When the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke, there were some calls for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign. Rumsfeld “took responsibility,” whatever that means, but he didn’t resign. That would’ve been admitting a mistake, which the Bush Admin never does. But now, seven members of Bush’s first-term Cabinet have announced their resignations – a perfectly customary between-terms reshuffling to which no embarrassment attaches. So why doesn’t Rumsfeld announce his resignation now? I’d hate to lose Powell, and have Rumsfeld of all people be the only holdover . . .
I agree, if anyone, it seems like it would have been him.
On a tangental note, he actually dropped in at my office yesterday on a surprise visit. He gladhanded for 5 min. and left. I told him to go f@#$ himself and to can the Henry Fonda routine.
Actually, I was in the bathroom or something, because I new saw him.
BG:Rumsfeld “took responsibility,” whatever that means, but he didn’t resign. That would’ve been admitting a mistake, which the Bush Admin never does. But now, seven members of Bush’s first-term Cabinet have announced their resignations
But did they resign as a way of implying a mistake on the part of the Administration? AFAICT, the cabinet members who’ve resigned so far made the move because they wanted to leave, for whatever reason. Maybe some of them, like Powell and O’Neill, got a little tactful pressure because they were being inconveniently independent. But Rumsfeld is nothing if not a team player. Why would he be urged to resign if he didn’t want to?
To punish him for making mistakes? But see, that would involve admitting that there were mistakes, and as you’ve noted, these guys don’t.
But if Rumsfeld were to resign now, when so many other secretaries are resigning for their own plausible reasons, that would be very politically convenient for the Administration. It could to some degree distance itself from his actions, without actually repudiating them. As it stands, Rumsfeld is a lightning rod for Bush-bashing.
I kind of thought Rumsfeld was one of those who decided who was a “team player”. I’m quite surprised Neo-Cons would be wanting to get rid of him too… :eek:
There was a news today about the US using evidence from torture… Rummy should be getting some flak soon.
Hearing that the neocons are unhappy with Rumsfeld because he isn’t enough of a team player sends chills down my spine. Remember – invading Iraq was THEIR idea, spoon-fed to little Georgie by Cheney and Rumsfeld.
I mean, what are they gonna do, bring Goebbels back from the dead?
Thompson’s resignation today makes it over half of the Cabinet who’ve simultaneously discovered a need to spend more time with their families. Their reasons may all be plausible, but there’s a common thread there, too.
Rumsfeld likes power and he’s a lightning rod for others who do. He won’t get forced out; none of those who’ve screwed up so badly are being held accountable anyway.
I don’t think anyone other than George Bush has such a personal stake in ensuring the success of Bush’s objective in Iraq as Rumsfeld. Not that I have any particular liking for the man, but his resignation would leave the credibility of the whole Iraqi war effort in tatters ,the Bush administration bankrupt, and the complete collapse of any respect for America abroad.
This will probably and eventually all come to pass anyway. However football games have been won on hail mary passes and history is full of military victories gained against great odds.
LBJ announcing he will not run again virtually took the wind out of America’s sails with Nixon’s objective being withdrawal with honour (which failed) .
I predict that the next person to “retire” will be Dick Cheney. He can leave Washington triumphantly to live out his years at a think-tank somewhere. Bush will then nominate a new Vice President - Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani will then have some Washington experience under his belt when Bush leaves office in 2008, paving the way for the “Giuliani-(VP to be determined) 2008” campaign.
Some Highlights from the 2008 Campaign:
-Hillary Clinton will run against him as the Democratic nominee (having defeated John Kerry in the primaries).
-Much of the 2000 NY Senate race mudslinging will be rehashed.
-One of the main issues will be how the f*** to get the US out of Iraq and Iran.
Some Republican Congressman (I didn’t get the name) was on the radio here the other day saying that Kofi Annan should retire because of the abuses that took place “on his watch”.
The cognitive dissonance of some GOPers never ceases to amaze me …
What is your point?