I thought it blew up in her face…
sorry.
I was watching MSNBC right before Bush’s presser. When the news broke that Rummy was out. Their White House correspondent was outside talking about it with Nora O’Donell. In the background a protestor was screaming her lungs out…
Na na na na
NA NA NA NA
HEY HEY HEY!
GOOOOO-OOODBYE!
Fmr. SoD Robert McNamara is on the BBC right now, saying that he’d had dinner with Rummy a few nights ago and Rummy said nothing about it, but McNamara can’t believe that he was fired. Nor does McNamara think that Rummy’s to blame for the mess in Iraq. He lays that at the feet of other unspecified members of the Administration (he wouldn’t name them, nor give any clue as to who they might be).
I’m firmly convinced that if the elections had gone the replicans way rummy wouldn’t have been put out. If you look at Bush’s video clip when he gives the news you can see he’s visibly upset.
I agree with your basic point: the Democrats will face a challenge and an intelligent White House spin machine (which, of course, completely failed in its efforts to put a happy face on a number of recent crises), and they may get their asses kicked in two years if they aren’t up to it. [However, they will have to defend only 12 Senate seats in 2008, and the Republicans will have to defend 21.] They’ll need to bring their A-game. Until the challenges really start, though, it’s fair to note that they won big time. So I say the following as politely and understandingly as I can:
Shut the fuck up and celebrate! After years of driving me crazy with their fear of success, Democrats have scored big victories. It is not worrying that the party will no longer be able to hide behind the ineptitude of the GOP, it’s good. They have been calling for Rumsfeld’s head for ages, and today they got it. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly said that Rumsfeld should be fired. You think George Bush was happy to give her what she wanted? Getting what you want is normally considered a good thing; it’s time for Dems to remember that we are not living in a short story by O. Henry. Some Democrats didn’t want to win the Presidency in 2004, even though the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary shifted to the right, because they figured it was better for Iraq to spiral out of control as long as nobody blamed John Kerry. One poster on this board actually started a thread asking if the Republicans were losing the 2006 election on purpose. He was apparently unable to believe that Democrats knew how to win and that people might want to vote for them. This is supposed to be a political party, not the fucking lovable loser Chicago Cubs fanbase. It’s time for this sad-sack shit to end. We need to stop trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The fact of the matter is this: on a national level, Tuesday essentially couldn’t have gone better. The Democrats were wildly successful and now control both houses of Congress. Bush is not only a lame duck, he got his ass kicked. A week ago, he swore Rumsfeld would serve out his term. Today, Rummy is unemployed. If you watched his press conference today and didn’t smile and laugh at least a little at Bush’s obvious unhappiness and discomfort, I feel sorry for you. When it comes to the results of the last 48 hours, there is nothing to be unhappy about.
On a personal level, I became eligible to vote in 2000. As a voter, I had never experienced an Election Day where the results were even close to what I wanted. Nothing, nothing, nothing is going to dampen my happiness. And if anything WAS going to dampen my happiness, Donald Rumsfeld resigning sure as hell isn’t it.
Gates intrigues me. While I disagreed with H.W. Bush on his domestic policies, I could side with him on his foreign policy. At the very least, I respect him and would seek his opinion if I were running things; he may be machiavellian but he’s definitely not dumb. If H.W. Bush, who was head of the CIA himself, appointed Gates to head the CIA, that tells me that Gates was a guy who knew what he was doing.
On the other hand, I had the same train of thought about Cheney in 2000, and look where that ended up.
My English SO opined (on Monday) that Americans should not be allowed to vote. Based on a number of pro war quotes he’s been reading over there. I assured him this was not the case, tides were turning and the Republicans would get their ass handed to them. Little did I know Rumsfeld was the ass in question.
This is certainly good news.
It will also give Rumsfeld time to pop over to Iraq to shake Saddam Hussein’s hand again (before the execution).
I haven’t read the entire thread, I’ve just gotten out of bed, and I’ve only had a couple sips of coffee. But I’m posting here anyway.
There was a clip of Bush on the news saying that he heard the American People and he ‘understands’ we’re ‘upset at the lack of progress in Iraq’. I think he misheard. I and many others are not upset at the lack of progress in Iraq; we’re upset we ever went there in the first place.
