Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Bush Replaces Rumsfeld with ... Another Rumsfeld

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted November 8, 2006.


Because who but another "Rummy" would stay the course in Iraq with the Bush administration?
rumsfeldstory
Bush Replaces Rumsfeld with... Another Rumsfeld

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Joshua Holland

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Seven days after George W. Bush told reporters that Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were "doing fantastic jobs" and would stay on until the end of his presidency, and one day after Americans gave an overwhelming vote of no confidence to the administration’s policies, Donald Rumsfeld answered calls from both Democrats and Republicans and resigned. (On Wednesday, Bush admitted he had lied to reporters because of political considerations.)

The move also came two days after an editorial ran in the Army-, Navy-, Air Force- and Marine Corps-Times newspapers calling for the secretary's head. "When the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary," the unusually blunt editorial argued, "then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads."

The administration hopes that the move will deflect criticism from its policies in Iraq, move the national discussion away from the Democrats' blowout in the midterms, blunt any investigative zeal that Democrats might feel in their new majority position and, possibly, lay a trap for Democrats going into the next election cycle.

It's unlikely to work. Without a fundamental change in policy, the departure of "Rummy" is a piece of political theater, a transparently meaningless gesture made in an attempt to mollify a restless public.

It's meaningless because while the administration may have abandoned the phrase "stay the course" during the lead-up to the midterms -- it polled badly -- Bush has made it clear that he will continue the bloody occupation of Iraq and leave the mess for the next president to try to clean up (what's less clear is whether either the Iraqis or his own party will allow him to do so).

The Wall Street Journal's John Harwood said yesterday that Rumsfeld's departure won't be enough to change Americans' increasingly negative view of Bush’s Iraq policy. "We have asked this question several times in our Journal/ NBC poll," he said on MSNBC, "and found it would be a symbolic gesture. Really, American people want to see results. They want to see casualties down ..."

According to former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, coauthor of the soon to be published book, "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens," Rumsfeld was jettisoned primarily in an attempt to defuse increasing calls for investigation into the administration’s conduct of the Iraq war and occupation. "The president thinks that Rumsfeld is the bad public face of the Iraq war," she told me by phone on Wednesday. "In the wake of elections that were a huge repudiation of the administration's policies, I think it's clear that Americans are angry with the corruption, with the direction the administration has taken, with the arrogance, and they threw Rumsfeld to the wolves."

Holtzman cited a recent Newsweek Poll that found a majority of Americans want investigations into Iraq contracting and the way the country was led into the war to be a ”top priority” of the new Congress, and that a majority now favor calls for impeachment. She added: “I can’t say for sure what the president was thinking, but it’s possible that impeachment was explicitly on his mind.”

It's also possible that the administration cut Rumsfeld loose in favor of former CIA Director Robert Gates, Bush's nominee to replace him, with the specific intention of provoking a bruising confirmation hearing. That would allow the Republicans to reinforce two of their favorite narratives about Democrats: that they’re insufficiently belligerent to govern -- "soft on defense" -- and that Senate Democrats are "obstructionists," a key charge in the defeat of former Majority Leader Tom Daschle in 2004.

Because while it's possible that Bush thought the nomination of Bob Gates -- a longtime government official who's been through the confirmation process before -- would get a smooth sail through the Senate, the truth is that Gates will have a very hard time getting confirmed, and he should. The reason is simple and important to understand: Robert Gates is Donald Rumsfeld -- or at least a body double in experience, ideology and temperament.

Rumsfeld is a hawkish ideologue whose long career in government has been broken by dips into the private sector. He's known for his secrecy, his loyalty, his ability to win internal political fights and his eagerness to manipulate intelligence to support a desired policy objective. He has shown that he is not above breaking -- or at least stretching -- the law when he feels it's necessary to do so.

Gates has a remarkably similar profile. Like Rumsfeld, Gates served stints in the Nixon and Ford administrations -- he also advised Carter's hawkish National Security Advisor Zbigniew Bzrezinski and served on Bush 41's National Security Council. After his nomination by Ronald Reagan to head the CIA was blocked by the Senate in 1987, Gates eventually got the job in 1991 under the first Bush. According to Thomas Powers, writing in 1996 in the New York Review of Books, Gates is an "unusual figure" -- the first director "to come out of the analytical side of the organization, which had been dominated for its first thirty years by the ethos of the covert operators of World War II."

Gates, like Rumsfeld, was a dedicated Cold Warrior. Powers recalls that during his 1987 confirmation hearing, Gates was accused by former CIA colleague Mel Goodman (who Gates called "one of my oldest friends in the agency") and Harold Ford ("another old friend and colleague") of pressuring "CIA analysts to exaggerate Soviet involvement in the plot to kill Pope John Paul II and in international terrorism and … suppress[ing] and ignor[ing] 'signs of the Soviet strategic retreat, including the collapse of the Soviet empire.'"

And like Rumsfeld -- whose picture warmly greeting Saddam Hussein in 1983 has become legendary -- Gates, who served on the Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State James Baker, has a sordid past with Iraq and the deposed strongman.

In announcing his decision to vote against Gates' confirmation in 1991, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said that "the record also shows" Gates "was integrally involved with the secret sharing of intelligence to Iraq and our sharp tilt toward Iraq in its war with Iran. But Mr. Gates hid that action from Congress ... It is important to keep in mind that this shift toward Iraq in its war with Iran began our ill-fated cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein."

But it was Gates' propensity to manipulate intelligence that really bothered the Massachusetts senator:

[Gates] quashed dissenting views and helped craft an inaccurate 1985 intelligence estimate that Soviet influence in Iran could soon grow ... He personally insisted that State Department officials drop footnotes from the report which did not support his viewpoint. These actions had consequences far beyond mere intellectual debates. In recommending that United States allies be permitted to sell arms to Iran, the report helped lay the foundation for the ill-fated arms for hostages deal in Iran.
Iran-Contra, which followed the arms for hostages deal with Iran, is the source of Gates' worst baggage. In the 1980s, as the illegal arrangement was being put together, Gates was then-CIA Director William Casey's chief of staff. The independent counsel investigation of Iran-Contra found insufficient evidence to charge him with a crime, but that was in large part due to the refusal by Clair George, the CIA's former deputy director for operations, to cooperate with the investigation (George was indicted for his role in 1991).

