Will Joe Lieberman take his place? And then Democrats lose control of the Senate when CT's Republican Gov appoints a REpublican to take Joe's place?

When someone said to me last night "what's the worst thing that can happen by electing Joe instead of Lamont," that's the scenario I put out.

I really hope I'm proven to be too much a tinfoil hatter on this one. But with these guys, the tinfoil hatters have a remarkably good record...

So, will Bush now nominate Lieberman, so the Republicans can keep the Senate (assuming Tester and Webb hold on)?

On the other hand, this scenario assumes that the Republican governor of Connecticut has the chutzpah to name a Republican replacement for Lieberman, after 90% of Connecticut voters went either for the incumbent Democrat or the primary-winner Democrat.

Yippee!

How long befor Leiberman is named as the replacement?

Holy crap! Are they really folding that fast? Or is this more Rumsfeld falling on his sword because he lost the Rethugs the election?

When do we hear about Rove's resignation?

Report is that former CIA director Robert Gates will be nominated to replace Rummie.

the best SoD this country has ever had.

As proven by the fact that he's presided over the best war America's ever fought.

Liberman!

Thanks! Then Santorum gets confirmed to the Supreme Court!

When do we get to execute him?

also:
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0611/gallery.election.day/images/gal.02.sad.gi.jpg

bwahahahah!

see ya later, Cuttin Rumsfeld !

Robert Gates to replace Rummy.

So, will Bush now nominate Lieberman, so the Republicans can keep the Senate (assuming Tester and Webb hold on)?

Why would Lieberman, or any other sitting Democratic Senator, accept such a nomination?

Three years too late, but I guess better late than never.
Also, MSNBC and the Billings Gazette call MT for Tester. CNN and the Wash Post are still waiting...

In the business world, it is expected that "heads will roll" after a major screw-up. Bush was hailed as the first "MBA president", so you would expect him to adopt this philosophy.

Yet Rummy didn't lost his job until now.

Apparently, in the Bush administration, losing thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives in a total screw-up of a war isn't really a major screw-up --- but losing an election is.

Clever move by Bush. It changes the headlines immediately after the Democratic victory and it makes the president look responsive and flexible.

I wouldn't be surprised if he dumps Cheney too and puts Frist or someone on board.

When do we get to execute him?

Well, I suppose that's conceivable after his prosecution and conviction under the War Crimes Act, though that's particularly unlikely while Bush is in the White House, whoever controls Congress.

I wonder if part of the reason for the swift replacement of Rumsfeld with Gates is to get the GOP controlled lame duck Senate to confirm before what looks like the Dem controlled Senate takes over in Jan which would be far more aggressive in asking questions regarding the state of the Iraq war.

1. The direct impetus for Rumsfeld's resignation had to have been Monday -- the Army Times published an editorial calling for his resignation. No SecDef would survive that vote of no confidence. I knew he was resigning this week when I saw that. It just wasn't covered the news being busy with the election and all.

2. Lieberman wouldn't have accepted the job. (not when he has a Senate seat anyway)

3. the Lieberman hypothetical was always idiotic anyway because if a CT senator resigns, CT law provides for a special election as quickly as possible. so Republicans would get a senator for a matter of weeks or months.

Rumsfeld is a great American hero, and the best SoD this country has ever had.

As if there was any doubt that "Chuck" == Charlie/Cheney/"Don P"/Thomas1/etc.

Seriously, Kevin, isn't it high time you banned this creep? He adds no value whatever to the discussion.

Speaking of which...as for Rumsfeld, good riddance to bad rubbish.

So, will the existing Senate Dems (under the incredible leadership of Joe Lieberman) delay the confirmation hearing until after inauguration day, or does W's pick get rammed through with no substantial hearings?

Cranky

*Clever move by Bush.*

Oregonian, it would have been more clever to have done it on Monday.

Scotian:

it would be hard to engage Gates in tough questioning about Iraq since, ahem, he wasn't involved. it would be seen for what it was -- an attempt to hijack a confirmation hearing for someone not involved in an event into an investigation of that event.

I would guess he wasn't looking forward to facing the heat from Democratic controlled investigations. These guys always bail when the going gets tough.

We must not rest until Rumsfeld and McNamara are imprisoned.

Democrats should filibuster the confirmaiton process until the new Senate is sworn into office. Then let the questioning of the conduct of Bush's War begin.

