Rumsfeld has to go.
April 12, 2006 5:18 AM   Subscribe

Rumsfeld has to go. Resign. Step down. We get the point. But who would replace him?
posted by js003 (26 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: posted a couple days ago.

ummm- JACK MURTHA !!!!!
posted by stevejensen at 5:33 AM on April 12, 2006

Some off the top of my head:
Colin Powell, Schwarzkopf, Zinni, Shalikashveli (ok, not really, but the irony would be sweet), given time I could come up with others.
My personal favorite would be Ret Gen Anthony Zinni.
posted by forforf at 5:41 AM on April 12, 2006

Man. Honestly - who would want to?

The problems the US faces in Iraq until withdrawal are just too awful to deal with. A botched occupation resulting in civil war.

A senior officer corp who promised they would never do exactly what they have allowed, another Vietnam, to happen and who are all available to tell everyone how to do it right, contradicting each other, as they attempt to assuage their guilt.

A president who's limitations and bravado got the better of him.

A number of prison camps that besmirch the US's reputation and undermine all US military efforts around the world - that can't be shut down because the current President will not admit any major mistakes.

Who would want the job?
posted by sien at 5:42 AM on April 12, 2006

Rumsfeld wants to leave, but he can't. He's pinned to the floor from the sheer weight of all the medals he's received.
posted by fungible at 5:56 AM on April 12, 2006

Andrew Sullivan made a convincing point about this recently-- that Rumsfeld will not be replaced because Bush isn't able to or doesn't want to deal with the matter of replacing him.

The fact that these two are manifestly incompetent, have trashed the military, destroyed its honor, and turned Iraq into an early chapter in Hobbes is irrelevant. The president doesn't trust anyone else sufficiently to replace them.

hopefully this won't post 3 times, but no promises, the internets have a mind of their own here in the Caribbean...
posted by ibmcginty at 5:59 AM on April 12, 2006

Rummy is here for the duration.

Can you imagine the confirmation hearings for a potential successor? No way is the administration going to open that door.
posted by cedar at 6:03 AM on April 12, 2006

"You're doing a heckuva job, Rummie..."
posted by illovich at 6:04 AM on April 12, 2006

I can't say about who would replace him but I definitely know where I want him to go.
posted by nofundy at 6:27 AM on April 12, 2006

Jerry Boykin is the obvious choice.
posted by nims at 6:30 AM on April 12, 2006

It would have to be someone who won't freak out and hold a press confrence to blow the lid off all the secret detention tactics and locations. It would have to be someone already in the upper ranks. Condi probably.

I agree that Zinni would be a good one, but he's already spoken too much about blatant failures. Powell, too.

What about General Wesley Clark?
posted by Balisong at 6:49 AM on April 12, 2006

And now with even more fun!
posted by NationalKato at 6:56 AM on April 12, 2006

But Rummy's so cute!
posted by Zozo at 7:27 AM on April 12, 2006

Double post, kids. But far be it from me to get in the way of Rumsfeld's resignation.
posted by digaman at 7:36 AM on April 12, 2006

...turned Iraq into an early chapter in Hobbes..

Well put!
posted by punkfloyd at 7:57 AM on April 12, 2006

Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--al-Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.

He had his chance to speak out when it mattered and when it might have made a difference - he chose to be silent and let it happen. He can STFU now.
posted by three blind mice at 8:00 AM on April 12, 2006

sy hersh!
posted by specialk420 at 8:08 AM on April 12, 2006

posted by larry_darrell at 8:33 AM on April 12, 2006

He can STFU now.

Yeah, yeah. These arguments were made after the original FPP, where I responded to them.
posted by digaman at 8:35 AM on April 12, 2006

The story that National Kato posted should be its own FPP. It's important.

I've been told that my Iraq-related FPP's have been flagged as focusing too much on the issue of the war, so I won't be making the post. But someone should post it.

As I say, I am not trying to discourage discussion here. I think the original FPP to the Time story didn't show up as a double because Time moved the page in its archives.
posted by digaman at 8:39 AM on April 12, 2006

I see Joe Lieberman is one of the possible replacements. Excuse me while I wipe the coffee off my keyboard.

It's 8:45 AM where I am and I've just finished reading this. I think America has been sucked down the rabbit hole.
posted by at 8:43 AM on April 12, 2006

Yes, that's an article on the same topic as NK's.
posted by digaman at 8:45 AM on April 12, 2006

The story that National Kato posted should be its own FPP. It's important.

Digiman got to it first. And he's right. It's an important story.
posted by at 8:45 AM on April 12, 2006

Sorry, NationalKato.
posted by at 8:45 AM on April 12, 2006

Anybody game for that FPP?
posted by digaman at 8:47 AM on April 12, 2006

XQUZYPHYR writes "His resignation (which Bush refused to accept once already, likely for this very reason) would be a nearly-inarguable admission of the failures in the Iraq war planning."

I wonder what would happen if he just pulled a Peter? "I, uh, I don't like my job. I don't think I'm gonna go anymore."
posted by Mitheral at 8:47 AM on April 12, 2006

Anybody game for that FPP?

I think it's newsfilter unless the press starts digging a bit more. I'd like to see someone at one of those townhall meetings ask the Preznit, "Were you aware that the mobile biological weapons labs were not what you claimed when you told the American people on May 29, 2003 that you had 'found the weapons of mass destruction?'"
posted by at 8:52 AM on April 12, 2006

« Older It Seems Today, That All You See, Is Images of...   |   Tories pledge to end child poverty Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments