Rummy On The Firing Line

by DemFromCT

[UPDATE]: Bush defends Rummy. As demtom points out (as have I), this is a win-win issue discussion for Dems Americans.

This is getting bad.

The widening circle of retired generals who have stepped forward to call for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation is shaping up as an unusual outcry that could pose a significant challenge to Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership, current and former generals said on Thursday.

Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, on Thursday became the fifth retired senior general in recent days to call publicly for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster. Also Thursday, another retired Army general, Maj. Gen. John Riggs, joined in the fray.

"We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores," General Swannack said in a telephone interview. "But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq."

Another former Army commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division, publicly broke ranks with Mr. Rumsfeld on Wednesday. Mr. Rumsfeld long ago became a magnet for political attacks. But the current uproar is significant because Mr. Rumsfeld's critics include generals who were involved in the invasion and occupation of Iraq under the defense secretary's leadership.

This week has the focus squarely on the WH yet again, despite the attempts to talk about anything else. It's Iraq, Iraq and Iraq and that's why Rummy is sucking up all the heat (and not in a way that helps Bush).  And while the Republicans would love to use immigration as their wedge issue, having a problem with no solution bodes ill for the ruling party - an issue with Iraq, immigration, Katrina, gas prices and so many other basic issues that American voters care about. We at TNH have also not lost sight of Iran - another solutionless problem (since negotiating is apparently off the table).

But apparantly the fall back position - prayer - has issues as well, at least according to the Onion.

President Bush, already facing the lowest approval ratings in history, is coming under fire from former supporters over what they call his "ineffectual and incompetent" use of prayer for national guidance and assistance.

"Every time the president is criticized, he insists that the nation is in his prayers," said the Family Research Council's Bob Jensen. "That may be, but it's becoming more and more clear that these prayers are either too infrequent, too brief, or not strongly worded enough to be effective."

Jensen added: "This nation deserves more than a president who just pays lip service to prayer. It deserves a president who demands that his prayers get real-world results."

Amen. And we deserve a Cabinet that has more than a faith-based plan for Iraq. The Republicans are in charge... it's their responsibility to articlulate a plan. Murtha and Feingold have already done so.

 

Comments

[Mimikatz]

John Aravosis had a good post yesterday in which he set out the best Dem talking points on War with Iran. Here are the best three, with the first the best:

"1. George Bush is the wrong man to be launching yet another war.

"The same president who made a disaster out of the Iraq war now wants to launch another war with Iraq's neighbor, Iran. Bush has already proven he is incompetent at running an effective war. America simply cannot afford another rash Bush misadventure.

"2) Slow down, we've got ten years.

"America's intelligence community estimates that Iran is still ten years away from building a nuclear weapon. There is no reason we need to prepare for war in the next few months, or even before Bush's term runs out in 2008. Give diplomacy and the international community a chance. We've got years, not months.

"3) Since we have ten years, we can at the very least wait seven months until the congressional elections this fall.

"America needs a Congress that is going to look into Bush's claims about Iran's nuclear program and determine if those claims are even credible. The Republican-controled Congress has already shown that it is unwilling to provide any oversight on any matters involving the Bush administration. We need someone who isn't on George Bush's team to use their subpoena power to get administration officials under oath, review the evidence, and see if Bush is right this time around. That someone is a Democratically-controled Congress."

As I posted the other day, the Dems have less to fear from opposing Bush now than they apparently understand, and the LA Times bears this out. (Keep reading--the headline is about immigration, but the poll covers the gamut.)

So we've had Chuck Hagel and others speak out against War with Iran, but only Murtha among the Dems has been quoted as standing against a military option, and onlyJane Harman has at least publicly questioned its rationale. We need more Dems willing to demonstrate that they have the strength to take on America's enemies by showing that they can take on Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld on this new war.

[Mimikatz]

More in the same vein from Greg Sargent at Tapped.

I think it would also be a good idea to focus on replacing Rumsfeld before there is another war. Not to imply that there should be. The military option on Iran is the worst of a series of bad options, but it is a guaranteed failure with Rumsfeld in charge. Moreover, it would force Bush and the GOP to defend the indefensible and buy some time to make the case that war (including so-called surgical air strikes) is not only against international law, and immoral, but would have unacceptable miltary, security and economic consequences.