Coward. Didn't want to face the Congressional investigation hearings. God forbid these people should ever have to explain themselves to the people's tribunes.

the best SoD this country has ever had.

based on what ?

Cranky, Scotian, Hostile:

Thankfully, there is no fricking way that the D's are stupid enough to listen to you.

to leave the military without a SecDef during a time of war would not only be an inexcusable dereliction of duty, but would guarantee a Republican victory in 08. seriously, listen to yourselves.

Now the troops have something to cheer about today. The Dems winning and Rumsfield stepping down in shame.

ummm. How does resigning free him of the obligation to appear before Congress to testify, if requested to do so? He's not part of the Executive Branch any more, it'd be tough to claim some privilege.

Henny penny, the President of the Aggies is gonna lead us in wartime. He's also on the Baker-Hamilton Commission.

Bush Family Fixers have arrived.

Golden Boy is on TV right now unveiling his theory of the next two years: We can't get anything done, we can't do anything at all because of Democrat obstructionism!

The irony is that firing Rumsfeld is liable to be extremely popular. Had he done it before the election, he might very well have picked up some more votes from fence-sitters who were desparate to give him the benefit of the doubt.......

And Dobson resigns from the team that is 'counselling' Ted Haggard on 'sexual immorality'.

You can't make this stuff up.

So is Gates a PNAC'r? Anyone know about him? I read about the Gates commission and he co-authored a book on China. But I'm sketchy on which way he swings.

Clearly, GeeDubya got the message from yesterday . . . . .

Good Riddence.

It changes the headlines immediately after the Democratic victory and it makes the president look responsive and flexible.

Don't you mean, "calculating and evasive"?

Gosh, yes.

So, Rumsfield has cut his losses and run, instead of staying the course?

Perhaps we need a new phrase, "Cut and Rumsfield".

Since he mentioned his undying love for Cheney and Rummy in the same breath, is one more resignation in the works?

One can only hope.

Bush is a pussy. he lied to America for weeks, saying Rumsfeld wasn't going anywhere, knowing he was going to cave to electoral pressure. so much for Mr Macho Stick-To-His-Guns Rugged Individualist Cowboy. he's just another all-hat-no-cattle bullshit con man.

don't you clowns feel sad for defending him for the past 6 years? doesn't it sting a little inside, knowing you're putting so much effort into such a total loser?

> would not only be an inexcusable
> dereliction of duty, but would guarantee
> a Republican victory in 08. seriously,
> listen to yourselves.

Nathan,
You have been offering oodles of this kind of helpful advice to the DemocratIC party for the last 7 months. We listened to you and did exactly the opposite of what you suggested.

How did 07 November 2006 go for you Radical Republicans?

Cranky

WOW!

So, both houses of Congress, the governors, the state legislatures, and now a morning surprise in the executive branch.

*...maybe he honestly didn't want to inject a major policy decision like that right before an election.*

It's how you choose to see it. Bush supporters might agree with you. Bush critics have always thought he puts politics over policy. In this case, it would have been good politics to make the cut on Monday.

It's also likely that Bush didn't even consider it until this morning. Critics would argue Bush never saw the GOP election disaster coming, and stayed as inflexible and mind-locked as ever.

Nathan:

All I did was wonder whether the speed of change and named replacement might be tied to a preference for getting it through a GOP lame duck Senate rather than a Dem Senate. That in a Dem Senate there is almost certainly going to be tougher questioning of the incoming SecDef and how they perceive the situation the prior SecDef left the country with. Nothing unreasonable, nothing outlandish. Yet you freak out, claim that such a thought is so stupid no Dem would consider it (which when you say no D's would listen to me, Cranky, Hostile is what you are saying in so many words) and that I was advocating leaving the SecDef position unfulfilled during a time where American troops are in combat (not a war thanks to the dishonesty of Bushco in how they went into Iraq) despite absolutely no suggestion of such from me. All I said was I wondered whether the change was so swiftly done to get the change through a lame duck Congress/Senate, no more. I never said the position needed to stay empty, but then I am not the one that last week declared forcefully that Rumsfeld would stay on for the last two years no matter what happened in the election results only to flip-flop today and Rumsfeld resigns with a new candidate already selected, no that was Bush.

So you can take your hysterical nonsense and your inability to read what people write and your need to project your fantasies about what I and others are saying and stick it alongside that House GOP majority government and Senate majority which have been lost, since at best the Senate is going to be 50-50.

There is a reason why I consider you Nathan Trolletariat, and in this thread you remind me yet again exactly why with this nonsense.

