Rumsfeld steps down
 

According to AP

Republican officials said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down. Word came a day after the Democratic gains in the election, in which Rumsfeld was a focus of much of the criticism of the Iraq war.

Earlier today, a spokesman for Rumsfeld said he'd given no indication that he would step down in the wake of Democratic election gains. The spokesman said Rumsfeld would work with Congress on Iraq but added that the focus on stabilizing the country will remain the same.

In the days leading up to the election, President Bush said he wanted Rumsfeld to stay on as defense chief until the end of Bush's second term.

Hmm, I haven't read or heard any details yet, just bare bones:

http://www.dailyillini.com/media/sto...ailyillini.com

Does he want to spend more time with his family? Or has a previously unknown health problem cropped up?

Bush is giving a news conference right now and has confirmed that Rumsfeld is stepping down as defense secretary. CIA Director Robert Gates will take over. Bush says he and Rumsfeld agreed "the timing is right for new leadership" at the Pentagon.

Wow - I mean, not a huge surprise, but the fact that it's actually happening...just wow.

I'm watching the press conference... is Bush drunk? Perhaps he hasn't sobered up after last night. I'm not even being smart here.

Punch-drunk, most likely. I'm really surprised he made this announcement today. Don't you think it would have been a better strategy for the Republicans to announce it BEFORE the elections?

I'd like to quote a song:

"Nah nah. Nah nah nah nah. Hey hey hey! Goodbye!"

Well, would you be in a good frame of mind knowing your cabinet is falling out from under you and you are losing the House and Senate to a bunch of liberal democrats?

Addressing the country while drunk though? Or being so emotionally distressed that you sound drunk? Inappropriate. Delay the speech if you can't handle it.

AMEN.
Maybe if he had been in a frame of mind, any frame of mind, from the get-go he wouldn't have to recognize these facts. But he couldn't seem to get down from his ivory tower, or out of Cheney and Rummy's ass long enough recognize that the overwhelming majority of Americans are dissatisfied with his leadership.
And AMEN.

He didn't seem or sound drunk to me.

If last night's election results are like eating a big ass bowl of ice cream... Rumsfeld resigning this morning is like getting to lick that ice cream off of a hawt nekkid guy!!

Me neither - and I don't think the appropriateness question even is remotely relevant (and I don't get what was inappropriate about it).

It would be more "inappropriate" to not address the country on the subject, in my opinion. Then, you'd get the "Where is Bush on this why isn't he speaking OMGWTF?!?!"

I'm totally going based on someone else's description. It's not a let down to the country if the President doesn't address them immediately. How many people actually watched anyway?

I think if the Defense Secretary resigns, and you don't hear from the President right away, the public won't be very happy. That may just be my read on it though.

Thanks Rumsfeld, for your career of service to your country.

I think the media'd care, but not the people

Next to fall: Bolton takes a dive off the UN Bldg.

I did, and I'm sure millions watched also. There are plenty of retirees, stay at home parents, students, people who work from home, and people who have access to television at work. Plus there are clips online at the network websites.

I just watched the President again. He introduced Gates as Rumsfeld's replacement.

I completely agree.

I guess I'd challenge how many actually tried to watch and how many saw it because it was there. How many people would miss it if it hadn't happened?

Are you serious?

You've admitted you didn't watch and thus have no real basis for your criticism, and now you're fighting an insanely irrelevant uphill battle in some effort to 'win' the argument? Why?

Stop. Maybe even get back to the OP.

Why are you trying to make an argumet about this? You're an idiot if you don't think this was something that should have been adressed immediately.

One can only dream...

As for Rummy - now that the House and Senate are Democrat does that mean he'll be called to account for his planning and policies ~ or his myriad of mistakes? One can only dream for this as well I fear... it's just too bad he took the easy way out of office.

Bolton is awesome.

If by "awesome" you mean "disgustingly arrogant and ignorant" then - well bash on... the guy is a moron who makes noises about 'whah - the UN is wrong and corrupt, it must be changed' while at the same time blocking every attempt to reform or change anything at the UN...

RA, I imagine Bolton is far more intelligent than you, so I don't think "moron" reflects well upon yourself. I like his arrogance, I know those in the foreign community would prefer America fund the UN and give it legitimacy without demanding a voice, but thankfully with Bolton that isn't the case.

I'd be esctatic that the legislature was run by a bunch of liberal Democrats. :)

Are you sure you're not from Mass?

I just don't know where I'm supposed to be from.

Being intelligent doesn't mean that one isn't a moron or ignorant - after Bush is supposedly intelligent...

Arrogance is one of the worst traits a diplomat can have, so I don't see how it can impress you... as for the UN funding - well as a foreigner I was happy to see Clinton pay off the US debts, and Bush to continue some funding. While yes the US deserves a voice, an important voice even, at the UN - that doesn't mean that it should be the leading or demanding voice; no country should have that at the UN.

RA, when the UN begins to represent US interests like it does the enemies of the US, maybe we'll care more.

Well then I guess you and others like you will never care - because you're missing the point that the UN isn't supposed to represent US or any other one particular country's intrests; it's supposed to represent the interests of the global community.

Buh-bye!!! *PARTY* Dummy Rummy is gone!!!

Hahahaha :D

Sorry but I'm at RCMI doing planning for Friday's and Saturday's ceremonies... and some of the "happier" members here just did a rendition of 'Ding Dong The Witch is Dead' dedicated to Rummy... I almost don't have the heart to ruin their fun by telling them that Rummy's departure won't mean the end of partisan reps from the Pentagon...

RA, I see some of what you're saying, the UN doesn't really need to stick up for the US. However, they take action that is not only not in our best interest, but often seriously opposed to it.

So? Every country has that happen... including us UN-lovin' Canadians.

RA, hmmmm, not so sure about that.

Good riddance.

Off the top I've my head I can think of the blocking of UN reforms ;)

But against Canadian interests? Blocking of peacekeeping missions, redirection of humanitarian aid, the "Northwest Passage" not be declared Canadian national waters, a couple of cases where the UN sided with Native Canadians against the government, fishing rights of the east coast (grand banks)... and of course a myriad of other multilateral iniatives - which given Canada's interest in multilateralism and international laws is against Canadian interests...

I'd rather the US not avail themselves of UN "law." What peacekeeping missions were blocked that were in Canada's interest?