Gates has denied knowledge of the Iran-Contra affair. But as Thomas Powers noted, "The problem, of course, is that Gates, working for Casey, North's enthusiastic backer, was in a very good position to know about [Iran-Contra] and a great deal else besides."

Gates' former colleague at the CIA, Tom Polgar, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1991. Powers recalls that "Polgar's testimony ... [was] a careful detailing of Gates' passage through many meetings and encounters when even the furniture, Polgar argues, must have grasped what was going on."

And Gates is an ideologue. According to Ted Kennedy, "His public speeches actively promoted the Reagan doctrine and exaggerated Soviet advances." He added, in a comment that would describe Rummy and his Office of Special Plans to a tee: "Rather than an objective professional dedicated to ensuring that the president receives the best intelligence possible," Gates "became an enthusiastic promoter of President Reagan's policies."

As the CIA's Tom Polgar testified in 1991:
His proposed appointment as director also raises moral issues. What kind of signal does his renomination send to the troops? Live long enough -- your sins will be forgotten? Serve faithfully the boss of the moment -- never mind integrity? Feel free to mislead the Senate -- senators forget easily? Keep your mouth shut -- if the special counsel does not get you, promotion will come your way?
Those questions are as appropriate today as they were 15 years ago.

And while the administration will portray the replacement of Rumsfeld with Bob Gates as a sign that it's responsive to criticism coming from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle -- as evidence of Bush's new-found desire to work with Congress as a partner -- it's hard to see the nomination of someone with such a checkered history as anything but a challenge to congressional authority and a preemptive strike against the body's expected oversight of the Bush White House.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: election06, rumsfeld

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
bad feeling about this
Posted by: A. James on Nov 8, 2006 9:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so this guy goes through the ringer in congress, has his appointment blocked, and then what? bush appoints someone a little more palateable, like say, lieberman? there goes your democrat-held senate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bad feeling about this Posted by: srjenkins
» RE: bad feeling about this Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: bad feeling about this Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: bad feeling about this Posted by: hms2004
» Bush IS stupid, but.... Posted by: Cathyc
» YEEHAW! Its payback time! Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: bad feeling about this Posted by: willymack
A couple of priceless quotes here...
Posted by: HeroesAll on Nov 8, 2006 9:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...both from Elizabeth Holtzman, who seems to have a gift for this.

First we've got this one:
"The president thinks that Rumsfeld is the bad public face of the Iraq war," she told me.

The president thinks that Rumsfeld is the bad public face? And of course this war has waaaayyyy too many bad faces, public or otherwise, it'd be so hard to single out just one.

Then there's this:

She added: “I can’t say for sure what the president was thinking, but it’s possible that impeachment was explicitly on his mind.”

Well, I mean, who really knows? Who really knows if he even has a mind, and not just a head stuffed full of dried brush?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Spys in Charge of Soldiers
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 8, 2006 10:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Aside from all of the history of Gates, ask yourself a simple question:
Why would you hire someone with an extensive background in the CIA to run the Department of Defense?

The appointment smacks of the same old crony, 'Good Old Boy' Network that pervades both Bush Administrations. The only difference is that Gates is a crony of 'HW' rather than 'W'.

Why not Wes Clark (retired NATO Commander) or Eric Shinseki (retired Army Chief of Staff)? Both have no involvement in BushCo's nonsense but have extensive experience and background in Defense policy. Once again, it's cronyism over competence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Spys in Charge of Soldiers Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Spys in Charge of Soldiers Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Spys in Charge of Soldiers Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Spys in Charge of Soldiers Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Suggested step #1 for Congress: reinstate the Iraqi Inspector General for USAIID contracts, etc.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 9, 2006 12:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good coverage of the story is at The secret dismissal of the congressional auditor by the Republican Congress:

Congressman Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA) blasted the move by Congressional Republicans to secretly terminate the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, Jr.

    The termination clause was inserted into the final version of the FY 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, behind closed doors, by the Republican staff of the House Armed Services Committee prior to the bill's consideration by the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. According to the one-sentence provision [Section 1054], which can be found on page 318 of the 984-page bill, "[t]he Office of the Inspector General shall terminate on Oct. 1, 2007 with transition operations authorized to continue through Dec. 31, 2007." Members only had a couple of hours to read the final bill before it was passed by the House on Sept. 29, by the Senate on Sept. 30, and was signed into law by the President on Oct. 17.


That's just for starters - what else could Congress do?

1) Invesigate the torture scandal at Abu Grahib - make Stephen Cambone and General Miller testify under oath.

2) What the hell is going on with the FBI's anthrax investigation? If we can have a 9/11 commission, why can't we have an anthrax commission? The FBI has been refusing to brief the House Intelligence Committee on the progress of their investigation. Make Battelle Memorial Institute scientists from their National Security Division and USAMRIID scientists testify under oath (William Patrick III of Battelle and Peter Jahrling of USAMRIID). Review the contracting terms for "Project Bioshield" as well.

3) The list goes on and on - what about Cheney's Energy Task Force Meetings of Spring 2001? How about hauling those oil company executives back before Congress and having them testify under oath? See Diane Feinstein's (D-CA) official position on the issue. Ted Stevens can play the Incredible Hulk all he wants; he's not the ruling power anymore. Was Feinstein just playing politics, or did she mean what she said? Time will tell.

4) Etc. There are at least ten other issues that can be investigated. We all expect a Democratic Congress to do this job. If the Congress decides to spend all it's time and energy sucking up to corporate donors and investigating Mark Foley's behavior instead, we will all be very unhappy with you, and we'll have to stage multiple replays of the Seattle WTO protests.

If Democrats are going to be 'reaching across the aisle', they need to make sure they get a good grip.