Cranky,

sigh, I am not a Republican.

I've repeatedly expressed here that I hope Republicans lose this election.

and yes, the Democrats did well because they did not listen to idealogues like you.

they ran reconfigured Republicans like Webb, they moved to the center, they said that "impeachment is off the table"...oh, and by the way, how did that whole Lamont thing go for you?

HECK OF A JOB RUMMY!!!

Scotian: I wonder if part of the reason for the swift replacement of Rumsfeld with Gates is to get the GOP controlled lame duck Senate to confirm before what looks like the Dem controlled Senate takes over in Jan which would be far more aggressive in asking questions regarding the state of the Iraq war.

Wonder no more. Take it to the bank.

Bush is a pussy. he lied to America for weeks, saying Rumsfeld wasn't going anywhere, knowing he was going to cave to electoral pressure.

My guess is Bush was expecting to retain the Senate, and thus thought he could dump Rumsfeld, if politically necessary, at any time if politically necessary, but he certainly wasn't going to do so around the elections.

But when the Senate became doubtful, and it seemed that it might be politically necessary to dump Rumsfeld, it became necessary to do it soon, so that a replacement would be confirmed by the current, Republican-majority Senate.

Scotian:

"That in a Dem Senate there is almost certainly going to be tougher questioning of the incoming SecDef and how they perceive the situation the prior SecDef left the country with."

oh, this I agree with. but it's not what you said originally.

"that I was advocating leaving the SecDef position unfulfilled during a time where American troops are in combat".

I apologize. After your clarification above, I realize now that you did not do so. Cranky and Hostile, however, most certainly did advocate doing exactly that.

Remember to get out and vote today, Chuck, like you've been reminding the rest of us Democrats.

don't bother pointing out over and over that a huge number of the Dem winners had noticeably liberal positions ... I'm sticking to my premise that they were all "conservative dems" ... oh, and I'm not a republican ... I just act like one ... all the time.

Scotian, I've reread your original remark. I read it wrongly. I apologize.

my critiques of Cranky and Hostile hold.

to respond to the juvenile fake Nathan:

that Democrats in blue state seats were more liberal is not exactly a surprise.

that Democrats in tossup seats tended to be moderate or even essentially Republicans is pretty darn obvious.

it would be hard to engage Gates in tough questioning about Iraq since, ahem, he wasn't involved.

But as SecDef he'd only be running the war. Duh.

it would be seen for what it was -- an attempt to hijack a confirmation hearing for someone not involved in an event into an investigation of that event.

Of course you'd choose to see it that way, being the dishonest Republican apologist you are. Whether your prediction applies to the real world is another matter.

my critiques of Cranky and Hostile hold.

We're familiar with your record of dishonest critiques, Nathan. Color me unimpressed.

cmdicely:

I think your guess may well have been true until Monday.

like I said, no SecDef can survive a vote of no confidence from the Army, Navy and Air Force Times.

Nathan, dog-paddling as fast as he can: oh, and by the way, how did that whole Lamont thing go for you?

It went remarkably well. We're disappointed that he didn't win in Connecticut, of course, but we're glad for the huge effect he had on the candidacies of other progressives who did win. Without the early confirmation he provided that assertive criticisms of Bush and courageous positions against the war are welcome among the majority of voters, we might not have sewn up so many seats.

Good job apologizing to Scotian. When will you learn to stop accusing people of things they haven't said? Must we hand your ass to you 1,000 times before you stop confusing people and moving goalposts? Really, you aren't at all good at this.

Scotian: I wonder if part of the reason for the swift replacement of Rumsfeld with Gates is to get the GOP controlled lame duck Senate to confirm before what looks like the Dem controlled Senate takes over in Jan which would be far more aggressive in asking questions regarding the state of the Iraq war.

Agree. I just stated a few days ago that Rummy would stay because they couldn't afford to open the barrels of worms confirmation hearings would open. (So much for my crystal ball.)

Nathan: it would be hard to engage Gates in tough questioning about Iraq since, ahem, he wasn't involved. it would be seen for what it was -- an attempt to hijack a confirmation hearing for someone not involved in an event into an investigation of that event.

No it wouldn't. The correct and appropriate way to engage Gates and the administration is to question exactly what the plan is. What's going to be different under Gates vs. Rumsfeld? Or is this just a change of names on the door?

to leave the military without a SecDef during a time of war would not only be an inexcusable dereliction of duty, but would guarantee a Republican victory in 08. seriously, listen to yourselves.

