Fire Rumsfeld? Not so fast.
Unless the bring in someone who is out of principle anti-war in Iran, and willing to stand up to Bush, which they won't, I'm not so sure that they should. Granted, Rumsfeld is a disaster. And I am not old enough to remember, but how often do 5 or 6 (and still counting) of the generals who have worked under a secretary of defense retire and then express their desire to see him run out of Washington, calling him flattering euphamisms like an "absolute failure"? If it was an odd year, I would love to get Rumsfeld out of there. Bring in someone with competence (like Bush would do that). But as it is 2006, the polls are in the gutter, I am still convinced that Bush wants to attack Iran, as friggin crazy as it seems. So why would I want to keep Rumsfeld in there? Exactly because he is incompetent. One of the most powerful arguments against attacking Iran that I think Democrats can use is something along the line of, "do you trust Bush to take us into yet another war"? I think with the albatros of an incompetent Reumsfeld, the Dems can constantly aruge that they are still incompetent and see how they are unwilling to change? Why would we expect these new plans to be any better? Why should we trust them if they don't trust or have the trust of our military leaders?
1 comment:
I think that the Dems should go all out for Rumsfeld's head. Though there are times when the political benefits of keeping dead weight around the necks of one's opponents is advantageous, it is better in the long run to put fear in the hearts of your enemies by making kills. We need a head on the wall. Moreover, in the case of Rumsfeld if he goes then whomever is nominated to replace him will have to go through the confirmation process. The confirmation hearings can then be used to bring the conduct of the entire war under public scrutiny. For example, Democrats could ask the nominee loaded questions like "What if any mistakes do you think were made in the conduct of the Iraq war and if confirmed what would you do to remedy those mistakes?" Or they could ask "How do you propose to make certain that both the spirit and the letter of the anti-torture bill passed by Congress be enforced and what, in your opinion, was responsible for the widespread prisoner abuse that we have seen so far?" Or "The United States went to war under a number of assumptions that proved to be false. What do you think caused those failures and how do you propose that such failures can be avoided in the future?" or "Do you think that the Iraq war is a good example of what we can expect from preemptive wars and what, in you opinion, do the developments in Iraq suggest about the practicality of the doctrine of preemption?"
Even if they cannot stop the confirmation of the nominee, they can embarrass the hell out of the administration and call their competence into question. Also, Rumsfeld is so hopelessly incompetent that it seems unlikely that they will get somebody worse. I think they should go after the bastard with everything they have.
Post a Comment