I never said this was not a backlash, it definitely is. I have been constantly concerned about the state of this nation. Also, I am overjoyed at the victory.
However, I am also aware of the political spin and I am concerned about the squandering of this opportunity. The democrats have always been criticized for not having a clear plan. They need to show the nation that they do, because the GOP has taken a hit, but they are not dead.
While pleased with the results, i find it hard to belive that anybody would think the (sitting) democrats as reformers-they are evry bit as corrupt as the republicans. It will come out that just as many democrats took money from Jack Abramoff, and does anybody really belive that senile old Ted Kennedy (D-Chivas Regal) wants “reform”? i mean, the guy is embarking on his 7th term-and (apparently) thinks it is still 1964.
What a legacy of blood and gore this man has made for himself. Tens of thousands of people dead by his hand and he’s never fired a shot himself. How the man must masturbate.
I’m glad that bastard Rummy is gone, but it just isn’t enough for me. Stick his sorry old ass in uniform, give him a gun - no bullets because we gotta win on the cheap, no support, because we gotta have a lean mean bare bones operation, and parachute him into the nastiest enemy stronghold we can find. If he survives, we can cut his fucking benefits and entitlements. Good riddance to him but it’s just not enough.
I hear that claim a lot, but I just don’t see the evidence. You can say things like “It will come out that just as many Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff”, but whenever the dust settles it generally turns out that the Republicans were worse than the Democrats ( not that they are much of a prize either ). And Kennedy is just one guy. Everything I see convinces me that the present Republicans in government are the nastiest, most corrupt, craziest, and least competent people in the American government in the last century or so, at the least. I simply don’t buy the “The Democrats are as bad as the Republicans !” rhetoric any more.
On a slightly related note, Bolton’s nomination to the UN is toast.
That’s two down.
John Bolton!
Dodo dunt dunt dunt
da duntdunt dun dadunt
Dodo dunt dunt dunt
da duntdunt dun dadunt
You know, sitting at home sick yesterday and watching the returns, I was excited not only about the apparent change in course but also of the prospect of Bush recognizing the mandate against his platform and extending a branch to democrats who’d called for Rummy out for years. Much of the early assessment about Gates was that he was emminently qualified, what with decades of intelligence work, and a compromiser instead of a hard liner, a competant civilian who would be well received by the Pentagon.
Then Harry Reid said this (Gates) wouldn’t go through without a fight and I just slumped and thought oh fuck, day one and the shits already backin’ up in the bowl.
No.
Doing it then would have made Bush look weak and on the defensive. Doing it now makes him look willing to accept the will of the voters and compromise. It also steals headlines from the dems on their big day.
Moreover, Bush’s nominee is not going to be supporting a very different course for the war. In the process of the hearings and the voting, Senators will have take to a stand for or against that, and this may well end up being quite divisive for the dems. Being anti-Rumsfeld is no longer the issue; being pro-Gates is, and it may well divide the Leiberman-Webb wing vs. the hard left.
Sadly, while it’s good policy to fix any given problem; it’s often better politically to keep the problem in place and use it to beat the other guy over the head. Rumsfeld may prove to be just such a problem.
Are you certain of that?
DeLay Blasts Gates Nomination, Claims He Wants To ‘Negotiate With Terrorists’
No, i"m not. But even if is everything Tom DeLay fears, there are some among the Dem base that are going to want a fight with anyone the WH puts up – see Reid cited above.
Why should it be such a problem that there’s a prospect of a disagreement at the Senate confirmation hearings? Have we become so resigned to a compliant lapdog federal legislature that we can’t stand the thought of even a little conflict within government?
I’m thrilled to hear that Gates is said by some sources to be a competent candidate, and if he turns out to be, then I think the Senate should confirm his nomination. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t want to hear any argument or disagreement or people airing their opinions about what’s wrong with Gates’s qualifications.
True, I don’t think that pointless malicious slime and smears, of the sort that ralph124c offered about Kennedy a few posts back, do much for the cause of effective government. But ISTM that objecting to all opposition, disagreement or criticism from political opponents is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.