Congressional Democrats to Demand Donald Rumsfeld's Resignation! (Maybe!)
Free advice is usually worth what you pay for it; nonetheless, this is offered in good faith.
By AcademicElephant Posted in War — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[Friday morning update at the bottom.]
And so the heralded five Iraq speeches by Bush administration principals have been given this week, and since the President didn't trip over the podium, Vice President Cheney hid his cloven hoofs in his Alden loafers and Secretary Rice was, well, Secretary Rice, not entirely to my surprise the "Media Lightening Rod" award goes to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Undeterred by the media lashing he got after he equated the Islamo-fascist terrorists we face today with the Third Reich fascists of the Second World War in his March Washington Post op-ed, Mr. Rumsfeld had the chutzpah to do it again in both his speeches. This time on even stronger terms, the Secretary insisted that this war, the Global War on Terror, has the same moral structure that we can with hindsight so easily identify in WWII. We are the good guys. They are the bad guys. And those who insist on seeing shades of gray are gumming up the works.
It's simple, really. Read on.
Simply awful, cry liberals in both government and media. They're shocked, shocked they're telling us that Mr. Rumsfeld could say such a thing. The problem is that once again, Mr. Rumsfeld is being too tough. Too mean. Too harsh, both apparently with the terrorists and with the opponents of the policy he has fought so hard to implement, and which, after a long and grueling slog, is actually starting to bear fruit. How dare he, squawk (or rather coo) the doves, beaks tucked firmly under their wings so they don't have to look at the dangers that confront them, how dare he imply that we are the equivalent of those who couldn't see the Nazi threat for what it was in the 1930s? The unmittigated gall of that man. Doesn't he know that we're tough on terror too? He ought to say he's sorry, they huff.
Even better, he ought to resign!
And so Democrats are calling for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. Chests are being puffed out. Disapproving toes are being tapped. Op-ed pieces are being written. And to top it off, Rep. Rahm Emmanuel (D-IL) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) are moving for a "no confidence" vote in the Secretary of Defense. Of course they're not sure they're going to do it because they've got to check with various candidates first to see which way the political wind is blowing before they act on their firmly held convictions. But they're almost certain that they might do it.
Oh my nerves.
It seems to me that if their goal is really to get rid of Mr. Rumsfeld, they're barking up the wrong tree here. The history of the last six years tells us that there's no surer way to keep Donald Rumsfeld in office than to call for his resignation. He doesn't respond well to such pressure, and more to the point President Bush really doesn't like it. Consequently, Washington is littered with the fools who have done so, sometimes repeatedly, and yet he chugs along, uncaring. Worse than uncaring, he seems to seek out opportunities to provoke such calls, apparently for the sheer pleasure of ignoring them. Demanding his resignation yet again gets the democrats absolutely no where. It draws attention to their own impotent myopia. They don't have a prayer of succeeding, either in passing this meaningless legislation or achieving their stated goal. They're wasting their time on a pointless exercise that does nothing but amuse their supposed target, and which begs the question that all Americans might consider going into this election cycle: Have you nothing better to do?
Here's the free advice part, and it's advice I don't think Mr. Rumsfeld would mind me giving: the sure-fire way to get him to resign is to start acting, not just talking but really acting, tough on the GWoT. Start offering constructive suggestions and proposals. Stop trying to undermine our military mission for cheap political gain. Support the troops by word and deed. Demonstrate that if he weren't in office and so minding the store, the whole thing wouldn't go to hell in a handbasket because your ilk can't be trusted to make tough decisions when push comes to shove. For what this week demonstrated to me is that Mr. Rumsfeld is motivated to remain in office by a strong sense of urgency. He is deeply concerned about the developing global situation, he firmly believes the current path is the only one to lasting and meaningful victory, and he's convinced that the political left has no idea what they're dealing with, or a clue how to deal with it. His speeches were designed to open their eyes to our collective peril, and if they were to open said eyes instead of reacting with this sort of silly self-aggrandizing grievance, he would feel much more comfortable about passing the reigns of the Pentagon to that "new blood" everyone seems so eager for. Heck, he might be eager for it. But no such luck. Emmanuel, Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Alazar, Schumer et al had to make this week all about them. Their hurt feelings. Their offended patriotism. Their wounded pride.
