The All-Rumsfeld thread

[BFrank]

This could be trouble for Rummy. (see post #349 of the "Bushwatch" thread)

+++

December 16, 2004
Bush Backing Rumsfeld Despite G.O.P. Calls to Replace Him
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 - With Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld under criticism from more prominent Republicans, the White House said today that President Bush still had full confidence in him.

Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi told a Chamber of Commerce gathering in Biloxi on Wednesday that Mr. Rumsfeld should go, if not immediately, then soon. "I'm not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld," Mr. Lott said. "I don't think he listens enough to his uniformed officers."

Mr. Lott, a former Senate majority leader, was joined in his criticism on Wednesday by Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. She expressed doubts about Mr. Rumsfeld's "leadership of the war, the repeated failures to predict the strengths of the insurgency" in Iraq, shortages of some equipment and Mr. Rumsfeld's reluctance to send more troops there.

Scott McClellan, the chief White House spokesman, tried today to dampen any notion that President Bush might be concerned about the mounting criticism from Republicans. "We look at the news just like you do," Mr. McClellan said. "The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a great job, and that's why he asked him to continue serving during this time of war."

Mr. Lott, whose remarks were reported by The Biloxi Sun Herald, said he was not calling for Mr. Rumsfeld's immediate resignation. "I would like to see a change in that slot in the next year or so," he said.

Mr. Rumsfeld has been under fire since his reply last week to a National Guardsman's concerns about a lack of battle armor in Iraq. "You go to war with the Army you have," the secretary said. Military people might agree that Mr. Rumsfeld was just stating a fact of life, but his words struck some politicians as at least tone-deaf.

At least two other Republican senators, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John S. McCain of Arizona, have also been critical of Mr. Rumsfeld. So has Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, who led American forces in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, and William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, who has supported the current campaign in Iraq.

[patricia]

[QUOTE=BFrank]This could be trouble for Rummy. (see post #349 of the "Bushwatch" thread)

+++



Scott McClellan, the chief White House spokesman, tried today to dampen any notion that President Bush might be concerned about the mounting criticism from Republicans. "We look at the news just like you do," Mr. McClellan said. "The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a great job, and that's why he asked him to continue serving during this time of war."

QUOTE]


I think that Rumsfeld should check out retirement homes. Just before George Tenet "retired to spend more time with his college-age son", he was praised by Mr Bush as having done a "superb job". Being singled out for praise seems to be the prelude to deciding to retire to spend more time with the family.
George Bush doesn't like to have messy firing-blood on his hands. Like the Roman Emperers before him, he convinces his out-of-favour underlings to commit career suicide, thus avoiding the unpleasantness which might result from firing anyone. Loyalty?? Only when it makes Mr Bush look good. If this obscenity continues, George Bush will be the only original left standing. What a guy!!

[BFrank]

Thought I ought to post the Wm. Kristol piece from the Washington Post. Pretty critical, coming from him.

+++

The Defense Secretary We Have

By William Kristol
Wednesday, December 15, 2004; Page A33

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
-- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a town hall meeting with soldiers at Camp Buehring in Kuwait, Dec. 8.


Actually, we have a pretty terrific Army. It's performed a lot better in this war than the secretary of defense has. President Bush has nonetheless decided to stick for now with the defense secretary we have, perhaps because he doesn't want to make a change until after the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. But surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term.

Contrast the magnificent performance of our soldiers with the arrogant buck-passing of Rumsfeld. Begin with the rest of his answer to Spec. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Army National Guard:

"Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe -- it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment. I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip."

So the Army is in charge. "They" are working at it. Rumsfeld? He happens to hang out in the same building: "I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working on it hard at the Pentagon. . . . And that is what the Army has been working on." Not "that is what we have been working on." Rather, "that is what the Army has been working on." The buck stops with the Army.

At least the topic of those conversations in the Pentagon isn't boring. Indeed, Rumsfeld assured the troops who have been cobbling together their own armor, "It's interesting." In fact, "if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up." Good point. Why have armor at all? Incidentally, can you imagine if John Kerry had made such a statement a couple of months ago? It would have been (rightly) a topic of scorn and derision among my fellow conservatives, and not just among conservatives.

