Rumsfeld Again

everything you say is true, which doesn't mean that as a political manuever for the next 2 months, dumping on rumsfeld isn't a capital idea. rove has made us all deeply cynical about political machinations, and if calling for rumsfeld's head helps in the election season, that's good enough for me. it's not like he should still be secdef.

What about a 'Dump Cheney' slogan? Or better, "Dump Rumsfeld and Cheney"?

I, also, think what you say is true enough. But, first, by the same token Rumsfeld is a proxy for Bush, without the protections that the presidency affords to those who still feel uncomfortable about dissing the office. Second, there's far more consensus about Rummy, both within the Democratic party and beyond it, than there is about just what exactly went wrong in Iraq. Simply as a matter of coalition building, it's still really dicey to declare the *policy* that led us to Iraq a disaster, rather than its execution. Not only are a lot of people across the partisan spectrum tied into that policy [Remember what a quagmire it was for Kerry?], but the fact that there's no good end in sight to Iraq, whether we stay or leave, makes those contemplating departure all too aware that they'll get blamed for everything bad that would happen subsequent to withdrawal. It's been said before--antiwar Democrats were right about Vietnam, and they've been punished for it ever since--maybe not by the left blogosphere, but how many of you in the end are there?

I think the Democrats would be foolish to focus too much on Rumsfeld, as Sullivan suggests, and not on Bush. If they did, Bush could easily then dump Rumsfeld and gain credibility for the move, as if that was the problem all the time, and not Bush himself. What would the Democrats do then? Focussing on Bush at that point wouldn't work, as they'd just look like politicians to the general population always trying to find something to complain about the opposition.

No, the focus has to be on Bush, all the time.

focus on Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush. Rumsfeld gives us the opportunity to tie people to votes. A vote of censure would be great.

Another good sign that MY's book will not be a repeat of Beinart's.

"Rumsfeld, resign!" is just a rhetorical substitute for "Bush, resign!" It's an indirect attack on Bush. Everyone knows he should go but Bush is too pigheaded to listen. That's the real point. Replacing Rummy itself would not make a big difference.

The point isn’t that firing Rumsfeld will solve everything. The point is that Rumsfeld is part of the larger pattern of Bush’s bad leadership.

Firing the wrong people and rewarding incompetence is something that pervades everything that this administration does, not just in Iraq. That’s the point that the Democrats need to stress.

Also, it seems to me that if you accept Matt’s argument fully, then you should *really* want to see Rumsfeld go. Because the longer he stays, the more the ‘incompetence dodge’ will remain as a viable argument.

Of course Rumsfeld's policies are Bush's policies. That's why it's important to repudiate them.

Will we still be stuck with Bush? Of course. That doesn't mean it's not important to strike a blow.

You're right of course on the substantive merits. But as a matter of politics - as a matter of playing some nat sec offense over the next two months - doesn't this work?

Rumsfeld is friendly terrain given that Rumsfeld-contempt unites Kristol-McCain with the NotIdiots coalition. In other words, isn't making Bush defend Rumsfeld (forcing votes, etc.) a good idea strictly as a matter of politics?

Matt makes it sound like Congress approved the Iraq War by an overwhelming majority and then even when it was clear Iraq was unwinding, re-elected the same gang who put the disaster in place.

Nobody gets off the hook for this one. But if anyone deserves a pass, it's Bushco. They've been a known commodity among the media elite since Bush cut his political teeth race-baiting instead of serving in the Guard. Certainly, the President's mediocrity has never been too hard to discern, especially so since his major speech-writer left the WH.

America elected Bush. Congress ratified the attack plans and have "scrutinized" all Bushco's decisions without pulling the plug on any part.

BTW. Is there any remote fucking chance that a Dem will speak out against the impending attack on Iran?

Now who were we blaming again?