What they fail to understand is that Mr. Rumsfeld doesn't really care about them. For him, this war is not about them. It's about the vicious and merciless Islamo-facists we're fighting at home, abroad, on the internet and in the media. It's about understanding that this is a war for our very way of life, and that spreading democracy may well be our last and best shot to preserve that way of life, so we'd better give it our all. Mr. Rumsfeld has demonstrated that he's willing to literally spend himself to do so. Can Barbara Boxer say the same?
In the silver lining department, the antics of the above named congressmen have probably guaranteed that Mr. Rumsfeld will be Secretary of Defense for the foreseeable future. For if they're going to insist on remaining in office, he'll have to as well.
[UPDATE]: Mr. Rumsfeld, unimpressed with Mr. Emmanuel's and Ms. Boxer's efforts, yanked their collective chain again this morning with an editorial that RCP calls "I Meant What I Said." Rather disappointingly, the LATimes calls it "New Enemies Demand New Thinking," but in any event he brazenly reprises his major themes from Monday and Tuesday, and suggests that the malcontents actually read the readily-available transcripts of his speeches. I hope this sort of rapid and vigorous repsonse to an attempt to distort his words to score political points is evidence of the new approach Mr. Rumsfeld is taking to the communication/media front of this war.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Yet Another Public Service Announcement: President Bush at the American Legion — Comments (10) »
Congressional Democrats to Demand Donald Rumsfeld's Resignation! (Maybe!) 17 Comments (0 topical, 17 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It's a great combination.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Sometimes he disappoints. Personally, I think we could have used another two divisions in the initial Iraq package. Overwhelming force, that kind of thing.
How and ever, he doth layeth down the smack quite well. Good one-two punch with Condi. Bush needs to get them both out on the Trail this fall early and often. Rummy's magic is that he calls out the White Flag Crowd and they go for the bait.
I can tell you this, the Usual Suspects at what Hugh Hewitt rightly terms the Dawsonite Appeasement Lobby are mightily upset with Rummy today. I suppose that it's because he won't Resign In Disgrace like a Good Chap. Indeed, I fully expect Djerejian to become out of sorts with Condi before long. It appears that Nick Burns failed to convince her to endorse yet another Javier Solana expedition to Tehran to appease the Ayatollahs.
Looks as if Condi has decided that diplomacy has failed, and that the Lebanon Campaign was Iran's answer to her initiative. That's what the beginning of these ineffectual sanctions mean (the sanctions in and of themselves aren't important-it's what they lead to in the end that has meaning). This will put Belgravia Greg, Yglesias, Steve Clemons, and the rest of the folks who are fighting over office space in the West Wing of Hillary's White House out of sorts for the next several months as they strongly advocate appeasement of the Persian Fuhrer.
People for whom the term "Islamic Fascist" (coined by Hitchens, some say) is too strong a word are people who are fundamentally unserious about this war.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
People for whom the term "Islamic Fascist" (coined by Hitchens, some say) is too strong a word are people who are fundamentally unserious about this war.
... needs (in some form or another) to be in everyone's mind come the end of October.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
You have the makings of a pretty good diary there, Section9.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
I long for the good old days when we had men like "Bull" Halsey, George S. Patton, and Holland M. Smith leading the attack for the United States; upfront, brutal, and direct.
Today, we're stuck with the likes of Ted Koppel, Wesley Clark, Maureen Dowd, and Paul Krugman leading the charge......for the enemy.
His biggest pitfall is comparing Iraq war critics, which I believe is a majority of the electorate, to a bunch of Nazi sympathizers. As the violence there continues unbridled, he decides to call names and make grandiose comparisons to draw attention away from his inept execution of the war and the shortcomings to the war on terror that arose due to our foray into Iraq.
I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code
Thanks for the talking point from two days ago, but you really should not have bothered.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
Of course everything us libs say is a talking point carefully crafted by George Soros. But being plugged into Karl Rove's brain, you know how it goes, right? :)
"The Babel fish could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D." - HHG2TG
Well, you do have to admit that you repeated the Emmanuel/Boxer talking point pretty handily.
It's actually not a "plug" in the traditional sense of the word. It's a microscopic satellite transmission device inserted into the cerebral cortex. Only stings for a minute when they put it in.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
Hanging around here, I don't usually get them Boxer talking points.
"The Babel fish could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D." - HHG2TG
There are serious liberals, such as Holbrooke and Steve Clemons, who advocate negotiations with an Iranian regime that is pledged to the annihilation of the population of an American ally because its population is Jewish. This shows a fundamental unseriousness of purpose.
