No full story yet, but check out the headline: Link
Talk about quick results!
So, what do you think? And who takes over?
No full story yet, but check out the headline: Link
Talk about quick results!
So, what do you think? And who takes over?
The headline reads: “Pelosi set to become madam speaker”
No mention of Rummy anywhere (not that I don’t have all fingers & toes crossed).
A-HA! Here we go:
Look above the headline; “Breaking News”.
Don’t be mealy mouthe all of you.
Say what you really think here:
in the BBQ Pit where all discussion of Rumsfeld really belongs.
Man you’re quick, I was just going to post this. Bush gives a talk at 1:00 pm ET–maybe this will be his pound of flesh from overspending his political capital. America wanted change in Iraq and now they have it I suppose.
:smack: Grrrr.
It’s official! Bush said he spoke to Rumsfeld and they agreed it’s time for new leadership. That’s a whole new milestone for the Democrats to crow over, and they’ll also get some input into who replaces him, since it looks like they will have the majority in the Senate.
Wow, Wikipedia already has the story of Rumsfeld’s successor:Robert Gates.
Seems like a reasonable choice, no?
I have to say that I feel better about my country today than I did Monday!
And also to everyone who hinted, suggested, or outright said it, that Bush or the GOP may somehow “steal” the election, cheat, or just declare an emergency and keep power… A big fuck you!
The US has it’s problems, but once again we have shown the strength of our democracy and we will see a transition of power with nobody being shot and no bloodshed.
The Senate majority is still up for grabs (depending on recounts) but I suspect that the administration will want to get Gates confirmed prior to January 3 so that there is no effective input by the Democrats, regardless of who holds the majority.
Dangit! Sorry all, I meant this for the pit thread. To many windows open. Mod, feel free to delete both these reponses.
(Of course, the Democrats might filibuster the nomination until the term ends if there is any significant opposition to Gates. )
I didn’t realize it would meet again. But pending a recount in Virginia [I see CNN is calling Montana for Tester], it looks like the Democrats will have 51 seats. I guess they won’t get to vote on Gates, but Bush seems to have received the message anyway.
Nah. As long as you were not targeting a poster, I’m going to let it stay.
Well that solves everything!
I bet there are are least a couple Repub candidates who wish he had resigned on Monday…
I don’t know a thing about Gates, but I absolutely hope that he is a guy who doesn’t let his ideological hard-headedness get in the way of what needs to actually be done, whatever that may be.
Looking from the other side of the pond i’m puzzled by the timing of this.
Wouldn’t something on the following lines have worked much better for administration and party:
I’d have expected any competent electoral engineers (didn’t the Bush administration employ the best of them?) to pull of something like that.
So, why hang on to Rumsfeld until it’s too late?
I heard a short interview from someone teaching at Texas A&M (where Gates is President) on NPR. Gates is the only director of the CIA who rose in the ranks from an entry level position. He was director for Bush I and stayed on under Clinton. All the commentators said he was a realist, and his appointment indicated a shift of direction in Iraq. He does not appear to come into the job with an agenda.
Sounds like an excellent choice to me, and I have a hard time believing there will be any significant opposition to this nomination.
The only possible reason I can see for Bush not to have done this two weeks ago is a refusal to admit something was wrong until the American people gave him a “thumpin’” - but this was in the works before the election. I don’t really understand the timing.
… and why do the Google ads for this thread say:
Men’s Fur Coat for Less
Gay Dating
Stay in Riga
Hair Loss Product Reviews
? Does Google know something that we don’t?