Are calls for Rummy's resig really disguised calls for Bush's resignation?

[Stinky The Clown]

I contend they are.

No matter where the calls for Rummy's ouster are from, they're in effect calls for Bush to be gone.

Impeachment by proxy?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Do you think the military would take over if Bush goes too far

like nuking Iran?

[Stinky The Clown]

4. In a word .... no.

If the military were bent on takeover, we'd not be seeing this (nearly) unprecedented call-out by the retirees. The retirees are speaking not only for themselves but also for the guys still on active duty.

Ditto for Murtha. You can bet your last dollar he's on every one of their speed dials.

I don't think there's any real chance that a coup is even possible, let alone fantasized about.

[CanuckAmok]

7. There's a very interesting panel discussion in Harper's about just that.

The consensus is "no".

http://www.harpers.org/MostRecentCover.html

[napi21]

2. I doubt it because people realize THAT just won't happen!

Wether it's true in this admin or not, I don't know, but most Presidents let their DOD Sec. plan and execute a war. If it goes badly, the FIRST one to take the hit is the Sec. The President takes a secondary hit in his popularity...as we've seen.

[Jai4WKC08]

12. Normally that would be true

But Cheney was in the middle of planning this war. And much of what Rummy did, and didn't do, was directly the result of the guidance he was given by Bush/Cheney. Who knows which one was really calling the shots, but it was definitely an echelon higher than Rumsfeld.

I'm sure you've heard retired Colonel Wilkerson, Powell's military assistant in the State Dept, talk about a Cheney/Rumsfeld "cabal" that essentially shut out Powell and the diplomats. I haven't decided whether Wilkerson really means that Bush himself was out of the loop; or if being retired military, he's just reluctant to be too critical of the Commander-in-Chief. Anyway, when Lt Gen Jay Garner was replaced by civilian Paul Bremer, Garner said he was given a post-war plan and an assistant to help execute it from Powell. Rumsfeld called him and told him to scrap the plan and send the assistant home. When Garner protested, Rumsfeld told him it was on orders from above (which had to mean the White House). Rumsfeld could have just been passing the buck, but I tend to think there was involvement in the decision by someone else.

It should be noted that, by law, the Vice President is NOT part of the military chain of command. It goes straight from the President to Secretary of Defense.

[Ecumenist]

3. YEP

I agree with 100001%!! Apparently, they think that the clear thinking American public has the collective IQ of the ambient room temperature in Antarctica during a cold snap with the windows open and the air conditioning on. The only ones that stupid are the people that make up their hard core base...
As the saying goes,"I was born at night but it wasn't last night".

[thereismore]

5. That's why he cannot fire him and he knows it. nt

[Jack Rabbit]

Yes. I think so.

And since Bush isn't about to resign, I call for his impeachment.

[Marlie]

6. I've often thought

All the attacks on Rummy being well pushed by the MSM are just a ploy to take the
heat off the really, really big asshole, Bush. For instance, Carl Bernstein wrote
that great article directly attacking Bush and I've heard very little about it
except of course by Keith. The MSM always seems to avoid anything that takes a
shot directly at W.

[babylonsister]

8. Why yes, I think they are, too, though I'd prefer a real impeachment. nt

[0007]

9. I think it will eventually head that way, but right now I believe

those asking for Rumsfeld's resignation are only focusing on the incompetency and failings of Donald Rumsfeld. And that does lead us right to junior.

[PublicWrath]

11. Yes, pushing out rummy would tend to validate to the public

that there is something nasty about this war --- It's not going well. -------Perhaps our leaders have cost American lives and limbs through incompetence.----Iraqis have been maimed and killed for nothing----Perhaps we've done more harm than good----- Maybe we shouldn't be there at all-----What was the rationale for war in the first place?-------Was the data cherry-picked?

And whose idea was this war, anyway?



Yes, I think getting rummy out would lead to some healthy chains of thought.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

10. The ancient fishmonger's principle...

"Rot begins at the head, not at the tail"...

:patriot:

[Jai4WKC08]

13. Maybe, maybe not

Maybe from some of the generals and not others. I've heard some of the wing-nuts try to paint this as a Democratic-led conspiracy, but I've seen nothing to indicate the generals' words are in any way coordinated. As if our Party ever coordinated anything. :rofl:

Be that as it may... None of these men are stupid. They had to know that speaking out against Rumsfeld would reflect back on Bush. Unless they naively thought Bush would take some action against Rumsfeld and thus have the opportunity to show some leadership and bolster his approval ratings. Or even if they weren't naive, maybe they thought they had a duty to make their case and hope for the best.

Ya know, when it was just Zinni against the war itself and the way it's been run (and he's been at it a long while now), I was always peeved that he laid all the blame at Rumsfeld's door, seeming to forget the military maxim that a commander (-in-chief) is "responsible for everything his unit does or fails to do."

But now all these other retired generals seem to be doing the same thing (except Clark, of course--he has always known where the real fault lay). It actually sort of baffles me. They should know better.

I know it's hard for many military officers to overcome the mind-set that you just don't criticize the commander-in-chief. I mean, that technically goes for the SecDef too, but it's not so deeply engrained. It may be as simple as the psychology of the difference.

Or it may be that they (or some of 'em) really just don't like Rumsfeld's authoritarian leadership style, and truly believe it's that style that has kept the ground-commander expertise from being heeded and thus has led to all the failures.

Or they may well be Republicans who think Bush is great and so refuse to believe it's Bush's fault. Batiste said he voted for Bush twice, and he has to have seen things going south before Nov 04. Altho I should add that the fact that Faluja was attacked just 2 days after the Nov election opened a lot of eyes. The military had practically begged to take out the insurgency there in March, before it got too entrenched. They know good men and women died who shouldn't have, and all for politics.

As I've mentioned before, I have a wing-nut brother who a retired major and now works as a DoD contractor in the DC area. He LOVES Bush, most for religious reasons, but has always despised Rumsfeld and thinks it's just one of Bush's little "failings" that he's just too loyal. I don't think his attitude is uncommon.

[wiley]

14. Yes. If the country ignores its top generals

then we are in very serious trouble. What are they going to do, stage a coup? Can't Congress Impeach Rummy as well? Republicans in the House and SEnate are letting and abetting the downfall of this country. We are mired in debt, hobbled and abused by stupid programs like NCLB and the destruction of Medicare, impoverished by tax revenue giveaways to the very wealthy, despised for our stupid foreign policy, etc.

When will the Repukes realize they are Americans? GET THEM OUT! Jail them!