Third Party & Independents Archives

The Democrats First Opportunity

With the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld the Democrats have been given their first opportunity. If the victory of Jim Webb over George Allen is confirmed the Democrats will control the Senate and they will have an incredible opportunity.

If the Democrats can unite, which seems highly unlikely considering they have not been able to come forth with a plan on just about anything, they will have the power to truly change the direction of the Iraq war nearly immediately.

If Democrats unite and stand together and tell the Bush administration they will not confirm any new Secretary of Defense who uses the Bush rhetoric such as saying 'we will not cut and run' or that we are going to 'stay the course' that will make a big difference towards showing the voters that they are actually willing to make real changes.

Democrats need to make it clear that no one will be confirmed unless they are open to a serious timetable for withdrawl. It is crucial for Democrats to tell Bush that the next Secretary of Defense must be willing to work with Congress on a plan for bringing our troops home. No matter what it takes, the Democrats need to unite and vote against any and every potential person who Bush brings forth who does not meet these qualifications.

It is likely that taking such a course will result in Republicans accusing Democrats of playing partisan games, but remember every side plays these partisan games and in accusing Democrats of playing partisan games they are playing partisan games themselves. If the Democrats truly believe that the voters of this country voted for real change they need to make this first step and ensure that the next Secretary of Defense will be willing to work towards bringing our troops home.

Of course when you consider that there are still many Democrats that have continously supported the war such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman, yes now he is an Independent but he is being counted as a Democrat, it is unlikely that the Democrats will be able to truly unite and force real immediate change.

Oh yeah, bye bye old man Rumsfeld.

Oh and just for fun lets pull out this oldie but goody.

Posted by Richard Rhodes at November 8, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #194163

Richard, you are absolutely correct to state that this is an opportunity for Democrats. Perfect use of wording. Because there was no mandate by the electorate for Democrat rule. Democrats were elected by default as Independent voters protested the corruption, Iraq War, and economy for the middle and working class brought on by the Republican Party, according to exit polls and voter turnout by Independents.

Democrats have an opportunity, one which may not come again for another 16 to 30 years in the form of a sweep into both Houses of Congress. Pelosi and Reid are going to have their hands full herding conservative, moderate, and liberal factions within their party. And they picked up some pretty conservative freshman in this election.

A limited agenda, and doable agenda, an agenda which can be bartered for with Bush who has a vested interest in salvaging something of his presidency, is the opportunity that lies before them. They must address corruption. But, they are going to have to exercise restraint of their newly acquired subpoena power and investigation authority. If they uses these powers in ways that appear to be punitive, and retribution, they will curry no favor from the voters.

The voters want results, solutions to America’s problems, and an end to wealth usurping the people’s and nation’s future needs. With Bush as President, they can only reach so far in accomplishing agenda items. Overreach, and they risk looking gridlocked, obstructionist, and ineffective in failing stated objectives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #194169

HHHMMmmmmmm …

Talk about trying to herd cats.

I’m very skeptical that Dems will be able to capitilize on their good fortune, which has largely resulted more from the Repubs incompetence, than the Dems competence.

But, I hope they’ll prove me wrong.

The clock is ticking.

Like David, I believe the voters want results.

Unlike many, I think the Democrats will blow it.

We will see.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 8, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #194178

d.a.n, I am hearing a lot of hopeful talk and seeing some hopeful action today. Bush’s letting Rumsfeld go today, was politically expedient, in preventing Democrats from owning that issue, but, it was also an act of conciliation. Pelosi is talking about a 100 hour agenda that is reasonable and doable by both sides, mostly. These are encouraging signs, that Bush and Pelosi and some others, are carefully weighing the analysis of the election results and reading them for lessons to be taken to heart.

I will wait and look optimistically for signs of significant improvement by both Republicans and Democrats. But, I will also be supporting efforts by third party and Independent organizations as an insurance policy for 2008.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 8, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #194197

David, I thnk the politically smart move here is not to demand withdrawal, but force the Bush administration to enunciate it’s own policy and rationale. They’ve decided to change strategy, let them choose a path and explain it.

There are no easy solutions here. What the Dems have to do is sit back and let the public tell the Republicans its time to bring ‘em home. Let Warner and the true conservatives decide we’ve wasted enough blood. As good as it might be for the troops themselves, it may not be best for the country to let Bush and Rove and Cheney and the jingos off the hook too easily. Make them clean
up their mess and let the stink cling to them.

Giving Rove a tool to bash Dems with in 08 may not be best for the country. Perhaps the voters need the lesson of voting for a wolf in sheep’s clothing, however cold that might sound. Pain is a great teacher. I read an article where Rove was wanting to make Bush the next Mckinley, the beginning of a Republican majority in 1893 until the Depression. We don’t need another Depression, it’s time the public sees what these idealogs can actually do. The CEO as president idea is dying, and it needs to be killed with a wooden steak through it’s heart.

Posted by: gergle at November 9, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #194227

Can somebody please explain to me why politicos on the left think that the image of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands in 1983 is somehow damaging? I’m being serious.

Do politicos on the right think that it is? Are Republicans - including Rumsfeld - embarrassed by it? Why? What gives?

Is this another instance of my letting history and context get in the way of an otherwise good zinger?

Posted by: Wulf at November 9, 2006 6:48 AM
Comment #194238
The CEO as president idea is dying, and it needs to be killed with a wooden steak through it’s heart.

I think you would have better luck with something long and pointy. :)

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 9, 2006 9:53 AM
Comment #194243
Wulf wrote: Can somebody please explain to me why politicos on the left think that the image of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands in 1983 is somehow damaging? I’m being serious. Do politicos on the right think that it is? Are Republicans - including Rumsfeld - embarrassed by it? Why? What gives?
Saddam is a embarrasment to many in the U.S. government. The U.S. and its constant meddling and manipulation helped to create Saddam. The U.S. played Iraq and Iran against each other during the war between Iraq and Iran (giving both intelligence simultaneously so that neither could achieve an advantage). When Iraq and Iran discovered what the U.S. was doing, they were understandably unhappy about it. It’s ironic now that the U.S. is now upset by Iran’s meddling in the quagmire in Iraq. It must also be amusing to Iranians that the U.S. is accomplishing what Iran could not achieve for themselves. Ten years of conflict and outright war between Iran and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was mostly about border area conflicts. Guess what! The United States is arranging for the Shiites to have the whole enchilada. Sadaam said it would be “the mother of all wars”. Saddam controlled a fractious and intractable population by killing indiscriminately. Now, Iran is simply rattling its nuclear sword and waiting for the area’s Shiite population to possibly gain complete control. Now when the U.S. leaves Iraq, we will have created an even bigger monster than Sadaam, whom we helped create in the first place. Afterward, Lebanon will be gobbled up and, with Syria (its puppet ally). Iran may even go after Israel? The powers that the U.S. did not want to see rolling around the mid-east like a loose canon on the deck of a ship, will then be unstoppable until the whole mess quite probably boils over into a massive world war. Few people remember that these Muslim nations sided with Adolph Hitler during WWII. The world may soon be dealing with a fractious mess of a magnitude the world has never seen. Yet, most Americans are unable to see clearly what is happening, and that much of our meddling made it that way.
Richard Rhodes wrote: Of course when you consider that there are still many Democrats that have continously supported the war such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman, yes now he is an Independent but he is being counted as a Democrat, it is unlikely that the Democrats will be able to truly unite and force real immediate change.
Exactly. That’s why it will be like herding cats. Democrats are a fractious group.

David R. Remer,
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) was just on CNN talking about the Republicans still being able (with 49 seats in the Senate) to block legislation, since it takes 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a vote. Really … who thinks anything will suddenly be different than before? Who really thinks there will suddenly be a new bipartisan cooperation? Sure, it may appear that way for a little while, but it won’t last. And why should it? Congress still enjoys almost about a 90% re-election rate. Too many voters still don’t get it. Democrats are giddy now, but watch it slowly turn to disgust, as it always does, because voters keep being seduced into the circular, distracting partisan warfare.

Looks like James Webb is going to win in Virginia, but it won’t surprise me if George Allen is a sore loser and demands a recount.

Even if the Democrats really wanted to (which is doubtful) address this nation’s pressing problems, they’ll face grid-lock. Also, there are still far, far more incumbents still in Congress that are still FOR SALE, and too many in Congress are still influenced by a few that abuse vast wealth to control government, as evidenced by 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more) coming from only a tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible U.S. voters, and the Congress’ refusal (BOTH Democrats and Republicans) to ever set and enforce common-sense limits on campaign finance.

Well, we’ll be keeping a close eye on it.
Of the following, let’s see how many (if any) are genuinely addressed in the next few years (check off [X] when accomplished):

  • (01) [_] A solution in Iraq? Not likely. It’s already a mess that will only get worse.

  • (02) [_] Campaign finance reform. Government is FOR SALE. Many other reforms are contingent on this one important issue. Will Democrats continue along with Republicans to be FOR-SALE, bought-and-paid-for, carry the water for their big-money-donors, and peddle influence? At the moment, 83% of all federal campaign donations (of $200 or more in 2002) come from only a tiny 0.15% of all 200 million eligible U.S. voters. Will Democrats do anything to reduce the corpocrisy, corporatism, corporate welfare, and influence on government by corporations, and the unfair influence by some who abuse vast wealth to influence and control government?

  • (03) [_] $8.6 trillion National Debt, massive deficits, debt, borrowing, and money-printing.

  • (04) [_] $12.8 trillion Social Security and continued plundering of surpluses.

  • (05) [_] $450 billion of debt in the Pension Benefit Guaranty.

  • (06) [_] $hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Medicaid.
  • (07) [_] $hundreds of billions of unfunded liabilities for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

  • (08) [_] The economy and fiscal responsibility. This current supposedly rosy economy (as touted by the former “IN PARTY”) is being funded with massive debt ($3 trillion more since year 2000), borrowing, spending, and money-printing, and there will be dire economic consequences if it continues.

  • (09) [_] pork-barrel, waste, and corporate welfare; When it comes to pork-barrel, Democrats are far, far worse than Republicans (source: Citizens Against Government Waste: In 2005, Democrats got a grade of 18% and Republicans got a grade of 68% . The debt problems are NOT just because of Republicans alone. No Democrat scored over 47%, while Republicans averaged 68%. ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL could resolve much of that, but politicians will avoid that issue like the plague.

  • (10) [_] Tax reform. Not likely. Politicians like it just the way they have perverted it.

  • (11) [_] Increased Transparency and Responsibility to reduce Corruption? Not likely. Politicians like things just the way they have perverted them. And, even if ever caught, indicted, and convicted, they get a presidential pardon; proving that those of the political class are above the laws that they make for everyone else.

  • (12) [_] Size of government (continuing to grow to nightmare proportions).

  • (13) [_] Stop creating new, vast, huge government programs, such as the recent Medicare prescription prescription drug plan; essentially bribing voters with their own tax dollars. Look out … it would not surprise me if they try to create a government healthcare system that will be just as badly managed as Social Security and Medicare. Voters need to also stop expecting government to take care of them from cradle-to-grave.

  • (14) [_] Eminent domain abuse.

  • (15) [_] Public education (Why keep undermining it with taxes going to private schools?).

  • (16) [_] Homeland Security. It seems to be a bit of a joke when ports and borders are wide open, and could be secured with a fraction of the annaul $28 billion of pork-barrel.

  • (17) [_] Illegal immigration and the estimated $70 billion per year in net losses being deceptively shifted to U.S. tax payers (burdens on schools, hospitals, healthcare, ERs, insurance, law enforcement, prisons, border patrol, CDC, Medicaid, welfare, voting, and 2.3 million displaced American workers); government refuses to enforce the existing laws, and refuses to prosecute employers who illegally employ illegal aliens.

  • (18) [_] Energy vulnerability and alternative energy sources.

  • (19) [_] Election reform, voter fraud, Gerrymandering, fair and equal ballot access. And, what genious invented and approved voting machines without a paper trail?

  • (20) [_] Real healthcare solutions … and that does NOT mean a national government-mismanaged healthcare system. Do you really think government can properly manange a national healthcare system? The best thing is to eliminate ALL of the middlemen (e.g. government, insurance companies, and greedy ambulance chasing lawyers). Also, Healthcare is not only increasingly unaffordable, but dangerous. Pharmaceutical corporations and the FDA are becoming pill pushers that are killing hundreds of thousands in annually (in the U.S. alone). That does not even include the huge number of patients that are irreversibly damaged and maimed. JAMA reported that over 2.2 million hospitalized patients in 1994 had serious Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) and 106,000 were fatal, making these drug reactions the 4th-to-6th leading cause of death in the U.S.! JAMA’s conclusion was that “the incidence of serious and fatal ADRs in U.S. hospitals was found to be extremely high”. On 27-July-2004, reported that “An average of 195,000 people in the U.S. died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records”. Part of the problem is the growing corpocrisy, corporatism, and influence of government by corporations, and incompetence of the FDA. Somenthing is wrong when safety takes a back seat to profit motives.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 9, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #194244

I think that the idea of Robert Gates replacing Rumsfeld is just more political hackery.

Bush just doesn’t get it.

And the cronyism just continues.

Posted by: Rocky at November 9, 2006 10:39 AM
Comment #194245

I thought the choice was strange too.
Is there NO one already in the loop, already familiar with everything going on, that is qualified?

Posted by: d.a.n at November 9, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #194247

How do we win the war on Terror?

People will always use Fear to get elected or to get whatever they want. Motivating fear may be here to stay as an attention getting method- because it works. 9/11 worked because we reacted just the way Al Qaeda wanted us to. The Terrorists got what they wanted: our attention and the worlds focus. We not only granted them the majority of our undivided attention but we went as far as to legitimize their efforts by agreeing with them that we are in a “war” raising the lowest of criminals to the ranks of professional soldiers. They are not soldiers- they are criminals.

How do we win the so-called war on Terror? Stop calling it a War and start defining it for what it is- illegitimate acts of criminals trying to get attention for their extremist cause. Once we start calling them criminals and once we anticipate and minimize the attention or notoriety they receive we will start ‘winning’. After the attacks on 9/11 the whole world (except a few thousand extremists) were ‘with us’. Now most of the world is against us. The ignorance and bravado that lead us here is regrettable- but focusing on it and learning from it is necessary so that the rest of the world understands that we will stop legitimizing the terrorists’ extremist cause.

How will we know when we are winning or have won? We will know we are winning when our people as well as the majority of the people of the world blame the extremists and not the United States for the world’s un-rest. The USA has the power to enhance understanding through the power of the media. However we are not just talking about meaningless words- we are talking about un-solicited words that are inspired by our peace keeping and peace promoting actions. We need to hold meetings with the people in power all over the world, and they need to understand that the money we previously spent on a ground war will keep flowing (for a few years) for not a war- but to promote the peace and to catch international criminals. We will support legitimate governments- but we will no longer occupy any foreign lands as an army. Instead we will use tactical appropriations, the media, meetings with peace-makers, and special forces (police actions used quietly and behind the scenes) to help keep and promote the peace. We will champion the cause of the good people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, etc- and help them based on their terms and not ours.

Our presence in Iraq has become a distraction and has had the opposite effect that we wanted- it has inspired extremists. We need to turn-around the way people everywhere think about us so that the average person on the street in Baghdad or Kabul or Tokyo is mad at the extremists and feels that the infrastructure, the Schools, Government and Hospitals (or whatever the good people need our dollars to help build or re-build) is being ruined by extremists. We need to pull all profiteers and contractors from Iraq (etc). Any building should be done by Nationals- although the dollars should come from us (for a few more years).

Once the people of the world blame extremists and not the U.S. for the unrest in the world (like they did on 9/11) we will be ‘winning’ the very regrettably named ‘war on terror’.

Posted by: john radwell at November 9, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #194259

John Radwell,

The first thing is to make decisions based on logic, not emotion. Rumsfeld’s view of how Iraq should be run was wrong, and this administration refused to accept that fact from the beginning.
How could America be taken seriously by the rest of the world, when from the “fall of Baghdad” there wasn’t even a hint of security?

The arrogance of “I know what I’m doing” and, “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want”, has been the undoing of America’s grand efforts in the Middle East.

Did Saddam support terrorism?

Absolutely, but not the type of world wide terrorism that was espoused by Bin Laden.

The most powerful nation on the planet stood by, and watched as the situation in the Middle East got out of hand, and did little or nothing to stop it.
We have had the opportunity to lead Iraq out of the morass that Saddam created, yet replaced him with criminals, and did so knowingly.
We dismantled the Iraqi military, yet didn’t supply the type of security necessary to do the job.

It’s past time for our government to step up, get serious, and stop the fiddle-farting around.

Our soldiers deserve better.
The Iraqis deserve better.
The American people deserve better.

Posted by: Rocky at November 9, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #194270

John and Radwell:

Well said!!

My fear is that sometimes a curable disease goes so long without treatment that it becomes untreatable. I pray that has not happened in Iraq.

Posted by: womanmarine at November 9, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #194271

The Democrats do have a chance. They can either show the voters that put them in power that they’re willing to put aside petty partisanship and work in a bipartisan way to address the problems facing this country. Or they can show the voters that they are just the same old party of division that they were during Reagan’s administration.
But I doubt that they’ll be willing to work with Bush. Bipartisanship in DC means my way or no way.

