Don Rumsfeld Resigns; Robert Gates Takes Over Pentagon

[Ivan Seeking]

This seemed the best place to post

 

[Astronuc]

Bush faces GOP ire over Rumsfeld timing
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_rumsfeld

WASHINGTON - The White House is trying to soothe Republicans who say the party might have fared better on Election Day if President Bush had not waited until after the vote to oust Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"You could argue that either way, of what political effect an earlier decision on Secretary Rumsfeld would have had. But it doesn't matter," White House chief of staff Josh Bolten said Sunday.

"The president correctly decided that this decision does not belong in the political realm. And a decision as important as your secretary of defense should not be made based on some partisan political advantage. It would send a terrible signal to our troops, to our allies, even to our enemies," Bolten said.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has suggested that if Bush replaced Rumsfeld two weeks before the election, voters would not have been as angry about the unpopular Iraq war. Republicans would have gained the boost they needed, according to Gingrich, to retain their majority in the Senate and hold onto 10 to 15 more House seats.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, agreed with that assessment.

Bush should have removed Rumsfeld "as soon as he had made up his mind. And that's a hard thing to calculate. But it's highly doubtful that he made up his mind between the time the election returns came in on Tuesday and Wednesday when Rumsfeld was out."

"And if Rumsfeld had been out, you bet it would have made a difference," Specter said. "I'd still be chairman of the Judiciary Committee."

Does it seem the republicans who lost the election are more concerned about the personal matters than they are taking care of the peoples' business. Why didn't they do something 3.5+ years ago when the nation was planning to go to war?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the important thing is that certainly no one can doubt now that when Bush says something, it means nothing.

 

[Astronuc]

I think I will probably have to retract my comment about Gates being a good choice. His involvement in the CIA under William (Bill) Casey is problematic. Gates apparently contributed to the politicization of the organization and the evisceration of the organization of anyone who opposed his plans. Bush I and Bush II (moreso II) apparently used their administrations to reform the intelligence services, not to improve the accuracy or objectivity of the intelligence, but rather to fabricate and falsify the intelligence, which essentially undermines the government, the Consititution and the national security.

Under Casey, Gates purged the intelligence analysts who refuese to embellish (falsify) the assessments of the Soviet Union and other nations, in order to justify the buildup of the US military (under Reagan and Bush I). Apparently, Gates also arranged for cluster bombs to be sent through a Chilean arms merchant to Iraq.

Robert Gates, George W. Bush’s choice to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary, is a trusted figure within the Bush Family’s inner circle, but there are lingering questions about whether Gates is a trustworthy public official.

The 63-year-old Gates has long faced accusations of collaborating with Islamic extremists in Iran, arming Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq, and politicizing U.S. intelligence to conform with the desires of policymakers – three key areas that relate to his future job.

Gates skated past some of these controversies during his 1991 confirmation hearings to be CIA director – and the current Bush administration is seeking to slip Gates through the congressional approval process again, this time by pressing for a quick confirmation by the end of the year, before the new Democratic-controlled Senate is seated.

If Bush’s timetable is met, there will be no time for a serious investigation into Gates’s past.

Fifteen years ago, Gates got a similar pass when leading Democrats agreed to put “bipartisanship” ahead of careful oversight when Gates was nominated for the CIA job by President George H.W. Bush.

In 1991, despite doubts about Gates’s honesty over Iran-Contra and other scandals, the career intelligence officer brushed aside accusations that he played secret roles in arming both sides of the Iran-Iraq War. Since then, however, documents have surfaced that raise new questions about Gates’s sweeping denials.

For instance, the Russian government sent an intelligence report to a House investigative task force in early 1993 stating that Gates participated in secret contacts with Iranian officials in 1980 to delay release of 52 U.S. hostages then held in Iran, a move to benefit the presidential campaign of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

. . . . .

Teicher described Gates’s role as far more substantive than Rumsfeld’s. “Under CIA Director [William] Casey and Deputy Director Gates, the CIA authorized, approved and assisted [Chilean arms dealer Carlos] Cardoen in the manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq,” Teicher wrote.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/110906.html

How is it that Saddam Hussein used to be a close friend and now is an enemy - when all along he's been the same despotic and homicidal person?

 

[BobG]

I think I will probably have to retract my comment about Gates being a good choice. His involvement in the CIA under William (Bill) Casey is problematic. Gates apparently contributed to the politicization of the organization and the evisceration of the organization of anyone who opposed his plans. Bush I and Bush II (moreso II) apparently used their administrations to reform the intelligence services, not to improve the accuracy or objectivity of the intelligence, but rather to fabricate and falsify the intelligence, which essentially undermines the government, the Consititution and the national security.

Under Casey, Gates purged the intelligence analysts who refuese to embellish (falsify) the assessments of the Soviet Union and other nations, in order to justify the buildup of the US military (under Reagan and Bush I). Apparently, Gates also arranged for cluster bombs to be sent through a Chilean arms merchant to Iraq.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/110906.html

How is it that Saddam Hussein used to be a close friend and now is an enemy - when all along he's been the same despotic and homicidal person?

I'm still not sure one or the other whether Gates is a positive development or negative one, but one part of the article probably explains the timing of Rumsfeld's resignation:

Gates skated past some of these controversies during his 1991 confirmation hearings to be CIA director – and the current Bush administration is seeking to slip Gates through the congressional approval process again, this time by pressing for a quick confirmation by the end of the year, before the new Democratic-controlled Senate is seated.

If Bush’s timetable is met, there will be no time for a serious investigation into Gates’s past.

Would Rumsfeld be resigning if Republicans still held control of the Senate?

