Article

2006-11-10 Home Front: Politix

GOP Furious Over Timing of Rumsfeld Resignation

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by FOTSGreg 2006-11-10 02:12|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 sure, Rumsfeld is why we Reps lost...idiots. Look in the mirror, congressional and "leadership" assholes.
Your bloated budgets, packed with pork, your corruption (thanks Duke!), your lack of coherent message (thanks Lincoln and Arlen!) etc etc. are to blame.

It will take better introspection than this to turn this ship around

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-11-10 06:47|| 2006-11-10 06:47|| Front Page Top

#2 Frank, despite all that which I agree with; tactically speaking, removing Rummy about 8 weeks ago prolly would have decided a few close races to the GOP's favor. Some people don't like Dick Morris but the guys usually calls the races pretty acurately. He even scratched his head at removing Rummy on 8 November vice 8 September.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-11-10 07:52|| 2006-11-10 07:52|| Front Page Top

#3 We're in for a rough two years (at least.) I hope tha Rumsfeld's exit is not a sign the the Bush administration is going to go along to get along.

Posted by SR-71 2006-11-10 07:53|| 2006-11-10 07:53|| Front Page Top

#4 The Sour Grapes graphic may be in order.

Posted by DepotGuy 2006-11-10 08:47|| 2006-11-10 08:47|| Front Page Top

#5 Here is the issue as far as I can tell. The public was upset with the Battle of Iraq because they were fed a constant stream of disinformation:
a) It was portrayed by the media as a stalemate or worse.
b) It was never portrayed as the victory against dictatorship, nuclear proliferation or WMD production that it was.
c) The ancillary victories such as Libya's surrender of its nuclear program were played down.
d) The agents (Iran and Syria) behind the continued violence in Iraq were never acted against.
e) The administration and its agencies never took active action against the leakers and disseminators of critical national security intelligence. They were entirely reactive and not proactive.

The public would have supported the troops and the mission if they were seeing progress in these areas. Instead they saw (rightly or wrongly) our troops being shuffled around in Iraq to put out fires with a low but constantly hyped attrition.

I think we needed a Patton who would have pressed on against the enemy rather than getting fixated on consolidating what we had already secured. Instead we got a Montgomery (my apologies to our English cousins) whose overcaution led to delay and increased casualties. You win wars by killing the enemy and destroying his means of support. While we have been successful in killing jihadis by the thousands in Iraq there are millions out there and we have done precious little to stem the supply of newly propagandized recruits.

In the end this electoral defeat occured because we have not aggressively fought the war. Our side lost sight of the forest for the trees.

Modern Democracies seem unable to fight wars for generations. Ergo we must find a way, however brutal, to bring this war to a successful conclusion within our lifetime. I would have thought six years would have been sufficient to make a major impact on the problem. Instead we have been nibbling away at the periphery and not striving for victory.

People will argue that we need to stay and foment democracy in Iraq. I say we need to destroy those who are striving to destroy the Iraqi's hope for democracy. Remove the outside agitation and the Iraqis will find their democracy. Continue to allow insurgent forces safe haven, training and resupply from over the borders and you will have chaos and bloodshed.

The time wasted fighting fires instead of war allow the enemy the time to upgrade their weapons and tactics to blunt your future actions.

You cannot fight and win a war with your arms tied behind your back. I would have thought we learned that lesson in Vietnam.

If the administration is serious about winning this war then they'd best step up the action and make progress instead of twiddling thumbs and allowing the enemy to dictate the tempo.

You are going to see the enemy slack off their attacks now that the election is over and the Dhimmies will take credit as if their election caused it. In fact the attacks were stepped up to secure their election. The focus of the administration will be turned inward as the newly elected majority strive to prove their spurious claims about lies and deception. The war will continue to stagnate and, lacking a major push by the Iraqis to take actions against their internal and external enemies, will lead to our withdrawal (redeployment for the dhimmitude) and a searing loss in the war. We may never again be able to launch a successful ground campaign.

