Too little too late. . .

Rumsfeld should have left the administration after the last election. His gross mismanagement of the Iraqi reconstruction was cause enough to let him go. But I don't see him going now at this point, unless if he personally decides to. Recently a group of retired generals have become vocal in calling for the removal of Rumsfeld, citing mismanagement of the war operation. The allegations specifically revolve around the Defense Departments role in the Abu Gharib prison issue, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army and civil service after the war, which created huge functional problems in establishing order after the war, and severely underestimating the amount of ground troops we would need in securing the country. Some disagree with Rumsfeld's focus on "re-transforming" the military, claiming that he's depending more on technological warfare to fight future battles while ignoring the needs of special ops along with ground forces, which they argue is needed to fight a war against terrorism. Many of Rumsfeld's critics are jumping on the bandwagon in calling for his removal. But I dont think Rumsfeld is going anywhere right now. The question comes down to executive prerogative. Bush is going to want to establish the primacy of the civilian government over that of the military. Whenever Bush faces such opposition, even this strong, he usually steps back and regroups, rather than adjust personnel or policy. Besides these considerations revolving around the Presidents personality; there's also tense relationship between the government and the military. In the final analysis, that friction is necessary in order for there to be a check against military power. In many respects, that institution is governed by different standards than a democratically elected government. The military is hierarchical and structured; while an elected government is more open to allow for diverse opinions to be expressed. In the military, you've got to follow the company line. You have to keep the military out of civilian public policy process. The influence of the military in the civilian government, with their rigid hierarchy, can potentially lead to totalitarianism, much like it has in past instances. Of course, the irony is not lost on me that many of these military officers who are stepping forward now to condemn Rumsfeld are, or were, much more restrained about the prospect of going to war against Iraq. What do you do when the neo-conservative civilian government is much more militaristic than the generals??

Respect him, fear him, stay out of his freakin' way. Don is a power player from way back and if you make enough about him, he'll have you killed.

I have nothing but contempt for this man. He should quit and he certainly doesn't know what he's doing. He made America look bad around the world. I hope he's happy.

Another arrogant man like Bush who sees the world only through his narrow point of view. He doens't care about our men & woman out there fighting for our freedom. Some of them live on food stamps and don't have the body armor they need. He also tried to hide the atrocious, horrible treatment of human life at the Abu Ghraib prison (see http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444 for disturbing photos). This man should be put treated just like those prisoners--perhaps it would humble him.

Not only is he handling what is essentially two wars at the same time, but he's doing what he can to put members of the media in their place. By the way, in response to a previous comment, Franklin Roosevelt was never in the military, but served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, as well as Commander-in-Chief. How amazingly stupid is that?

McCain has sat on the Intel committee longer then I've been able to vote for him, so I would think he's a fairly good judge of what we need to fight the war on terror. I'm personally a little tired of Dubya surrounding himself with yes men and women, instead of the best and brightest.

Rumsfeld should be remembered by history as narrow minded fool who helped lead the USA into Iraq. Iraq policy can be justified in the abstract, but practically I think there will be turmoil, gunfire, and death for many years. January's election won't bring a peacefull, productive ally.

Donald Rumsfeld is a respectable, experienced guy who is doing a great job. I challenge any of his current critics to be able to tackle the current challenges to any Secretary of Defense. It is easy to criticize things that they do not even begin to understand. Replacing Rumsfeld at a critical time like this in the war on terror would be disastrous. Replacing Rumsfeld with some young hot-shot would be a stupid waste of the talent and experience someone like Rumsfeld has. And as far as McCain's recent comments, I think they show that McCain is choosing to prioritize playing DC politics over looking after the safety of the U.S.

baseless artificial hatred for Bush. 1229 dead in what was suppose to be the invasion of a nation with WMDs. Now this president says that was always secondary and it was about freeing the Iraqi people. Was it? No! Lied, remember lied? Bill Clinton. That was about sex and this is about why 1229 people died. This President took his eye off the ball. Instead of looking for bin laden he decided to settle his dad's old scores. Wasted money, wasted men and wasted time that should have been spent looking for bin laden. On the good side he is against overtime, minimum wage, fiscal responsibility, or being able to sue a doctor if they cut something off they should not have. It was about freeing Iraqis. Sure, great, let go free Cuba. Probably would not get more than 45 Americans killed and cost would be about 6 billion instead of 200 billion. Come on it is about freeing people.

Personally, I like th guy and I think he's doing a fine job. The people who hate him are predisposed to because they're blinded by baseless artificial hatred for Bush.

Let me guess, Rumsfeld is an evil man who lied to the American people and a warmonger, right? Look people, I know Rumsfeld is a pretty dry looking, up tight guy, but do you really want a Miss Congeniality as Secretary of Defense? Well said Eschew!

So this is the let's dump on everybody list. I was wondering where this was. If you're gonna throw epithets, call people names and accuse them of fictitious offenses, do it as they're leaving, like shooting someone in the back. Very helpful.

I doubted the existance of Evil until this man made the news.

A warmonger whose own military hates him. Can not take any critism or listen to other opinions. Like Cheney and Bush ducked Vietnam. An arrogant bully who will take no responsibility or accountability but will take credit if its there. Thinks he is above everyone and allows politics and personal opinionto dicate policy instead of logic and analysis.

A dangerous being

A hot-headed bully who is know-it-all who knows nothing.

This man needs shooting.

Completely inappropriate person to do the job.

An intelligent and sophisticated manager who sets and accomplishes goals. There are few better than Donald Rumsfeld.

What a douchebag. This guy is the Secretary of Defense, and he never even served in the military. I find that amazingly stupid.