Facing the realities of Iraq

[Neil D]

Spencer Ackerman, a senior correspondent for The American Prospect: Agence Global

Published November 10, 2006

And so ends the long, hard slog that was the Donald Rumsfeld Pentagon. Surely unwilling to submit to the endless nightmare posed by two years' worth of Senate and House inquiries into his tenure as defense secretary, Rumsfeld did what he--and President Bush--promised he wouldn't do: abandon his post. Immediately, the cheers rang out. Bush, echoing the departing secretary, talked about "fresh eyes" for the war in Iraq. Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi intoned, "I think it will give a fresh start to finding a solution to Iraq rather than staying the course." But by far, the biggest plaudits for Rumsfeld's ouster have come from the war's most stalwart defenders. William Kristol, the Weekly Standard editor and Fox News Channel commentator, has been criticizing Rumsfeld since before Sept. 11, 2001. Kristol has sniped at Rumsfeld for his "arrogant buck-passing"; for having "only grudgingly and belatedly been willing to adjust even a little bit to realities on the ground" in Iraq; for "breezily dodg[ing] responsibility and so glibly pass[ing] the buck"--and that was just in one short Washington Post op-ed two years ago. Similarly, once upon a time, Joseph Lieberman, the re-elected senator from Thermopylae, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that "Secretary Rumsfeld's removal would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America's presence in Iraq." But even a hawk as bloodthirsty as Lieberman now agrees that Rumsfeld's time is due. Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan, a more chastened hawk, wrote that Rumsfeld had become "increasingly deranged" and cheered his departure as "great news."

Rumsfeld's departure is, indeed, great news. Notwithstanding the claims of know-nothings like theologian and former U.S. ambassador Michael Novak that Rummy was "the best defense secretary the U.S. has ever had," Rumsfeld was incontrovertibly, and by a wide margin, the worst. No defense secretary in history ever consciously sought to antagonize the Army on matters great, small and otherwise. No defense secretary in history devoted more resources to rebutting editorials about his mismanagement than looking into what might have caused those criticisms to arise. And no defense secretary in history has ever managed to preside over two deteriorating wars, let alone simultaneously.

Liberal press talking about conservative voices ????

[Dr. Shane]

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeew, hard to walk after reading that much spin. Liberals have won and they still can't hold back.

Quote:

Rumsfeld did what he--and President Bush--promised he wouldn't do: abandon his post.

Rumsfield actually testified under oather, before Congress, that he had offered Bush his resignation three times but the President refused to accept it. This commmentator is obviously uniformed or purposely misleading.

Quote:

But even a hawk as bloodthirsty as Lieberman now agrees that Rumsfeld's time is due.

Lieberman... "bloodthirsty"??? and why is this? ...because he supports the war???

Quote:

Rumsfeld's departure is, indeed, great news.

Well this is true but isn't he still Secretary of Defense until the new guy is confirmed and doesn't the new guy have a number of issues that will complicate his confirmation?

[Neil D]

Quote:

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeew, hard to walk after reading that much spin. Liberals have won and they still can't hold back.

You're having a hard time sitting in your revolving chair again???

I am not sure that it's just liberals that are lamblasting Rummy, though.....

Quote:

Rumsfield actually testified under oather, before Congress, that he had offered Bush his resignation three times but the President refused to accept it. This commmentator is obviously uniformed or purposely misleading.

I think the context is that 'within the last couple of weeks', he wouldnt abandon his post. It was only when an article from the military magazine pushed hard to get Rummy out.,,,only then did the President listen, apparently..

Quote:

Well this is true but isn't he still Secretary of Defense until the new guy is confirmed and doesn't the new guy have a number of issues that will complicate his confirmation?

I dunno...You know something that I don't???? Ifso, spill the beans...Let;s hear the issues on the new guy....

[Dr. Shane]

I heard that either Clinton or GW Bush, now I don't remember, nominated him for some position and the Senate, at that time, didn't confirm him. Sorry I don't remember more. If one is interested, Google could provide more info. Otherwise, time will tell soon enough.

[Neil D]

I heard that either Clinton or GW Bush, now I don't remember, nominated him for some position and the Senate, at that time, didn't confirm him. Sorry I don't remember more. If one is interested, Google could provide more info. Otherwise, time will tell soon enough.

Didn't have to google....but I did find this from Goggle News-

Gates' career has not been without controversy. When Reagan nominated him to head the intelligence agency in 1987, the Senate resisted because of questions on whether Gates had approved or been involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. His nomination was eventually withdrawn, and he was investigated by the special prosecutor, but he was never indicted on any charges.

The first President Bush nominated him a second time in 1991, and he was approved by the Senate. He also served as deputy head of the National Security Council under Scowcroft, and many have described him as a trusted and loyal member of the elder Bush's inner circle, which has been largely shut out of the current White House.

In fact, after leaving government, Gates became the president of Texas A & M, which is where the Bush Presidential Library is located.

When the intelligence agencies were reorganized in the wake of the investigations of the Sept. 11 attacks, the younger President Bush asked Gates to become the first overall head of the new system, the director of National Intelligence. Gates declined, saying he was happy to remain at Texas A & M.

Gates repeated, in public remarks Wednesday, that he had not anticipated returning to government service, leading to speculation that the deepening crisis in Iraq, and possibly even pressure from the first President Bush, convinced him that he had to help stave off a catastrophe in Iraq.

"He's very smart, but I don't think he was chosen because he's a visionary," said Larry Diamond, an adviser to the Iraq Study Group who had worked for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. "He's a repairman."