All in all, if this slips into the new year with a prolonged investigation into Gates, then it puts Bush 41's reputation on the line, as well. Bush 41 did something I didn't think could be done when he assembled a truly international coalition, including other Middle Eastern countries, to oppose Iraq and managed to keep Israel from retaliating against Iraqi missiles. He was also realistic about the prospects of an invasion of Iraq. On the other hand, had the US had better, clearer communication with Iraqi diplomats, Iraq probably would have never invaded Kuwait in the first place.

 

[Astronuc]

http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_saddamhusseinandaprilglespie21703.html

IRAQ: Saddam Hussein and Ambassador April Glespie

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Miles Seeley says: "I remember Ambassador April Glaspie meeting Saddam shortly before he invaded Kuwait. The Iraqis said they had a tape of the conversation, during which Saddam recited his complaints against Kuwait (slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields for example) and his alleged attempts to resolve them peacefully. Then he asked what the US reaction would be if he invaded Kuwait. Glaspie allegedly replied that it was not our business and did not involve us, or something like that. There was Congressional hearing later, and the State Department denied the Iraqi tape was legitimate. At the time I thought the whole thing smacked of a coverup by State, although I had no real evidence. I would be most interested if any WAISers know more". RH: Phili`Terzian said the story was a canard. Did the State Department issue its own version?

I saw a video of one of Glaspie's meetings with Hussein. All she had to do was say "Stay the h*** away from Kuwait"! When Hussein started sending Republican Guard units southward toward the border of Kuwait, Bush could have easily told Hussein - NO! The US had months to stop Hussein. Bush had plenty of time to dispatch a carrier group or two to the Persiand Gulf/Indian Ocean - but no - nothing - nada. And the rest, as they say, is history.

 

[Gokul43201]

Now that Rumsfeld's announced his retirement, it seems that the military brass in Iraq are slowly emerging from the woodwork and admitting to early mistakes like not putting more troops on the ground following the invasion.

According to Gen. Abizaid:

"General [Eric] Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations,"

Makes you wonder whether this is purely from hindsight, or if there were folks in the Military that were loath to stepping on Rumsfeld's toes.

"General Shinseki was right"... but he was fired for speaking up!

 

[Astronuc]

According bob Woodward, Jay Garner told Rumsfeld that the US needed more troops, and he mentioned that it was a mistake to exclude former Baath members (below a certain seniority level) and the Iraqi army. When they both went to see Bush, Garner declined to repeat his comments to the president in front of Rumsfeld.

I think all of the military has just assumed that the presdient wholly supported Rumsfeld and that to challenge Rumsfeld would essentially be going against the president, who is Commander in Chief, and would therefore be career suicide.

 

[Skyhunter]

Classified memo

According to the NY Times, Rumsfeld told Bush that the Iraq strategy was not working.

“In my view it is time for a major adjustment,” wrote Mr. Rumsfeld, who has been a symbol of a dogged stay-the-course policy. “Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/world/middleeast/03military.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Text of the memo.

Is this why Bush said; "We have never been 'stay the course'."

Except...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/01/stay-the-course-video/

 

[BobG]

Gates's appearance before Congress was promising, at least.

It will be interesting to see just how independent Gates is once in office. Or is Gates's selection an indication that Bush is really changing direction on Iraq? He seems to have made some interesting moves lately: the resignation of Rumsfeld, the resignation of John Bolton, and a meeting with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of SCIRI in Iraq.

If this is an indication that Bush is making major changes in how he handles Iraq and foreign policy, it has to be a positive development, even though I wonder if he waited so long to make adjustments that it doesn't matter any more.

 

[physics girl phd]

I think I will probably have to retract my comment about Gates being a good choice.

Good for you. I'm afraid everyone is so joyous to see R. gone that they aren't looking well enough at G.

Besides your remarks, something I heard last night that PEEVES me:
He talked about the sacrifice he has to make in SALARY and JOB SATISFACTION leaving his post at Texas A&M to take the job.

WHAT? Shouldn't he instead be talking about how he is honored to take the position and looks forward to tackling complex problems? There's a war going on, he doesn't have new ideas (talks about piecing together old ones) and he's worried about JOB SATIFICATION and PAY?

 

[Astronuc]

Good for you. I'm afraid everyone is so joyous to see R. gone that they aren't looking well enough at G.

Besides your remarks, something I heard last night that PEEVES me:
He talked about the sacrifice he has to make in SALARY and JOB SATISFACTION leaving his post at Texas A&M to take the job.

WHAT? Shouldn't he instead be talking about how he is honored to take the position and looks forward to tackling complex problems? There's a war going on, he doesn't have new ideas (talks about piecing together old ones) and he's worried about JOB SATIFICATION and PAY?

I don't know if that was what he meant. I think he might have been trying to say that he felt the job was so important, so he was willingly making a sacrifice.

I heard some of Gates's comments on the radio, and he was indicating that the Iraq Study Group report contained no new ideas, i.e. other words, we have heard all the different proposals already, but what he hopes to do is put together the best parts of all those ideas.

Gates also mentioned that he wants to talk/listen to the field commanders concerning there needs. That is a giant improvement/leap forward from the current situation.

At least he didn't say "We are winning in Iraq." Hopefully, he does have a 'realistic' perspective on the matter.

And I want to know - Why the heck wasn't there a bipartisan study group four years ago when plans were be developed (without a subsequent plan to stabilize the country). I mean, when one commits a nation to war, perhaps the most significant action in which a nation or people is involved, one better darn well think very hard and very deeply about it, especially when it costs $100 billion/year and much more importantly, costs the lives of 10's of thousands of people, many of them innocent.