P.S. Anyone else notice the rapid post-election climb in gas prices? Up 0.15/gallon overnight. Coincidence?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» OPEC LIVES Posted by: edith
right
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 9, 2006 1:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Holland has it about right. Cheney/Bush dumped Rumsfeld as he was the most obvious fall guy. The new guy was chosen as being the most likely to follow orders and the least likely to divulge any damning secrets. They are going to continue to stay the course while propagandizing that they are going to change the course. We need to impeach to uncover the secrets that will reveal the many Bushie crimes beyond your basic war crimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: right Posted by: hms2004
Does this surprise you?
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Nov 9, 2006 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They have a whole case of Rumsfelds in the back room.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

case
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 9, 2006 3:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's get a nice sturdy pick axe and break open the case of Rummies and kill all the little Rummies inside! The Bushies would all have to resign!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: case..makes more..sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
Deployment in 08
Posted by: Linda50 on Nov 9, 2006 4:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just wanted to let folks know that one of my daughters friends, who is in Iraq now, has been told that he will be redeployed in 2008. So, WE ARE staying the course until we "win" in Iraq. My only question is, are we, the public, going to tolerate such stupidity any further? So what Rumesfeld has stepped down? We still have money to be made in then thar oil fields and exploitation of other people. WE need to master everyone for our own greed. Even if it costs the lives of our most precious resource, our young people. Just another Vietnam.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you want a neocon
Posted by: WhatNow? on Nov 9, 2006 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It looks like this guy has the credentials.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The same monstrous people
Posted by: citizenjoe on Nov 9, 2006 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gates is another far right extremist and proponent of military supremacy and executive authoritarianism. He is an old cohort of the brutal murders of Guatemalan and Nicaraguan democracy, people like Negroponte, Eliot Abrams, Otto Reich.The battle against far right extremism (fascism, really) is not over. One reason these racist war-mongers have come so far is because the legitimate conservatives and liberals who have had power in the USA throughout the 20th century have been unwilling to punish them for their anti-democratic, authoritarian, racist views and imperial use of power. That position has not changed at all. The corporate liberals and corporate conservatives in the USA are not willing to punish the corporate extremists. This was true of Italy and Germany before the self-averred fascists came to power. Why is and why was this case? The reason is that the authoritarian and racist forces were and are very well established in society, especially in the chambers of corporate power. If the more moderate corporatist confront the far right corporatists, they take the chance of causing a backlash in which an angry corporate elite will swing even greater support to the far right .The corporate elite does not like to have its anti-democratic allegiances exposed. Remember, today corporate power controls the media and its dominance increases with mergers and acquisitions, what used to be called cartels. So, the moderates will, so to speak, let the half-asleep dog lay. Unfortunately that dog continues to grow and when it wakes up again, which could

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The same monstrous people Posted by: jreinhart1
» Focus on corporatists Posted by: indy675
» RE: The same monstrous people...sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
Betcha a hundred bucks.....
Posted by: MACBRAZEL on Nov 9, 2006 4:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, they may have thrown Rumsfeld to the wolves for being the negative public face of the war, but I'll bet you a hundred bucks that Bush pulls a George Tenant and gives Rummy the now forever-tarnished Presidential Medal of Freedom! And what does it matter anyway? So what if Don just screwed our country and got thousands killed! What to you think will happen now? He'll either go on a speaking tour for $80,000 a speech or end up on the board of a good old boy company making 10 times what he'd been making at the Pentagon. Poor Rummy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Rummy needs something else more Posted by: Swatopluk
The Military
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 9, 2006 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hated Rumsfeld even before the war(s) began because he wanted to reform it, lessen the bureaucracy, have more gov't over-sight over operations and procurement, and modernise it with regard to personelle and types of machinery (this also made a lot of gov't contractors -exmilitary bigwigs- mad.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Military Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: The Military Posted by: rwa
» RE: The Military Posted by: albrechtkrausse
WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST ?
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 9, 2006 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all knew it was just a matter of time but it took too long. So, more of the same. Why can't we have new blood ? The old Regan/Bush clan didn't work out. We told them that on Tuesday. Let Gates retire and spend time with his family or something. We need someone smart and willing to lock horns with Bush. Not another friend of the family who refuses to challenge the brat. We've had enough. NO MORE 'GIVING THE PRESIDENT WHAT HE WANTS'. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST ?..sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
And, in another sign NPR is no longer an independant open minded bunch...
Posted by: gmknobl on Nov 9, 2006 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They said Gates was not a neocon but someone who was more balanced. And they played up his rising from the ranks scenario to head of the CIA, but rather it looks like he was just hand picked because, like the other neocons, it wasn't his ability to do a good job but his ability to enthusiastically support the people who wanted to do the neocon thing. Don't do what you need to do for the sake of America, do what you need to do to get something for yourself.

I wish I wasn't upset by NPR increasingly selling out as its happening to all media (and a fate accompli) but I am. It's sad, really.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Know your enemy Posted by: indy675
» RE: Know your enemy Posted by: rwa
» RE: Know your enemy Posted by: indy675
CIA Iran Contra figure and Election "Fixer" !
Posted by: jreinhart1 on Nov 9, 2006 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gates was on the board of directors of VoteHere, a strange little company that was the biggest elections industry lobbyist for the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). VoteHere spent more money than ES&S, Diebold, and Sequoia combined to help ram HAVA through.

Before then, he was a CIA spook that was part of the Iran Contra scandal and, like Negroponte, part of Central American death squad operations. These same operations are going on in the ILLEGAL WAR in Iraq. Bush has move a true goon into a position that a spook should never be in. W's dad was probably a big influence who has connections around the world and was one of the greatest criminal of all CIA. The Agency has never been about protecting the American people, but protecting transnational banking and corporate interest. The CIA top brass always come from the elite of the financial district.

