Home » Shinseki resigns

Comments

Shinseki resigns — 14 Comments

  1. They are all fall guys, for a failed idealism that was disproven, many times, at hellacious cost, last century. There is no excuse for them or their policies or ways in these, or any, times. But certainly not less than an half a century after one of the greatest criminal states the world has ever nightmared about fell by rotting from within.

  2. So Shinseki tried to fire the Phoenix VA robber barons, maybe kickbacking to McCain’s Arizona, and he was fired now?

    So does that mean the Phoenix VA robber barons get to stay or get promoted?

  3. General Shinseki is an interesting case. He is a bit of a Darling on the Left because he was publicly at odds with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz over Iraq strategy. Some claim that he was proven right by the post-invasion insurgency–and the subsequent need for the surge. Fact is that Rumsfeld’s and Wolfiwitz’s strategy was undercut by Colin Powell and his allies, and was not really implemented. In short, they along with Bush, planned to get in, turn the country over to Iraqi elements and get out. The Powell contingent blocked the turnover.

    There are also claims that Shinseki’s courage in opposing Rumsfeld cost him his job; in fact his departure at the end of his term as Chief of Staff, and retirement after 38 years, was announced the previous year.

    Shinseki may or may not be a fall guy. Either way, there is a long tradition in the military of the “guy in charge” taking the fall. The rationale is that it demonstrates accountability up and down the line. Although not always fair, it is well understood and probably wise on balance.

  4. Shinseki was told last week to present a plan to the Prez. What you want to bet he showed up with a blank piece of paper? Anyone who meets with the big boss only once in two years is not going to have any ideas. They are placeholders specifically because they don’t have any ideas or complaints. This happens all the time. Everything is fine until it isn’t. Then the placeholder has got to go. It is a hazard of being a placeholder. Screw him. Now someone will have to try to fix the mess that festered with his doing squat.

  5. Shinseki had to go because even dems were calling for it. But it’s not Shinseki’s fault. How do I know? Because that’s what the President said just this morning. No, it wasn’t bad management, it was, drum roll please, outdated technology at the VA. And, of course, that dates back to Bush’s term. So, it’s really all Bush’s fault.

  6. Shinseki is indeed the fall guy but he deserved that fate. After his appointment and once he realized the state of the VA, the honorable thing to do was to demand the tools needed to fix the VA’s problems or resign in protest. He did neither.

    The list of the current line of presidential succession is more than sobering, it is an indication of just how utterly bankrupt the governmental leadership has become and that ultimately, the public has installed. The only thing that they have to recommend them is that none are likely to be quite the disaster that Obama has proven to be.

  7. The list of Presidential succession in 2014 is just about the scariest list possible.
    That Boehner is the heads and shoulders standout emphasizes that an assassination in DC won’t be enough; a nuclear weapon would be needed. And Tearful John would be collateral damage.

    Perhaps jihadis will help out. Naah, they know to leave our national self-immolation alone while they prosper unchecked.

    I do not share GB’s confidence that none on the list are likely to equal BHO as disasters. Simply gaze on Napolitano and Sibelius, and shudder. Remember the chuckleheaded Sec of Energy? These people all seem to have been dredged up from the bottom of the human sea, and with a wave of Senatorial wand turned into our fearless leaders.

  8. I agree with Geoffrey Britain in content, but disagree about terms: “fall guy” automatically implies one isn’t culpable.
    Obama knew about the problems at the VA (he campaigned on it!), Shinseki knew about the problems.
    If Shinseki didn’t fix the problems, then of course he had to go. There are only two plausible explanations: 1) He was either incompetent or powerless (“fool”) or 2) He was corrupt, and part of the problem (“knave”).
    As GB notes, if Shinseki didn’t have the power to enact reforms, he should’ve resigned in protest.

    What a wonderful distillation we’ve come up with. “Fool or knave” sums up almost all of the malfeasance we encounter.

  9. To Matt_SE:

    You write: “‘fall guy’ automatically implies one isn’t culpable.”

    No, it does not automatically imply that. It can be used in several different ways:

    four slightly different usages for “fall guy” survive and their origins are probably different. These usages are:

    An innocent scapegoat is unjustly punished for another’s action.
    A guilty scapegoat takes the blame for the actions of a group.
    A dupe takes the butt of jokes.
    A worker who takes on the responsibilities of others.

    The phrase may have multiple, separate origins. Criminal usage goes back to the original sense of “felon” (derived from fallen, morally).

    I was using definition number 2.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>