A day late and a dollar short Mr. President.

Left by dianne on November 8th, 2006 at 2:02 pm

Yeah, I agree Dianne. I understand it’s part of Bush’s image to appear resolute but it should have been clear well before the election that Rumseld should go. Had he done so, Bush may not have looked so out of touch and maybe could have swung, say, 1000 votes in Virginia.

Well, in any case, I’m glad to see him go. I don’t know how much of a difference it will make but I’m certainly eager to find out.

Left by Preston on November 8th, 2006 at 2:12 pm

What happenned with Donald Rumsfeld is that he is proof positive that an old man shouldn’t be given significant power. Old men, and also old women, are way too set in their ways. Once they get something in their heads, by God that’s the way it is and they don’t want to hear any shit about it.

So when he tried to make a leaner, smarter army, that was a good thing for a peace time army, or for small scale conflicts even. But the dumb son of a bitch just couldn’t adjust to the notion that Iraq was not a small scale conflict, it was a full blown shooting war, against a non-uniformed and all but invisible enemy.

He just couldn’t take it that his vision and work was a failure. In the long run, though, it’s not really his fault. Bush is the man to blame. And he knows it. That’s why he didn’t make Runmslfeld resign when he should have, long ago. Not becasue he really believed in Rumsfeld, but because he knew to dismiss the old fart would be an admission of his own failures.

That’s what caused your party the election this year, to a great extent. Denial and obstinence.

Left by Patrick Kelley on November 9th, 2006 at 8:11 am

proof positive that an old man shouldn’t be given significant power. Old men, and also old women, are way too set in their ways. Once they get something in their heads, by God that’s the way it is and they don’t want to hear any shit about it.

I think there’s some semblance of an uncomfortable truth there. Just out of curious — what do you consider “too old”? Is it a particular number say…66-years old (Pelosi) or is it a certain level of diminished mental capacity (a near-senile Robert Byrd — who is fucking 89-years old — is he going to go for 100-years old just because Strom managed to do it?)?

John Adams, the Founding Father of our country, was only 41 when he signed the Declaration of Independence, but 66 during the final year of his Presidency.

Thomas Jefferson was only 33-years old when he penned the Declaration of Independence, and also 66-years old in the final year of his Presidency.

So, maybe 66 is the right number. Which makes at least half of the House too damned old to know better.

Left by Robbie on November 9th, 2006 at 9:35 am

Old men and old women way too set in their ways? Like Robbie asked, how old is too old Patrick? By the way, Nancy Pelosi is 66 Robbie. Time to retire…lol I have to admit she looks darn good for her age though.

I know it’s an old adage that people get set in their ways in their old age; however, I think you youngsters will find that about every decade of your life, a person has significant changes in the way they view their circumstances and how that fits into the world around them. Speaking from experience…lol

Left by dianne on November 9th, 2006 at 10:07 am

It’s not about years, it’s about attitude. Unfortunately, the older a person is, the less likely they are able to adjust and adapt to sudden changes. If there had never been a war in Iraq, Rumsfeld might well have gone down in history as one of our greatest defense secretaries for the way he tried to upgrade and modrnize the military to make it less expensive, more agile for quick action, and able to build up when necessary. Unfortunately, he couldn’t get it through his head that that time to build was when they decided to invade Iraq. They thought everything was going to go great, and just couldn’t face the facts when it was blowing up every day in their faces.

Anyway, it’s not just about age, but that fact in combination with the other pertinent fact, that it has been years since Don Rumsfeld has held a position of anything approaching this much authority and responsibiulity. When was the last time he did this, during the Ford Administration?

If he had been active all through this span of time, the advantages of all those years of experience, and and constantly facing new challenges and ideas and having to deal with them, would have far outweighed the detriment of his age.

Left by Patrick Kelley on November 9th, 2006 at 2:08 pm

Whatever the reason, Patrick, he did a lousy job. Even worse than that, however, was that he offered his resignation twice and Bush wouldn’t accept it. Loyalty is one thing, but refusal to face reality is another. One thing I’ve learned about Bush over the years is he is really quite egotistical. He believes he is right no matter what the whole country tells him. I’m not even sure he really got the message last Tuesday.

That said, I do respect the man and his absolute conviction to protect us from terrorism. If I had it to do it all over again, I’d vote for him over Kerry, because I believe terrorism is the #1 issue we have to confront in this country. I am very pissed at him over several other issues, however, including his illegal amnesty proposal. And, even this mid-term election was not a mandate to support it. Quite the contrary, but he won’t see that and the democrats will jump on it. Pat Buchanan is absolutely right on this issue.

Left by dianne on November 9th, 2006 at 5:27 pm

Dianne-Bilbray versus Busbey. Ended the same this general election as it did in the primaries. I don’t think Rumsfeld really intended to offer his resignation those two times, that was all an act, if it really happenned at all, to give Bush a chance to prove he was “in charge” and had faith and confidence in Rumsfeld, so we should all be willing to follow his example and agree to “stay the course”.

Left by Patrick Kelley on November 9th, 2006 at 10:46 pm

[...] In this post, one of my non-conservaitve readers wrote: What happenned with Donald Rumsfeld is that he is proof positive that an old man shouldn’t be given significant power. Old men, and also old women, are way too set in their ways. Once they get something in their heads, by God that’s the way it is and they don’t want to hear any shit about it. [...]

Left by UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » George McGovern Thinks the US Causes Terrorism on November 10th, 2006 at 10:00 am