Rumsfeld serves two purposes. He takes the heat for Bush's failed Iraq policy. And, as a corollary, is the scapegoat for the MSM's mistaken enthusiasm for the Iraq invasion. Does the bipartisan Washington political party really believe it's Rumsfeld's fault? Probably not. But like any nervous group of primates, has decided it's better to sacrifice one of their own than admit any fundamental mistake.

Matt's nails the main reason why the Rumsfeld focus is misdirected. Consider also how Rove/Bush could outflank Rumsfeld-centric critics by giving them what they want. By doing so (assuming Cheney would consent), they would take some of the air out of the opposition as well as give the press lapdogs a gesture that they could spin as conciliatory and moderate. Bush could finally (and with great public reluctance) accept Rumsfeld's long tabled resignation.

I think you're focusing on the policies, but the policies are not being made the scapegoat here. They're trying to lay the blame on Rumsfeld's incompetance at *executing* the policies. I still don't see any media outlet claiming that the policies are incorrect. They should.

The Rumsfeld dodge is allowing them to focus on ability instead of vision, and sideline that focus to an appointed functionary who will never be replaced exactly because he makes such a good lightning rod. The media should focus on the flaws in the administration's vision of the world, and that vision comes direct from the white house.

Matt, we're going to have to move your "Sensible Democrat Star" for stepping out of line again. No smiley-Joe sticker in your folder today. If you keep this up, you're liable to get a letter to your parents. Three such letters on your permanent record and you'll never get into the New York Times.

Sullivan's problem in this instance is that he is on the record opposing the impeachment of a president in wartime. This despite his own expressed belief that the current president has broken the law (w/r/t torture etc.). So demanding Rumsfeld's ouster is about as strident as he can be without having to revise the latter (increasingly indefensible, IMO) stance. And he'll never do the latter because that would place him in the company of those icky leftist extremists.

BTW when I say "on the record" my source is an email he sent me in response to a direct question I asked him about this. I don't know whether he's said so publicly.

"This Rumsfeld-obsession plays a genuinely pernicious role in our national discourse."

Rumsfeld is a metonym for Bush administration military policies.

Attacking it is a Good Thing. Politics for the broad audience is always shadow play.

------

And don't look now, but the WH (another metonym) has been running a very smart fall campaign over the past week. It's the smashmouth '02 & '04 strategy, and we all knew it was coming, but here it is, and it's being orchestrated well. (I particularly loved them starting it before labor day to squash the Katrina media fever.)

I'd bet that the well they're going to once again will be drier in '06 than it was in '04 or '02, but these guys ain't going down without a fight.

Sullivan's just maintaining his track record. In the great redwood forest, he'd be talking about a nice pine cone he saw lying on the ground. He, and similarly obtuse "public intellectuals", want to make Rumsfeld the pinata for epic stupidities that they continue to espouse.

"Dump Cheney" would be a lot more on the mark than "Dump Rumsfeld" will ever be. Granted, Rumsfeld's only real skills seem to be bureaucratic infighting and self-aggrandizement. But as Mr. Yglesias notes, launching the Iraq social engineering project was the crucial strategic blunder, and pretty much the whole Beltway crowd, and the citizenry, went along. Even if he were half Sun Tsu and half Solomon, Rumsfeld couldn't have got much better results, given the harebrained foundations of our Mesopotamian adventure. That is the point to pound home.

This is will prove to be a right-wing myth in the making, unless we squash it NOW. As sure as the sun will rise, we know that five or ten years from now, Billy Kristol and Andy Sullivan and their lying, overpaid ilk will shake their heads and say, "Ach, Iraq would have gone so well, but for Rumsfeld". Hell, they've already started. Don't let them do it.

I completely agree with Matt that lots of Iraq War Supporters are using the "Rumsfeld is incompetent" argument as an excuse for their own pathetic failures.

But I think it's a great idea on two levels. One politically it makes sense - just keep pounding, because you know Bush won't give in. And that makes a great point - he just incapable of managing anything.

Second, because Rumsfeld - and his whole crew should be dumped. No matter what strategy the US follows in Iraq, Rumsfeld will botch it. The country has to get rid of him.

