Rumsfeld exit rumored; Lieberman eyed for job

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Wow it's slow in the politics forum today.

Dec. 8, 2005, 12:14AM
Sources: Rumsfeld will quit in 2006
Rumors swirl about Lieberman as his replacement


By THOMAS M. DEFRANK and KENNETH R. BAZINET
New York Daily News

WASHINGTON - White House officials are telling associates they expect Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld to quit early next year, once a new government is formed in Iraq, sources said Wednesday.

Rumsfeld's deputy, Gordon England, is the inside contender to replace him, but there's also speculation that Sen. Joe Lieberman — a Democrat who ran against Bush-Cheney in the 2000 election — might become top official at the Pentagon.

The White House considered Lieberman for the U.N. ambassador's job last year before it gave the post to John Bolton, a Bush adviser said.

"He thought about it for a week or so and finally said no," the adviser recalled.

A source close to the White House said Rumsfeld wanted out a year ago, after Bush's re-election, but neither he nor President Bush wanted his departure to appear to have been forced.

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/3510801.html

So now that the public is aware that the Bush administration lost the war in Iraq, it looks like it's time to put a "democrat" in charge to deflect the blame from the republicans. This might explain why Lieberman has been kissing Dubya's ass lately.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']So now that the public is aware that the Bush administration lost the war in Iraq, it looks like it's time to put a "democrat" in charge to deflect the blame from the republicans. This might explain why Lieberman has been kissing Dubya's ass lately.[/QUOTE]

Lately? Lieberman has been kissing Bush's butt and acting like a lapdog since he lost. He should just become a republican and get it over with.
 
E-Z-B you continue to redefine the word "Dumbocrat".

Why not crawl back to DU.com where your misguided Pelosi/Dean/Murtha/Shumer view of the world is believed by all.

I don't even need to challenge your statement. It's so factually wrong on the face of it to be laughable.
 
lol, if you think the U.S. can still win this war, then you've been drinking the kool-aid a little too long.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']E-Z-B you continue to redefine the word "Dumbocrat".[/quote]

I checked my dictionary, that's not a word. Funny, "dickhead" is though.

Why not crawl back to DU.com where your misguided Pelosi/Dean/Murtha/Shumer view of the world is believed by all.
Click to expand...

That's awesome, Murtha's now a lefty. Funny that the "get out of Iraq as fast as we can" bill voted down a few weeks back was a Republican bill.

Hey look, "Asshole" is in my dictionary too!
 
Oh and E-Z-B? Your wishes will just have to remain a masturbatory fantasy. You know, like Karl Rove being indicted and Tom DeLay being convicted on conspiracy charges? It must really suck to be you these days.

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the craftsman of U.S. Iraq war strategy and a magnet for criticism, said on Thursday he had no plans to retire from the post more than 2-1/2 years into the conflict.

"Those reports have been flying around since about four months after I assumed my post in 2001," Rumsfeld, 73, told reporters on Capitol Hill when asked about a New York Post report that White House officials are telling associates they expect him to quit early next year.

"I have no plans to retire," added Rumsfeld, who has been criticized over the conduct of the Iraq and the treatment of detainees in U.S. military custody.
Excerpt: Link to Full Article
 
How strange to consider someone who ran against you for president! (well, on the opposing ticket) I mean, Clinton did become friendly with Dole, but he didn't choose him as a major Cabinet secretary or anything. Very odd. But I think it would probably work if Bush and Lieberman wanted it to because Lieberman's defense positions have been similar to Bush's. As long as they keep him away from other issues.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']ieberman's defense positions have been similar to Bush's. As long as they keep him away from other issues.[/QUOTE]
Which, since the position he's rumored for is secretary of defense, I don't think that there is too much to worry about there; Lieberman's influence wouldn't go anywhere beyond where he's lockstep in line with the Bush administration (and since he is there re: the war, he's perfectly fine for the position).

At any rate, there's no logic behind Rumsfeld's resignation at this point in time. Now, I could understand being a national and global embarassment after Abu Ghraib came forth and attempting to resign then (which he did try, though he was "turned down" by Bush, for what that's worth). There's nothing at the moment, aside from the momentum bringing near 2/3 of the country opposed to the war, that puts Rumsfeld in a bad political spot where he might feel the need to resign. OTOH, considering that the few people who still support the war (which, keep in mind, is a different question *entirely* from if we should stay in Iraq or leave) seem to be more than happy to support terrorists if they capture anti-war activists, and they seem to be more than happy to embrace behaving like terrorists (given the rationalizations of torture I've been reading), perhaps Rumsfeld is a sane man who wants to distance himself from a group of people who ideologically are beginning to very closely resemble terrorists.