The saying "Fortune favors the Bold" is not one that is likely to be applied to this administration. Letting your military commanders tell you what can be done is fine. But there is also a time when you must tell your commanders what needs to be done and making them find the ways and means to do it. I think we have seen plenty of deference to the military commanders in terms of what they can do in specific areas. I think we have seen very little of finding the right commander(s) to carry this war through to completion in the minimum period of time. We have our McClellans but where is our Grant or Sherman or Patton?

Posted by DanNY 2006-11-10 08:56|| 2006-11-10 08:56|| Front Page Top

#6 Who in the Republican party has the guts to stand up and stop this unnecessary rout?

Not Bush, obviously.

Posted by JSU 2006-11-10 09:16|| 2006-11-10 09:16|| Front Page Top

#7 If Rumsfeld had resigned earlier, it would have played up by the Democrats as an admission that the policy was wrong. Without a clear change in direction -- all the alternatives are unpalatable -- the GOP would have had it worse, not better. Oh, one more thing. Macacca.

Posted by Perfesser 2006-11-10 09:26|| 2006-11-10 09:26|| Front Page Top

#8 I absoultely do not understand why Rusfeld resigned when and how he did. I don't know if he was fired or if he resigned - but either way it doesn't matter. At the very least they should have waited no less than 3 weeks and had Rumsfeld say he didn't want the hassles of the job. If Bush did fire him, it just reflects poorly on Bush's judgement regarding the politics surrounding it.

Posted by anon 2006-11-10 09:41|| 2006-11-10 09:41|| Front Page Top

#9 I hope tha Rumsfeld's exit is not a sign the the Bush administration is going to go along to get along.

It is.

Excellent commentary, DanNY.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-11-10 09:53|| 2006-11-10 09:53|| Front Page Top

#10 "a) It was portrayed by the media as a stalemate or worse.
b) It was never portrayed as the victory against dictatorship, nuclear proliferation or WMD production that it was."

-damn straight. The GOP leadership did not (imho) do enough to call the media on their B.S. (Minus Fox News). However, even O'Reilley irritated me when he kept saying what a disaster we were in - he's dead wrong of course. We are making progress but I agree we need to change some tactics. Just not the same way dems would like.

BTW - if the media spent 1/10th of the time on the positive things going on as they do the negative I'm positive there would be a few more repubs in office today.

Posted by Broadhead6 2006-11-10 10:28|| 2006-11-10 10:28|| Front Page Top

#11 BTW - if the media spent 1/10th of the time on the positive things going on as they do the negative I'm positive there would be a few more repubs in office today.

That was the whole point of the media's coverage.

Posted by ed 2006-11-10 10:50|| 2006-11-10 10:50|| Front Page Top

#12 DanNY nails it.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-11-10 11:05|| 2006-11-10 11:05|| Front Page Top

#13 100% CORRECT DanNY !

Posted by Phineter Thraviger1073 2006-11-10 11:20|| 2006-11-10 11:20|| Front Page Top

#14 I shared my doubts a long time ago that the American military slanting PC ever since Patton slapped a coward, could produce real ass kicking leaders. And neither the left or Bush wanted to use a tactic of door to door ham-handed control, but that's what would work.
Let's face it, Bush continued to support the war while campaigning, but dumped Rummy immediately after the loss. That proves that Bush is and was waving in the wind. If he had doubts, he should have dumped Rummy in September.
Let's also remember that the real enemy has never been named in this war. The enemy has declared war against western civilization. They know who they are. They are Islam. There are some among them who condemn this jihad against western civilization. These few are moderates, and they are wanted, dead or alive. Let them find a secure place and denounce Islam, then they can live.
For the rest, for the bulk of Islam, let us prepare to annihilate them before they annihilate us.
Nothing has changed in this conflict except we will allow Iraq to collapse. The fight will go on, and I expect that at home we MUST destroy the Macaca (MSM) that poisons our waters.
Finally, a warning; The leftist assholes in Congress will attempt to silence talk radio, tax the internet, reduce the military, and take away our guns. Stay tuned.

