Rumsfeld's Departure (Other Thoughts), the Baker Commission & The Decider
By gamecock Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This blog entry was inspired by pagar's endorsement
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/dan_mclaughlin/2006/nov/11/rumsfelds_depar...
just after a chickenhead explosion and just before the rooster concluded it was owed to the RS public. It is submitted as a possible alternative explanation, not as a refutation of the other thoughtful surmises such as Dan McLaughlin's:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/dan_mclaughlin/2006/nov/11/rumsfelds_depar...
FTR, I am a great admirer of Rumsfeld and think that thanks to his strategies and leadership, never have our enemies been so decimated, our security so enhanced, so many living in tyranny been liberated in so short a time and at so low a cost by any military in history. Rumsfeld and Bush are known in liberated Afghanistan and Iraq by the vast majority of the gratefully liberated (most of whom have been blackballed from MSM appearances) as "The Liberators," as the history of the Muslim and Arab worlds will also remember them long after Pinch is pinched with death taxes.
I am wholly unconvinced that Rumsfeld's resignation on any particular date in the past would have helped the GOP keep their majorities or that the media spin on why his resignation when it occurred has any basis in reality.
I suspect that Rummy, soon to be the longest serving DOD in history, has wanted to leave the post for the normal reasons his predecessors did for quite sometime, but that he has stayed in order to make sure that our enemies not be emboldened that his resignation is a sign the President is losing the will to fight and that the Dems would gain power. Once the Dems gained power, the goal of thwarting the Dems alliance with America's enemies was unachievable. Resigning right away limits the negative press by being in the same cycle as the Dem wins.
I am confident that had Rummy resigned during the campaign that it would have hurt the GOP more. Bush and the GOP have failed utterly in selling a most sell able war. That is the major reason they lost power. Well, not really. The main reason is the YEAR SIX phenomenon of built up grievances. The problem is that the conservative movement is still relatively young, and so we don't have the built up large majorities like the Dems had over their 40years. The GOP will re-gain the majority. The Dem party will make sure of that.
I also suspect that most of the work in Iraq requiring over 100,000 troops is largely done but that Bush's main goal is to make sure that when they begin with withdrawal it not be seen as a defeat like the Dems have tried to ensure. I think the Baker Commission will be the cover. It will cite the sterling achievements. The Dems cynical timetable ala Murtha actually coincided with the Bush's plans all along. But the Dems goal is that America be humiliated in the world.
See also Fred Barnes' "There's Still Life in that Lame Duck":
excerpt:
"With Rumsfeld's resignation, Bush demonstrated his willingness to make major concessions. Rather than change the strategy in Iraq, he changed the strategist. This is not the first step in a disguised retreat from Iraq, Bush aides insist, nor does it represent a turnover of national security policy to the "realists," as opposed to an idealist like Bush, who ran foreign affairs under Bush's father. The president told Rumsfeld's successor, Bob Gates, the goal is still to create a stable democratic Iraq that can defend itself--in other words, victory."
read the whole thing
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/945gol...
And read Bush's comments on the war in his pre-election interview with conservatives in the Oval Office and I think we should conclude that Bush will never stop defending us and will not betray our purple-fingered allies in Iraq nor our troops:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/archives/061025/an_inter...
How many times have we worried that Bush would waver and weaken on the war due to his silence or media spin and speculation? Yet he has never wavered. Never. And The Decider won't.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
When asked during that first new conference why he didn't make the change before the election, the President stated that he didn't want to interject policy decision into the political debate.
While that sounds very high minded, the fact of the matter is that EVERY decision is part of the political debate. Removing Rumsfeld before the election would have achieved nothing. The outcome of this election was determined months ago.
I also suspect that most of work in Iraq requiring over 100,000 troops is largely done but that Bush's main goal is to make sure that when they begin with withdrawal it not be seen as a defeat like the Dems have tried to ensure.
Is I have said elsewhere, there is no doubt in my mind that now that the election is won, the MSM and the Democrats will now allow good news to filter out of Iraq. Now that they can take credit for policy, even if it remains exactly the same, the Democrats and the MSM have set it up to claim that THEY had the winning approach to the Iraq situation.
As Iraqi forces step up, allowing US forces to stand down, and eventually withdraw (most of them), the Dems can claim that this outcome would not have happened had they not taken power.
we have the good sense to leave some at the Air Bases. We'll need them for Iran...it's coming for sure.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - "We did not have
a revolution in order to have democracy."
Conservative News and
Views
AIM hinzsightteam2
with the agreements we recently signed with a couple of the former Russian "Stans," just north of Iran!
if we don't care who gets the credit, and I would gladly share credit with the children in the mommy party if they unite in praising a Mission Accomplished!
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I think we're safe. George W. knows how to win this war and He Will despite any interference from Nancy and the Defeatocrats, the Nancy Boys.
If Majority Leader Murtha ensures that no defense spending bill gets through the House that does not shift money from Iraq deployments to Okinawa redeployments, what is the President going to do about it?
Vetoing won't save the mission, because with no bill you still don't have the money to fight with.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Therein lies the rub. If they try a straight bill, it goes down to defeat, if not in the House, in the Senate - where Lieberman provides the one vote needed to make it 50-50 and Cheney breaks the tie.
But it won't just be Lieberman. I figure Landrieu, Pryor, Nelson (NE) and Johnson (SD) will also be voting along those lines as well.
But failing to pass the next supplemental will be about as bad as passing an explicit cut and run bill. Without money for body armor, bullets, and bonus pay, we can't keep fighting.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The democratic leadership has pretty much unanimously and publicly said in the last few days that they won't try to cut spending for the war. They know it could end up to them getting blamed for troops getting killed, not having enough ammunition to fight, etc.
The dems strategy which they somewhat openly talked about was to use the hearings to turn the public against the war. They are modeling it off Vietnam, and believe that eventually enough republicans will turn against it to get the votes for withdrawal.
So for both offensive and defensive political purposes, the democrats want to keep this issue alive, and not cut funding off now.
by a vote from the current Congress, and Murtha wouldn't have the votes to repeal it, over a Presidential veto and/or Republican filibuster in the Senate. Since Murtha is not the Commander in Chief, he cannot force a withdrawal of American troops before then.
Beyond that, somewhere along the line Congress will have to come up with a Defense budget for fiscal 2008. If Murtha & Co. want to de-fund the war, they will have to first convince at least 218 of their own in the House to support such a radical move (there may be quite a few defectors by then, who might start thinking about how such a vote would look in a 2008 campaign).
Next, what would happen in a 51-49 Senate, whose Democrats include Joe Lieberman and James Webb, and possibly a few other hawkish Democrats? Would Hillary vote to de-fund the war, and set herself up as the next Kerry for 2008? What about Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu, red-state Democrats up for re-election in 2008? The Defense budget would then become a "must-pass" bill, and Republicans could insist on tying the Iraq appropriation to the Defense budget, on threat of filibuster. If the Senate passes a higher Defense budget than the House, it has to go to Conference Committee, and if there is still no agreement, there will probably be a Continuing Resolution to fund at this year's levels until agreement can be reached. Then, as Murtha keeps screaming about withdrawal, Campaign 2008 gets closer, and some of those freshman House Dems start to bail on Murtha and join the Republicans in funding the war.
If, of course, the Senate Republicans have the spine for such a fight. That is the question, and we need to keep their feet to the fire.
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
Drop the mask, step away from the screen name, and come out of the closet on the up-and-up.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - "We did not have
a revolution in order to have democracy."
Conservative News and
Views
AIM hinzsightteam2