"The CIA is not now nor has it ever been a central intelligence agency. It is the covert action arm of the President's foreign policy advisers. In that capacity it overthrows or supports foreign governments while reporting 'intelligence' justifying those activities. It shapes its intelligence, even in such critical areas as Soviet nuclear weapons capability, to support presidential policy. Disinformation is a large part of its covert action responsibility, and the American people are the primary target of its lies." -- Ralph McGehee former CIA intelligence analyst "Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CIA"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sick Country
Posted by: The Butcher on Nov 9, 2006 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Facile chatacterizetion: 3 Gs= God,Greed, Guns
The Us is an amazing Country yet suffers from viral like organisms that will never make it the model we, outside would like it to be.
This is an economy which historically was based on theft, exploitation and war.
Those mechanisms are still in place!
I cringe when I read people here saying "they want to take America back". This never was a nice place except for those who were relishing in blood and still are.
So what is there to be proud of?
GDP.. yeh right. Europe is now officially higher and counting. Guatemala anyone? Or is it Burma?
Gini Index: on a par with Third world Countries. Check CIA factbook.
Sure the Economy is growing... for shareholders. Not for you smelly plebe!!!!
I am a shareholder so I know. I am now 20% richer than last year and I did nothing. Just sat my fat ass on my investment.
So great! the economy is booming but not for wage earners.
Can you now hold the Dems' feet to the Coals?
Congratulations still! But what a mess!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sick Country Posted by: Iconoclast421
Another Rumsfeld clone
Posted by: Democritus on Nov 9, 2006 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Bush's old "stay the course" jalopy has broken down. How can he unload it on the American public? Just slap on a new coat of paint by calling it something like, "victory without dishonor," and get a different chauffer to drive it around town. Will Americans buy it? Not if they notice that its tires are flat and it keeps pulling to the right. Newly elected Senator Jim Webb has the right idea. Let the new Senate examine the credentials of the replacement chauffer. Maybe they'll find that his drivers license has expired, and that he can no more pass the vision test than could his old boss, George Herbert Walker Bush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Speaker Pelosi's Impending Intelligence Failure Part III
Posted by: Liger on Nov 9, 2006 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By J. Peter Pham & Michael I.
09 Nov 2006

Ms. Griddine must be one heck of a scheduler, as she earns nearly four thousand dollars a year more than Mr. Turner, the Congressman's chief of staff. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) reports that Ms. Griddine, not Mr. Turner, recently accompanied Hastings on a trip to Portugal and Spain—earlier she had traveled with him to Brussels, at a cost to taxpayers of over $14,000. Doubtless her presence is constantly required to help arrange last-minute scheduling.

Meanwhile, the Miami Herald reported this past June that Hastings is one of a dozen chronic absentees in the current Congress—which raises questions about Ms. Griddine's scheduling acumen. The American Policy Center (APC), a conservative group, has called attention to the fact that, in recent years, Hastings has been under investigation for other ethics violations by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The APC reports that Hastings has also been investigated by the Florida Elections Commission and the Federal Election Commission for various charges of impropriety. Political Money Line, a watchdog group that tracks money in national politics, points out that Hastings ranks second among all American lawmakers in the number of taxpayer-funded trips he has taken since 1994, at a price tag of over $152,000 (not counting expenses incurred by his accompanying "assistants"). Many of those trips were taken on behalf of the OSCE to "monitor elections." The irony of one of Congress's most corrupt members being tasked to monitor electoral fraud should presumably shock even Hastings' original nominator, election supervisor par excellence Jimmy Carter.

Back to the present. The disgraced judge-cum-legislator's record on national security—the most basic criterion for leading the intelligence committee at any time, much less in the midst of a war on terror—has not been reassuring. In the 109th Congress alone, Mr. Hastings voted consistently against key counterterrorism tools, including the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, the Intelligence and Law Enforcement Resolution, and the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act. He has been an opponent of the trial by military commissions of unlawful terrorist combatants as well as border control, NSA communications intercepts, and terrorist financing tracking measures.

Mr. Hastings' dubious record contrasts greatly with that of the centrist Ms. Harman. While highly critical at times of the Bush administration's conduct of intelligence and counterterrorism operations, Ms. Harman has displayed a keen understanding of intelligence issues, and has introduced quite sensible legislation on national security concerns, including government-wide security clearances and enhanced seaport security.

With the serious international security challenges faced by Americans, the last thing we need is more bitter partisanship. Nancy Pelosi is set to make history as our first female Speaker. But what history will record of her speakership, should she choose to vault Mr. Hastings over Ms. Harman, is that her legacy had precious little to do with providing for the common defense of the Republic, and too much to do with shameless pandering.

J. Peter Pham is director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University. Michael I. Krauss is professor of law at George Mason University School of Law. Both are adjunct fellows of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110906D

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Comments ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
Oh, the oedipal implications of Rumsfeld replacement
Posted by: sausage on Nov 9, 2006 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Little Georgie, trying so deparately to get out of Big George's shadow, once again overreachs and has to have daddy bail him out. This time it's daddy's old henchmen James Baker III and Babby Gates.

How many failures is this for Little Georgie? When will Big George tire of pulling sonny-boy's fat out of the fire just in the nick of time?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Risk becoming what we oppose...
Posted by: jdub on Nov 9, 2006 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading this piece and the bulk of comments makes one wonder if anyone writing realizes what a victory the Democrats had a day ago. But I don't think the country voted to have left-wing ideologues run the country; they voted to cut the power of the right-wing ones. They cut it in the Congress, forced Bush to sack Rummy, and we at least have a little light at the end of the tunnel. So, how about trying a bit of balance. Gates may not be a progressive, but he's not a clone of Rummy either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wayne Madsen:
Posted by: rwa on Nov 9, 2006 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to former CIA officer: Gates gave "falsified reports and uncoordinated analysis" to the President of the United States. Bush selects Gates to replace a Defense Secretary who did the same thing.

It is clear from the Walsh Report that Gates was an integral part of the illegal network that sold TOW missiles to Iran in exchange for the release of U.S. hostages in Lebanon and that proceeds from the arms sales were illegally diverted to the Nicaraguan Contras. That put Gates inside a web of conspirators in the illegal arms sales and money transfers who included Oliver North, National Security Adviser John Poindexter, former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, intermediaries Manucher Ghorbanifar, Albert Hakim, Mohsen Kangarlu, and Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord, Hashem Rafsanjani, and other senior CIA officials.

Former CIA officer Mel Goodman's charges against Gates are cited in Mark Perry's book Eclipse: The Last Days of the CIA. Goodman said that Gates and CIA director William Casey were very much involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, having "purposely manipulated the Directorate of Intelligence in order to support the opening to Iran in 1985." Goodman also charged that Gates and Casey "consistently underestimated evidence of economic problems in the Soviet empire because the data did not accord with their own beliefs; they had suppressed and derailed intelligence estimates that called into question Soviet sponsorship of international terrorism; they had dictated a study that showed Soviet complicity in the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II when no such evidence existed." Gates' successor, Judge William Webster, according to Perry's account, opened an investigation of Casey's and Gates' attempt to politicize the CIA. The Democratic Congress should subpoena the Webster investigation in the confirmation hearings of Gates to be Defense Secretary.