Right. Better to rush through with no thought and no plan for what comes next. That's what was called OIF "rolling start", in case you don't remember, and one reason why things are FUBAR'd.

Check the exit poll data again. The American public wants some answers.

Democrats in tossup seats tended to be ... even essentially Republicans

Thanks for proving my point about dishoenst critiques, Nathan.

Really, you aren't at all good at this.

And he claims to be a lawyer, shortstop. Ford help his clients.

shortstop:

I misread one word. conflate me with Kerry if you must.

that anger against the war played a role in this election isn't disputed. that antiwar candidates won over "prowar" candidates isn't obvious at all.

Lieberman won, Lamont lost. Chafee has been as antiwar as any Democrat from the beginning. He lost. Duckworth was the cause-celebre antiwar candidate (besides Lamont), she lost.

Gregory; Of course you'd choose to see it that way, being the dishonest Republican apologist you are. Whether your prediction applies to the real world is another matter.

Since the GOP has lost the House, the Senate and the majority of governorships largely because of the cockup they call the Iraq War and their refusal to brook criticism of it, we can safely say that the majority of Americans would characterize questioning the new Bush SecDef as "long fucking overdue" rather than "hijacking a confirmation hearing."

Unlike the rethugs,The Dems will do the right thing and place Gates in the sod role.Any improvments in Iraq will get credited to the Dems.Life is a Bitch,Al Ah and friends.haah ha haha a hhahahaahha

Time to blow the dust off of "Spot the Political Chameleon" game.

I think if I was Rumsfeld, the last thing I'd want to have to do in the morning is sit down in front of cameras, lights and reporters and have to address the questions that were put to me.

This is what a true Republican does, people. When faced with the possibility that an adult is going to ask questions and not tolerate flip answers, shit-eating grins and shoulder shrugging, they quit.

They quit and run for cover and cry like a little bitch. That's what they do, and that's the end of this man and his permanent legacy is now cast in marble--thousands of Americans dead and the military smashed and ruined on his watch.

How many more? How many more of these Republicans are going to run from the truth and the accountability?

I just don't see any brave ones out there.

"No it wouldn't. The correct and appropriate way to engage Gates and the administration is to question exactly what the plan is. What's going to be different under Gates vs. Rumsfeld? Or is this just a change of names on the door?"

I agree with this. I read what Scotian said inaccurately.

what you missed was that Cranky and Hostile directly called for refusing to have a SecDef until 08. that would be heinous.

Gates in the "sod" role? Don't Haggard, Sherwood and Foley have that covered?

The correct and appropriate way to engage Gates and the administration is to question exactly what the plan is. What's going to be different under Gates vs. Rumsfeld?

Word. Especially after all the "Democrats don't have a plan to turn Bush's defeat in Iraq into a victory" bullshit. Let's make it crystal clear that the Bush Administration has fouled up but large, and that they have no answer but more dead American troops.

in regards to Update 4 -- why should Kaus' head explode? Isn't that what he has been predicting (and dreading)?

sorry, Hostile didn't want to leave our troops without a Sec of Defense for 2 years, just for a months. just as heinous.

"Democrats should filibuster the confirmaiton process until the new Senate is sworn into office."

ditto for Cranky:

So, will the existing Senate Dems (under the incredible leadership of Joe Lieberman) delay the confirmation hearing until after inauguration day

But I'm sketchy on which way he swings.
Posted by: joyousmn

you want to be careful when you say that about rethugs

I like Josh's take:

"Bush: I was for Rumsfeld before I was against him."

conflate me with Kerry if you must

Really, Nathan, you've provided abundant proof of your dishonest critiques. You don't have to provide any more.

But you just can't help yourself, can you?

Good Ford, I pity your clients.

Yeay! Long overdue. Finally someone in this ridiculous administration GOT the message that incompetence combined with arrogance leads only to disaster.

Wait ... I guess I have to retract everything I said in this thread. All Dems look alike to me and I get confused easily. Just ignore me.

Tony Snow says the Bush plan in Iraq is "to win".

That's not a plan. It's barely a goal.

Nathan -- The new Congress is seated two months from now, with a chunk of that time in holiday recess; hardly "heinous".

Bush is now emphasizing that Iraq was only one of many issues that decided the election. He seems pretty eager to downplay the idea that the election was a referendum on Iraq.

