George Twins fan
Nov 4 2006, 11:40 AM
QUOTE(aquaman @ Nov 2 2006, 08:37 AM)
... and Bush says he wants Heckuva Job Rummy to stay on till 2009.
Meanwhile the military newspapers are calling for Rummy's firing/resignation in an editorial that will appear in Monday's editions.
QUOTE
Just days after President Bush publicly affirmed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's job security through the end of his term, a family of publications catering to the military will publish an editorial calling for the defense secretary's removal.
The editorial, released to NBC News on Friday ahead of its Monday publication date, stated, "It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads."
"This is not about the midterm elections," continued the editorial, which will appear in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times on Monday. "Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15552211/
UCLAfan
Nov 4 2006, 11:26 PM
Someone has to be held accountable for the failures of leadership in this war. That someone is Donald "Rummy the Dummy" Rumsfeld.
hockeyTom
Nov 5 2006, 02:09 PM
millerbeach
Nov 6 2006, 01:48 AM
So now all the Rethugs are going to issue a huge "congrats" to Clinton, and admit Clinton was right all along? I won't be holding my breath for that to happen! This is unbelieveable. What on God's green earth is this nation coming to?
hockeyTom
Nov 6 2006, 08:19 AM
I read an interesting editorial this morning again talking about the ENORMOUS fiscal cost of this war. When all is said and done, the total cost of this war will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $2-3 TRILLION dollars! The costs will be paid for by us for decades.
I also was watching some of Chris Matthews weekend show. He has a guest who is with the BBC and writes for them in the US. She said this election is being watched world wide, like no other, EVER, and predicted that if the Repugs. should retain power, there will be world wide anti-American riots.
millerbeach
Nov 7 2006, 01:48 AM
Sadly, who could blame them. I almost feel like rioting if the Rethugs retain power, and I'm a lover, not a fighter!
UCLAfan
Nov 7 2006, 11:56 PM
Military Appropriations Subcommitee Chairman Jack Murtha. Enough said!
UCLAfan
Nov 8 2006, 12:51 PM
MSNBC has indicated that AP is reporting that Secretary Donald Rumsfeld will resign.
fantomas
Nov 8 2006, 04:39 PM
In addition to Murtha, which other Democrats will be looking into this Iraq mess? Please, please, let it be Henry Waxman and John Conyers!
In the Senate, who'll be doing the investigating? I need to look at those committtees and who's been the ranking member for each.
BTW, does anyone else think that Rumsfeld's exit might also be a way of Bush avoiding blame once Rummy is called to testify before both the Senate and House under oath? He can always say, "Rumsfeld's gone" and dump the blame on him. The neocons and right-wingers have already starting doing this anyways. I don't think any of them are going to get off so easily, though.
UCLAfan
Nov 8 2006, 04:44 PM
QUOTE(fantomas @ Nov 8 2006, 01:39 PM)
BTW, does anyone else think that Rumsfeld's exit might also be a way of Bush avoiding blame once Rummy is called to testify before both the Senate and House under oath? He can always say, "Rumsfeld's gone" and dump the blame on him. The neocons and right-wingers have already starting doing this anyways. I don't think any of them are going to get off so easily, though.
Would Rumsfeld become the turncoat, much as Brownie did when he got scapegoated? One can only hope!
sportinlife
Nov 8 2006, 10:25 PM
With the Democrats floundering around for a new Iraqi policy I think it is time to reexamine one truism that is prohibiting us from creative thinking on this situation: that Al Queda will take over if we leave.
1- Al Qaeda wasn't there before we came in
2- Al Qaeda is there now because of us
3- Al Qaeda will stay there and grow as long as we are there to ensure that no Iraqi authority can assert itself
If we leave they will have to solve the problem we created. If we stay they will never be able to solve the problem we created, because we won't allow them to, and we will continually add to the problem.
Also the longer we stay the more likely we are to inspire more individuals to want to commit terrorist acts against us.
UCLAfan
Nov 8 2006, 10:33 PM
I expect that once we leave Iraq, we will ramp up our presence in Afghanistan and potentially even South Korea, to counter the North Korean threat. Thus, wherever we go, Al Qaeda will go.
hockeyTom
Nov 17 2006, 08:13 AM
So I now read that Shrub wants an additional $130-160 BILLION more dollars for the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, this in addition to the $70 BILLION that was just given. Good grief.
UCLAfan
Nov 17 2006, 12:13 PM
What a joke! And a bad one at that.
So much for avoiding "stay the course". It only goes to show that a leopard can't change his spots.
UCLAfan
May 22 2007, 03:34 PM
And
the war continues!
The Dems just caved in to our Imperious Leader and the far right-wing nutjobs.
Bryan
May 22 2007, 07:26 PM
We should be asking over and over again "who's gaining from this war?" We all know it's the oil companies in cahoots with the administration..why would they (the bush f*ckwads) spend billions, alienate most of the country and of course the world, kill thousands of innocent people unless someone was gaining something? The administration is f*cking the country so they can control oil supplies and assure themselves of billions of dollars of oil profits in the future. No one speaks out convincingly on this...which makes me wonder just how ugly things are behind the scenes...
fenwayguy
May 24 2007, 11:07 PM
Today's roll calls on the toothless "Iraq supplemental appropriations bill",
HR 2206 Senators voting NO (i.e. opposed to placating Bush)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burr (R-NC)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Dodd (D-CT)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Obama (D-IL)
Sanders (I-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Representatives voting NO (link)Eyeryone else is either a Republican or a shameful, collaborationist Democrat.
fantomas
May 25 2007, 12:32 AM
No real surprises in this list, except that Hagel has been a huge critic of Bush, yet went right along and voted for more enabling. This screwup president has ZERO credibility, ZERO. He had the gall to lie some more this morning to the press, and they did their usual stenography. Heck of a job, you all! What will it take, the complete collapse of our country before those high-paid prostitutes wake up? They really are no better than Jimmy-Jeff Gannon-Guckert.
And yet today's poll shows that a majority of Americans think the war is going badly, it shouldn't have been started in the first place (THANK GOD PEOPLE ARE FINALLY WITH US!!!), and that the country is on the wrong course. Yet the majority of Democrats voted to give W a blank check!
UCLAfan
May 25 2007, 01:40 AM
And now we have
this little gem. The intelligence community warned our Imperious Leader of the consequences of invading Iraq and he and his lackeys chose to ignore it all. This is what makes this an impeachable offense. But the Democrats will never stand on principle, as evidenced by their relenting to W's demands for unlimited funding.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.