We all knew that Dick Cheney would eventually say something like this -- so it isn't surprising.
In his regard for our people in uniform, in his unwavering strengththrough unprecedented challenges, in his example of leadership andpatriotic service, I believe the record speaks for itself: Don Rumsfeldis the finest Secretary of Defense this nation has ever had.
has the video.
Again, the choice for President Bush is clear: who will he side with on Iraq?
Dick Cheney = State of Denial
James Baker = Realist
It shouldn't even be a question, especially when thousands of lives and America's foreign policy are on the line.
I don't know whether to laugh or shake my head in disgust.
On his final day in office yesterday, Donald Rumsfeld spoke about what he considered to be the worst day of his tenure: :
"Clearly, the worst day was Abu Ghraib, seeing what went on there andfeeling so deeply sorry that that happened," he said withouthestitation, referring to the scandal in the spring of 2004 thattriggered worldwide condemnation and prompted him to twice offer hisresignation to President Bush at that time. Bush rejected those offers.
And Aub Ghraib was only made possible because Rumsfeld gave (the following is from a Reuters article from last month):
Outgoing Defense Secretary DonaldRumsfeld authorized the mistreatment of detainees at Aub Ghraib prison in Iraq, the prison's former U.S. commander said in aninterview on Saturday.
Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski toldSpain's El Pais newspaper she had seen a letter apparentlysigned by Rumsfeld which allowed civilian contractors to usetechniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation.
Karpinski, who ran the prison until early 2004, said shesaw a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld detailing the use of harshinterrogation methods.
Over the course of the next generation, we will see a lot of revisionist history similar to the preceding. The Republicans need to do everything they can to erase the negative perception about this presidency. It will he difficult to do.
One day before the election, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wrote a memo to President Bush asking for major changes in the Iraq policy.
And this is supposed to make Rumsfeld look like a forward thinker? Here is part of the memo. :
"In my view it is time for a major adjustment," Rumsfeld wrote in aNov. 6 memo to the White House. "Clearly, what U.S. forces arecurrently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough."
Taking a break from studying, I thought that you all might want to read this from :
President Bush’s job approval rating hasfallen to just 31 percent, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll. BillClinton’s lowest rating during his presidency was 36 percent; Bush’sfather’s was 29 percent, and Ronald Reagan’s was 35 percent. JimmyCarter’s and Richard Nixon’s lows were 28 and 23 percent, respectively.(Just 24 approve of outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s jobperformance; and 31 percent approve of Vice President Dick Cheney’s.)
Worstof all, most Americans are writing off the rest of Bush’s presidency;two-thirds (66 percent) believe he will be unable to get much done, upfrom 56 percent in a mid-October poll; only 32 percent believe he canbe effective. That’s unfortunate since 63 percent of Americans saythey’re dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country; just29 percent are satisfied, reports the poll of 1,006 adults conductedThursday and Friday nights.
I must say that I am actually surprised Bush's numbers are that low. If I had been called by a polling agency on Thursday or Friday and asked about Bush's job performance, I would have said that I approved -- amid the firing of Donald Rumsfeld and the nomination of Robert Gates, who is of the realist school of thought. If you read this blog daily, you obviously know that I think Bush is one of the worst presidents in our country's history. Nothing changes that. But within the last week, I have approved of the way he has handled his job. That view will likely change in a matter of days, so don't become worried about me! But I am extremely surprised that Bush's numbers are that low, especially when the dialogue over the last 96 hours has been one of bipartisanship.
“I will say this — it is very clear that the major combat operationswere an enormous success,†he said, of the March 2003 invasion in whichBaghdad fell within weeks. “It’s clear that in Phase 2 of this, it hasnot been going well enough or fast enough.â€
With all the money we have spent in Iraq ever since Saddam fall -- including all the air-strikes and titled operations that have been conducted -- major combat operations did not end when Bush declared 'mission accomplished' in 2003. They are still going on. So to declare our strategic military planning a success is, well, the sort of rhetorical nonsense that Rumsfeld is leaving office with.
Although his confirmation will certainly go a lot smoother than if Donald Rumsfeld were re-applying for the Defense Secretary job, Robert Gates could face a few stumbling blocks with Senate Democrats -- and rightfully so. They are expected to question him about his involvement in the and one instance where he intentionally gave false intelligence about the alleged plot to assassinate the pope while he was CIA Director.
highlights Gates' controversial past:
And it wasn’t the first time he’d been nominated for the post — or his first dose of trouble in the spotlight.
In early 1987, his role in the so-called Iran-Contra affair, asecret White House operation to sell weapons to radical Islamic Iran inexchange for the release of U.S. hostages — and cash for CIA-backedrebels in Nicaragua — came under scrutiny.