Bush needs to buy the latest self-help best seller: They're just not that into you: The no-excuses truth to understanding the American public.

Hostile didn't want to leave our troops without a Sec of Defense for 2 years, just for a months. just as heinous

So, Nathan, are we conclude that you'd consider that Rumsfeld's resigning -- in the middle of a war! -- leaving our troops without a Secretary of Defense (of course, you dishonestly omit that a an acting SecDef would be in place) is a heinous act?

The new Congress is seated two months from now, with a chunk of that time in holiday recess

Good point, that. Of course, that fact just slipped Nathan's mind.

Is that the same Mickey Kaus that appears on the sidebar to this site?

Why do you give that fucktard any time or space?

Come on, people--

Nathan doesn't have clients.

He has victims of his legal malpractice.

Fox News. D'oh!!! :

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Rumsfeld%20Has%20No%20Plans%20to%20Step%20Down%2C%20Despite%20Democrat%20Gains%22%20...%20FOX%20News&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

Duckworth was the cause-celebre antiwar candidate (besides Lamont), she lost.

Nathan, if you would bother to, you know, actually do some research instead of constantly falling back on hand-waving gross generalities pulled out of your arse, you might discover that Duckworth lost because she was seen as a Rahm-appointed carpet-bagger by the local progressives Dems, and so had no ground troops for GOTV. Yes, Rahm threw her $3M, but it takes more than $ to win. The progressive Cegelis would have walked away with the win, who did almost as well in 2004 against Hyde with a poorly funded campaign as Duckworth did this cycle against a relative noname and a mountain of cash.

This is just one example of how your analysis is f-ed up. Take a look at the progressive down in KY who won a GOP seat for another.

Now I await your argument that KY and DuPage county are part of the liberal NorthEast.

Where's Thomas1? I would like to accept that bet of his.

Yeah, its pretty funny that FOX News's article that Google has with its original headline "Rumsfeld Has No Plans to Step Down, Despite Democrat Gains ...", published a mere 2 hours ago, now links to a story with the new headline "Donald Rumsfeld Resigning as Defense Secretary".

Too bad major media websites don't do updates the way Political Animal does, otherwise it will still have the old title and content, with something at the end like:

"UPDATE 1: That didn't last long. Donald H. Rumsfeld is now stepping down as defense secretary and former CIA Director Robert Gates will be nominated to take his place. ..."

Thomas1 declared bankruptcy. Now posting as Chuck....see above?

cmdicely: Now we know the definition of "fair and balanced".

I think I'm going to take a nap. Between school and politics, I've had less than six hours sleep in the past three days, total. Back after a nap. Pale Rider, Shortstop, I hope you guys are still around when I get back. I've missed you both!!!

I'll give the President credit, it may have taken an election that decimated the Republicans and repudiated pretty much everything they have been pushing for the better part of six years but George Bush finally responded. The timing of the issue is good for Bush, it proves he is still relevant and it is good for Democrats as it buys them more time to come up with alternatives to Iraq and allows them to focus on stuff like minimum wage & ethics reforms. Everybody, and I do mean everybody wins and the President retakes tomorrow's newspaper headlines. Good politics that also happens to be good for the country. And guys like Al, Norman & American Hawk have mocked & questioned why we were pushing so hard for Democratic leadership in Congress. You just saw the first fruit of that labor.

We'd do better with no Secretary of Defense than we did with Rummy.

Even the Joint Chiefs would agree with that (quietly).

joyousmn >"So is Gates a PNAC'r? Anyone know about him?...I'm sketchy on which way he swings."

Does up to his eye balls in Iran-Contra mean anything to you ?

And I think, much like klyde suggested, you might want to reconsider your phrasing on that last item

"...A democracy which makes or effectively prepares for modern scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic." - Aldous Huxley

As somebody asked upthread, where were all these voters in 2004 Nov? The ones who voted democratic yesterday!

Was'nt the incompetence of this administration just as evident in 2004?

what you missed was that Cranky and Hostile directly called for refusing to have a SecDef until 08. that would be heinous.

Uh, given the heckuva job a Bush appointee Secretary of Defense would likely do, what would be truly heinous would be confirming Gates instead of, say, a potted plant...

No, I don't believe Gates is in PNAC. He's in the Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker.

Now that Rumsfeld is not so busy any more, maybe someone in Iraq would like to put him on trial for something.

