"'I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history,' said the Arizona senator, drawing applause during a stop near Hilton Head Island.If McCain is trying to provide the positive vision (thing) and "appeal to social conservatives," I don't think this is the way to do it. While Rumsfeld (and Bush, certainly) have not perfectly executed this war, (by the way, don't bother to pith on the comment section stuff like "'not perfectly executed' is an understatement of the day"), it is very monday morning quarterback-ish to do this type of thing . . . with this type of rhetoric. Social conservatives don't think it is rank incompetence or rank malevolence or rank evilness that has caused the Iraq War to flounder. At least that's the way I sees it.
AP reports that McCain, speaking to a crowd of over 800 people at a retirement community on Monday, expressed support for President Bush's call for 21,500 additional troops, but lambasted Rumsfeld for failing to send enough in the first place.
'We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement -- that's the kindest word I can give you -- of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war,' said McCain, a Vietnam veteran and the ranking GOP member on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
McCain's two-day tour of South Carolina is an apparent attempt to shore up support among social conservatives in the early primary state."
Hello world!
7 years ago
14 comments:
Do you have an opinion on the job done by Johnson and McNamara?
Yes, but for different reasons--and not while I'm running for the Democratic nomination and not while people from the opposing party are doing everything they can to savage "my guy" (party-wise).
I know you're not a Republican (and don't have the same political interests as me), but do you see my point?
I figured that title would jump out at to-my-left friends . . .
I guess I just don't get the whole "emboldening" thing. Rumsfeld was, more or less, a failure...at least in a public relations sense. For me, my hatred of him came when I found out he was using a robopen to sign the death letters of soldiers.
I think this is more ideological, than partisan, because if I were alive and of voting age in '68; I guarantee you I would've voted for the candidate would have gotten us as far away from the policies of McNamara and Johnson as possible. It wasn't the Young Republicans out marching in the streets during Vietnam, it was Liberal Democrats...marching against the Democratic President.
I don't disagree, but as I've discussed with you, there is something about over-the-top or opportunistic bashing that causes reflexive defensiveness.
I didn't know that Rumsfeld used a robo-pen for condolence letters (and frankly, I'm dubious...I'll get back to you), but I think he, like any war leader made mistakes and I don't think the mistakes were criminal or even necessarily "negligent."
And though I'll concede that the pacifists in the 'Nam era were Liberals, I also think it is relevant that they were a much smaller part of the Dem Party, they were protesting a much more egregious problem and their criticism wasn't as suspect for partisanship.
I think a lot of people (probably you included) teeter on the edge of pacifism while others (I'm not sure me, really) teeter on the edge of war-mongering, and that is one reason I believe efforts to demonize this war effort hurt American troop morale, boost our enemy's morale and . . . embolden our enemies to keep on keeping on.
I think this war is winnable; others don't, but would never think a war is "winnable." I think that "war has never solved anything" folks are very much in the minority, though, and are getting too much media play.
Rummy and the pen
That's sad to hear and it may reflect more than a "public relations" failure. Thanks for the link.
Articles of Impeachment for VP Cheney have just been published along with extensive commentary in next month's GQ. It's a good article and looks like a slam dunk case.
Yes, William, I'm sure it is a "slam dunk" case.
We sure need to establish the precedent that not doing what Democrats demand is a "high crime or misdemeanor."
I read that article, William. My ears are still ringing.
All I can say is, good luck with that.
It's not the defendant alone, Fitz refered to 'they' who decided to tell reporters about Wilson's wife working for the CIA. 'To them, she wasn't a person, she was an argument.' Fitzgerald said.
Fitzmas may come tomorrow. They will have to be harsh with Libby for him to turn on his boss because 'they' hold the power to pardon. True to form, Cheney is using Libby as a firewall and a means to obfuscate his involvement, what he does best. It will likely work ... as the wheels of justice turn too slowly for Cheney to be brought to justice in his time remaining.
William said: "It's not the defendant alone, Fitz refered to 'they' who decided to tell reporters about Wilson's wife working for the CIA. 'To them, she wasn't a person, she was an argument.' Fitzgerald said."
William, do you realize that there was no crime here . . . other than, perhaps, Libby lying about who told him this innocuous information?
Cheney is next - he will be facing an obstruction of justice charge, at least.
Okay, William. But did you read the entire article?
Next to last paragraph:"Even then, it would take a lot more evidence than that one conversation to build a case against the vice president, Brand told ABC News. "A wink and a nod can't be obstruction," he said. "There has to be overt acts and intent."
A tilt of Cheney's head isn't much to work with in proving "obstruction of justice."
I'll tell you what needs some "justice" . . . stealing and destroying classified documents to cover up facts related to the worst ever enemy attack on American soil.
History will show the Iraq mistake will be 100 times more costly than 9/11 - in a multitude of ways.
Fitzgerald has evidence, he has yet to show his hand when it comes to Cheney. The pattern of deception is clear.
Post a Comment