Gates withdrew his nomination in the face of sure rejection.
Then, in during his 1991 nomination hearings to run the CIA, Gatesran into a buzz saw of testimony from a former agency analyst who saidthat during the 1980s Gates had skewered intelligence to fit theconvictions of senior Reagan administration officials that Sovietagents had concocted a plot to assassinate the pope and were arming andencouraging Marxist revolutionary groups to carry out terrorist attacks.
At the same time, it is not standard Senate procedure to block a nominee unless he or she is seriously unqualified for the job or has a track-record of failure. Gates, although he is from the right side of the spectrum, is quite qualified -- from what we know now. Maybe Senators might find something else about him, although I highly doubt it.
My guess is that the Democrats will live to fight another battle, since there are certainly a lot of them left to be fought -- the way forward in Iraq, minimum wage, Pell grants, port security, stem cells, and deficit reduction. In other words, if the Democrats want be taken seriously by many Americans who voted against the Republicans a few nights ago for the first time ever, they might want to choose their battles wisely. That does not mean being weak. It means acting like an older brother to the President. Compliment him when he does something right -- such as removing a neocon mimicker like Rumsfeld and replacing him with a realist like Gates; yet putting him into a corner when he does something stupid -- like continuing to side with the pharmaceutical industry on staying the course when it comes to high prescription drug prices.
Going to and from classes this morning, I was able to catch the press conference in the East Room of the White House.
I cannot even put into words how vulnerable the President looked, and that the rift between him and Dick Cheney has grown so significantly to the point that I don't think the Vice President will last in office much longer. He has no role. President Bush is bringing in former CIA Director Robert Gates, a current member of the Baker Commission, to as the new Secretary of Defense. This is a huge slap to Dick Cheney because he and Rumsfeld mimicked the neoconservative philosophy. Now, with a realist like Robert Gates coming into the mix, the Bush Sr people like James Baker are beginning to exert more influence, leaving Cheney out to fend for himself -- at least that is what I got out of it.
An intra-Administration feud is brewing. It is a battle between Bush Sr's people and the Vice President's office. Bush's father is trying to save his son's presidency. At the same time, it will be difficult to imagine that the White House can out-maneuver the subpoena power of the Democratic House and the new Democratic-led Senate Armed Services Committee. This will be an interesting next two years!
Here is a short clip of that press conference. I will post more clips throughout the day:
On Friday, I that the Military Times newspaper would release an editorial on Monday calling for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. Well Monday has arrived. Here is an excerpt from the :
But despite thebest efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciouslysectarian population into anything resembling a force for nationalunity has become a losing proposition.
Fortwo years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqishave told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of nationalidentity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty andcannot sustain themselves.
Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.
And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.
Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
Thisis a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to thinkRumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leadersstart to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clearthat he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
Theseofficers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy manyprivately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private,adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition ofsubordination of the military to civilian authority.
Andalthough that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, preventthem from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeldhas lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops,with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed,and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for ourfailures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops whobear its brunt.
Back when Rumsfeld was popular, I studied his career in depth during a few of my political science classes. I remember learning that after serving President Ford as the , he was even thinking about a run for the White House. He didn't run in 1980, and many thought he would have in 1984. However, as history shows, the 1980 Reagan revolution prevented that from happening.
But lately I have been thinking to myself: imagine if Ronald Reagan lost in 1980. Imagine if Donald Rumsfeld did indeed run for president in 1984. Imagine if he won.
When all this is considered, I can say for the first time that there is one reason for me to be thankful that Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter.
Election Eve Bombshell: A major military newspaper will demand on Monday that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld either resign or be fired.
One of the leading military newspapers has ensured that President Bush and the Republicans will not control the final news cycle before the election. This Monday, the will call for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The news was and posted as a breaking news caption for about 15 seconds on Friday evening during MSNBC's daily prime time show .
However, the newspaper is not expected to take a stance on the midterm elections. It will add that Rumsfeld should resign or be fired regardless of who wins on Tuesday.
The Military Times web site, , writes publications for the , , and . Monday's editorial is expected to be appear in all four.
This will add yet another voice to the growing number of prominent individuals within the military community that have already called for Rumsfeld's departure.
With word yesterday that President Bush expects both Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to stay on until the end of his second term, the question could not be more obvious for voters this election cycle: Being that Cheney and Rumsfeld are behind our reckless and reactionary foreign policy, which party is the most likely keep those two in check? The Republicans or the Democrats? The Republicans have held a majority in Congress all this time, and look where we are now. Do you want two more years of rubber stamps? Or do you think those two men and their policies need to be contained?
Recent Comments