In what makes the more recent lying about pre-war intelligence on Iraq seem like deja vu, Goodman said that Gates "had contempt for a process that was designed to allow independent analysis and the President of the United States was given falsified reports and uncoordinated analysis."

Gates obfuscation on Iran-Contra continues to this day. As President of Texas A&M University, Gates has been the host for the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library. In the bowels of the library are presidential papers that could shine a bright light on the Iran-Contra scandal. However, in November 2001, George W. Bush signed an executive order that upended the 1978 Presidential Records Act and permits the Bush Iran-Contra papers to be kept secret in perpetuity. The executive order also affects 60,000 pages of papers from the Reagan Presidential Library that include details of then-Vice President George H. W. Bush's role in Iran-Contra. Robert Gates has always been a trusted consigliore for the Bush family. At the Pentagon, he will undoubtedly use his two years to clean up for Dubya and suppress incriminating information on Iraq — all in a continuing effort to protect the Bush family.

The following current Senate Democratic senators voted against the confirmation of Robert Gates as CIA director on November 5, 1991: Max Baucus (MT), Joe Biden (DE), Jeff Bingaman (NM), Kent Conrad (ND), Chris Dodd (CT), Tom Harkin (IA), Ted Kennedy (MA), John Kerry (MA), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Carl Levin (MI), and Jay Rockefeller (WV).

Current Democratic incumbents who voted to confirm Gates included Dan Akaka (HI), Bob Byrd (WV), Dan Inouye (HI), Herb Kohl (WI), Pat Leahy (VT), Joe Lieberman (CT), Barbara Mikulski (MD), and Harry Reid (NV). Republican Senator Orrin Hatch did not vote.

These senators were concerned about the role of Gates in the Iran-Contra scandal and did not believe him to be suitable to head the intelligence agency. Word from veteran intelligence officers: Gates is dirty."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Polgar rings a bell
Posted by: jfdunphy on Nov 9, 2006 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that Polgar was Frank Snepp's immediate superior during the last days of the Vietnam conflict. Believe it was detailed in Snepp's memoir, "A Bright Shining Lie."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Give the guy a chance
Posted by: veive on Nov 9, 2006 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Getting rid of Rumsfeld is a good thing. Replacing him with Gates may not be the optimal choice but it's most assuredly bound to be an improvement. I much prefer Bush senior's guys to Bush junior's. At least GHWB's guys voiced their disapproval of the more idiotic of junior's policies. Let's all calm down, let the guy get confirmed, and give him a chance to do his thing. It won't take long to see if it's business as usual. If it is, then we can bitch. Until then, all we're doing is elevating the noise level. This country's in a lot of trouble and adding to the cacophony is only making things worse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Give the guy a chance Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Give the guy a chance Posted by: bonniej
» RE: Give the guy a chance Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Give the guy a chance Posted by: bonniej
» Why Not? Posted by: edith
» RE: Give the guy a chance Posted by: aimless
» Sorry, but no thank you. Posted by: indy675
Am I stupid to be happy today?
Posted by: owleyes on Nov 9, 2006 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't help it. It feels like a holiday. Yesterday felt like one, too. I know I'm going to get all pissed off again sooner or later, but for now, I'd prefer to bask in the small gleam of hope this victory brings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree, absolutely not Posted by: indy675
11-9 Rummy down, about 10,000 more goals to go…now we need to create the solutions
Posted by: MAT on Nov 9, 2006 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
>It’s time for Americans to start facing the reality that we have been far too complacent in the maintenance & evolution of our fragile democracy.
>The big question now is, how do we start to inspire & activate a real MOVEMENT of a more informed citizenry to continue demanding and conceiving of ideas and actions to really set in motion the fundamental societal changes that need to take place?
>I’ve put quite a bit of thoughtful effort into attempting to answer this challenge & I have come up with, what I’m sure is only one of, many good solutions out there. You tell me…
>I’ve developed a website, MyAmericaToo.com, that has an evolving set of (nonlinear) phased goals to:
1) capture the attention of the broad public to inform and educate them regarding the factual truth of our geopolitical history, current undertakings and associated consequences.
2) understanding the issues, the options for solutions
3) aid in the creation, dissemination and activation of action initiatives yielding widely recognizable results.
Phase 1) Sticking To The Issues – launched 10/13/06 – On going
>The idea is simple; keep attention on the issues that matter to us by actively displaying them in public everyday, like an advertising campaign underwritten by “We The People”.
>I developed an initial line of graphic designs representing several various contemporary critical issues / sentiments and use them to replace the traditional stars in the blue field of the American flag to inspire a true sense of patriotism.
>I financed the production of over 100K of these designs as 3.5 x 4.5 inch stickers with a special adhesive that makes them as harmless as a post-it note. Stickers along with t-shirts and 3' by 5' nylon flags have been distributed across the country and Europe. The vast majority of these items were distributed for free to launch the My America Too.
>All of the items are currently available. Hopefully, I can at least make back my costs, pay back my investors and eventually support this continuing initiative.
>If you believe this concept can work, please do what you can to support and perpetuate it. This is something we can all realisticly make happen together.
Phase 2) develop a comprehensive data base describing the circumstances surrounding each issue on the site (outline/timeline format with links). Outline the government’s position(s) & options being considered regarding each topic. Outline possible solutions, with pros and cons, to various issues. Offer opinion polling to evaluate the range of solutions.
>It’s got to be done if any great number of us hope to be able to conceive of and implement informed solutions. I really could use some help from those of you who:
• Keep up to date on each issue and can assemble the info to create comprehensive timelines.
• Have suggestions for developing solutions to various issues
• Have the time, energy, skills and resources to develop the web tools to implement such goals
• Have the financial resources available to contribute to this effort
Phase 3) A launch pad for coordinated initiative for the masses to effect real change, called, "What If?"
>An example might be, "What if the next time Chavez comes to the states, people go out of their way to buy gas at Citgo, the Venezuelan owned outlet for fuel?" The site would link to a history of what Chavez has done by nationalizing their oil resources, how the Bushies react to him, a link to a Citigo station "Locator". Countless such actions which can be organized and undertaken to effect social awareness and action.
>My point is that, it’s up to people like us to get together to continue to develop these objectives and make them reality. I sure could use the help. SB

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does anyone REALLY think you can just pull out of Iraq?
Posted by: Scientz on Nov 9, 2006 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is anyone here advocating pulling out?