[demtom]

There's some argument at Tapped, whether focusing on Rumsfeld allows Bush the easy option of bringing in a new Defense Secretary and getting his war on. With most people that would be true, but Bush is so determined not to do what any critic suggests that I think he'd rather the whole ship sink than give up Rummy. And Mimikatz is right, as usual: focusing on Rumsfeld while he's down allows a nearly-daily rehash of all the Iraq mistakes, as well as staving off Iran.

It's amazing to live in a time when the win-win positions favor our side.

[DemFromCT]

Heh. If Rummy stays it's good for Dems and if he leaves it's good for Dems. Apparently we've learned to speak Mehlmanish.

[sad]

Yoy do get that The Onion is satire right?

[jonst]

No, no, no. This is getting good!

[DemFromCT]

sad:

I've been posting satire from the Onion for longer than there's been a Next Hurrah. But as usual, boy, does it fit.

[Alopex Lagopus]

Steve Gilliard has an interesting take on this. He's saying the Army is trying to distance itself from the coming disaster in Iraq. Institutional survival vs the political backlash. Murtha was the first wave, these generals are the second. Next: resignations.

Dunno, I think he's making it sound more coordinated than it is.

[Paul Lyon]

I wonder if Bush's apparently stalwart defense of Rummy is really a matter of greasing the skids. ``I defended you as best I could, but those mean old generals would stop complaining, so you're out of here Donald.'' I suppose not, but it is something Rove might suggest.

[Libby Sosume]

If Congress can declare war, don't they also have the power to declare NOT war?

[Jon]

At least you can't say that the Bush Administration isn't consistent. It has consistently provided us with more miserable failures than any other Administration in the Modern Era, from the President to the Vice-President to the Secretary of Defense and on down the line. Not only are they incompetent but they do not exhibit any semblance of the good judgement required in their positions.

I'd like to take the other side of any bets of the guy who opined that Donald Rumsfeld was a managerial and strategic genius.

[Sara]

I suspect now is the time to focus on Senator John Warner (and Senator Carl Levin) -- chair and ranking member of Senate Armed Services. At the least there ought to be a demand for extensive and public hearings with the recently retired Generals as witnesses. It is better to have an on the record official forum for their criticism than to leave it to ad-hoc opinion pieces or CNN interviews.

But I also agree much of this criticism may well be an effort to avoid having the army scapegoated if and when withdrawal occurs. This war has eaten a huge hole in the army and much of the National Guard, and Rumsfeld has no budget plans to repare these things. (Virtually every state Governor would join the Generals if they added this to their critique). Of great importance, the issue has to be made salient to what we will be voting about this year -- Congressfolk. Democrats can only benefit from pointing out that a congress that avoids its oversight responsibility is a congress that allows Iraq-like misdirected missions.

[Mimikatz]

Both Chris Matthews and Olberman had people on who said that there are a flurry of e-mails among current and retired military and discussions of possible resignations and the circumstances in which they would be appropriate and effective, so there is apparently some coordination.

I think it is a combination of the military genuinely being fed up with Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney; the memory of Vietnam when the military brass didn't speak up about what they believed was incompetent civilian leadership and meddling; and a desire to protect the institution. They are apparently outraged (rightly) by statements such as Rice's that there were "tactical" errors but no mistakes back at DC, because it puts the onus of failure on them. (Who ordered the disbanding of the Iraqi Army? Who demanded full retaliation in Fallujah?)

They want to make it clear that when, for example, Shinseki said it would take 300,000 troops to do what Bush wanted, he was really saying "we can't do it with the Army we have, so don't ask us to." Sometimes with the Army you have, you don't go to war, at least not the kind they attempted.

[orionATL]

ah, the onion

the best reporting on the bush administration in print.

utter folly precisely depicted

and we get a laugh to boot.

[Ron Russell]

A point that needs to be honored is General Batiste's sacrifice to speak out. The man turned down a 3rd Star so that he could stand up to Rumsfeld! That's unheard of and affects not only his Pension, but his prestige. And why did he do it? For his men and because he feels that Iraq is too important to fail! Those who disparage what he did have no shame and they deserve whatever contempt we can give them.

While I don't agree with his view on Iraq (that it's not beyond hope), you have to honor him for what he's done.

This in contrast to what I saw on Hardball yesterday. General Tommy Franks was not only defending Rummy, but what he said about the Civilian leadership (in response to a question form Matthews) made me gag. I recall him saying that Doug Feith was one of the stupidest phucking human beings on the face of the planet (or a similar insult) and last night he of course said no such thing. I kept wondering how many shares of Caryle he got for shilling when they needed him to.

[DemFromCT]

Franks is a Bush toadie. Batiste is a soldier. Big difference.