Eh, Rumsfeld will get some cushy Fox News gig, a book deal, and retire to Florida without ever having to work again.<br><br>Gee, can I be punished that way? <br><br>[color:red]You slap my back, I'll slap yours!</font color=red>

A. No one denies what a monster Saddam was.<br>B. That doesn't justify what was done by our guys (unless, of course, we're monsters, too).<br><br>

The problem with those soldiers was that they were not trained to be guards. <br>Soldiers are trained for what tasks they are given. Being a guard is not something you just give to a fighting man/woman. <br>We don't want our soldiers to be sensitive. We want them to be able to kill the enemy. That's what those gun thingys are for, right?<br>If trained military guards had been there, this wouldn't have happened.<br><br>Yes, Rumsfield is ultimatly in charge, but we would lose much more from him not being in charge than if we put some whipped, spineless person who's afraid of getting in trouble if he makes a bad decision. Then you end up with someone who never does anything and the next thing you know, your local Starbucks just blew up; your local pre-school just became a killing field. Worst case? Yes. Can it happen? Nobody thought 9-11 could have happened, until it did.<br><br>"You're off the edge of the map, mate! Here there be monsters!"

Remind me to laugh later. The humor in this whole mess is as obvious as the WMD were.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>OK_ it is because of sheep like you that this man,<br>and many more men, women, and children will and have, died.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Interesting, so the holier than thou attitude I see constantly being imposed on everybody from a good bit of those on the left doesn't have a similar effect? Give me a break. <br><br>Remember that everytime you open your mouth and try to belittle.<br><br>

I don't understand what you mean when you say he did nothing, said nothing. Do you know the daily details of his office? No, I don't either.<br><br>Have you ever had a situation where something happened that made you look bad. But the truth was that you weren't responsible. But you also knew that if you tried to defend yourself you'd only end up looking even more guilty because nobody would believe you?<br><br>That's what I think happened here. Instead of him trying to lay out the facts, I think Rumsfield figured he might as well just say 'sorry' and take the heat, because he wouldn't be believed.<br><br>I think in court they call that an innocent man pleading guilty to a lesser charge.<br><br>"You're off the edge of the map, mate! Here there be monsters!"

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Yes, Rumsfield is ultimatly in charge, but we would lose much more from him not being in charge than if we put some whipped, spineless person who's afraid of getting in trouble if he makes a bad decision<p><hr></blockquote><p>Agreed. The answer is to put someone of strength, integrity and dignity into this job. Not someone "whipped" anymore than someone with a dangerous and egocentric agenda.<br><br>Now stop waving that carbine around before you shoot your dang self. <br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The problem with those soldiers was that they were not trained to be guards. <br><p><hr></blockquote><p><br>No, they weren't....but they were humans. Are you trained to be a prison guard? No? Would you do what they did or what was reported? I surely hope not. <br><br>Like I said in another thread, Rumsfield should not have to resign or be fired for it. Where is the personal responsibility in this?? There it is in the UCMJ: Do not follow unlawful orders. Bring those soldiers here, make it a public trial, and put them in prison. Make it public!!<br><br>While the beheading of this guy was deplorable and hopefully they catch those responsible, our actions in that prison was just as horrible to the Islamic community. We will pay for the actions of those few for years to come, unfortunately, unless we make a clear example out of those soldiers.<br><br><br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>and for what?<br>Is that a rhetorical question?<br>You have not been paying attention.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p><br>like someone else said...2 wrongs don't make a right.<br><br>Where were these people when Saddam was in power? Where were the protests/revenge killings when his sons did it to whomever they wanted to?<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Democrats are doing nothing more than using this as a tool to get more power in office for their party<p><hr></blockquote><p>there are high level republicans in congress who think rummy should go as well. and, i am a democrat and agree with democratic senator carl levin when he says that rummy should not go, but he says it more eloquently than i can (but, the point is that i don't think he should go just as a high ranking democrat doesn't):<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If I thought his resignation would result in the changes that are necessary in underlying policies, I would very much favor that. But I don't think the underlying policies... and there has been too much... too many errors, too much mismanagement of this war, I don't see that changing with a change in the leadership in the Defense Department...But from my perspective, it's the underlying policies which are the issue at this point.<p><hr></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june04/hearing_5-7.html">link to PBS newshour</a><br><br>----<br>"even if we get bin Laden or Zawahiri now, it is 2 years 2 late. Al Qaeda is a very different org now. It has had time to adapt. The administration should have finished this job." Leverett, former Bush Nat’l Security Cncl staff specialist.