 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post |
| Ziff Posts: 1296/1800 |
Vetoing investigations is fishy and dangerous politically. It makes things seem bigger and more evil than they are (unless they really are that nasty) and could potentially FURTHER ruin Republican political recovery.
PS - Dr_Death16. The Inquisition is now a generic term used for a multitude of scenarios. I mean look at the word ostracize - people aren't breaking jars to do it anymore. |
| Dr_Death16 Posts: 621/970 |
Originally posted by ArwonInquisition? I think you have your terms a little mixed up, buddy. First of all, as it stands, liberals have a slim advantage in Congress, hardly a substantial amount of power when your buddy Bush can veto anything he wants and the liberals can't do a thing about it. Second, the Inquisition was about pressing values on people, and frankly, liberals aren't going to be doing any of that in the first place. Also, Rumsfeld most likely did not leave by himself; Cheney was his good friend and wanted him around, and Bush seems to have finally shrugged off the VP and taken advice from Congress, his other cabinet members, and his own father in getting rid of him now, while the time is right. |
| emcee Posts: 660/867 |
The article implies that the decision did come from above. I really don't see how it would help Bush to put all the blame on Rumsfeld later on. He's the one who refuse to get rid of him. Even after several retired generals and the Military Times called for his resignation, sighting incompetence, arrogance, and simply a failed strategy. Combined with the fact that it is now obvious to everyone (not just people who are all "Henny-Penny the sky is falling") that we are losing in Iraq (and to some extent Afghanistan as well).
Of course simply getting rid of one guy isn't going to fix everything. But this isn't really about one guy. The issue is that the majority of American don't believe we have a strategy to win in Iraq. But in defiance of this and just reality in general, the Bush Administration has simply refused to even try to adjust their strategy, because no one was holding their feet to the fire to do so. But now they have to, or else no one will blame the Democrats for spending the next two years going after them. What this means is that it's finally starting to get through who the real Decider is: the voting public. |
| Arwon Posts: 459/631 |
I actually agree with Koryo, it's great that he's gone and a wonderful symbol of change... but from the point of view of the Republican bunker, it's a tactical blunder. Once the Democratic Inquisition really kicks off, they're gonna be out for blood and Bush has just let his best scapegoat go. Who's he going to sacrifice to appease them later on now that Rumsfed is gone?
My suspicion is that this was much more Rumsfeld's doing than pressure from above. |
| Koryo Posts: 15/122 |
Indeed, but we shouldn't be agitating for all of the Bush administration's problems to be shunted squrely onto Rumsfeld's shoulders so that he can be the scape goat. Again, things will not improve in the least now that he's gone. If Bush thinks people will like him more without Rumsfeld, then he's being foolish. If we think the war will take a turn for the better without Rumsfeld, then we're foolish. He's only one man. An influencial man, but certainly not the only pro Iraq war man in the administration. If you oppose the Iraq war, getting rid of Rumsfeld shouldn't make you feel any better. |
| ||bass Posts: 543/594 |
Every problem needs a fall man in the game of kings. It's just the rules of the game. |
| Koryo Posts: 14/122 |
Asking for Rumsfeld's resignation is one of the most foolish things the Democrats have done. As if Bush is OK, but he was mislead by that evil grinch Rumsfeld. Invading Iraq was as much Bush's goal as Rumsfeld's, and his resignation will not change the course of the war. His replacement will do doubt spend about a year getting used to the job, which will put him round about the end of the term by the time he figures out what he's doing. Completely pointless IMHO. |
| emcee Posts: 653/867 |
Hooray for accountability. |
