Is it ethical for Rumfield to quit when he greated the mess?

Question

I have been repeatedly told that he was not fired he quit
The President stated he Quit

I am not a Liberal

I am not complaining Just asking a question

The vikings suckyness has nothing to do with this question. You must be band wagon fans

Gregory D sorry but I had to LOL
...only a mess to democrates and forieners. Thats 99.9999% of the world

Answer 1

I just want to know whay did it happen the day after the Republicans lost? It is clear Bush new it was coming, and had they done it a little sooner it could have helped the Republican cause. Dumb. Not that I like the guy, but at least you know it was done for real reasons, more than political.

Answer 2

he quite because president bush said he needed a fresh outlook on the subject at matter. that and because the democrats won the senate, Gates can be a great help, because he is bipartism. Which means he can work with Democrats or Republicans, as long as whatever is suggested can be a good solution.

Bush has been eyeing him for a long time, he is a key analist for this project, infact, Gates was a president of a university, he did not want to be in politics again, but bush asked him. Which means that this has been something they have been thinking about in a long time.
They chose this time, to kind of show that bush is taking steps to be bipartism.


I think this is for the better, because rumsfield has said that things are not going as planned in iraq, and there is alot more going on that just iraq. There's north korea, afrganistan, and china, are all creating problems, and more.
Gates has much more experience with these sorts of problems, and he is a great replacement.

Rumsfield, couldn't do his job, everytime he would make an announcement people were asking him questions that weren't the topic at hand, and he was being bashed by the press, for every little thing. and bush had to keep defending him.

again, nothing he did that was good was ever noticed.

I'm a voting democrat, and i believe that gates is much better for this position that anyone could be at this time. ever.

Answer 3

It's only a mess if you are a Democrat or a foriegner.

Here is what the Republicans see:
Iraq has a fully functionally Democratically elected government

January 1, 2007 all the Iraqi and police needed (over 500,000 people) will have been trained. 50% of Iraq will have been handed back to Iraq.

June 2007: 75% of Iraq would be handed back to Iraq

Late 2007, Early 2008 100% of Iraq will have been turned over to Iraq's government. The U.S. troops might stay till 2009, but at a smaller number.

Answer 4

The Vikings suck pick a real team. The left wanted him gone now that he is you are complaining about that, can a Liberal ever be satisfied?
I live in Mn. and wish I could watch more games on T.V. besides the Vike's and Green Bay, I have to watch play by play on yahoo game channel unless the Panthers are playing the Vike's or Green Bay.
No Viking Fan I never liked the Vikings but I've only been watching for the last 3 years I'm disabled now so I read a lot and I watch T.V. and play on this addictive Computer.

Answer 5

This is a matter of protocol. First, you ask the person in question to 'Step aside'. If they do not then you fire that person.

Of course it is Bush's fault... After all he is 'The Decider'. Like a sports franchise whose offense is in disarray, Bush knew something was wrong and he has to make a decision. The war in Iraq is largely unpopular so naturally you ask your offensive coordinator to step down or in this case your Secretary of State. If Rumsfield does not step aside you terminate him. Bush has changed personnel, will change direction (No more stay the course!) and hopefully the modified plan will bring about a favorable solution.

Answer 6

He didn't quit, he was forced to resign. Now he is the scapegoat for the naysayers, however no one has yet come up with a better way or a solution to Iraq. Maybe Nancy Pelosi could go over and do one of her rant and rave routines and scare them into submission.

Answer 7

First of all, he didn't "create the mess," the terrorists did. Second, his "quitting" was nothing more than a bargaining chip to gain some respect from the Democrats. It won't work because Democrats are takers, not givers. Everybody on the left has wanted him gone for so long, but now their criticizing his leaving. How stupid is that?

Answer 8

In terms of normal morality the answer is no. If you make a mess you should clear up that mess.
But in politics, which involves lots of other people and factors, he cannot take sole responsibility.
Rumsfeld did not create this situation all by himself, he responded to it and his sacking makes him a bit of a scapegoat.
The sad thing for me is that he is one of the most intelligent people in politics today.

Answer 9

Wouldn't a better question be: can we get Moss back from Oakland? Or maybe, just how do you only score 3 points against the lowest rated (for points scored against) defense? Really Viking Fan, get your priorities in order.

Truly, Rummy had to go. Would it have been more ethical to let him keep killing our children?

Answer 10

was it ethical for mark foley to quit when he created his mess.
he did quit, but the president wouldn't let him until now.
he claims he made no mistakes,
including the statement that he thought we'd be greeted as liberators, and the fact we declared victory years ago.
plus the committee to rebuild Iraq has been discontinued.
for ALOT more way detailed info pointing out numerous failures read my link. if your in denial, then just ignore me and blame Clinton