They're bringing KSM to Guantanamo Bay for trial five days before 9/11 !!!

Like I said, they ain't going down without a fight...

I would suggest that the Democrats take a play from the McCain game plan...and keep repeating the line that Rumsfeld serves at the request of the President...thereby forcing voters to question the administration's ability to successfully prosecute not only the Iraq war, but also the war on terror. Essentially, the Democrats need voters to doubt the President's overall handling of national security and the war on terror...demonstrated by the fact that he continues to proceed with Rumsfeld as his operative...more than they need to push for the firing of Donald Rumsfeld.

The goal would be to take the accusation that Democrats are defeatists and shift the discussion to point out that so long as the President refuses to make much needed changes, we are already being defeated. If voters accept that the Bush administration is losing the war on terror or is unable to adjust in order to win it, they will be less apprehensive to give Democrats an opportunity.

Voters need to see the GOP plan as an open wound unlikely to get better without a new prescription and they need to be convinced that the President is unwilling to administer the necessary medication to make that happen. My own preference would have been for Democrats to offer a more concrete alternative plan for Iraq and the war on terror...but that is now unlikely...so it seems clear to me that they must now convince voters that keeping Republicans in power will not lead to success in Iraq and more importantly in the war on terror.

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com

The lesson of '02 & '04 is that they will sink far lower than you think possible. It's happening again.

He's bragging about torture. They're going to run the fall campaign on a pro-torture platform.

I'm with the majority here. As for this concern:

Consider also how Rove/Bush could outflank Rumsfeld-centric critics by giving them what they want.

I wouldn't worry. First of all, Bush isn't going to do it. Second, even if he does, no problem. It just takes a little message discipline. At that point, there will be blood in the water. You suddenly forget all about Rumsfeld and move onto someone else - maybe Cheney, maybe Rice, maybe Bush himself. We have always been at war with Eurasia, etc. Will this be coherent? No. But it'll work. The Republicans pull this stuff all the time.

Bush and Rove understand this. That's why there's no way he (Rove) will ever fire Rumsfeld. He believes that if you get caught for doing something outrageous, it's better to puff your chest out and do it even more, than to give a little bit. If you do the former, whatever public outrage there is will eventually become old news and die out. If you do the latter, then you start the drip-drip-drip. The media's too timid to call someone out on a flat-out whopper to their faces, but once someone shows a little willingness to concede wrongdoing to them, watch out.

"He believes that if you get caught for doing something outrageous, it's better to puff your chest out and do it even more"

If you want to see it in action, check out the Bush campaign speech that's live at the moment. It's an amazing display of Rovian chutzpah.

There's a precedent for these resignation calls in the old days of the British monarchy. Every once in a while, if Parliament were getting riled up about the King's policies, they would call for the resignation (if he were lucky) of a trusted advisor or two, maintaining the pretense that the King's decisions were simply a matter of receiving poor advice. They even did this to Charles I, who might have averted civil war if he hadn't dug in his heels.

Apparently, a lot of disaffected Replublicans still can't bring themselves to go after the King himself.

I bet they've been planning on playing this card at this moment for a very long time...

-----

This is an incredibly savvy smashmouth move. If they can stage manage the Congressional debate smoothly, they could have a real shot at salvaging these elections.

Good point, JP . . . but the one principle (if such an unprincipled bunch can be said to possess any) that they hold above always acting strong, on the attack, and never admitting error is winning at all costs. I don't think bluster & fearmongering alone will put a stop to the drip-drip-drip of both public and media opinion against Bush's conflated wars against Iraq and "terror." If, come early October, the polls don't show that the latest terra-terra-terra campaign has been effective at whipping the conventional media and public opinion back in line, then I wouldn't be surprised to see Rove/Bush jettison Rumsfeld, name a perceived moderate as his immediate replacement (no, not Lieberan), and even announce a version of the declare-victory-and-leave (with heads held high) plan.