Condi stopped the madness when she saw the Iranians hip deep in Big Muddy in Lebanon. She had her answer from them. But Democrats want us to wear the Kick Me sign. Liberals want us to go to Tehran, hat-in-hand, as if the Persian Fuhrer were this Reasonable Fella with whom we had this mild disagreement over Israel that could be settled like Two Gentlemen.
Liberals are people who have never seen a map of the Sudetenland.
The News Media, which is eighty to ninety percent liberal and Democratic, chooses to emphasize Abu Ghraib over the heroism of say, Paul Ray Smith, who won the Medal of Honor. Rumsfeld pointed that out. Democrats screamed.
Rumsfled did not accuse liberals of being in sympathy with either Nazis or Jihadists. However, I must note that the Code Pink crowd and many on the Chomskyite/Guardianista Left certainly are in sympathy with the Islamic Fascists, as this column by the always-dependable George Galloway makes quite clear. But Rummy was very, very careful not to veer off into CoulterLand and question either the Democrats patriotism or their honor. Their judgement? Oh, "goodness gracious" yes....
Rumsfeld pushed a button. Democrats screamed. That should tell you two things from the History of the PyeRates:
1. Dead Men Tell No Tales. Arrrgh.
2. Internal Polling Never Lies. Arrrgh.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
a good portion of Iraq War critics believe we should be pursuing the war more aggressively. Rumsfeld is not criticizing them.
But as AE said, thanks for the talking points, they were charming. But now you've used up your next three months' quota in one post.
No, really. Does he get a gift subscription to The Spotlight or something? Does Academic Elephant mail him The Delectable Evil of Karl: Cooking from The Rove Kitchen as a parting gift? How about the Joe Wilson Scandal Board Game to take home.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
that the Dems make a BIG media deal calling for Rummy's resignation and making his recent remarks Ex. A in their case agaisnt him. The more times his comments are aired on tv or in print, the better as far as I am concerned. I want every American to hear them repeatedly, as to spend a little time thinking about them.
I'm glad Rummy is willing to take a little more adverse publicitly to make an essential point. Kind of like the Swifties did a few months ago.
good weekend!
They never expected Kerry's people to be so dumb as to start filing lawsuits. It allowed them to go national. Kerry never recovered. But then again, the Democrats' reaction to Rummy's speech show something; it's still 2004 to them. Fundamentally, they haven't been able to delink Iraq and the WOT. The Lebanon War, the London Plot to down several passenger aircraft, and the Persian Fuhrer's Manhattan Project have all served to cast a light on the fundmental unseriousness of the Democratic Party.
You can rightly accuse Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Condi of making mistakes along the way. You cannot accuse them of being unserious. You cannot accuse them of being halfhearted in the struggle.
Heck, there were mistakes aplenty in WWII. Rommel kicked our *** right out of the box at Kasserine Pass, and Republicans didn't start screaming for an exit strategy. People who worked for Mark Clark at Salerno and Anzio must have a tale to tell. The E-Boat attack on our practice session at Slapton Sands a month before D-Day took 700 lives. It was hushed up.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
As the Roman historian Livy once wrote,
"Never mind if they call your caution timidity, your wisdom sloth, your generalship weakness; it is better that a wise enemy should fear you than that foolish friends should praise."
Altering one's defense policy based on the whims of Boxer and company would yield to disastourus results for the nation. What does a vote of no confidence in the nation's defense sectarary signal to our adversaries around the world? What, heaven forbid, would happen should the Democrats retake congress and attempt to impeach the whole adminstration - something that has been hinted at? It would spell greater disaster for the United States' standing around the globe far more than disagreements over our Middle East policy. Enemies would be emboldened as they would see the United States recoiling in the face of losses, thus spawning more violence. Rumsfeld is correct to say that the mentality we are facing with Radical Islam is similar to fascism and communism in that they only respect application of force to thwart their aims. Vacillation cannot be the United States policy. To me, many of the leading Democratic voices. although not all, seem to have no concept of national interest, instead attempting to make short term political gain by playing off of war-weariness and allegations of incompetence.
Thanks for the full text of Kissinger's comments on your blog. Although I expect tomorrow to hear the moonbats tell me that Kissinger agreed with Zbigniew Brzezinski in his criticism of Rumsfeld because CNN reported it to be so we have the transcripts.
Earlier today I asked someone on RedState how they lived with themselves. I thought the comment was pretty harsh at the time, but seeing the kinds of things that CNN does with quotes and context makes my mind absolutely reel, and it also reaffirms my belief that the people who want Republicans to spend some "time out in the wilderness" are gravely misguided.
I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.