throw out the bum... or not

[rone]

thanks to dagbrown for the link

"Don Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defense the United States has ever had," Cheney said in a statement from his office late on Saturday.

Wow... BEST. DEFENSE SEC'Y. EVAR.  Rumsfeld, in many more ways than one, is no Robert McNamara, you know?  Sure, he's unpopular because the media hate his snobbish, condescending attitude.  And his memory is very selective, and he loves playing silly buggers with semantics.  But does that mean he's doing a BAD job?  No!  But IS he doing a bad job?  Well... yeah.

"Americans want to keep Rumsfeld on the job. Why? Because the guy in the glasses they see on TV is the guy who is protecting them by going after the terrorists. That's who he is to the average American. That's the place he's earned since 9/11," [Cheney spokestoad Kevin] Kellems said.

Does that mean that Tom "Eddie Munster" Ridge isn't doing squat and we can fire his ass?

Seriously, [yes, i'm starting a paragraph with a lonely adverb, i know] should Rumsfeld lose his job?  It's not going to help the Iraq situation, because that's White House policy, and Rumsfeld might have instigated it, but getting rid of him isn't going to change it.  Removing him from office would be symbolic at best.  As Todd McComb pointed out, it would be like a sports team firing the coach after a bad season, when the problem is the suck-ass players and the clowns who put the team together.  Would i be glad to see him go?  Probably. Will he be replaced by someone better?  Unlikely.  Will things improve? Well, i don't want to say, "they can't get any worse," because so far, they are.

In other news, on MSNBC, there was some Flash movie that depicted the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere, and described one of the phases thus: "The Earth absorbs heat from the sun and radiates it back into space in the form of infrared radiation."  Much in the way the seas absorb rain from the skies, which then evaporates back into the air in the form of dihydrogen monoxide, i'm guessing.

Comments

[jeff2001.livejournal.com]

I've been going over this in my mind too, feeling piqued at the naivete of the lemmings who leap on the Fire Rumsfeld petition bandwagon. But, hey, you know...it's possible it sends a message to the rest of the world saying, "Hey, if things like this happen, then we'll take real steps to do something about it." I don't know. There's always another Bushy stooge to take his place, and besides, if Kerry wins Rumsfeld's out come January anyway.

But, of course, it's not Rumsfeld who got funkeh with the swarthy-smooth naqed Iraqis...it's troglodytic shitkickers brought up in trailer parks. And I don't know what one can do about that -- the military is always, I'll wager, going to be top-heavy with bottom-dwellers, the ignorant, the uneducated, the inbred, the jingoistic. I don't know how firing Rumsfeld would ever change that.

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

Rumsfield should keep his job, because if they fire his miserable ass, I will no longer be able to claim that it is impossible to be fired for incompetence or malfeasence in the Bush administration.

And, um, that's important. Gotta keep these streaks alive. :)

[rimrunner.livejournal.com]

"Infrared radiation"?

Oh, dear.

I really dont think he should be fired

[bebopmonkey.livejournal.com]

I think he should STAND DOWN. Sometimes i wish the congress was more like parliament. When they dont like something someone's saying, they start jeering and yelling. You gotta be able to really DEBATE over there.

In the house hearings when they interviewed Rumsfeld, he said that it would serve no purpose for him to quit, but then when he was asked if it would help mitigate the damge to the US image cause by the scandal, he begrudgingly said "yes." My thoughts exactly.

BOOOOOOO!

p.s.

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

Most accurate summation of why Rumsfeld won't be leaving anytime soon is here:

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/week_2004_05_02.html#003273

[erikred.livejournal.com]

Seriously, [yes, i'm starting a paragraph with a lonely adverb, i know] should Rumsfeld lose his job? It's not going to help the Iraq situation, because that's White House policy, and Rumsfeld might have instigated it, but getting rid of him isn't going to change it. Removing him from office would be symbolic at best. As Todd McComb pointed out, it would be like a sports team firing the coach after a bad season, when the problem is the suck-ass players and the clowns who put the team together. Would i be glad to see him go? Probably. Will he be replaced by someone better? Unlikely. Will things improve? Well, i don't want to say, "they can't get any worse," because so far, they are.

The resignation of Rumsfeld will not heal all wounds in Iraq, make the US look like heroes to the Arab world, or kill bad breath and the germs that cause bad breath. It would, however, be the honorable thing for him to do. In fact, it would be the honorable thing for each person in the chain of command from the perps on up to do. Those who do not voluntarily resign should be courtmartialed.

What good would that do? It would show the military that the current policy of sweeping the scandals under the carpet is over. It would show the world that the US takes its role as the self-appointed harbinger of democracy seriously. It would show our children that there are consequences to action and the lack of action, and that people in power both understand and respect those consequences.

It would restore a modicum of morality and ethics to the current Administration.

As a critic of the current Administration, I am overjoyed to see that there's not a chance in hell of them doing this; it's nice to have foes who are so unequivocally and unapologetically evil and stupid.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

I don't think that they're evil and stupid (well, at least not unequivocally and unapologetically... well, OK, they're unequivocal and unapologetic, and they're evil and stupid, but not all at the same time...)

Um, where was i? Oh, right. I don't think that they're evil and stupid, exactly. They're firmly committed to a plan that advances an agenda that, on paper, gives them a lot. The agenda is moronic, the plan is foolish, and the men who came up with them are myopic and intransigent, and the results will bring nothing but woe to both Iraqis and Americans. But there is no evil intent, and stupid men don't get to positions of power. They can, however, become stupid (http://slate.msn.com/id/2100064/).

Maybe i'm too cynical, but any such resignations in politics do not involve honor. There is no honor in politics. A resignation or firing only occurs if it is politically expedient to do so. If there was any honor to start with, he would have never embarked on such a fool's errand in the first place.

[omarius.livejournal.com]

As Todd McComb pointed out, it would be like a sports team firing the coach after a bad season, when the problem is the suck-ass players and the clowns who put the team together.

Hmm. Well, if Bush fires him, at least he can go coach the Redskins.

Oh wait! They hired the Best. Coach. Evar.

So close.

[avocado123.livejournal.com]

Well, i don't want to say, "they can't get any worse," because so far, they are.

You've noticed that, too? Funny.

What scares me are, like someone else said, the kinds of lemmings who jump on the Fire Rumsfeld! bandwagon. So far, those who think he should be fired are those who think all the bad things about war are his fault. Hey, I may be living in a bottom-dwelling, ignorant, uneducated, inbred and jingoistic trailer park, but I know the blame for this tragedy cannot be laid squarely on Rumsfeld. He's the scapegoat, the one who, for the good of the party or Bush or whatever, is taking one for the Gipper.

So to speak.

When do we get to bomb those commie Frenchies into oblivion?

[dreamcarnival.livejournal.com]

I thought I'd said this in a longwinded comment I just reread and deleted, but see I never got around to getting to the point..

My main reaction to the situation is that the immediate officers supervising those privates should be court martialed right away, as should anyone else (psy ops? what idiots..) who had a role in giving the orders that led to the torture behavior. Rumsfeld is mainly responsible for his own mistakes, I think, so if he has been shown to have done something wrong himself, in that case people could talk about removing him. There can be a new sec. of defense by voting those people out, if people want to see a change at the top.