Chuck >"Independent Counsel Walsh determined that Gates' Iran/contra activities and testimony did not warrant prosecution. The Independent Counsel made this decision subject to developments..."

Oh yea, that whitewash

The real story is still buried in the bureaucratic record (remember that Bush Jr. blocked release of those records early on in his appointment)

"There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth." - Richard Avedon

Now that Rumsfeld is not so busy any more, maybe someone in Iraq would like to put him on trial for something.

Or we could just hold him without access to counsel while we employ some alternative interrogation techniques on him. Hey, if he's done nothing wrong, he has nothing to worry about.

Disputo:

Very on-point to Nathan about Cegelis vs Duckworth. My thoughts on the Dem's ideological balance from the earlier thread.

Bob

Nathan:

Read twice write once next time, although given your track record maybe that should be read five times before writing once. This is far from the first time you have done this to my writings (let alone the many times I have watched you do this to the writings of others here) Nathan, and while I'll accept the apology it does not change my assessment of your nature nor your purpose at this blog.

Disputo:

Dammit, wrong url. Here's that pesky permalink.

Bob

I think Bush knew a week ago that Rummy would resign if the Democrats beat the shit out of the Republicans. Classic falling on the sword. In the unlikely event the Rs kept control of the House, Bush would be gloating today and Rumsfeld would finish out the final two years of Shrub's Reign.

"We must not rest until Rumsfeld and McNamara are imprisoned."

Is somebody having a flashback to 1972? ::grin::

One name to consider. Bobby Ray Inman. The R's tried to tear him up when Clinton nominated him to replace Les Aspin. A Bush appointment might fly. Inman was an NSA officer under Reagan, so he would pass muster with Republicans and he has come out against the NSA domestic spying program, so he would have Democratic support.

We were talking in the office about the fallout from Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation. One colonel pointed out that we should get some slack from Washington for a couple months, since both Congress and the Pentagon have both turned into self-licking ice cream cones.

That sounds like something a (full) Colonel would say.

Trashhauler - what did you think of the Military Times editorial?

Mr Macho Stick-To-His-Guns Rugged Individualist Cowboy. he's just another all-hat-no-cattle bullshit con man.

don't you clowns feel sad for defending him for the past 6 years? doesn't it sting a little inside, knowing you're putting so much effort into such a total loser?
No, more then when you constantly try to put Bush into a description that you can hate, rather then look at what he does.
It must be great to always be right - Bush sucks because (a) he doesn't change (b) he isn't the stick to your guns. Answer given after you see what happens!

And my answer was, they're going to stay on.

Translation: I lied to your faces.

And the reason why is I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign.

Yes, god forbid the American voters be able to get accurate information about a war being fought in their name so they can make an informed decision when they vote. Far better for Bush to lie and cover-up.

And so the only way to answer that question, and to get you on to another question, was to give you that answer.

This is one of the most breathtaking admissions of sheer outright dishonesty I've ever heard. He's out and out admitting that he lied to them because they were asking an inconvenient questions, and the reason he lied was for partisan political gain in an election.

Still, it's not like Bush lied about getting a blowjob--from a woman. From Gannon/Guckert, who knows?

No, more then when you constantly try to put Bush into a description that you can hate, rather then look at what he does.

he's an lying, petulant, fraudulent, idiotic, incompetent idiot. those are plain facts.

Bush sucks because (a) he doesn't change (b) he isn't the stick to your guns.

it's sad that you can't read.

Global Citizen wrote:

Trashhauler - what did you think of the Military Times editorial?
__________________

Haven't read them, GC. Most of us formed our own personal opinions long ago. As far as that goes, I don't think the various Times editorial boards got very far ahead of general opinion, do you?

Not that it mattered, of course. Opinions are like a$$holes - everyone's got one. Professional ethics forbade us from making our personal opinions public while he was in the chain of command.

"And my answer was, they're going to stay on"

This was like a Board of Regents giving a vote of confidence, by a vote of 3-2, to a losing coach. As the announcement is being made, they are frantically seeking a replacement.

However, one of the little smirks on the chimp's face today was when he said that Robert Gates was an alum of Texas A & M. (Ah, those Aggie jokes in the Oval Office).

Well, Gates has just announced that in order to bring our troop level up to strength, he will activate the entire student body of A & M. He said that he felt the Army has always needed a "Twelfth Man".

Stefan,

I could hardly believe it when GWB admitted to lying in order to affect the election; it seems like the reporters were stunned as well.

The first order of biz for the Dem congress should be to get that idiot under oath ASAP.

