In A Year Of Cabinet Shakeups, Rummy Comes Under Fire
Link
I'd like to take this moment and say that to those who are defending the Secretary of Defense on this forum or say that the response the soldier got was adqueate that if the problem was truly licked, Rumsfeld should of done his homework or said something else besides what he did. That's my final word on that matter, on to this one.
A week or so ago, (some of you might remember it,) I posted something as a letter to the right leaning side of the fence that Republicans should be very careful with carrying out their plans and that of a lame duck president, at risk of alienating the American people. I believe this is one of the logical results. In fact, I'm surprised Rumsfeld lasted the cabinet shakeup. The man's hardly efficent in how he does his job, and he even lacks remotely any chrisma or speaking ability, as evidenced by his comment.
At a time we are at war (unlike what one of my friends insists, that the war is over just because we caught Saddam,) the adminstration, this adminstration, has admitted that weapons of mass destruction were not in Iraq, has a lawsuit on their hands questioning the stop loss policy, a minority, but a large one, questioning the where and whyfores of war in the first place, and the interrim president of Iraq worried we might get an Iraqi version of Hilter on our hands. You can find that statement here: Link
One of the historical assumptions of why Hilter rose to power and got most of his agenda passed, was the fact that Germany was forced under a huge, hideous amount of post-war restrictions after WW1, and a number of people were suffering. The treaty was signed in Paris, I think (quick history fact: most treaties of war are signed in Paris. It's trez chic to do so, I'd imagine.) and it built up much resentment towards other countries and oddly enough, the Jewish people, who I don't think had it too much easier than anyone else. I'm digressing from my point. The point is this: why is Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense still if he is, in fact, in charge of this war? The question has been proven to be a media plant, but have we been asleep at the switch?
Republicans are beginning to clue in: the Secretary of Defense is in charge of things like soldiers and war. When there's a lack of faith as demonstrated as it has been from those fronts, it says something of the Secretary of Defense, true or not, making him a liability. When the liability factor exceeds his feasibilty to continue at his post, he should resign or the president should tender his resignation. It makes practical sense.
Wishing You Again A Happy Holiday, the wolf dragon/AWM,
Sol