2006-09-07 09:25:42 · 17 answers · asked by Giggly Giraffe 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The call to fire Rummy isn't about a different or better strategy in Iraq (those calling for his head have yet to offer one). This is about nothing more than embarrassing (or trying) the Pres and the party as the election cycle comes into full swing.
I hear a lot of hollering about Rummy this or that, but nothing in terms of what they would actually "DO" differently. A lot of arm chair quarterbacking is all I hear.
2006-09-10 12:50:30 · answer #1 · answered by robertonduty 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Rumsfeld thought he could rewrite war strategy; he was wrong, dead wrong. His total mismanagement of the war in Iraq, including too few troops, not enough heavy artillery, insufficient equipment, etc. has caused the deaths of who knows how many of our troops, who have to do the best they can with what they have. Insufficient planning was given to the training of the Iraqi forces that were supposed to be taking over the security of the country. In short, Rumsfeld has botched the whole thing and should have been replaced long ago.
2006-09-07 09:46:28 · answer #2 · answered by Sqdr 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO! To do so would only embolden the Democrats for another head of some other administration official. It would be like surrendering to terrorists. You do not negotiate with them-- or with Democrats. Rumsfeld will be there when Bush leaves office. You can make book on it.
2006-09-07 09:29:52 · answer #3 · answered by christopher s 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why would Bush want to resign from the presidency to be the new Secretary of Defense?
2006-09-07 09:34:27 · answer #4 · answered by A professor (thus usually wrong) 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yesterday, without a doubt an integral part of the corrupt and criminal Bush administration and will not be replaced.
2006-09-07 09:36:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes he should. While he's at it, Bush might as well replace himself. The sad thing is that he might actually think it would be possible too.
2006-09-07 09:31:48 · answer #6 · answered by Mike D. 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, if for no other reason than his poor handling of the Iraqi war. President Bush should also step down as it is his ultimately his responsibility.
2006-09-07 09:32:16 · answer #7 · answered by Existence 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely without a doubt.
Rumsfeld has been wrong on the war since HE started it.. Everything from miscalculating the number of troops to underestimating the insurgency.
He has blood from both sides on his hands.
2006-09-07 09:26:48 · answer #8 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Okay, but who will replace Bush when he becomes secretary of defense? Condoleeza Mice?
2006-09-07 09:28:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely Not.
2006-09-07 09:41:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