Anyone, someone, please explain to me why Rummy isn't fired YET?

[anarchy1999]

How many more atrocities must "we" the people suffer before we demand that this demented, toxic 72 year old psycho be retired?

Just what is it going to take?

Anyone out there this late that might have a respectable, worthy answer?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. We can demand whatever you want

and some of us have been demanding his firing for a good while

Won't happen and you know why? His boss aproves and they take NO responsibity.

this comes for a true cynic

Oh and how long it will take the Murican people to rise? When they are cold, hungry and motivated enough... we are not there yet... and I dunno how long it will take... but it will not happen until it affects them personally

[libhill]

3. Won't happen

because even when the Repukes get what they want, which is to turn back the clock by about 70 years, and have the majority of us working for J.B. Big Bucks for a dollar a fucking day, while they live high off the hog, even then, I don't think the dumb assed American public will wake up. God, guns and gays - that's the Repuke platform, and too many people buy into it, because they're too fucking stupid to know any better.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Here uis what they have to balance

the misery index... if it gets high enouhg (70% or so) you get riots.

If this gets to 90% + you get revolutions. I did not make this up, Social Scientists did... and some have actually calculated it for thigns such as... the American revolution, the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution...

If they manage to keep it at oh 65-67% then you have a point, as people are not motivated enough.

By the way, the other day they did give us some hard data... and some of us think it is around 62% natioanally with some pockets going up towards the 70% magic number....

[libhill]

9. The only problem

with a revolution in this day and age, is that the revolutionists would be outgunned and slaughtered, or rounded up and sent to concentration camps. In the American, French, and even to a certain degree, the Russian Revolutions, the opposing sides were more or less equally armed. Today, we would be up against tanks, aircraft, gunships, armored personnel carriers, and the like. I'm afraid we wouldn't have a chance.

[Hardrada]

10. How would a General Strike

be violent. Non-violent methods can be very effective. The trick is co-ordination.

[libhill]

11. True, non violence

has it's place, and can be very effective, as shown by Martin Luther King and Gandhi. But, I believe we were talking about the possibility of an actual revolution, if things got bad enough. I don't think the average Joe Six pack would ever go in for that, regardless of how bad things get.

[Hardrada]

14. This is where we educate the people. By example

or by going to where they are and not belittling them. The unions have to relearn some of the lessons of the earlier 20th Century.

[libhill]

16. I'm not

trying to belittle anyone. But I live in a predominately working class area, where damn near everyone votes Republican. And if you even attempt to "educate" these clowns, you'll get shouted down with nonsense and rhetoric. Even though these are the very people that the fucking Republicans hurt the worst.

[Hardrada]

21. I'm spoiled I guess since I live in one of the bluest counties

In blue eastern Iowa. Democratic by tradition. Too bad western IA pulled the state into the Bush column.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. Don't forget

that now with the "Patriot Act" they can just throw you in jail for whatever reason, so I think people are just too afraid.

[libhill]

17. You have a good point there and,

I think you read my mind, lol. It did cross my mind that I might be asking for trouble by even using the phrase "revolution", but I sincerely hope that our country hasn't sunk so low that people can't express themselves in an on line forum without being arrested. At any rate, we're not advocating violent uprising, just speculating as to whether or not it would ever happen here.

[anarchy1999]

5. Don't we employ them? Just asking, but then again, just who does

pay for the assholes running this country into the ground. Am I mistaken, or isn't it us, the "Taxpayers"? Isn't our money paying for them? THEY WORK FOR US. right? As Donald Trump would say and if I could say it alone, "YOU'RE FIRED"!

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Yep that is the theory.

but this is not direct. You elected repts to congress and right now the Majority is NOT into personal responsibitly or holding them acountable. We get a voice (maybe) every two years.... they get it the rest of the time

Now what you can do is make noise with those elected officals by sending them emails, letters the works... and writing to papers.. and the rest of it. But it will not have an immediate effect.

Oh and personally I doubt the elections were clean but that is a whole different matter

[The Magistrate]

2. The Answer, Ma'am

Is that he is doing just what his boss wants him to do. People are generally not fired for that.

"The great thing about senseless, sadist policies is they don't require any explaination."

[Insider]

20. "...just what his boss wants him to do."

worth repeating. he even got his contract renewed for the 2d term. how do you spell success? P-N-A-C.

[NYC]

4. It's not what you know; it's whom you know.

He is not required to be competent.

[Stirk]

8. It'd be an admission of fault.

The Bush Administration never admits to a mistake- especially not mistakes of Rumsfeldian proportions.

Besides, as mentioned above, he's carrying out his orders as expected. They approve of his methods. I mean c'mon- this is the same group that went straight to Poindexter, Negroponte, and Kissinger when they needed "experience".

[leftofthedial]

12. one could ask the same question

about nearly every ranking member of the criminal bushgang

[FreedomAngel82]

13. Here's why I think

Have you ever seen the PBS documentary "Rumsfeld's war"? It explains it very well. Rumsfeld told Bush at the beginning of the Iraq war to leave it up to him and not to worry about it. So without Rumsfeld Bush wouldn't know what to do. He and Cheney are the one's pulling the strings and Bush just signs papers and whatnot. Haven't you ever wondered why he's never vetoed anything? I think you can see the documentary on the pbs site.

[anarchy1999]

22. You are right. I knew that. Bush isn't running the show. Daddy and

the rest of his minions are. Whoops. Sorry, I forgot. But still you'd think after 50 years of this family and their criminals you'd just think the "peoples" would rise up and finally give them their due.

[Journeyman]

18. I suspect we'd be in much worse shape with Rummy gone. . .

Consider: Had someone competent been in charge of the military in the run-up to the invasion, it might have gone far better than it has. In this occasion, success would breed further contempt for the law, and with it ever more reckless crimes.

Oh certainly, we're faced with that now, but had Iraqnam gone smoother, with less disarray, the enticement to greater 'adventures' would have been unimpeded -- at least, from a sizable portion of the nation. As it is, Rummy's incompetence has bought time for competing voices to be heard and there's a possible sufficient weight can be brought to bear that may thwart some of the more egregious behavior.

We can hope.

[anarchy1999]

23. There is that "silver lining" we've all been searching for. I have to

agree with you. Thanks.

[ComerPerro]

19. Failure is success

[leesa]

24. Because he is doing what our government wants him to do.