Oh ok. Now I understand. Thanks for answering. :)

At this point, I'm leaning toward Kerry, but I think this is ill-advised. I don't much like Rumsfeld and his arrogant style, but I think this is the wrong time to change SecDef's.

Thanks Rudey! You crack me up! :D

This is a terrible move by Kerry to try and politicize the prison abuse scandal in Iraq. Kerry would have been much better served by stating at a time like this we must investigate the abuses (which is already being done) but we cannot place our soldiers in more harms way. This makes me wonder if Kerry even wants to see success in Iraq under Bush's watch. Would Kerry place his chance at winning the presidency over completing our mission in Iraq?

Dumb and dumber...
 

So now Rumsfeld pulls a "sneak" visit to Iraq and the prison. How will this not look like a PR/Damage Control move (stunt?)

To repeat myself, I'm not fond of him, but this is not the time to change SecDef's.

This could easily backfire (see aircraft carrier speech about the end of combat) and give his detractors more ammunition.

Re: Dumb and dumber...
 

So he's responsible to so many people but these same people don't think he should go in an look around himself.

-Rudey

Re: Dumb and dumber...
 

"Whoa Donny! Too little, too late."

If Rumsfeld did not go to Iraq and visit the prisons, then people would be criticizing the fact that he didn't go. Either way, people are going gripe about what he chooses to do.

I personally feel calling for Rumsfelds job is a tad extreme. I think that the persons responsible should be discharged, and their superiors disciplined. This is akin to the Attorney General losing his job every time someone breaks the law.

Well, not really when you think about it.

Lawbreakers don't report directly to the Attorney General. You might make that case if a US Attorney breaks the law, I suppose.

Since you say that the "superiors" should be "disciplined, the question is where the proverbial buck really stops. If the Secretary of Defense runs the Military Services, is that where the ultimate responsibility ends? Or, since the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Military, does it go all the way up to him? Or someday, her?

I was thinking immediate superiors. I meant that Rumsfeld is as responsible for the U.S. military like Schwarzenegger is responsible for the state of California. Things go on in their jurisdiction without either one knowing, simply because of the considerable size of the area they are responsible for.

why won't any of you dems answer the question I posed earlier. Do you think Kerry places his presidential chances above our success in Iraq?

I'm not a Democrat -- nor am I a Republican. However, I would say the answer to your question is no.

It's a sticky situation because folks who are against the war are torn between their (sometimes strongly held) beliefs and support of the Nation. I think that's where Kerry falls.

I think that's where the term "Loyal Opposition" comes from.

Having said that, this has been a particularly dirty campaign on both sides, and who knows what will happen in the next several months.

ETA for mrblonde,

Just how far up the ladder the "blame" goes is one of the hard questions that will be decided in the next few weeks. In a perfect model, the President is the Commander In Chief of the Military and, as such, has the final responsibility for everything it does. Of course it's ridiculous to assume he can do that, but still, in a perfect world, that's where the "buck" would stop.

President Bush is making a great show of support for Secretary Rumsfeld at the moment, but if the scandal really gets out of hand and it appears it could/will affect the campaign, I don't think he will hesitate to hang the blame on Rumsfeld and cut him loose.

(Before anyone goes nuts, I think probably ANY professional politician would do the same thing.)

And, to repeat, I think this would be a terrible time to replace the Secretary of Defense. Assume that Kerry might win -- Two new SecDef's in a little over six months while we're fighting a war. Bad News. Assume Bush wins, as I recall it's custom for all Cabinet Members to resign and be reappointed. Past Presidents have taken that opportunity to replace members who are a political liability. I think Rumsfeld will be let go -- so again, two SecDef's in a very short time.

Obviously, if Bush wins, he could re-appoint whomever he might have to appoint "now", but I suspect he would use somebody who is already in place (like an Asst. SecDef) who he can get through the Senate quickly, and then replace him/her after the election. Again, only speculation on my part, but it often seems to work that way.

Something to ponder.

Of course he would. So would Bush if the situation is reversed. They are politicans. They do this kind of stuff all the time. They try to screw with each other so much, that they really don't even care about the country.

I agree, I think they should start debating now so everyone can see John Kerry flip-flop on every major issue, just like he's been doing for the last 20 years!

Don't be an ass--- VOTE ELEPHANT BUSH '04