Who will replace Rumsfeld ?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xenia, Nov 17, 2004.

  1. Xenia

    Xenia

    Results indicate Americans are wary about future of Iraq

    Tuesday, December 21, 2004 Posted: 4:06 AM EST (0906 GMT)

    A recent poll indicates falling confidence in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Fifty-two percent of respondents to a new poll think Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should resign amid recent criticism in Congress over his handling of the war in Iraq.

    www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/20/poll/index.html
     
    #11     Dec 23, 2004
  2. Xenia

    Xenia

    #12     Dec 23, 2004
  3. Wow. That is two minutes of my life I will never get back.

    As for Rumsfeld - I vote a monkey - any monkey - could do a better job.
     
    #13     Dec 23, 2004
  4. By the way, mytwocents - I am a little disappointed you did not address the post to you here:

    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42842
     
    #14     Dec 23, 2004
  5. I think Rummy stays, both because he is very tight with the White House through Ccheney in a way Powell, for example, never was, and because dumping him would be seen as an admission that Iraq has been screwed up. I believe the White House really doesn't believe it has been screwed up, so they are not going to do something to validate that notion.

    Getting a replacement for Rummy confirmed would open up a big can of worms too.
     
    #15     Dec 23, 2004
  6. Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
     
    #16     Dec 23, 2004
  7. Xenia

    Xenia

    #17     Aug 10, 2005
  8. Oh good grief! Would the US even need to invade? Chavez has to deal with a fifth, a sixth, and a seventh column (or about 1/2 of the population) who hate his guts. I'd wait for the next election, if he survives that long.
     
    #18     Aug 10, 2005
  9. Xenia

    Xenia

    SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

    Exemption 7(F) of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (7)(F), does not permit the
    government to hide records of its own misconduct, or of the misconduct of its agents,
    based upon a fear of violent public reaction to the disclosure. Amici do not dispute, as a
    general matter, the legitimacy of the government’s interest in the safety of its military
    personnel, or even in the safety of foreigners living in American zones of conflict
    overseas. Amici do object, however, to the government’s misdirected effort to
    undermine the FOIA by asserting, in essence, that its own misconduct has created an
    indictment too damning for the public to see.

    The government erroneously proposes a novel and distasteful application of
    Exemption 7(F) based upon the degree of outrage disclosure might provoke.
    Historically, Exemption 7(F) has been used most frequently to protect names from
    disclosure when that publicity would ostensibly endanger individuals’ personal safety.
    Two district courts have also allowed the use of Exemption 7(F) to suppress dam
    inundation maps and machine gun plans under the theory that the disclosure of technical
    information could be directly utilized to commit terrorism or crime. Living Rivers, Inc.
    v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1321-22 (D.Utah 2003);
    LaRouche v. Webster, No. 75 Civ. 6010 (MJL), 1984 WL 1061 at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23,
    1984). There is no precedent for the construction the government proposes.

    The government’s new request for secrecy appears to be based upon dubious
    reasoning and suspect timing, coming as it did literally within hours of its court-ordered
    deadline to finally hand records over to the ACLU and other FOIA requesters. Notably,
    the court order was issued in response to the government’s loss on a first argument, its
    unsuccessful reliance upon an argument that disclosure of the records violated detainees
    “privacy.” Regardless of whether the government technically has the right to claim a
    new FOIA exemption after fully arguing and losing its claims to other exemptions, its
    latest action creates further and unnecessary delay, violating the right of the ACLU and
    the public to a timely resolution of this access dispute.

    Enlarging Exemption 7(F) to accommodate the government’s new argument
    would significantly undermine both the intent of the exemption and the integrity of the
    Act as a whole for two reasons. First, the government’s interpretation would result in a
    perverse outcome by rewarding state actors who commit illegal activities so atrocious as
    to provoke fears of violent retribution should those acts be uncovered. Second, the
    government’s justification is both so vague and overbroad with regard to improper
    military conduct that Exemption 7(F) would fast become an exception that entirely
    swallows the rule.
     
    #19     Aug 19, 2005
  10. Xenia

    Xenia

    #20     Nov 8, 2006