the bad things about rumselfd leaving the sec. def. post:

[NoodleBoy]

1.) changing middle-level leadership in the middle of a war to someone who probably doesn't have experience in these sorts of matters.

and

2.) the bush administration has floated several times since 2004 the notion that they want Lieberman to be their new secretary of defense, giving their "there are no moderate-to-conservative democrats anymore" campaign theme some more life.

[acmavm]

1. Are you serious about No. 1???????????????????????????

[JohnnyRingo]

7. Rumsfeld was a Navy aviator instructor in A-4 fighter jets.

While he saw no combat action during his between the wars stint, he did watch "The Geen Berets" starring John Wayne several times after he was discharged. He was also known to play "battleship" at the mess and according to his comrades was "unbeatable" as he stared down opponents with his trademark pipe clenched tightly in his teeth.

No...We'll never find another one like Rumsfeld.

[NoodleBoy]

10. I'm not saying he's the best person for the job, what I'm saying is

I don't think a new sec. def. would get used to the new job fast enough. During the learning curve period, we could see the department of defense descend into chaos as more situations unfold around the world and their new head trying to master the position.

other then that, Rumsfeld served on the armed services committee during his time in the house, was ambassador to NATO and then secretary of defense during the Nixon-Ford administration, served on a few military advisory committees during Reagan and Bush I, and was known as a foreign policy wonk. Probably the only "good" replacement for him would be a former sec. def. like Bill Cohen or one of the current undersecretaries, but there's no way the Bush administration would pass up the chance to score some cheap political points just for the sake of good policy.

and yes, I know I'll be accused of being a freeper soon enough. it's happened before.

[JohnnyRingo]

14. I'll grant you that you know the facts

And that they're valid enough.

I just think that "Rummy" has ties too close to the people who got us in this mess to begin with and probably doesn't care to make any moves to get us out. How 'bout Powell?...or Myers? They may not be better, but they know what they're doing, they're Republicans, and it would look like Buxh was at least trying to change direction a little.

Besides...I just dont like the way Rumsfeld looks
Some kind of Dr Death, or something.

[madame defarge]

2. On the other hand...

Making Lieberman Sec. of Defense will take him out of the senate race for CT, and give Ned Lamont an even better chance.

I think Rummy needs to go, regardless. He's more dangerous as Sec. of Defense. We need someone who is willing to listen to dissenting voices and alternative solutions. And that goes for the rest of this administration too.

[blondeatlast]

3. Edit--Agree on the second point.

New blood is crucial or we'll never get out of Iraq and more lives will be senselessly lost on all sides.

Any good administrator (in any field) will listen to the grunts who see a problem developing before it gets out of hand.

Rummy can't and won't and I'll be damned if I want to see another life lost to his hubris and arrogance.

Go to hell, Rumsfeld, but I suspect that's redundant.

I don't think Lieberman is the right man for the job, though.

Making him Sec. of Defense might be worse than having him in the Senate--in fact, I'm betting on it.

[Atman]

4. An ORTHODOX JEW running the war against Muslims?

How insane do we have to get in America before we just implode into a black hole of madness?

We might as well just start lobbing nukes over there now.

:eyes:

[madame defarge]

13. Sorry...

Clearly I hadn't had enough coffee this morning and wasn't thinking straight. Of course it would be a bad idea for Lieberman to be Sec. of Defense, given the current political climate and the Middle East crisis. On the other hand, this administration has done stupid things all along, so why would it be a surprise if they did this...

[radfringe]

5. on the other hand

if rummy is replaced by Lieberman, and Lieberman is capable of handling the job the way it should be done - it give the dems some "points"

as in - "Democrats can handle the job of fighting the war on terror better than the republicans...."

[karynnj]

8. Lieberman's idea of the "way it should be done"

is likely to be very very different than most Democrats. I doubt Kerry, Feingold or Murtha held their Breath waiting for Lieberman to back their plans. Another problem is that the President would still call the shots so even if he put Murtha as Secretary of Defense - it wouldn't mean Murtha could do whatever he wanted.

It would also likely be used in 2008 to say, well a Democrat has been running the war and it's no better.

[Toots]

6. I reject the premise that any bad could come from Rummy's leaving

When you find yourself in a hole you probably should quit digging...:shrug:

[gratuitous]

9. I'll go along with that

The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. Rumsfeld's incompetence and mismanagement merely intensifies the incompetence and mismanagement of the Bush administration as a whole.

[saltpoint]

11. I'm not sure 'experience' has done Uncle Don that much good, though.

He's screwed this project up from Day One and it's getting worse instead of better.

His own generals are publicly calling for his head.

If -- a big IF, I concede -- you were going to replace Donald Rumsfeld, you would want to go outside the BushCo alignment. It's layers deep, so it would be difficult. But not impossible.

When Clinton chose William Cohen, it was refreshing and politically interesting and effective. I supported that move. But of course Clinton had the character and the cojones to make bold political moves whereas Dubya has neither.

There are many qualified people to do that job. Rumsfeld's got the polished IQ but his smarts are given over to the dark side. He's smart enough to know he's cooked, and that he won't last the full 2nd term of Bush's presidency, and that historians will regard him as the once-promising guy who came to preside over a disastrous spasm of American imperialism, supported in embarrassing part by torture centersat Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

[cliss]

12. Here's my take:

1) I agree that changing leadership would be a strange thing, right in the middle of 2 wars. And that's probably why they'll hang on to Rumsfailed of a while longer.

2) Lieberman? I can't think of a worse person for the job. Lieberman is really out of touch; he's nothing but a butt-kisser. NO WAY will the PNAC ever put a Dem in charge of the military.

They'll pick one of the PNAC signatories, like William Kristol, maybe Krauthammer, Jeb?

[saltpoint]

15. I'm still open to other suggestions, but the more I think about it the

more I hope Rumsfeld is fired.

And I confess, I wanted him fired before he was even appointed.

He has not impressed me with his altruism since forever.