Why Rumsfeld Should Not Resign - By Greg Palast

[kpete]

Desert Rats Leave The Sinking Ship
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2006-04-14 19:54. Media
Why Rumsfeld Should Not Resign
The Guardian - Comment
Friday, April 14, 2006
By Greg Palast

Well, here they come: the wannabe Rommels, the gaggle of generals, safely retired, to lay siege to Donald Rumsfeld. This week, six of them have called for the Secretary of Defense's resignation.

Well, according to my watch, they're about four years too late -- and they still don't get it.
.........
Even the generals' complaint -- that Rumsfeld didn't give them enough troops -- was ultimately a decision of the cowboy from Crawford. (And by the way, the problem was not that we lacked troops -- the problem was that we lacked moral authority to occupy this nation. A million troops would not be enough -- the insurgents would just have more targets.)

President Bush is one lucky fella. I can imagine him today on the intercom with Cheney: "Well, pardner, looks like the game's up." And Cheney replies, "Hey, just hang the Rumsfeld dummy out the window until he's taken all their ammo."

When Bush and Cheney read about the call for Rumsfeld's resignation today, I can just hear George saying to Dick, "Mission Accomplished."

Generals, let me give you a bit of advice about choosing a target: It's the President, stupid.

more at:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/10135

[babylonsister]

1. "They're wasting all their bullets on the decoy."

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[gglor]

2. Your are right rumsfeld it just another bushman

he gets his orders from king george, the reason for asking for rumsfeld to resign is a kind of chipping away at the fascist dictator's conspirators. The think to know about this administration is that his cronies know where the bodies are buried and each time he loses one of his allies, these crooks turn on each other. This cunning dummy has the power of the bush family, the saudis,dubai and the entire bush ----family protecting him. The republicans have the power to out vote anything the dems do. We have not been able to impeach him, but chipping may work.

[lebkuchen]

16. Another Bushy who happens to be affecting my day to day existence

on an overseas military base. Perhaps if he were your boss, you'd wish his departure to be an expeditious one, as I do.

[daveskilt]

3. I was just about to post this. rumsfeld, brownie, chertoff,

and every other f*** up appointed by bush are just proxies for the real f***wit in chief. Bush is the one who should resign.

I run a hospital and have 15 department heads who report to me. If I had hired as many useless tits as bush has I would be the one fired not them. Of course I would also be in prison for my responsibility to the people who died as a result of my subordinates failures. I only have 160 patients I could kill through the negligence of the people working for me - Bush has far more people counting on him to at least hire smart people.

In 2000 my repub friends all admitted bush was a joke "but look at the great people he has" they would tell me "the dems have the best presidents but the repubs have the best cabinets" they would intone to justify voting for a guy resembling Ray Bolger with a stick up his arse.

where is that great cabinet and great repub organization behind the fool now?

[gglor]

4. check hissyspit's journal

This blogger put out an article howard dean wrote. Pursuing a lawsuit against bush. I think it has promise.

[lebkuchen]

13. How do you propose to fire Bush?

[linazelle]

5. THANK YOU GREG PALAST

Hold the moran in chief accountable.

[lebkuchen]

12. Holding Rummy accountable doesn't mean Bush won't be

[TheBaldyMan]

6. There's an existing article in E&OA forum about this already

Desert Rats on the run

Rummy comes in for serious criticism despite what Greg Palast says in his article. Not that I'm that surprised given his monumental incompetence over the whole affair.

[TahitiNut]

7. I have a rare disagreement with Palast.

It's Cheney and Rumsfeld who run the show, CEO and COO respectively. Bushbaby is merely the Chief Marketing Officer - a frontman; a sock puppet; a bible-beating snake-oil salesman.

Impeach. Indict, Imprison. ... all three of them! Nail Cheney for Plame, Rummy for military mismanagment, and Bushbaby for lying his ass off weekly.

[lebkuchen]

9. I disagree w/Palast, too.

Today's Stars and Stripes headline:

BUSH BACKS RUMSFELD AMID GROWING CRITICISM

S & S headlines have signaled Bush's out of control spiral for some time now. Today's headline indicates that Bush is in big trouble.

Get rid of Rumsfeld, and it's a huge step toward disarming Bush. As one who works on a deploying base, I've seen how Rumsfeld has obliterated every aspect of the US military. It's important that he step down.

[immoderate]

8. I posted this before. Firing Rumsfeld accomplishes nothing.

He will be replaced by someone equally bad or worse. Reigning in disgrace would be a welcome gesture, but it won't help our situation.

Throwing Bush out would be a positive start.

--IMM

[lebkuchen]

10. W/a Republican congress?

Highly unlikely. There's no guarantee the dems will take over Congress in November, either.

We're making overtures of a preemptive strike against Iran, and still there is no large public outcry in the US. And those on DU wonder where the democratic congress is. What about the american people? Have they relinquished their right to protest? Christ. It's as if the majority feel there's nothing to complain about. We are on the verge of a nuclear catastrophe. Wake the hell up, america.

Rumsfeld is the heartbeat of the whole operation, along w/his evil twin Cheney. Bush's armor will be more than chinked when these two leave. As I did w/Delay's demise, I've got the champagne on ice, waiting, hoping, and helping.

[immoderate]

14. What's the scenario for replacing Rumsfeld?

Bush will not nominate Murtha or Feingold. He'll pick a John Bolton or a Michael Chertoff. Or maybe he'll politically correctly pick a female, like Michelle Malkin of Ann Coulter. (Bit of humor there.)

[lebkuchen]

15. He can hire Fukuyama for all I care.

Rumsfeld is the driveshaft of the Bushy operation, and it doesn't require a democratic congress to oust him.

[Solly Mack]

11. Whew

By blaming "things going badly" in Iraq on a lack of troops, you're essentially saying Iraq would have gone right with more troops..

BUT

If the invasion of Iraq was wrong - a war crime...and it was since wars of aggression are war crimes -

Then the number of troops used wouldn't change that fact...increasing troops now won't change that fact. *Withdrawing troops now won't change that fact either. NOTHING will ever change that fact.

So attempting to explain all the "wrong" in Iraq by blaming it on the tactical and strategic is ignoring the real problem - the invasion of Iraq was based on lies

Bush lied. Cheney Lied. Rumsfeld lied. Rice lied.Powell lied. (they all lied) Much of the high-profile brass in the military promoted the lies.


The invasion of Iraq, in and of itself, is the real problem.

Bush is ultimately the one responsible for that...as well as his entire regime...but Bush first and foremost.

Sure, I want Rumsfeld brought down - as a war criminal (for that is what he is)...but not as an inept Sec. of Def. - that allows him to get away with his crimes...and Bush too.

If you promote the idea that the "lack of troops" caused many of the problems in Iraq, then you're ignoring the bigger, graver - criminal - issue....America committed a war crime when it invaded Iraq. When you ignore that the Iraq invasion was wrong period - from the get-go, then you're saying invading Iraq wasn't the problem..you're saying "how' the invasion took place is...and "how" it took place is secondary to the fact that it did take place.

*In case anyone attempts to deliberately mischaracterize my words:

I'm not saying don't withdraw the troops - I'm saying w/d'ing the troops won't change the fact that America committed a war crime by invading Iraq.