I could teach Ann Coulter a thing or two about hyperbole.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']perhaps Rumsfeld is a sane man who wants to distance himself from a group of people who ideologically are beginning to very closely resemble terrorists.

I could teach Ann Coulter a thing or two about hyperbole.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you could. Surely you're not arguing that forcing someone to stand for 40 hours straight, however morally reprehensible that might be, "very closely resembles" bombings of innocent civilians and decapitations?!
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Perhaps you could. Surely you're not arguing that forcing someone to stand for 40 hours straight, however morally reprehensible that might be, "very closely resembles" bombings of innocent civilians and decapitations?![/QUOTE]
Well, if you're asking me if I'm going to compare the absolute worst of what our opposition does to the most benign behavior still regarded as "torture" that our defense department readily admits to doing, then I'll say "no, of course not."
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Oh and E-Z-B? Your wishes will just have to remain a masturbatory fantasy. You know, like Karl Rove being indicted and Tom DeLay being convicted on conspiracy charges? It must really suck to be you these days.
[/QUOTE]

Last I checked, DeLay was still facing a trial. And Fitzgerald was still investigating the leak.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, if you're asking me if I'm going to compare the absolute worst of what our opposition does to the most benign behavior still regarded as "torture" that our defense department readily admits to doing, then I'll say "no, of course not."[/QUOTE]

Watching you debate elprincipe is like watching an elegant fencer making mincemeat out of a thug with a hammer.
 
I'm still waiting for you to tell us how the Battle of Gettysburg was the deciding battle of the Civil War. You know how you stated Lee wanted to surrender in July in 1863? Yet the surrender didn't take place until April of 1865?

Watching you defend wrong positions is as humorous as watching John Kerry and Howard Dean say they didn't mean to call U.S. troops terrorists or really mean we can't win the war on terror.
 
I enjoy reading elprinicpe's posts, as I think they are more honest and less vitriolic than the kind of loudmouthed braying of the PittsburghAfterDark sort. They are also more thoughtful and, I would say, intellectual. I enjoy discussing with elprincipe, but I do my best to not get into prickfighting (though not to say I'm constantly above it) with him.

That having been said, I think you're totally wrong.
 
More fuel to the rumor:

Lieberman meets with Rumsfeld amid retirement speculation

(Washington-AP, Dec. 8, 2005 7:49 PM) _ Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld hosted Senator Joe Lieberman for a breakfast meeting today amid speculation that the Connecticut Democrat could be in line to succeed him.

Lieberman, who has emerged as President Bush's staunchest Democratic defender on the Iraq war, has bucked his party as a vocal advocate for Bush's Iraq policies.

He did not talk about the morning meeting with Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Lieberman aides provided few details about the breakfast, saying that their boss does not discuss private meetings.

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=4222023&nav=3YeX
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'm still waiting for you to tell us how the Battle of Gettysburg was the deciding battle of the Civil War. You know how you stated Lee wanted to surrender in July in 1863? Yet the surrender didn't take place until April of 1865?

Watching you defend wrong positions is as humorous as watching John Kerry and Howard Dean say they didn't mean to call U.S. troops terrorists or really mean we can't win the war on terror.[/QUOTE]

For someone so upset about not knowing what ghettysburg was it seems you don't know the difference between the iraq war and the war on terror.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I enjoy reading elprinicpe's posts, as I think they are more honest and less vitriolic than the kind of loudmouthed braying of the PittsburghAfterDark sort. They are also more thoughtful and, I would say, intellectual. I enjoy discussing with elprincipe, but I do my best to not get into prickfighting (though not to say I'm constantly above it) with him.

That having been said, I think you're totally wrong.[/QUOTE]

Wow, thanks. I enjoy reading your posts and making arguments as well. I think it's safe to say that we have a lot of disagreements, but I don't feel they are outrageously made "for effect" or with complete lack of even consideration that there may be another viewpoint like some posters tend to do in here. I feel the forum would be more interesting with less rhetoric and more thoughtful posts.

PAD is a strange case in this regard. Sometimes he posts some well thought out arguments, but then the following post is a blanket attack on all Muslims and advocating genocide. I find it somewhat disconcerting that one post I will be sympathetic to a viewpoint he's expounded upon, then totally disgusted by the next argument, made from the ultra-fringe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top