Rumsfeld resigns; Democrats take control of Congress

It appears as though Donald Rumsfeld will resign his post as defense secretary. This announcement comes the day after Democrats regained control of Congress (the Senate battle is still on the fence).

Could this signal the change that is so desperately needed, or will it just be more of the same? It looks like Bush's defense secretary nominee, Robert Gates, is an old family friend, so I wonder if this really will bring a change in the administrations policies with the war in Iraq.

-monkey

 

"Ding-Dong! the witch is dead..."

-- the munchkins in: "The Wizard of Oz"

Personally, I am more with Alphonse Karr (1808-1890) on this one: "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

 

The Guy was a republican retard.

EDIT: OT anyone see the new episode of American Dad? all about Republicans...........

 

I'm inclined to agree with you. Given how close Gates is to the Bush family, I wonder if any policy change will take place. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised.

Still, Gates at least seems much more educated than Rumsfeld (PhD in History compared to a basic college degree). Maybe he'll put that education to good use when considering decisions that ultimately affect the entire world.

-monkey

 

Then again, maybe not. The guy did run the CIA, after all.

 

Exactly what I thought and half shouted when I saw the news on me telebox. Good news at last. Although as suggested, his successor will probably be more of a lying scumbag than he was.

 

Indeed, it has been a heady 24 hours in these parts! As I was saying to the g/f last night, I really think that the world is a better place today. The Rumsfeld news is wonderful, but the democrats taking control of the house and possibly the senate and the administration being forced to talk to the other party are the more significant changes.

None the less, WOO HOO!!!

 

He was in charge of the CIA for one year back in the days of Bush Sr.
He is also (according to the beeb), a member of a "bipartisan Iraq Study Group...tasked with recommending ways of tackling the problems the US faces in Iraq." I wonder how many of those ways include the words "run away"

A good result in all; I just hope that Virginia can get sorted without any kind of legal mud-slinging, a la Florida.

Even if both houses are Democrat, does George W still get to write his presidential notes (or whatever they're called), effectively hobbling any laws the democrats want to pass?

 

Line item veto?

When I went to bed last night I foolishly thought I would watch a little of the tonight show, unfortunatley the news was showing something looking like a party at Green's headquarters. I almost thought he won but when I got to work the paper said Doyle won, the better of two evils and at least he wont approve cat hunting*.

*The dumbest thing ever to be suggested in this state.

 

Signing statements, and yes, he can still write them, however, I think the Congress can tell him No, which is what needs to happen.

That sentance has too many commas

 

Congress can only overturn it by a 2/3 vote. Given how many seats we gained, it just got a lot easier to make that happen.

 

instead of the elections, i watched hacking democracy....

though i did vote...
my boss at work is a fierce christian partisan republican, and was shocked and appalled that keith ellison won in minnesota (ellison is muslim). "he has no business running in a christian government!" <-direct quote from my boss....


gratz dems

 

I have no big problem when widely accepted values that happen to be part of religion become part of government, the basic things like thou shall not steal for example. But there is a reason that you want government and religion seperate, just look at iran and who runs it.

 

I might be wrong but I think he means Executive Orders, which is a powerful tool the President has.

 

should have been "them; however," - though that's only a comma with a raised period

Anyways... it's about time. Mostly because there being two parties in control of two areas means that they won't accomplish anything, which would be a huge improvement over all the stupid laws we've been blessed with recently.

 

In related news, it looks like the democrats have taken control of the senate too

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6131122.stm

 

No, I think I was talking about signing statements, which are (IIRC) addenda that the president can add to any bill passed in Congress which can change the whole slant of that bill.
I think (again, IIRC) that George W has made more signing statements in his 1.5 terms than all of the previous presidents put together.

 

That does open an interesting can of worms, specifically what are the checks and balances on signing statements? We know that Congress can overturn a veto with a two thirds majority vote, and that they can write laws to overcome executive orders, but is there anything that can be done about signing statements? For that matter, where is the president's authority to insert signing statements derived from?

 

What's disappointing is that a large fraction of ordinary Americans haven't stood up and registered a protest against Bush/Republican "War on Terror" policies when they had the chance. It's hardly a landslide victory.

 

No arguement there. As angry as I am with the current administration, I'm positively sickened by the stupidity and conformity of my fellow "citizens".

Any yes, I did vote.