Obviously, Rumsfeld has been a disasterous failure: a moral imbecile as well as a pathetically inept dabbler in millitary strategy. But he's not the problem. Everything he's done, including his embrace of torture, has been done with the enthusiastic support of the President; he is the Vice-President's ideological siamese twin. Dump him, keep him, it makes no difference. You don't fire the monkey, you fire the organ grinder

Rumsfeld's plan is Bush's plan but only because Bush does not have the brains or guts to have independent opinions. Rumsfeld promoted the war and crafted the war strategy himself, with Cheney's enthusiastic support, and even the generals could not stand up to the SOBs. Rumsfeld was not following Bush's lead but vice versa. As the architect of this collossal fiasco, he deserves every humiliation the opposition can muster.

A related point -- Tommy Kean, Jr., on Countdown last night alternated between repeating his call that Rumsfeld must go and decrying "partisanship." In other words, the problem is not so much Rumsfeld, but that Senator Menendez would have reason to attack him. A republican criticism of Rumsfeld in this way becomes principled. A democratic criticism is the very source of our problems, the dread "partisanship." Anyway, not cool, son-of-Kean.

This post and comments are all about POLITICS!!! Doesn't one of you think that replacing Rumsfeld might actually improve the situation in Iraq? The guy is completely incompetent. Can we put the election aside for one second?

Taking Rummy's scalp is the first step to taking Cheney and Bush's--once he's gone, and things don't get better, people will be calling for another. We have to start somewhere, and Rummy's a good place to start.

With plenty od experience with this shit, it is quite simple. Republicans protect the President at all costs. The hagigraphy, the iconography, the value of myth, the iconic nature of the President as symbol of the Party is the most important thing. Policies can be changed, flunkies come and go, the legitimacy of authority must be preserved.

Tip Who? Newt Who? Nancy Who?

Conversely, Republicans spare no effort at destroying Democratic Presidents.

It is a method, a strategy, an instinct.

Erich & Matt reflect my thinking. First, it does matter how a policy is managed even if it is a bad policy. Rumsfeld personally tinkered with details which have cost many lives and squandered whatever chance there might have been for stability in Iraq.

Second, the point of targeting Rumsfeld even though he is in step with the president on both the fantasy/strategy and incompetence of the Iraq adventure is that when it comes to Bush a solid group of voters support him as personality cultists. "He's a nice guy. He prays. He's a Christian seeking to do God's will." This group cannot psychologically accept Bush'a incompetence but could much more readily accept Rumsfeld's. Once they've gone that far, they are better prepared to face reality on Bush.

Look, it wasn't so long ago that everybody expected that when that nutcase Ashcroft left the scene, things would have to get better, because how could we get a worse AG? And then along came Gonzales.... I don't really see how bashing Rumsfeld reaps all the tactical gains that some of the self-proclaimed political geniuses here seem to think. And outside of political gamesmanship, by this point it's naive to think that sacking Rumsfeld is gonna change anything.

The law of disjunction elimination tells me two things can happen in response to a focused Democratic demand to drop Rumsfeld before the election: Bush drops Rumsfeld before the election, or he doesn't. Either way, it's good for the Democratic Party.

This is a no brainer.

Thanks for the interesting commentary (I wrote the post Sullivan was discussing). Here's my response:

Yglesias makes a great point when he says that it is the policies that matter. But I would counter that the way organizations usually admit that they have made a mistake is to fire the person who is most responsible for the mistake. That's how you admit to making a mistake in the business world, in the sports world, and, at least historically, in Washington, D.C.

I was against the Iraq War from day one (which, based on the notes I got under FOIA earlier this year, was at least as early as September 11, 2001). That said, I still think there is a huge difference between planning, fradulently selling, and supervising a poorly thought out $300 billion ground war in the middle of the desert, like Rumsfeld did, and mistakenly believing that it was a good idea, as most of the American media and political establishment did.

