From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
So why isn't Rumsfeld being fired?

April 15, 2006 12:51 AM

DemDachsund, channeling you know who: "It's hard to know. After all there are known knowns, unknown knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns."

More from the archive in Politics.

So why isn't Rumsfeld being fired? (04.15.2006)

Next Entry: Insane. (04.18.2006)
Previous Entry: The Nukuhlar Option (04.12.2006)

Read the 2 comments.

Dave E.:

Digby knows why:

"Bush's Secret War-
I really think it's possible that Bush and Rummy have already got a secret war going on, one that has not been revealed to congress in any form. It's designed that way. Bush is not going to fire Rummy --- he can't. He's already committed himself to this thing. This could be the ultimate action of the unitary executive."


"Black Reconnaissance -
It's obvious to me that this call for Rumsfeld's resignation by six generals is about stopping this operation in Iran first and foremost. It is not a coincidence that the first salvo came from Sy Hersh last Sunday
The problem may be that Bush can't replace the person who is running his secret war."

It's persuasive (and frightening) reasoning, but it seems all too plausible given what we know.

Anyway, hope you're doing well Jim.

Sat Apr 15 2006 3:01 AM


i think rumsfeld should be fired cuz of all the events that have happened in iraq like abu grahib and so on

Tue May 2 2006 8:53 PM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Weekly Artists Chart