Yes, the Republicans lied to get us there, and we never should have gone. But we're there. And Islamic extremists who label America "The Great Satan" don't quibble about which party is in political power, do they?

Does anyone here think bringing the troops home is a good idea? In my opinion, if that were to happen, you might as well (like that cover of Time implied) just put a sign over Iraq that says "IRAN."

With every misstep, Iran is getting more confident of its position as most powerful in the region. I DO NOT ADVOCATE INVADING IRAN, however, I think anyone who doesn't see that Iran will immediately become the most powerful influence over an Iraq without an American presence is sadly misguided. (As far I'm concerned, Canada should be in Darfur not Afghanistan, America should be in Afghanistan not Iraq, and Saddam should be in Iraq not a puppet prison cell, but I digress...) Are any of you really advocating pulling out and leaving the mess we created for the locals to solve?

Think in terms of geopolitics, not emotions.

It takes strongmen to rule countries in which the populace haven't accepted the idea that the government owns a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its borders. Many, many countries have populations who have not yet subscribed to this idea, (Musharraf, anyone?) and its the naive assumption that these populations will accept "democracy" that helped the Republicans sell this bullshit war to begin with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Stupidity. Posted by: Scientz
» Prestigious Ebonics Posted by: edith
» RE: Prestigious Ebonics Posted by: Scientz
» Tired Argument Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Tired Argument Posted by: edith
» RE: Tired Argument Posted by: Scientz
» RE: Tired Argument Posted by: Scientz
Do not allow GATES to be confirmed in 2006, tell the Senate/Congress NOT THIS YEAR
Posted by: LeftWright on Nov 9, 2006 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Senator Warner is pushing for an early confirmation so they can slip him through under GOP control and limit the questions.

This is why Bush annouced the change the day after the election, they know they will lose the Senate next year.

Gates is worse than Rumsfeld AND he's more competent in his criminality.

Don't let these lame ducks fly this dirty hawk through.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Be well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rummie's gone. Yay!
Posted by: willymack on Nov 9, 2006 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good riddance to bad rubbish. Now, if we can get rid of cheney & turdblossom, that'll definitely be a good thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: rummie's gone. Yay! Posted by: aimless
Democrats, the strategy wing of the Privilege Party
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 9, 2006 10:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Question for Donald Rumsfeld BEFORE he resigned: "Was the Office of Special Plans funded or staffed with Dept of Defense budget allocations?"

Life for Rummy AFTER he resigned: "I chose to invoke my 5th Amendment right not to answer that question..."

Well palyed, Nancy P.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Forget Gates
Posted by: mom'z the word on Nov 9, 2006 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
O.K. folks lets be clear about this. At one point Congress's approval rating was 25% that means nobody trusted either party. The dems are there as a protest against the republicans. Can the dems make a difference? Clearly the war in Iraq is the issue. Clearly Congress, both parties together, were derelict in their duties and that is why we are were we are in Iraq. The Secretary of Defense is a red herring and if Congress waste one single minute on that whole scam the die is cast. Congress had the power to end the war when the republicans were in power. They chose not too. Congress changed parties. Now the democrats are in power. Congress still has the power to end the war They still don't need the President or the Secretary of Defense's approval to end the war. Our troops could be home in 60 days by using The War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in 1973. If we need to redeploy we can but first we must get them home.

The resolution's central provisions require that:
------Within 48 hours after committing American forces to combat abroad, the President must report to Congress, detailing the circumstances and the scope of his actions. (He has never done this.)
------That combat commitment must end within 60 days, (Congress has the power to make it less) unless Congress authorizes a longer period. That 60 days deadline may be extended for as much as 30 days, however, to allow for the safe withdrawal of the American forces involved.
------Congress may bring an end to the combat commitment at any time, by passing a concurrent resolution to that effect.
What happens next is Congress demands that its provision explaining the reason why troops were deployed to Iraq be obeyed and the President refuses to do so. The president's refusal to comply with the provisions puts all the power to end the war and bring the troops home NOW into the hands of Congress.

Forget Gates for now. He is not important. Bringing the troops home is what is important. Send Bush the demand to report to Congress the circumstances and the scope of his actions in Iraq. He must answer within 48 hours. If he neglects, refuses or ignores the demand that immediately puts Congress in charge of the troops. If Bush does answer and Congress does not accept the explanation that still puts Congress and not the President, not the Secretary of Defense, in charge. Congress can then order the troops home immediately.

We can rethink this whole Iraq thing after our troops are home safe and sound. It is unthinkable to keep the troops there while we try and figure out what to do. Congress must act now. Congress has the tools it needs to act. The only question that remains to be answered is, does Congress now have the political will to act? It's got the power so what is it going to do with it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Forget Gates Posted by: bonniej
» RE: Forget Gates Posted by: mom'z the word
Gates more of the same - please oppose confirmation!
Posted by: bonniej on Nov 9, 2006 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks so much for this article, Josh - I have come to count on your articles to be clear and informative, and to often reflect my own thoughts. This is particularly true in regard to this issue. I was feeling very celebratory after the Democratic sweep of Congress, while also being very well aware that we will still have battles to fight with a Congress that is not, on the whole, progressive. I did not expect to begin those battles in the midst of celebration! But Bush's nomination of Gates, and the apparent readiness of some Democrats to acquiesce, demands a battle.

When Congress confirmed Gates' CIA appointment in 1991, I was outraged enough that I can recall talking to my students about Gates' offenses. To put it bluntly, Gates is a liar in the same sense that Bush officials are liars. He created reports fashioned to militarize public opinion, despite the fact that the information he provided was inaccurate, incomplete and misleading - just as the Bush administration did to get us into Iraq. He lied about his involvement in Iran-Contra in order to escape the rap in that terrible, criminal debacle. The new Democratic Congress, headed by Pelosi, has vowed to clean up corruption in Washington and hold officials accountable. Confirmation of Gates to the Secretary of Defense position flies in the face of this vow.