Perhaps Rumsfeld simply had a bad day. But then, what about his statement earlier last week, when asked about troop levels? "The big debate about the number of troops is one of those things that's really out of my control." Really? Well, "the number of troops we had for the invasion was the number of troops that General Franks and General Abizaid wanted."

Leave aside the fact that the issue is not "the number of troops we had for the invasion" but rather the number of troops we have had for postwar stabilization. Leave aside the fact that Gen. Tommy Franks had projected that he would need a quarter-million troops on the ground for that task -- and that his civilian superiors had mistakenly promised him that tens of thousands of international troops would be available. Leave aside the fact that Rumsfeld has only grudgingly and belatedly been willing to adjust even a little bit to realities on the ground since April 2003. And leave aside the fact that if our generals have been under pressure not to request more troops in Iraq for fear of stretching the military too thin, this is a consequence of Rumsfeld's refusal to increase the size of the military after Sept. 11.

In any case, decisions on troop levels in the American system of government are not made by any general or set of generals but by the civilian leadership of the war effort. Rumsfeld acknowledged this last week, after a fashion: "I mean, everyone likes to assign responsibility to the top person and I guess that's fine." Except he fails to take responsibility.

All defense secretaries in wartime have, needless to say, made misjudgments. Some have stubbornly persisted in their misjudgments. But have any so breezily dodged responsibility and so glibly passed the buck?

In Sunday's New York Times, John F. Burns quoted from the weekly letter to the families of his troops by Lt. Col. Mark A. Smith, an Indiana state trooper who now commands the 2nd Battalion, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, stationed just south of Baghdad:

"Ask yourself, how in a land of extremes, during times of insanity, constantly barraged by violence, and living in conditions comparable to the stone ages, your marines can maintain their positive attitude, their high spirit, and their abundance of compassion?" Col. Smith's answer: "They defend a nation unique in all of history: One of principle, not personality; one of the rule of law, not landed gentry; one where rights matter, not privilege or religion or color or creed. . . . They are United States Marines, representing all that is best in soldierly virtues."

These soldiers deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have.

The writer is editor of the Weekly Standard.

[graypencil]

Originally Posted by BFrank

+++

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
-- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in a town hall meeting with soldiers at Camp Buehring in Kuwait, Dec. 8.

[/i]

I seem to recall some years ago Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz was canned for only telling a racial joke involving " a tight p***y, loose shoes, and a warm place to shit"

somehow, Rummys comments ( and actions ) seem to me more obscene by a magnitude of ten.

[Gary Sisco]

Nothing like standing firm in one's idiocy -- one of humankind's most desirable traits. Decisiveness, it's called.

[Gary Sisco]

Amazing, this. I wonder why?

December 17, 2004
Guard Reports Serious Drop in Enlistment
By ERIC SCHMITT

ASHINGTON, Dec. 16 - In the latest signs of strains on the military from the war in Iraq, the Army National Guard announced on Thursday that it had fallen 30 percent below its recruiting goals in the last two months and would offer new incentives, including enlistment bonuses of up to $15,000.

In addition, the head of the National Guard Bureau, Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, said on Thursday that he needed $20 billion to replace arms and equipment destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan or left there for other Army and Air Guard units to use, so that returning reservists will have enough equipment to deal with emergencies at home.

The sharp decline in recruiting is significant because National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers now make up nearly 40 percent of the 148,000 troops in Iraq, and are a vital source for filling the ranks, particularly those who perform essential support tasks, like truck drivers and military police.

General Blum said the main reason for the Army National Guard's recruiting shortfall was a sharp reduction in the number of recruits joining the Guard and Reserve when they leave active duty. In peacetime the commitment means maintaining their ties to the military with a weekend of service a month and two weeks in the summer.

Over the last 30 years, General Blum said, the Guard has counted on these soldiers with prior military service for about half of its recruits. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, however, many of these soldiers have been hesitant to join the Guard because of the increasing likelihood that America's citizen-soldiers will be activated and sent to Iraq or Afghanistan for up to 12 months. Indeed, many of the active-duty soldiers the Army would like to enlist in the Reserves have recently fought in Afghanistan or Iraq, and some have no inclination to do so again.

In an effort to halt the slide, the Army National Guard this week approved recruiting incentives that triple the enlistment bonuses to $15,000 for soldiers with prior military experience who sign up for six years (tax-free if soldiers enlist overseas), Guard officials said. Bonuses for new enlistees will increased to $10,000 from $6,000.

