Redstate

I think its unfair to lump Kristol and McCain in with Hagel and Company. The first two criticized Rumsfeld from the opposite side of most of his critics. They said it was time for phased withdrawal, while Kristol and McCain argued (and still argue) that we need to fight the war with renewed strength and increase troop levels by 50,000 plus. The neo-cons (like Kristol - and remember, Kristol endorsed McCain in 2000) get criticized for how this was has been fought, especially troop levels. Remember though, with the possible exception of Wolfowitz, the neo-cons had very little say in how this war has been fought. Rumsfeld's idea was to streamline the military and make it smaller and faster and reliant on new technology. Neo-cons have long argued (go back to Donald and Frederick Kagan's "While America Sleeps" from the 1990s) that technology is no substitute for soldiers, and that we need far more of the latter.

So McCain and Kristol are not making the same arguments that Hagel and liberal critics are making. They want to see more forces fighting with renewed vigor from the leadership, not withdrawal.

Now I hardly think Gates is going to be the man to implement this (I hope I'm wrong though). Kristol and Robert Kagan raised this question in a recent Weekly Standard piece, but have not paid much attention to it beyond that. Kristol wanted to see someone else in the Pentagon, but I'm not sure a protege of Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft was who he had in mind.

McCain was playing a game he could not lose. It's easy to say there aren't enough troops. Either it works out with the current troop levels, in which case you were on the right side in supporting the mission, or it doesn't, in which case you were on the right side because "there weren't enough troops." It's an easy cop out.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

for a White House run in '08. By calling for more troops he could criticize Bush which made the MSM happy and look tough to conservatives. It is just a game he is playing.

I'm amazed by the lengths some on the right will go to to find a way to hate McCain. I understand that there are some issues on which you strongly disagree with him. But no matter what position he took, something tells me you guys would insist it was all a political cop out. What really amazes me is that it's probably because of the fact that the media, relatively speaking, seems to like him. If anything, this makes me respect him even more. He's been one of the few voices fo fiscal sanity in the Senate, he's rightly criticized Republicans for some of the ethical messes they have gotten themselves into, and he's strongly supported the war in Iraq, the war on terror and the reasons behind the war more so than the majority of Senators, since the beginning. I've gotten the feeling that too many in Congress supported the war because the administration did so, and were all too willing to back off when things got rough. McCain has understood and supported the reasoning behind the war all along. I understand people are upset with him for the torture issue, as I am too, but his positives far outweigh his negatives, in my mind. The fact that he's been able to act on many conservative issues while making the media like him is an asset the Republicans can use. As Bush comes off sounding more and more defensive everytime he speaks before the media, it wouldn't hurth to have someone who can play the media to his own ends - not because anyone cares what the media thinks, but because it would be beneficial to Republicans. I'm not sure yet who I'll be supporting in the primaries, but if McCain is the nominee, I'd be happy to vote for him. That so many people are determined to hate him is only gonna result in us shooting ourselves in the collective foot.

I get that 90s song stuck in my head.

"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"

Rumsfeld needs to go and Iraq is a disaster. Most people do not follow news and issues as much as people joining the discussions here at Redstate or other blogs. For two years now, every day "Rumsfeld needs to go" and "Iraq is a disaster". So whether the aims of these gentlemen or criticisms were different from each other really doesn't matter. The cumulative effect was a 60% disapproval of the War in Iraq which led to the Democrats taking over Congress. It seems to me that before people get out there and ask for a resignation they should also consider who the replacement will be. Am I quite sure that Mr. Kristol and fellow neo-cons must be quite nervous now. In their zeal to get rid of Rumsfeld they managed to discredit the neo-con philosophy. Realpolitk is back. Thanks Mr. Kristol.

To foster bipartisanship, I hereby denounce that unprovoked attack on this unimpeachable committee of patriotic experts, and also call on Donald Rumsfeld to resign ... again.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

Rumsfeld and Rice have a meeting with the ISG tomorrow. Oh, to be a fly on the wall...

"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld

will be so thick they'll have to hose the place out afterwards. "Baker: We told you not to try to win this 'war on terror'. You should have tried to get more viewpoints, as we have here ... right, everyone? Anyone disagree? Resolved, then, we were right all along."

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

equal great ideas or lack of partisanship. To be honest I wasn't seeing much bipartisanship during the 9-11 commission hearings, I am not convinced it is going to happen this go around.

I also get tired of the idea that just because a commission said it or recommended it, that it is somehow the best and only way to deal with the problem.

It is a comission, built with humans, their ideas aren't any more or less correct than anyone elses, even if there are people from both parties on it.

Comissions lately seem to be just one more way for politicians and former politicians to grandstand.

I agree. It is also scary that politicians, as bad as they are, are so willing to turn the government over unelected, unconstitutional committees. Democrat Nancy Pelosi has already said they will vote for all the unimplemented 9/11 commission recommendations, and will agree to whatever the Iraq panel recommends!

One other point: this material is the absolute highest security top secret, details of a war currently being fought. Can this group of unelected officials and their staffs really get to all the information they need to tell us how to fight the war?

and women available to serve. Who better to understand the prosecution of a war than men who have prosecuted one?

My guess is they didn't want them.

I don't know why we're surprised. The same thing happened with the 9/11 Commission. There wasn't a single intelligence professional on the panel. Just former governors, congressmen and lawyers. Once they released their report, there was absolutely no media scrutiny, no debate on their recommendations and Kerry immediately accepted the entire package in his campaign, leaving Bush no choice but to do the same.

Read Richard Posner's Preventing Surprise Attacks to understand just how dangerous a habit this is.

And anyone who watched the hearings and heard Richard ben-Veniste's "questioning" knows it was anything but bipartisan.

And naturally this will be the headline on the AP report. /snark

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.