Biden has said that he is inclined to support Gates because "this is a different job" and because we need to "move on pretty quickly" on the Iraq problem. Excuse me, but just as job skills are transferrable, there are transferrable character FLAWS, and surely a predisposition to lie about critical matters, and to behave with an excessive lack of ethics - not to mention to involve oneself in unconstitutional behavior, as Gates did in Iran-Contra - are transferrable flaws! And there are surely other potential appointees out there who do NOT have these character flaws, and who could enable us to extricate ourselves from Iraq - probably far more readily than the hawkish, Bush-loyal, Gates would do. I intend to e-mail every congressperson I can reach, strongly opposing the Gates nomination, and hope that other AlterNet readers will join me in this campaign.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Perspective from dailykos.com
Posted by: rwa on Nov 9, 2006 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is obvious that the Democrats will use the hearings on this appointment to highlight the failures and sheer incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration on Iraq.

The hearings will be televised...much ooing and aaahing will occur as the public becomes aware of just how bad things really are.

The Democrats will get into. They will work over Gates and expose such nuggets of info as his Iran-Contra role and connections to Osama.

The Democrats will build a perfect case for rejection...then reject Gates.

Bush will counter with......drum roll please...

Joseph I Lieberman

After having spent a significant amount of political capital on the previous hearings, and with Bush looking bi-partisan with the so called non-partisan Lieberman standing at his side, the Democrats will be forced to accept the nomination.

This will create a vacancy in the Senate which will be filled by the Republican governor of Connecticut, thereby switching the Senate from 51-49 Dems to 50-50 with Republicans in control with Cheney's tie-break vote.

It gets them revenge for Jeffords deffection and takes away the Senate while flumuxing the Democrats in the process...

My advice to the Dems:

Run Gates over the coals...hold hearings...make life miserable for Bush and his entire administration...uncover evidence that can lead to criminal charges or more hearings...

After you do all of this, tell the American people you believe he deserves an up or down vote and give the guy the job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» They are Listening Posted by: edith
GOOD COP v BAD COP MASK
Posted by: Hal on Nov 9, 2006 12:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gates is merely a rent-a-cop apparatchik for a policy rodeo clown GW Bush has zero to do with. (As I’ve said before, the only decisions this clod makes are off the White House menu).

Ahead will be more of the same kind of meaningless swap.

Put another way, this is the latest installment in a serial episode of good cop vs. bad cop sellout pretend government:

Now that bad old cop Bush and his wicked GOP is on the way out of “power” for having palmed off a false flag 911 cover-up and its faux “war on terror” – the next regime of “good cops” will be saddled with the aftermath.

Never mind that a bogus handoff was set up from well before the unanimously passed neo-con (Wolfowitz) “Iraq Liberation Act” of 1998. In other words, Big Oil cartel banker puppet states from Iraq War Inc. to Eurasia were planned from the jump. (Paid for at public cost for private plunder). All the rest is red herring smoke and mirrors with a smarmy dose of limited hangout.

Look for a Boy Scout “outsider” face at the helm of the Dem party to sell the idea that a fresh spanking new day has come to an old Washington poodle complex. This will be a groomed lapdog like Jimmy Carter after Watergate or patsy Woodrow Wilson for the monopolist corruption of the Gilded Age. (Barak Obama could be the new MSM darling).

Of course, in the end it will be the same corporate crime state behind the whorehouse circus at Washington. The MSM show at DC won’t be any more real than a WWE wrestling match even as the stakes will clearly be as high as they come.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The appointment of Gates is hopeful...
Posted by: vangogh69 on Nov 9, 2006 1:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, we've finally come full circle on some shit now! Now that Rummy has "resigned his position" ala Robert McNamara during the Vietnam War, we get Gates who will, I believe, enable a much-needed dialogue in this country, including:

1) As a member of the CIA during the Reagan admnistration, what did he know about the drug trafficing of narcotics into California (thereafter the rest of the US), leading to the now-prevalent drug problem in many inner cities?
2) Under what authorization was the CIA funding and supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets?
3) What role did he play in the creation and maintenance of the Contras in Nicaragua?
4) What role did he play in the civil war in El Salvador?
5) What role did he play in supplying Iran with weapons, paid for by illegal narcotics smuggled into the US (likely)?

I actually think Bush & Co. might be making a huge mistake appointing this guy at such a tense time in this country, especially given the "resurgence" of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua recently, the ongoing US involvement in Colombia, and the other problems happening in South America (not to mention bringing up the US role with Iran pre & post Shah at a time when W's looking to invade/bomb/whatever). Maybe the media will unknowingly stumble unto some info and do their jobs? Then again, Negroponte is the "Intelligence Czar" without a peep about Honduras, so who knows.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rumsfeld: 'My Half-Assed Job Here Is Done'
Posted by: fanny666 on Nov 9, 2006 1:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Steve Gilliard on Rumsfeld's resignation:
Posted by: rwa on Nov 9, 2006 1:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It took two elections and the lives of 2800 men for this war criminal to resign. Walter Reed and Arlington are filled because of his ego, maybe 700,000 Iraqis lie dead because of his hubris. He should be dragged from the Pentagon and tossed on a plane to The Hague for war crimes trials like the Balkan war criminals.

America has suffered many incompetents, but even for a record of incompetence, Rumsfeld is in a special place. Blind, deaf, dumb, to reality, contemptuous of the men he led, demanding lickspittle advisors, all of these are enough for any man to be fired.