Disputo: I could hardly believe it when GWB admitted to lying in order to affect the election; it seems like the reporters were stunned as well.

Me, neither. Something tells me we'll see as much of Bush during the next two years as was seen of Woodrow Wilson near the end of his term. As Smirky's disintegration hastens, they'll just trot him out for Kennedy Center concerts and the occasional South Lawn (waving at reporters from a distance) stroll. Every once in a while, a Cabinet member will tell reporters outside of the WH, "I just spoke to the president and he's doing great. We discussed blah blah blah."

But Smirky himself will be conspicuous in his absence.

Bush is going to nominate Rick Santorum for SCOTUS. We'll see if the Democrats have the guts to turn down a candidate as strong as that. I bet they won't.

I'll tell you, few things have been as funny today as watching "Chuck" frantically twist, flail, squirm and writhe in hot boiling shame. At this point I'm just out and out laughing at him....

And so the only way to answer that question, and to get you on to another question, was to give you that answer.

You left out of the transcript Bush's trademark smirky chuckle that followed that statement. The reporters present were not as amused. (video: here

"Are you certain you are laughing at the REAL Chuck?"

Yup. Next question?

it is not the job of the President of the United States, during wartime, to "amuse" reporters.

Maybe you know that, and I know that, but Dimwit in Chief doesn't seem to know that. Heh-heh.

It is just amazing the way these same old names and faces from the Reagan/Bush I era keep getting recycled - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Negroponte, Elliot Abrams, and now, Robert Gates. All criminals, all highly disdainful of representative democracy and all hard-right ideologues. Appalling.

Anyone who thinks Robert Gates is a breath of fresh air, simply doesn't know their history and doesn't have a proper appreciation of how the CIA got us into this mess in many ways, by their covert support of evil men like Saddam, bin Laden, Noriega, et al.

Expect more bad decisions, more waste of human life and taxpayer dollars and treachery....

Good God, this is like a nightmare that just won't end.....

I enjoyed the stony reportorial silences that followed Henny Bushman's high-quality humor today.

shortstop: As Smirky's disintegration hastens

i don't know...its weird how during the news conference how often he had to look down at his talking points...

but..

on more than one occasion...in responding to reporters...he had laser-like recall of the exact words he used...

those things seem at odds...

those things seem at odds...

Well, they are, mr. irony. Which healthcare professional among us can identify the exact cognitive disorder(s) this sort of thing points to?

Which healthcare professional among us can identify the exact cognitive disorder(s) this sort of thing points to?

Cognitive disorder? Maybe. Though it seems to me the sign of someone whose just plain scared as hell. No recall problem, and just looking at the talking points out of nervousness and fear and need for the reassurance.

cmdicely, cmdicely, these problems aren't mutually exclusive!

(At any rate, it's rather fruitless but highly entertaining to speculate.)

It is just amazing the way these same old names and faces from the Reagan/Bush I era keep getting recycled - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Negroponte, Elliot Abrams, and now, Robert Gates. All criminals, all highly disdainful of representative democracy and all hard-right ideologues. Appalling.

I agree... however, Gates can't really be considered a neocon. He is more in the Baker mold of a US imperialist.

Call me jaded, but that does appear to be a tiny step forward, to go from an ideology of incompetent large-scale imperialistic adventures to an ideology of competent small to medium-scale imperialistic adventures.

Ok, maybe I *am* too jaded.

I agree, disputo-- we're moving from a fantasy-based amoralist to a reality-based amoralist.

If Gates is able to resist the Reagan conservative's natural inclination to support death squads, he will be about as big a step forward in Iraq as can be imagined from this administration.

Gotta disagree, Disputo and Tom Tomberg. Gates is more of the same old, same old. He is an ex-CIA spook, which means dirty dealing and secret funding of bad guys.

Why didn't Bush do something really dramatic and name a Democrat, like Murtha or Kerry to SecDef? Remember Bill Clinton reached across the aisle to name William Cohen to the post, and he may have been the best War Secretary ever. How many American soldiers died on his watch? Damn few. Talk about "Mission Accomplished"!

The Conservative Deflator wrote:

Why didn't Bush do something really dramatic and name a Democrat, like Murtha or Kerry to SecDef? Remember Bill Clinton reached across the aisle to name William Cohen to the post, and he may have been the best War Secretary ever. How many American soldiers died on his watch? Damn few. Talk about "Mission Accomplished"!
___________________

Really? When did casualties become the predominant measure of mission success? For that matter, what steps did Secretary Cohen take to avoid them?