The Guard has already said it intends to increase the number of recruiters to 4,100 from 2,700 over the next three months, the first large increase since 1989.

"We're in a more difficult recruiting environment, period," General Blum told reporters in disclosing the new figures and the new incentives. "There's no question that when you have a sustained ground combat operation going that the Guard's participating in, that makes recruiting more difficult."

There are 42,000 Army National Guard soldiers serving in Iraq and Kuwait, and 8,200 serving in Afghanistan. Since Sept. 11, General Blum said, there have been about 100,000 Army National Guard troops activated for duty at home or abroad at any given time.

General Blum's remarks come just a few days after the chief of the Army Reserve, Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, told The Dallas Morning News that the Army Reserve recruiting was in a "precipitous decline" that if unchecked could inspire renewed debate over the draft. General Helmly told the newspaper that he personally opposed reviving the draft.

For the first two months of the fiscal year 2005, which started Oct. 1, the Army Reserve has also stumbled, falling 315 recruits short of its goal of 3,170 soldiers, a drop of 10 percent.

In November, the Guard recruited 2,902 enlistees, about 26 percent below its target of 3,925 recruits. In October and November combined, the Guard recruited 5,448 enlistees, nearly 30 percent below its goal of 7,600. At full strength, the Guard has 350,000 soldiers.

In the 2004 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, the Guard missed its overall recruiting target of 56,000 soldiers by more than 5,000, the first time it had missed its yearly goal since 1994. The active-duty branches of the armed services all met their recruiting goals last year.

As a result, General Blum said, the Guard has lowered its reliance on recruits with military experience to just 35 percent of its overall total and will seek a much larger pool of recruits with no military experience.

"We are correcting, frankly, some of our recruiting themes and slogans to reflect a reality of today," he said. "We're not talking about one weekend a month and two weeks a year and college tuition. We're talking about service to the nation."

General Blum expressed confidence that the nearly $300 million in recruiting bonuses in this year's budget and the increase in the number of recruiters would propel the Guard to meet its yearly goal but said that probably would not happen until August or so. "I think we'll recover," he said.

Some military personnel specialists offered a much more pessimistic forecast and said the lower recruiting numbers were the harbingers of tougher times to come.

"I don't think this is an aberration," said David R. Segal, a military sociologist who directs the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. "I think we're going to see significant shortfalls in recruitment, and I think we're to begin to see retention problems. We're also going to see increasing concerns at the state level about how the Guard will man itself and perform its state missions."

The Guard's woes do not end with recruiting. General Blum said the Army National Guard needed $20 billion over the next three years to buy additional radios, trucks, aircraft, engineering equipment and other materiel that have been wrecked or left behind in Iraq or Afghanistan..

"Otherwise, the Guard will be broken and not ready for the next time it's needed, either here at home or for war," General Blum said.

A spokesman for the Florida National Guard, Lt. Col. Ron Tittle, said Guard units in the state, which mobilized some 5,000 troops to deal with the three hurricanes in August and September, were already experiencing some shortages.

"It could hinder us to some degree," Colonel Tittle said. "But we adapt and make do. We'll accomplish the mission."

Soldier Accused of Asking to Be Shot

PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 16 (AP) - A soldier on leave has been accused of having his cousin shoot him so he would not have to return to Iraq, the police say.

The soldier, Specialist Marquise J. Roberts, 23, of Hinesville, Ga., suffered a minor wound to his left leg from a .22-caliber pistol on Tuesday, the police said. Specialist Roberts was treated at a hospital, then arrested after he and his cousin admitted having made up a story about the shooting, the authorities said.

After giving differing accounts of the incident, "they just broke down and confessed that they concocted the whole story so he didn't have to go back to the war," Lt. James Clark of the Philadelphia police department said on Thursday.

Specialist Roberts, who was visiting family members in Philadelphia, was charged with filing a false report. His cousin, Ronald Fuller, was charged with aggravated assault and other charges.

[Gentle Giant]

There was a funny cartoon in the Boston Phoenix yesterday. An Army sergeant was talking to a soldier who had Rummy strapped to the front of his jeep.

