RUMMY TO STEP DOWN!

[Guerrilla22]

By DAVID ESPO and LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writers
10 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped down as defense secretary on Wednesday, one day after midterm elections in which opposition to the war in Iraq contributed to heavy Republican losses.

ADVERTISEMENT

President Bush said he would nominate Robert Gates, a former CIA director, to replace Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.

Asked whether his announcement signaled a new direction in the war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 U.S. troops, Bush said, "Well, there's certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon."

Bush lavished praise on Rumsfeld, who has spent six stormy years at his post. The president disclosed he met with Gates last Sunday, two days before the elections in which Democrats swept to control of the House and possibly the Senate.

Last week, as he campaigned to save the Republican majority, Bush declared that Rumsfeld would remain at the Pentagon through the end of his term.

Rumsfeld, 74, was in his second tour of duty as defense chief. He first held the job a generation ago, when he was appointed by President Ford.

Whatever confidence Bush retained in Rumsfeld, the Cabinet officer's support in Congress had eroded significantly. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., the House speaker-in-waiting, said at her first postelection news conference that Bush should replace the top civilian leadership at the Pentagon.

And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who had intervened in the past to shore up Rumsfeld, issued a statement saying, "Washington must now work together in a bipartisan way — Republicans and Democrats — to outline the path to success in Iraq."

The Pentagon offered no date for Rumsfeld's departure.

Gates, 63, has served as the president of Texas A&M University since August 2002, and as the university's interim dean of the George Bush School of Government and Public Service from 1999 to 2001.

The school is home to the presidential library of Bush's father. Gates is a close friend of the Bush family, and particularly the first President Bush.

He served as deputy national security adviser from 1989 to 1991 and then as CIA director during the first Iraq war, from 1991 until 1993.

Gates joined the CIA in 1966 and is the only agency employee to rise from an entry level job to the 7th floor director's office. He served in the intelligence community for more than a quarter century, under six presidents.

Bush has considered Gates for jobs before, including in 2005 when he was searching for a candidate to be the nation's first national intelligence director.

His nomination must be confirmed by the Senate.

[Lenin's Law]

Unfortunately, I see this as little to no consequence. Any "Defense" Minister selected by the reactionaries in the Bush administration will pursue essentially the same goals that Rumsfeld did; albeit with different "tactics" and strategies. Possibly in sending even more troops to die there.

Nothing to get excited or happy about for progressive/revolutionary left wing people.

[Guerrilla22]

I just find humorus that Rumsfeld became a sacrificial lamb for the entire Bush regime's failed policies.

[Dimentio]

Oh no. He was sooo funny :/

[shadowed by the secret police]

<Rummy to step down>

I&#39;ll drink to that&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Delirium]

it&#39;s only because the house could now launch commities investigating him

[Lenin's Law]

Nah, I doubt the spineless liberals in the House or Senate are going to make that much noise. Heck with the recent Democrats elected, many of them can be described as out and out reactionaries.

Rumsfeld resigned to give a fig leaf to show that Bush and co. are listening to the demands of change made by the American people, the majority of whom want out Iraq now. Of course, the Bush administration has no intention pursuing this, neither do the Democrats, but throwing out Rumsfeld gives the illusion that "change" is afoot and gives the Democrats something to show to people who still support them as proof of this "change" they are making.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lenin&#39;s [email protected] 08, 2006 02:10 pm
Rumsfeld resigned to give a fig leaf to show that Bush and co. are listening to the demands of change made by the American people, the majority of whom want out Iraq now.
No. Rumsfeld resigned to show Bush is listening to the demands of many in the ruling class who are demanding a change in tactics to more effectively stay in Iraq.

The election results show the strength of that element in the ruling class. Rumsfeld&#39;s resignation is an admission that current tactics haven&#39;t achieved Washington&#39;s goals.

Robert Gates, besides being a former CIA director - is currently a member of the Iraq Study Group. That&#39;s a bipartisan group developing new approaches on how to more effectively conduct the Iraq occupation.


Nah, I doubt the spineless liberals in the House or Senate are going to make that much noise.

I&#39;m sure they&#39;re going to make a huge amount of noise. It&#39;ll just be sound and fury, signifying nothing progressive or antiwar.

[RebelDog]

Hundreds of thousands have died as a result of his (Rumsfeld) lying, brutal warmongering. He would be hung if we applied the Nuremburg warcrimes trial principles to the actions of the US government. What is the worst that happens to him, he loses his job.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 08:18 pm

No. Rumsfeld resigned to show Bush is listening to the demands of many in the ruling class who are demanding a change in tactics to more effectively stay in Iraq.

I agree. But I&#39;m sure Bush wants to at least give the appearance, the illusion that he is listening to the American people. Certainly getting them angrier and increasing the anti-war movement is not in his or the ruling class&#39; best interests?

[Red October]

now rummy gets to sit on a corporate board or do some sort of cushy consulting job.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Lenin&#39;s Law+November 08, 2006 02:32 pm--> (Lenin&#39;s Law @ November 08, 2006 02:32 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2006 08:18 pm

No. Rumsfeld resigned to show Bush is listening to the demands of many in the ruling class who are demanding a change in tactics to more effectively stay in Iraq.

