is much less important than the "why." And the "why" here seems to be one of Dad's old buddies who can be counted on to be a competent caretaker and nothing more.