Sgt: Soldier, why is the Secretary of Defense strapped to your vehicle?

Soldier: Sir, you go to war with the armor you have, not the armor you might want or wish to have at a later time, sir.

[Gary Sisco]

Fuckin' A right about that. And they should have!

Given that half of "combat ready" troops are now National Guard, we might just find out one day soon what happens when they have a war and nobody comes. They're too dumb and political afraid to talk about a draft with any seriousness, which is their only alternative, if everyone's going to be a volunteer and people stop volunteering.

I use the words "combat ready" in quotes because many of the National Guard guys finding themselves in mainforce units are far from fit enough to be combat ready, and many more, fit or not, are simply too old for it. Fit at 40 is not the same thing as fit at 22, nor does it have the same kind of stamina, much less recovery time. Combat is the most physically and psychologically stressful activity of all. Lots of people think about the latter but few think about the former.

Anyone here who thinks him or herself fit: do your regular workout for the next couple of weeks while carrying a hundred pounds of gear and in temperatures like those in Iraq.

You'll see what I mean before the first workout is over.

[Dr Dave]

Big props to Bill Kristol. (Never thought I'd say that!)

If I were Donald Rumsfeld, I'd be getting my resume out on the street right about now. Whenever George W. Bush has to actually say he gives a member of his Administration his "unqualified support," that usually means the chop is not far off.

[BFrank]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

Big props to Bill Kristol. (Never thought I'd say that!)

If I were Donald Rumsfeld, I'd be getting my resume out on the street right about now. Whenever George W. Bush has to actually say he gives a member of his Administration his "unqualified support," that usually means the chop is not far off.

Exactly. As I referenced earlier, here's a snip from an earlier Washington Post column.

+++

washingtonpost.com
'Full Confidence'? Uh-Oh.
By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, December 14, 2004

"We have full confidence in his integrity," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of would-be homeland security secretary Bernard B. Kerik on Friday afternoon -- mere hours before the nomination was doomed by reports of unpaid taxes to an undocumented nanny, unreported gifts from an unsavory company and an unpleasant lawsuit linked to an unseemly assignation.

The White House's rapid distancing from and disparaging of Kerik suggest that McClellan and his colleagues had something less than "full confidence" in Kerik from the start. But that logic implies that when White House officials say "full confidence," they mean "full confidence." In fact, the phrase has become a Bush euphemism, a warning to the person in question that this might be a good time to circulate the résumé.

[Dr Dave]

great minds...

[BFrank]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

great minds...

... and not ONE of them working in Washington.

[Gary Sisco]

Now or apparently ever.

[BFrank]

Senator Lugar, on the same program, said that Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership was flawed, but that the answer was not to get rid of him now. Mr. Rumsfeld "should be held accountable and he should stay in office," Mr. Lugar said.
>>> So, he's incompetent, but he should stay in office??? And what EXACTLY does being "held accountable" mean?


NY Times
December 19, 2004
Prominent G.O.P. Senators Back Rumsfeld, for Now
By BRIAN KNOWLTON

WASHINGTON, DEC. 19 - Influential Republican senators expressed qualified support today for the embattled defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, saying a change in Pentagon leadership would be unwise at this time of war in Iraq. They made clear, however, that they had serious reservations about his stewardship of that war.

Of acute concern, senators from both parties said, was the failure to more quickly and effectively train Iraqi security personnel, a situation they said had been seriously aggravated by an early United States decision to disband the Iraqi Army in the immediate aftermath of the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

One senator said that the Iraqi security forces trained so far were at the "bottom level" in competence and capability. The senators said that offers from France, Germany and others to provide greater training assistance should now be taken up.

Following a week in which three senior Republican lawmakers expressed serious reservations about Mr. Rumsfeld, the qualified endorsements of two top Republican senators - Richard Lugar of Indiana, who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, and John Warner of Virginia, who chairs the Armed Services Committee, seemed likely to carry weight.

"We should not at this point in time entertain any idea of changing those responsibilities in the Pentagon," Senator Warner said on the NBC "Meet the Press" program. Despite past disagreements with Mr. Rumsfeld, he said, "I have confidence in my ability and his ability to continue to work together as a team."

Senator Lugar, on the same program, said that Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership was flawed, but that the answer was not to get rid of him now. Mr. Rumsfeld "should be held accountable and he should stay in office," Mr. Lugar said.