Really? When did casualties become the predominant measure of mission success? For that matter, what steps did Secretary Cohen take to avoid them?

What is the measure of mission success? That would be stability in Iraq. What's causing the instability? Attacks on US personnel and Iraqi civilians.

That's why we measure our casualties AND those of the Iraqis, to determine how stable the country is or is not.

Now, if the Iraqi government has decided that the number of its citizens being killed is so high, they don't dare let that info out, and because our own DoD can't very well hide the number of troops killed, what other metric would you like to use?

Ooooooh, that's right.

How many schools we painted.

I get it now. In a place like Iraq, we're the occupying force trying to bring stability to the country so that the political process can work. Since that's now out of control, chaotic, and the Iraqi government can't control its own police forces and stop the violence, casualties probably end up being an unfair measurement of how incompetent Rumsfeld has been, but there it is.

And Cohen sabotaged Clark from the get-go by refusing to allow for the possibility of troops on the ground in Kosovo. Go read the history of the conflict between Clark--who wasn't afraid to use American troops the correct way--and Cohen, who knew there was no political capital in the Clinton Administration that could guarantee the success of the mission if it involved US troops.

That's where the inherent dishonesty of the Republican Party lives--in how they rose up, en masse, and left Clark, the commander on the ground, and Clinton no possibility of using American troops in Kosovo.

Just keep that in mind--you know, in case anyone thinks that Bush, as the Commander in Chief, thinks he can just keep stumbling along with Gates and keep getting our troops killed in Iraq so that he doesn't have to take responsibility for his actions and withdraw our troops. I think they should defund the Iraq mission and bring the troops home and save American lives, period. What you have right now is madness, and it's time to stop throwing away lives for something that has spun out of control.

That's a great word to close on--responsibility. Clark was willing to take it. Will anyone take it after today?

chuck: A "Democrat" like Joseph Lieberman?

right..

leave a new 6-year meal ticket...

to take a no win job like sec. def.

only a buddy of daddy's would be crazy enough to take it..

Outsourcing company
access_control_solutions
advantage
application_development_india
application_development_using_java
application_maintenance
application_porting
biometric_application_development
card_software_development
client_server_application_development
client_server_based_application
custom_application_development
database_application_development
database_solutions
develop_offshore_software
development_model_in_outsourcing
development_services
application_integration
enterprise_application_development
it_outsourcing
it_outsourcing_india
j2ee_application_development
java_application_development
java_card
java_card_applet_development
java_card_consultancy
java_card_programmers
java_card_programming
java_card_solutions
java_consulting
java_j2ee_development

java_programmers
loyality_solutions
loyality_solutions_on_card
major_benefits
microsoft_net_development
migration_porting
migration_services_software
mobile_application_development
mobile_solutions
net_application_development
odc_offshore_center
offshore_development
offshore_development_center
offshore_india_company
offshore_outsourcing
offshore_outsourcing_india
offshore_outsourcing_services
offshore_partner
offshore_product_development
offshore_programming
offshore_programming_india
offshore_services_of_realitexperts
offshore_software
offshore_software_development
offshore_software_development_to_india
offshore_software_india
offshore_software_programming
oracle_consulting

oracle_consulting_companies
oracle_migration
oracle_outsourcing
oracle_outsourcing_solution
oracle_programming
oracle_solutions
outsourced_product_development
outsourcing
outsourcing_application_development
outsourcing_common_fears_faq.
outsourcing_meaning
outsourcing_oracle_application
outsourcing_software_india
outsourcing_to_india
palm_application_development
pl_sql_programming
pos_programming
post_rfp_rfi
Title
programming_j2ee
programming_smart_card
programming_using_net
quality_engineering
site_map
smart_card
smart_card_consultancy
smart_card_development
smart_card_programmers
smart_card_programming
smart_card_solutions
software_application_development
software_development
software_development_india
software_development_outsourcing
software_migration
software_outsourcing
software_outsourcing_center
software_outsourcing_company
software_outsourcing_india
terminal_application_development
vb_application_development
vendors
web_enabling_legacy_application
web_enabling_legacy_applications
web_services
why_realitexperts
windows_application_development
wireless_application_development
wireless_mobile_application_development
wireless_solutions
xml_application_development
xml_development
outsourcing_application_development
software_development_outsourcing
development_services