Thrown in the fact that Rumsfeld and his aides are largely responsible for many of violations of the Geneva Conventions that took place in American military prisons during the large six years, and it is nothing short of inconceivable that this man is still holding office in a democratic country.

The observation about Rumsfield is correct: his are Bush's policies, and Rove's and Cheney's.Bush's team had their eyes on Iraq from the beginning. It was to be "easy pickings" and create an oil-resource and a power base for U.S. interests in the Middle East.

Bush gains no political capital from firing Rummy or Rove; it's not going to happen. Democrats need to concentrate on creating a foreign policy mandate of their own. We won't win elections with an isolationist approach, however. We need a revival of the best of liberal thinking, the genesis of which was in the Truman Administration, which created NATO. Forging a stance against terrorism in general would revive this tradition. Here I'm referencing Richard Holbrooke's excellent article and review in August's "Foreign Affairs" magazine that reviewed Peter Beinart's new book. Fills a hole in the current debate. If you are interested, here is a link to my post summarizing the matter http://www.mamacitaonline.com/2006/08/can_hollywood_spearhead_the_return_of_the_democrat.php which includes reference to the Nicole Kidma and 84 other Hollywood luminaries' full page anti-terrorism ad of late last month too. Not covered by Kos or Huffington.

Graham would need to get his head examined if he gives up his senate seat for a position on the doomed ship called the U.S.S. Bush. He has aspirations to become POTUS? He might as well flush them all down the toilet if he takes Rummy's job. Not saying I wouldn't like to see Rummy gone and replaced by someone even remotely competent...but I don't think it will be Graham.

thankss

selamsss

seksi

selamlar

oldu

farz

Good comment.Thanks admin.

www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
Sağır Oda
dizi izle
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
dizi izle
resim galerisi
haber
forum
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
küresel ısınma
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması
r10 seo yarışması

sagolun arkadaşlar teşşür ederim ilginiz için

www.haberler74.com
www.gazeteler74.com
www.bartinim.com
www.chatmagazin.net
www.cayirhan.net

Thansk for good article.

thank for link all

chat
sohbet
Video
komik video
komik video
aşk şiirleri
Tr Video
avrupa sohbet
89com
komik video
sohbet
sohbet
Kurtlar Vadisi
bedava oyun
genç sohbet
islami sohbet
Bol Sohbet
chat

iddaa sonucları

iddaa sonucları

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
turkiyemirc
mircturkiye
mirch
mırch
mirc indir
mirc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc indir
mırc yukle
mirc turkiye
turkiye mirc
turk mirc
mirc turk
türkçe mirc
türkce mirc
türkçe mırc
turkce mirc
turkçe mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mirc
mirc chat
mirc sohbet
mirc ara
muhabbet
chat
blog
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkiyeforum
türk forum
mirc
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
sohbet
chat
bedava sohbet
turksohbet
turkiye sohbet
sohbet odaları
bedava chat
chat odaları
türk chat
türkiye chat
turkada
turkmirc
mirc inndir
karar

thanks all

thanks all

I like html emails today with faster internet connections normal emails are extremely boring.

thnka ..

thanks regard.....

thanks.....

thanks regad...

thanks..............

thanks...

thanks baby...

tnx.

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
mirc
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
mirc
seks shop
hikaye
hikaye

thank u

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
mirc
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
mirc
seks shop
hikaye
hikaye
sex

thanks for link

Bilişim seo Rize Güzel Sözler youtube Car Hikaye Toplist İzlesene Oyun Havuz Robotu rize resimleri

thanks for link

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
seks shop
hikayeler
hikaye
sex
hikayetube
sex |
porno |
hikaye |
sex hikayeleri |
sex hikaye |
sex porno |
seks shop |
geciktirici |
penis büyütücü |
hikaye |
hikaye |
sex |
videohikaye.com |
sex |
porno |
hikayetube.com |
porno |
mirc |
yüzük |
güzel sözler |
elektronik sigara |
pilli sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara

slm