Rumsfeld Gone!!!!!!!!!!

mammasan wrote:

Reasons:

1. Unwilling to listen to pre-war strategist about troop numbers needed for post-war occupation.

2. Having no real exit strategy before, during, and even after the invasion.

3. Sending troops into battle without all the necessary equipment and then having the gall to say you go to war with the army you have.

Those are just off off the top of my head. I am thankful that he is gone.

If I can add to your list above...

4. Lying about WMD and therefore using a false pretext for a war, that had no legitimate basis

know1 wrote:

Why is it great news?

I do not support or oppose him, but I wonder if you could list your reasons.

do you think he should stay...and if so, why...?

mammasan wrote:

Reasons:

1. Unwilling to listen to pre-war strategist about troop numbers needed for post-war occupation.

2. Having no real exit strategy before, during, and even after the invasion.

3. Sending troops into battle without all the necessary equipment and then having the gall to say you go to war with the army you have.

Those are just off off the top of my head. I am thankful that he is gone.

So what would you have done differently?

1. After you listened, what would you have done - sent more troops? Didn't we win the battle portion of the war very, very easily?

2. Do you know there's no exit strategy, or is it just that it hasn't been explained to you?

3. Necessary equipment is highly debatable. Again, wasn't the battle over in just a matter of days? How would more troops or different equipment change that?

Byrnzie wrote:

And the Dems have won the Montana senate seat!!

Great!

If Rumsfeld had done his job and listened to his advisors instead of thinking he had all the answers, we would have been out of Iraq a long time ago. Instead, he chose to be arrogant and ignorant of how bad things went awry so quickly and now it is so bad, that short of sending another hundred thousand troops there, it's only going to get worse.

I wonder what the story is on this Dr. Gates? Anybody know?

know1 wrote:

Me either, but I don't think that was entirely his call to make.

Well, he was part of the administration who decided to go to war on illegitimate grounds. And now he's the sacrificial lamb because of the disastrous conduct of the war, in order to try and win back some public consensus.

know1 wrote:

So what would you have done differently?

1. After you listened, what would you have done - sent more troops? Didn't we win the battle portion of the war very, very easily?

2. Do you know there's no exit strategy, or is it just that it hasn't been explained to you?

3. Necessary equipment is highly debatable. Again, wasn't the battle over in just a matter of days? How would more troops or different equipment change that?

Wow.

How long have we had troops over there? How many die each day? Wouldn't better equipment have helped prevent some deaths due to road side bombs, RPG's, etc?