Resign, Rumsfeld


That's what The Economist is demanding:

The abuse of these prisoners is not the only damaging error that has been made and it forms part of a culture of extra-legal behaviour that has been set at the highest level. Responsibility for what has occurred needs to be taken?and to be seen to be taken?at the highest level too. It is plain what that means. The secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, should resign. And if he won't resign, Mr Bush should fire him.

NEXT: Anti-Summer Reading

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. For the record, the Economist supported invading Iraq. Whether that makes them more or less legitimate to various partisans is for those partisans to decide.

  2. moonbiter: When did constitutional limits ever stop this administration?

    Sorry, I just couldn’t resist an opening like that.

  3. Thoreau, that post seems more like an ad hominem than anything else.

    Regarding the UN, nobody questions that Oil-for-Food was corrupted and lined $addam’s pockets to the tune of $10B or so. Whether particular others folks profited is in question. One could reasonably feel that $addam’s enrichment is reason enough why UN officials ought to be bowing, scraping, etc.

  4. Larry-

    Sure, it was a little ad hominem. But a lot of posters here seem to regard most of the media as being biased against them. I thought it was worth pointing out for them that the Economist has actually supported the invasion of Iraq, and so it may be a more reputable source in their eyes.

  5. Doesn’t he make you want to thoreau up sometimes?

  6. I don’t mind letting rummy be a referendum on bush. There is no need for rummy to resign, let the people decide in Nov.

    …….. pls post your thoughts on that decision?

  7. Walter-

    Wow, now you’re making fun of screen names! That’s a step down from unsupported allegations that all of the soldiers committing atrocities were Democrats.

    Your stupid joke about my screen name doesn’t affect me in the least, but it does say something about you.

  8. Weeks after the Taguba report had been filed, Bush bragged that the Iraqi people didn’t need to worry about torture chambers and rape rooms.

    If Rumsfeld told Bush about the Taguba Report, if he told him before February 4 about the torture and the rapes, and Bush, by himself, deliberately chose to tell us all a brazen lie, then Rumsfeld, by all means, need not resign. But if Rumsfeld didn’t report to the President that we Americans were staffing the torture chambers and rape rooms ourselves, and Rumsfeld let the President unwittingly mislead us all, then Rumsfeld should take responsibility for his silence and resign immediately.

    With that said, if Rumsfeld stays, I won’t take the President’s word for anything ever again.

  9. I’m sure he’s going to lose sleep over that, Ken.

  10. If Rumsfeld stays, it belies the honesty of the President, so no one should trust him regardless of whether or not my trust is important.

  11. Rummy has the support of 2/3s of the American people. He ain’t going.

  12. Two thirds? Where did you get that number? It would seem to me that, at best, he would have the support of around 40-45% on the populace.

  13. Seeing as the bar for resigning is apparently set somewhere in the stratosphere for the likes of Kofi Annan and the other facilitators and recipients of UN corruption, I don’t think Rumsfled is anywhere near the point of resigning.

    When they can show he was personally profitng from the suffering of Iraqis, give me a call.

  14. Actually, the only way to be removed from this Administration is to do your job and tell the truth about it.

    It turns out prospective Treasury Secretaries in particular were too prone to honest utterances, so they installed a revolving door at the office.

  15. …he and his team have also been responsible for many of the blunders since then…For that reason, if he were to go it would be unwise to replace him simply with one of his own team, such as Paul Wolfowitz.

    No kidding; Also, Wolfowitz was actually advocating a attack on Iraq instead of Afhganistan right after 9/11! He was a major source of the B.S. foisted on the American people in pushing for this unnessary tradgedy.

  16. Has anyone seen any evidence supporting the charge RC makes? I’ve seen an accusation made against the UN in the same week that the hawks needed something to distract attention from their failures and make themselves seem noble by comparison, but I haven’t seen anything to back it up. Have you got a link, RC? Anyone?

  17. Joe,

    There is this story about Benon Sevan, a close friend of Annan, appointed to oversee the $100 billion humanitarian Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq.

  18. This administration is constitutionally unable to admit error. Nobody is going anywhere.

  19. Ergo schmergo.

    I think I’ll keep using my own brain, thanks. At least it knows what food I like.

  20. Ken,

    And you believed him before??

  21. Ken:

    Your point is only meaningful if you voted for George Bush in the first place.

    Did you?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.