I agree. But I&#39;m sure Bush wants to at least give the appearance, the illusion that he is listening to the American people. Certainly getting them angrier and increasing the anti-war movement is not in his or the ruling class&#39; best interests? [/b]
That&#39;s not why Rumsfeld resigned.

Look, if you want to represent something as a concession to antiwar sentiment, you have to show that they&#39;re actually giving some ground. That Rumsfeld is being replaced by someone who has a less hawkish policy. For example, someone who&#39;s going to begin reducing troop levels as part of an "exit strategy" or something.

But that&#39;s not the nature of the policy shift here. When you pretend it is, you&#39;re actually giving the ruling class - both parties - the kind of fig leaf you describe.

[Kamraten]

Rumsfelds gets away with his crimes and takes some popularity blame and bush mayby gets to exchange him with the x Cia chief Robert Gates to take his place.

[Janus]

now rummy gets to sit on a corporate board or do some sort of cushy consulting job.
That&#39;s what he did after the Ford administration.

I&#39;m not sure about this Gates fellow but he was a former Director of the CIA so he&#39;s still pretty hawkish. I doubt any major changes are really going to occur under him.

[YSR]

omg evrything is so difernt naw&#33;

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Severian+November 08, 2006 10:07 pm--> (Severian @ November 08, 2006 10:07 pm)
Originally posted by Lenin&#39;s [email protected] 08, 2006 02:32 pm

[email protected] 08, 2006 08:18 pm

No. Rumsfeld resigned to show Bush is listening to the demands of many in the ruling class who are demanding a change in tactics to more effectively stay in Iraq.

I agree. But I&#39;m sure Bush wants to at least give the appearance, the illusion that he is listening to the American people. Certainly getting them angrier and increasing the anti-war movement is not in his or the ruling class&#39; best interests?
That&#39;s not why Rumsfeld resigned.

Look, if you want to represent something as a concession to antiwar sentiment, you have to show that they&#39;re actually giving some ground. That Rumsfeld is being replaced by someone who has a less hawkish policy. For example, someone who&#39;s going to begin reducing troop levels as part of an "exit strategy" or something.

But that&#39;s not the nature of the policy shift here. When you pretend it is, you&#39;re actually giving the ruling class - both parties - the kind of fig leaf you describe. [/b]
Actually he was forced out, because the Bush regime need a sacraficial lamb and Rumsfeld fit the profile. They still have the &#39;08 Presidnetial elections in mind and if the Republicans don&#39;t do something its we&#39;re going to have Hillary Clinton as president presiding over a democrat controlled legislature. In no way does this represent any sort of policy change by the Bush regime, nor does it mean the anti-war movement is gainning ground. The democrats are just as committed to the war as the republicans, they just pretend that they aren&#39;t.

[Tekun]

One less symptom, though the problem still persists

[cb9's_unity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 12:38 am
The democrats are just as committed to the war as the republicans, they just pretend that they aren&#39;t.
i&#39;d actually dissagree i think most american democrats are genuinly anti-war. Not because they care but america is really gaining just about nothing in this war, so that on top of the fact that people are tired of the toops being there and that were loosing billions we&#39;ll probably cause a push for the end of troops being there.


They still have the &#39;08 Presidnetial elections in mind and if the Republicans don&#39;t do something its we&#39;re going to have Hillary Clinton as president presiding over a democrat controlled legislature.

I&#39;m starting to doubt that hillary is going to be the democrats presidential choise. She&#39;s really starting to come of to the mainstream as a little hypocritical. Plus Barrack Obahma is starting to give hints at running and he could very possibly beat Hillary.

[Keyser]

No real or substantial change will result from this change in personalities in the office for the Secretary for Defence.

Like US capitalist politics in general and just like how it is all presented in the corporate owned media in the US, politics is all about personalities in the race for the House of &#39;Representatives&#39;, the Sentate and the White House.

Cosmetic and superficial changes are to be expected, look out for new soundbites (no more &#39;staying the course&#39;) and new means to fool the voters.

But on the whole, to expect this election to bring about an addmission of defeat for the US imperialist system is nothing short of a liberal fantasy. The US capitalist ruling class would fight to the last soldier in any conflict that would bring about an end to the US imperialist system.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 06:38 pm
They still have the &#39;08 Presidnetial elections in mind and if the Republicans don&#39;t do something its we&#39;re going to have Hillary Clinton as president presiding over a democrat controlled legislature. In no way does this represent any sort of policy change by the Bush regime,
If you admit they have to worry about elections - why are you calling it the "Bush regime"? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58471)

[shadowed by the secret police]

Originally posted by Lenin&#39;s [email protected] 08, 2006 08:10 pm
Nah, I doubt the spineless liberals in the House or Senate are going to make that much noise. Heck with the recent Democrats elected, many of them can be described as out and out reactionaries.

Rumsfeld resigned to give a fig leaf to show that Bush and co. are listening to the demands of change made by the American people, the majority of whom want out Iraq now. Of course, the Bush administration has no intention pursuing this, neither do the Democrats, but throwing out Rumsfeld gives the illusion that "change" is afoot and gives the Democrats something to show to people who still support them as proof of this "change" they are making.
interesting ... you&#39;ve done quite a savvy analysis.