Now, as I watch Bush fumble his way to not understanding that his war is over, I can only hope, no pray, that someone forgives us for letting these fools kill so many innocent people."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 9/11 over and out Rummy Posted by: edith
Let Iran take a piece of Iraq, So What???
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 9, 2006 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, of course when we leave Iraq Iran will move in. I mean, we owe that reality to GW Bush. But, we can also live with it. An enlarged Iran, say with a new boundary East of Baghdad could help stabilize the region. What is despearately needed is a check on Israeli aggression and American client status like Jordan and Egypt. If Iran gets nukes, they will only be acquiring them for defensive purposes and to protect territorial integrity. They know Israel already bristles with them. As for Osama, he came out of Afghanistan and the Taliban, not out of Iran. Saudi Arabia is a bigger terrorist threat then Iran. So, what is the big deal???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The big deal is... Posted by: Scientz
» The BIG STEAL Posted by: Hal
Another One Of Bush's Chess Pieces Is Off The Board
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Nov 9, 2006 3:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Donald Rumsfeld could be compared to a chess piece, he'd be a Rook; not yet a King, that's reserved for Bush. So far, Bush's pieces are disappearing from the board.
Colin Powell is gone; he could have been a Knight. Ari Fleischer's been removed, too; he could have been a lowly Pawn who had no chance of queening.
Very few of Bush's comrades are left. He is left with a Rook (Cheney), a Bishop (Rice), the Queen (Barbara) and perhaps a Pawn or two. His dark-colored Bishop is hemmed in by its own pawns and without his White-colored Bishop (Rick Santorum) he is vulnerable on the light squares; the Queen is far from the (political) action-from needless pawn grabbing.
His remaining Rook has to defend the fort and cannot launch a counterattack. His other Knight (Rove) can't move because he's on a bad square (a5) and has to make several moves to get back into action. Knight moves at this point are wasteful and time-consuming and will disrupt his tempo.
2008 will soon come for Bush. He will not resign in face of overwhelming odds against his administration.
It's your move, Mr. President. You must avoid check.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Game of SCRABBLE anyone? Posted by: Cathyc
» BushCo Chess Follies Posted by: Hal
Saddam should be running Iraq, not in a puppet prison cell
Posted by: Scientz on Nov 9, 2006 7:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saddam was a perfectly good bulwark against Iranian Islamic extremism in the 1980's under Khomeini, but he just overstepped his boundaries with Kuwait so Bush Senior had to smack him back in line. Much like Bush Senior did with Noriega.

Unfortunately, when the real Islamic extremist attack from Bin Laden and the mujahideen network of Afghanistan hit on 9/11 (blowback for not rebuilding Afghanistan in wake of their successful Cold War repulse of the Soviet Union--the entire MIDDLE EAST is colonialism or Cold War blowback, don't be fooled!) Bush Junior was stuck: trying to get revenge for a bloodthirsty American populace against a phantom in an anarchic country is not good for the television ratings, indeed.

So, he thought he could appear presidential by concocting a fast war against a defanged dictator and trumped up some spurious charges to getthe aforementioned populace to support it.

He underestimated badly.

Saddam "killed hundreds of thousands of people" because he was holding together a country that is not a nation-state: It is a conglomerate of people who hated each other--a arbitrary border drawn thru the Ottoman Empire after the treaty of Versailles. The country ONLY ever worked under Saddam.

Why?

I'm glad you asked.

Because that's why we put him there: to keep the warring factions in place by fear.

Why do they have to fear?

It takes strongmen to rule countries in which the populace haven't accepted the idea that the government owns a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its borders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The big deal is...
Posted by: Scientz on Nov 9, 2006 7:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...as it has always been. Oil.

Unless we want to completely change the basis of the world industrial economy--oil is used for more than cars, its also plastic for starters--we need to think about the wisdom in giving that much oil reserve to a potential future enemy.

They knew this of course, but thought the American people couldn't handle the truth so cooked up a story of WMDs. Please.

If they didn't patronize us and painted the world how it was, maybe it couldn't be so hard for some of you sheep to figure out the virtues of pragmatism and forego the nutty idealism you hold so dear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The big deal is... Posted by: Melvin
» Get a clue. Posted by: Scientz
» I'm not kidding at all. Posted by: Scientz
» RE: I'm not kidding at all. Posted by: Scientz
» RE: I'm not kidding at all. Posted by: Scientz
The timing stinks....
Posted by: keefus55 on Nov 10, 2006 4:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I still don't trust the mealy-mouthed lair now occupying the White House. And, the timing of the Rumsfeld "firing" stinks to high heaven.

Waiting until AFTER the election to do so (when doing so BEFORE the election might well have kept the Republicans in one or both houses of Congress in power) simply leads me to believe that Bush and his Cabal are still hard at work trying to hold onto their OWN power. They are willing to do ANYTHING…including sacrificing their own members of Congress…to hang onto it.

When Bush announced Rumsfeld's departure (and conceded that he once again LIED to all of us about his intentions in the process) I immediately thought of all the young men and women who have now died in Iraq for absolutely no other reason but to keep this crowd firmly in power. And, while they may have lost a political "battle" by the Democrats now taking over both houses of Congress, my hunch is these SOBs have yet to concede defeat in their ongoing political "war" to rule the planet.

Could Bush's grand strategy have been little more than throwing his Republican cohorts in the Congress to the wolves NOW so as to get the Democrats in power in time to let THEM screw things up for 2008? Then, he and his neocon handlers could once again go after the "big prize" …putting another one of "their own" in the White House bully pulpit?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why are you all so quick to jump. I thought this was a moderate site
Posted by: bookwoman on Nov 10, 2006 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering Gates' long term connections, who says he will continue the "Stay The Course" stupidity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» This is NOT a moderate site. Posted by: Scientz
» "Ego-tripping"? Posted by: mjabele
» RE: "Ego-tripping"? Posted by: Scientz
Did Bush appoint Gates?
Posted by: badkitty on Nov 10, 2006 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did George W. Bush appoint Robert Gates? Just what is Bush's record on appointments? Has he ever appointed a competent person to a position in his administration? All of his appointees have been incompetent, some criminally so. Gates is just one of the crowd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oil buddy in power or truly and new beginning?
Posted by: bfferret on Nov 14, 2006 8:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush's selection to replace Rumsfeld-Robert Gates. On the surface he appears and is qualified for the position. But dig a little into his back ground. He's on the board of directors of the Parker Drilling Company. A company that drills for oil all over the world. He is also has ties to Votehere. VoteHere is the foremost lobbyist for the elections industry, which created your computer voting mandates. I found this information on a site that was announced on Yahoo in September called The Good Harbor report http://www.goodharborreport.com/node 688. This website is dedicated to national security and international conflict, and is guided by former White House officials Richard A. Clarke and Roger Cressey. Both still have connections in Washington D.C. The Times is saying Gates appears to be everything that Donald Rumsfeld was not: patient, cautious, pragmatic and a listener. Do a little research and answer the question "Oil buddy in a position of power or new direction?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement