Should Rumsfeld resign?

[tydon]

I think he should stay in office until Bush wins/loses the election.

Ya I dont think he has done a good job, but it would make other countries think anything he did was wrong if he resigned IMO, which isnt good......

If Bush is elected again, I think he should get a new guy though.

[Underseer]

I think he should stay in office until Bush wins/loses the election.

If we had any sense, we would impeach Bush immediately. No, not for Abu Ghraib, but for the whole thing. With Abu Ghraib, we've lost the last of our excuses for invading a country without provocation. Abu Ghraib is just the straw that broke the camel's back, but Bush has totally destroyed our credibility with the international community. We still haven't entirely recovered from the loss of face we took in Vietnam, and we're going to be a long time living this one down.

To talk about forcing the resignation of a mere secretary after this fiasco is laughable.

Ya I dont think he has done a good job, but it would make other countries think anything he did was wrong if he resigned IMO, which isnt good......

Heaven forbid someone should think we've done something wrong!

Like break lots of treaties.

Like heap ridicule on most of our traditional allies.

Like start an unprovoked war under false pretenses.

Like giving up the pretense of being an unbiased broker of peace in Israel.

Like killing thousands of Iraqi civilians... on false pretenses.

Like refusing to follow Geneva conventions in Gitmo.

Like rounding up Iraqi civilians at random (as many as 60%) without telling them what they're charged with. Without notifying their relatives. Oh yeah, and torturing them.

If Bush is elected again, I think he should get a new guy though.

If Bush is elected again, it doesn't matter what we do.

[Bakerking31]

I think he should stay in office until Bush wins/loses the election.

Ya I dont think he has done a good job, but it would make other countries think anything he did was wrong if he resigned IMO, which isnt good......

If Bush is elected again, I think he should get a new guy though.

agree 100% :drink:

[zoop]

CIA (Christians In Action :lol

There are lines that people of good conscience don't cross. Look behind you...yeah, THAT line.

[SaroDarksbane]

I didn't vote, because I'm split in my opinion.

On one hand, he really mangled the whole post-war Iraq, thing. But on the other hand, replacing key members of the government while we're in post-war Iraq would only cause chaos in our military.

(And no, the prison abuse scandal doesn't factor into this at all.)

So I guess I'd say:
Does he deserve to resign/be fired? Yes.
Should he resign/be fired? No.

Hope that makes sense.

[llad12]

The next few days/weeks should prove very interesting. I have little doubt that many of the other photos and/or videos of the torture that Rumsfeld mentioned will be released in the press. These items, together with any other information that may be subsequently revealed about the treatment of prisoners, could be incredibly devastating in their effect on the public's perception, morale, and support for this occupation.

How this scenario plays out will probably decide if Rumsfeld stays or goes. If public clamor grows deafening ... if violence in Iraq increases substantially ... if Bush's position in the polls drops significantly ... watch for Rumy to fall on his sword and opt for early retirement.

Although the Bush clan is generally known for rewarding their loyal followers, I wouldn't put it past Dubya to sacrifice Rumsfeld if it would alleviate the pressure of this scandal; help simmer down insurgency and hostility in Iraq, and potentially propel him into the lead in the upcoming election. After all, in Dubya's mind, it is his destiny to save the world from "evil-doers" ... he is on "a Mission from God." Rumsfeld might have to be considered a martyr in this holy crusade.

Politics is a very dirty business. I have little doubt that these scenarios are already being played out in the mind of Karl Rove and the Bush campaign team.

[Sergeant]

I don't think he will resign and I don't think he ought to. He is the secretary of defense, not director of the CIA. The person's responsible for ordering and instigating it are hired "contractors", mercs if you will.

While there are some soldiers who took part in the abuses I don't think Secretary Rumsfeld ought to be left holding the bag, although he's already accepted full responsibility for it. I think they ought to try, convict and imprison those found to be taking part. Remove those in command over the soldiers and make very clear in english and arabic what the rules are for handling prisoners and their rights.

You don't shoot a horse because it's got an infected wound. You treat it, bandage it and move on.

[IDupedInMyPants]

Plus, he's not the one that caused this. From what I've been seeing reported by both sides, this is the work of the CIA. They're the ones that were instrumental in instigating the torture. Instead of Sec. Rumsfeld, the director of the CIA (Christians In Action :lol needs to be the one on the hot seat.

Isn't it funny how the CIA is at fault for every American shortcoming under Bush's watch? Maybe we should rethink giving the intelligence community a stranglehold on all aspects of our society if that's really the case.

[jimmyboy]

I don't think he will resign and I don't think he ought to. He is the secretary of defense, not director of the CIA. The person's responsible for ordering and instigating it are hired "contractors", mercs if you will.

While there are some soldiers who took part in the abuses I don't think Secretary Rumsfeld ought to be left holding the bag, although he's already accepted full responsibility for it. I think they ought to try, convict and imprison those found to be taking part. Remove those in command over the soldiers and make very clear in english and arabic what the rules are for handling prisoners and their rights.

You don't shoot a horse because it's got an infected wound. You treat it, bandage it and move on.

so who's in charge of iraq? defense or cia? i think they're going after rummy because he's in charge of the whole thing especially after he pushed the state department out. rummy has complete oversight of iraq including all intelligence services. heck, it was his brainchild to invade iraq in the first place.

as for his resignation. good luck. it will be a cold place in hell. he's probably the most powerful figure in washington, and that includes bush.

[axeil]

I'm just finding it interesting that while the republicans jumped on Clinton's back and called for impeachement for perjury no one is jumping on Bush's back for violating the Geneva convention and doing other such human rights violations.

Seems rather hypocritical. Lying under oath only affects those directly involved while randomly capturing innocent civilians and torturing them is far far more pervasive and destructive.