BTW, Before I went to bed last night I had FOX News on. They said that the Republicans hope to have the new Secretary Of Defense confirmed by the end of the year. If Bush really wants him they better or he’s gonna have to settle for some idiot of the Democrats liking.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 9, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #194285

I think it still takes two. The democrats do not have overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. The president still sets this nations foriegn policy.

Republicans need to hold Bush to his word about working with the Democrats. I’m not holding my breath. His B.S. even started last night when he said he had already decided to fire Rumsfeld last week, even as he was insisting that Rummy would stay for two more years.

Now that Bush has confirmed he’s a liar in his own words, let’s stop letting him get away with it.

Posted by: Max at November 9, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #194286


Yes, this is the Democrats’ first opportunity - not to impose their will but to build a cordial working relationship with the president.

Confrontation and gridlock is what Republicans want. Just ask Karl Rove. Democrats want, or should want, a return to civil discussion and compromise.

Nothing good will be accomplished unless Democrats and Republicans learn to get along. And I think this is Nancy Pelosi’s goal.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 9, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #194287
Ron Brown wrote: The Democrats do have a chance. They can … But I doubt that …

Yeah, it’s doubtful.
Just based on track records of the last 30 years.
Just heard Sen. George Allen is conceding in Virginia.
Democrats have the majority now.
But, watch what happens.
It will be what always happens.
The “OUT PARTY” will drag their feet and try to sabotage the goals of the “IN PARTY”.
The “IN PARTY” will still fail to focus on the nation’s most important problems, try to blame the “OUT PARTY” for what the “IN PARTY” inherited as the cause for their failure to solve any problems, and those problems grow in number and severity, because BOTH parties are still preoccupied with their own opportunities for self-gain and securing their own cu$hy, coveted seats of power, because government is still FOR SALE.
Congress still consists of far too many irresponsible long-term incumbents.
Congress will still resist campaign finance reform.
Congress will still continue to grow government to nightmare proportions.
Congress will still carry the water for their big-money-donor puppeteers.
Congress will still ignore illegal immigration, or worse yet, give them amnesty (a.k.a. guest worker program) and quadruple the problem (just like after the amnesty of 1986).
Congress will still vote for tons of pork-barrel and waste just like they always have (even worse perhaps, since Democrats are much bigger pork-barrel spenders than Republicans).
Congress will still fail to secure Iraq (but that’s probably because it’s not fixable).

Guess the voters will have to keep learning the hard way for the next two years, now that they have missed this opportunity to send a loud and clear message to BOTH parties. Instead, too many voters still chose to punish ONLY one party.

Just think if voters had voted OUT a lot of incumbents of BOTH parties?

Seriously. Don’t you think that would have been the best medicine for Congress?

Now, voters, because too many still don’t get it, have prolonged their education. But it is on the way. Hopefully, more voters will do better in 2008.

What is so funny about this election is that the Democrats, without hardly doing anything, by merely giving the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves, lucked into a majority. Democrats never even had to define any solutions. But, all of this does not bode well for the nation. Will voters ever learn? They had better, or they will be sorry.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 9, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #194295

So Ron our choice is Bush’s or wait and let the Dems pick an idiot. And you wonder why they wont be able to have a non partisian debate and pick someone more in touch? Because we all know the dems can only pick an idiot right Ron?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 9, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #194299

Paul & the other Democrats:

Before we find out if Pelosi and her allies are going to “get along with” or be able to work with Republicans, it remains to be seen if she’s even going to get along with House Democrats.

Already, we hear that she’s trying to push Democratic moderates out of key appointments and committee chairs, even when they would otherwise receive those appointments based on seniority.

After an election which doubled the number of Blue Dog Democrats, Pelosi is already seeking to create a House leadership consisting of the most liberal wing while marginalizing everybody else.

Whatever happens, the House leadership—its public face—is going to way more liberal than those who actually won in the recent elections.

It remains to be seen if the Democrats have won a short time victory here that will quickly be transformed into a long term debacle in which the Democrats, receiving their first taste of power in some time, succeed in tearing themsleves to pieces.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at November 9, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #194321

Neo-con Pilsner:

You seem to be overlooking the recriminations, finger-pointing and the blame-game in conservative ranks going on right now. They are chowing down on each others’ thigh bones with a remarkable zest. Any tetonic shift in power brings out the hangers-on, the faux idelologues, the opportunists.