Posted by wxjames 2006-11-10 11:46|| 2006-11-10 11:46|| Front Page Top

#15 I'm sorry; long-time Rantburger, but DanNY has nothing ....

>#5 Here is the issue as far as I can tell. The public was upset with the Battle of Iraq because they were fed a constant stream of disinformation:

>a) It was portrayed by the media as a stalemate or worse.

And it's not? We've been there 3+ years, can't even control the capitol, and you want to call it better than a stalemate?

>b) It was never portrayed as the victory against dictatorship, nuclear proliferation or WMD production that it was.

So, what did we go to war for, exactly?

>c) The ancillary victories such as Libya's surrender of its nuclear program were played down.

Well played, but there is plenty of evidence that Kadaffi wanted to turtle on his WMD before we bombed the shiat out of Baghdad.

>d) The agents (Iran and Syria) behind the continued violence in Iraq were never acted against.

True. And what's going to change with a new SecDef?

>e) The administration and its agencies never took active action against the leakers and disseminators of critical national security intelligence. They were entirely reactive and not proactive.

True again, but what the hell would it really matter? Would it change the status quo ante as we stand right now? No.

My take, yea, Rumsfeld is getting a bad rap. The problem here isn't in conception of the war; it's in implementation. And if I remember, there's a Harvard MBA somewhere in the administration. Perhaps some of the blame should fall on those supposed vaunted managerial skills.

Posted by Mizzou Mafia 2006-11-10 12:24|| 2006-11-10 12:24|| Front Page Top

#16 Mizzou,

I think you missed my point completely.

We should never have settled into a static position to begin with.

I don't know whether geting rid of Rumsfeld is a good or bad decision. In my gut I think it is bad, but that was not specifically what my rant was about.

We went to war to destroy Islamofascism once and for all.

All of those items need to be changed if we are serious about winning.

Posted by DanNY 2006-11-10 12:53|| 2006-11-10 12:53|| Front Page Top

#17 I'm still not resolved on Rummy's resignation either, although I am prone to view W as the first "President as CEO" in his management style.
If W is a CEO, then what happened to Rummy was simply switching to a very unpalatable "Plan B" that was probably drawn up as a contingency plan months ago. Certainly the President knew that this was the "poison pill" in the unlikely event the Dems grabbed ahold of both sides of the house. George was wishing upon a star that the Senate was safe, and the house would be close, and he said so many, many times during the past 6 weeks.
However, he wasting no time in rolling out Plan B...and I think it may be tied into the Baker initative, utilizing some diplomatic back channels to find some common ground on a course forward in Iraq, and playing nice with the Dems for as long as he can to salvage what he can.
I'm sure he is finding this past tuesdays beef jerky hard to chew, but I think this contingency plan is already green lighted and it is rolling out.

Posted by Capsu 78 2006-11-10 13:21|| 2006-11-10 13:21|| Front Page Top

#18 Oh, and Dan NY- I whole heartedly agree that "The Battle for Iraq" is historically the title that should have been given to to conflict, and not allowed to be rolled up to war status. It is simply a battle in a much larger war, no different than say the Italian campaign during WWII.

Posted by Capsu 78 2006-11-10 13:28|| 2006-11-10 13:28|| Front Page Top

23:58 trailing wife
23:56 rjschwarz
23:52 mrp
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:50 trailing wife
23:44 JosephMendiola
23:40 JosephMendiola
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:35 C-Low
23:29 Threger Angegum9602
23:28 JosephMendiola
23:20 JosephMendiola
22:56 .com
22:48 .com
22:44 Frank G
22:43 Kilowattkid
22:39 Lanny Ddub
22:36 Frank G
22:29 Frank G
22:27 Frank G
22:23 Frank G
22:22 Alaska Paul
22:22 Zenster