Kerry asks Bush to replace Rumsfeld

[rox63]

http://rawstory.com/admin/dbscripts/printstory.php?story=1548

“Secretary Rumsfeld today sent dangerous mixed signals about Iraq. Does the Defense Secretary really just throw up his hands and accept that on-going terrorist attacks are inevitable in Iraq for the foreseeable future? Is he now admitting that the Bush Administration's mistakes have made Iraq what it was not before the war, a haven for terrorists?

“The President owes it to our troops serving in Iraq to remove Secretary Rumsfeld and replace him at the Pentagon with a Defense Secretary who understands the situation on the ground in Iraq and who will advance, not undermine, American values around the world.

“Brave American troops are serving heroically under very difficult circumstances. Time and again, they have been put in greater danger by the mistakes of this Secretary of Defense who refuses to tell the truth about what is happening in Iraq and pushes aside anyone who dares speak truth to power. The mistakes are stacked one upon another. The Pentagon is reported to be paying Iraqi newspapers to carry ghostwritten news stories, undermining American credibility. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had to publicly correct Secretary Rumsfeld because he didn't think American troops had an obligation to stop torture.

“We need a fresh start at the Pentagon for the good of American troops, so brave Americans stop paying the terrible price of this Defense Secretary's mistakes.”

[Mass]

1. We can thank rawstory for adding this line with it

"Rumors are circulating that Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) could be tapped to replace Rumsfeld."

Just to confuse the story and make it as if Kerry was calling for Bush to name Lieberman.

[rox63]

2. I left it out for a reason

Because I know it has nothing to do with what Kerry said.

[ginnyinWI]

4. and at Liberal Oasis they were criticizing

Kerry for not bashing Lieberman. Maybe he knows that something's in the wind. He seemed to pointedly focus on Rummy's failures yesterday.

Once again, someone on the internet rushes to judgement without knowing the whole story! :eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

6. Well, hell, why would he slam Lieberman when Lieberman campaigned for him

in 2004.

I know he's not all that popular around here, but dang, he's STILL a Democrat even if people don't like it and want him to change parties.

And why are people ignoring that the very next thing Kerry said was that this was insider talk and not important. What WAS important was that 80% of Iraqis want us out. Why do people buy the distraction? Makes me nuts?

[Mass]

7. I had issues with the way Lieberman campaigned for Kerry.

A few days before the elections, he went to Florida to tell people that if was false to say that Bush was bad for Israel, but that Kerry was right as well. Not a great way to campaign for Kerry.

This said, it would have been awkward for Kerry or Boxer to go after Lieberman on their own when Reid needs him for some party-line votes. If they are not happy with him, they should run somebody for the primaries in CT, that's all.

(Also, Zell Miller is still a Democrat, too, so I am not sure it is enough, but Lieberman has a voting record on issues that are not foreign policy that is a lot better than a lot of DINOs).

[LittleClarkie]

8. Indeed. It's just that he's Jewish, and sees what we are doing

as good for Israel. And he's consistent as hell on the subject. I can wildly disagree and still respect that he's not playing politics, but just stating his opinion, wrong as I may think that opinion is.

McCain on the other hand can kiss my grits.

[MH1]

9. pssst....your post title...

says Sec of State. s/b SecDef. Don't know if you saw that.

[Mass]

10. He is perfectly entitled to think that what Bush does is good for Israel

(however foolish this is, may be sombody should give him a book about the Rapture), but I am not sure if saying that during a Kerry meeting was the right thing to do. I certainly could have avoided that.


This said, there are two main reasons why Lieberman is a distraction:

- It allows Bush to say that if Lieberman supports him, why dont other Dems do the same thing. They must be terrible peaceniks that will endanger the country.

- Democrats have to spend big chunks of their interviews speaking about him and about how he fits with the other Dems on Iraq. See how Kerry spent 5 mn on this subject and had to say to Schieffer that this was enough and not the main subject.

[TayTay]

3. How many times has Kerry called for Rumsfeld to go

either by resignation or being fired? Gawd, this must be the 5th call since 2003. I wish someone would listen and fire this incompetent boob as SecDef and get someone else in there.

[ProSense]

5. Yeah, I think I signed that many petitions.

Kerry must have a few million signatures by now.

[ginnyinWI]

12. it's funny that it's only now that the media seems to hear it

Now that they've decided that it's better to be on the public's side of this war... :eyes:

[Island Blue]

13. He talked about it quite often during the campaign

Perhaps that is beyond the scope of memory for some of these folks. I really wonder about some of them sometimes.

[ProSense]

11. Guess they missed the petitions

Kerry: Rumsfeld should be fired

By Rick Maze
Times staff writer

Democrats are drawing a bead on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., becoming the latest Democrat to call for the Pentagon chief’s firing.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1394500.php

[MH1]

14. Interesting dynamic at The Site That Shall Not Be Named

There is a front page post, made by him, about the possibility of Lieberman being offered SecDef. The post quotes Schieffer from Face the Nation but does not include Kerry's response, and does not mention Kerry at all. What? An opportunity to bash Kerry, left untaken?

Scrolling through the first several posts (I didn't get to the end- couldn't take it), it seems like the consensus there is - let Lieberman go, it'll be good for the party. And still no trashing of Kerry for his response.

I find that rather interesting, especially considering the opposite reaction here at DU.