I have every confidence that this Democratic ‘revolution’ will be contained, if not by the Republicans and the corporatists of both parties, then by the Dems own reticence to lead. Let’s face it, humankind is facing some serious
problems—not just whether two gays can get married, or if the next round of tax cuts for the rich will be made permanent. I mean challenges to the survival of the species.

Neither party, the way they are conceived and run, have the wherewithall to deal with them in a timely, constructive manner.

So smile. All that has happened is half of the 40% of elgible voters that bothered to vote said they don’t like the war in Iraq and they don’t like corruption and George Bush. The earth will continue to spin on it’s axis, the rich will get unconscionably richer, and the poor will get what the lazy bastards deserve, nothing.

It’s all pure drama, the result of being caught in the web of time.

Posted by: Tim Crow at November 9, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #194323

People will always use Fear to get elected or to get whatever they want. Motivating fear may be here to stay as an attention getting method- because it works. 9/11 worked because we reacted just the way Al Qaeda wanted us to. The Terrorists got what they wanted: our attention and the worlds focus. We not only granted them the majority of our undivided attention but we went as far as to legitimize their efforts by agreeing with them that we are in a “war‎ raising the lowest of criminals to the ranks of professional soldiers. They are not soldiers- they are criminals.

Posted by: john radwell at November 9, 2006 10:47 AM

I watched a video this morning I came across on a link provided in another thread here. I don’t know if this guy is right, but he makes a hell of a good case. And what he said confirms a suspicion I’ve had for quite a while about who is really pulling the strings and how. It’s a long video, over two hours, and for that reason alone probably most people won’t invest the time to view it. That’s a pity, because if he’s only partially right, we are all in deep dung. For those who want to remain vigilant about democracy and keeping a check on political leaders, you can see the video here;

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 9, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #194324

Saddam is a embarrasment to many in the U.S. government. The U.S. and its constant meddling and manipulation helped to create Saddam.

But d.a.n., Donald Rumsfeld didn’t put Saddam in power. Saddam’s rise from ~1958-1979 can’t be blamed on Rumsfeld or the Republicans. Yet this 1983 picture is often shown as though it represents evil or corruption on Rumsfeld’s part. As far as I can tell, it may as well be a pic of his face with the word “stupidhead!” under it.

Posted by: Wulf at November 9, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #194330
Wulf wrote: But d.a.n., Donald Rumsfeld didn’t put Saddam in power.

No, Rumsfeld didn’t put Saddam in power, but the administration that Rumsfeld was a part of may have helped prop up Saddam’s dictatorship, and helped in the meddling (see comment 194243 above) in middle-east affairs.

But, I get your point.
There is a obvious attempt to lead people to believe bad things about Rumsfeld.

Personally, my biggest beef with Rumsfeld is that he tried to fight the war on-the-cheap, ignored advice, and failed to understand the quagmire he was stepping into, when many tried to warn about it. Rumsfeld tried to fight the war on-the-cheap to help minimize how bad the war looked (i.e. for political reasons), so he would not lose the support of the American people. Little did he know that doing so brought about the very thing he feared. Those are major blunders. Even during his announcement, he was trying to make excuses that the war was poorly understood. To him perhaps, which is one reason for his blunders. But, he’s gone now. Hopefully, his replacement will learn from Rumsfeld’s mistakes.

Posted by: d.a.n at November 9, 2006 7:16 PM
Comment #194379

The best medicine for Congress is for all 435 members to lose their jobs. Unfortunately it seem that the voters don’t seem to think so. For now.
I’m going out on a limb here but I’m almost willing to bet that by 2008 or shortly after we’ll be in a depression that’ll make the one in the 1930s look like a boom.
Maybe then the voters will finally learn that the DC crowd doesn’t have the best interest of them or the country at heart.

Right, The Dems can only pick idiots. But they don’t have the handle on it. The Reps only pick idiots too. But that’s what happens when irresponsible incumbents keep getting reelected and everything is reduced to the lowest common denominator.
Again if Bush wants his idiot instead of the Dems idiot he best get him confirmed before the end of the year.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 9, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #194411

FUnny Ron, I was just saying much the same thing last night about a pending economic collapse. Rising interest rates, record personal debt in the US,some European countries including my own, and property bubbles internationally, not to mention the US twin deficits, derivative investments/hedge funds etc. It all adds up to a system that is like an accident waiting to happen.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at November 10, 2006 6:50 AM
Post a comment