The White House, which has made clear that Secretary Rumsfeld would be among the minority of cabinet members asked to stay on in the coming term, stood firmly behind him today. "Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a spectacular job, and the president has great confidence in him," Andrew Card, the president's chief of staff, said on the ABC "This Week" program.

Mr. Rumsfeld has of late been the focal point of a number of miscues that together have begun to erode the level of political and popular support he once enjoyed. Most recently, the Defense Department has had to acknowledge that an automated device had been signing Mr. Rumsfeld's name to letters of condolence to families of service people killed in Iraq, and that henceforth he would personally sign the letters.

Just a few days before that, Mr. Rumsfeld was videotaped in Kuwait being asked by a soldier headed for Iraq about shortages of armor and other vital equipment. Critics said his answers - that the country had gone to war "with the army we have" and that even an armored vehicle was not necessarily a safe one - were at best unsympathetic, at worst arrogant.

Mr. Rumsfeld has often been a target of Democrats, but now some prominent Republicans have added their voices. Senator John McCain of Arizona, a member of the Armed Services Committee and a frequent critic of the administration's Iraq war planning, said on Monday that he had "no confidence" in Rumsfeld. Other outspoken Republican critics include Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Susan Collins of Maine and Trent Lott of Mississippi. Mr. Rumsfeld has also come under fire from William Kristol, a prominent conservative, who is editor of The Weekly Standard, as well as a notable political independent, General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, who led American forces in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Senator Evan Bayn, Democrat of Indiana, weighed in today, too, saying that "mistakes have made that have jeopardized our chances for success," mistakes that "have not been admitted, learned from or corrected."

"Reluctantly," he added, "I've concluded that we have to have a different perspective" at the top of the Pentagon.

But Senators Lugar and Warner hold positions of greater influence in Congress than do those who have most strongly castigated the defense secretary.

And as Mr. Rumsfeld's supporters have pointed out, the only backing the secretary truly needs is that of President Bush. White House officials have said the president remains unfazed by the criticism of his defense secretary.

But even those lawmakers who said today that Mr. Rumsfeld should stay on for now were harshly critical of the progress made toward training an Iraqi security force capable of eventually taking over from the coalition.

"The raw material is lacking in the willpower and commitment," Senator Warner said, adding that the Iraqis' competence and leadership capabilities were so far at the "bottom level."

He said he did not fault the current United States training efforts, however. And as great as the need is for a larger military force, he said, there was no chance that Washington would reinstate the military draft.

Democrats pressed for Mr. Bush to accept foreign offers of training assistance, even from countries like France, which had opposed the American-led invasion in 2003.

"We need tremendous support of other nations," said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, adding that the Bush administration had to overcome an apparent reluctance to work with opponents of its intervention in Iraq.

Senator Joseph Biden, Democrat of Delaware, said that President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt had told him that Egypt could train "many more Iraqis" but that "your administration won't ask me to."

Germany is actually leading a small program in the United Arab Emirates to teach forensics policing techniques to Iraqis, something the senators appeared to ignore. But a French offer made nearly a year ago of training assistance outside Iraq has gone with no apparent response from Washington.

[jeff54]

December 19, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
A Not So Wonderful Life
By MAUREEN DOWD

EXTERIOR BRIDGE OVER POTOMAC RIVER - NIGHT

CLOSE SHOT - Rummy is standing by the railing, staring morosely into the water. The snow is falling hard. Feeling a tap on his shoulder, he wheels around and wrestles an old man with wings into a headlock.

OLD MAN: Ouch! Tut, tut. When will you learn that force doesn't solve everything?

RUMMY: Who the dickens are you?

OLD MAN: Clarence, Angel First Class. I've been sent down to help you.

RUMMY, squinting: You're off your nut, you old fruitcake. You can't help me. I was a matinee idol in this town, a studmuffin. Now everyone's turned on me - Trent Lott, Chuck Hagel and that dadburn McCain.

CLARENCE: No more self-pity, son. I'm going to show you what the world would have been like if you'd never been born.

Clarence, who can fly now, takes Rummy's hand and they soar over the icy Potomac to the Pentagon. Beneath the glass on the desk of the defense secretary is a list of members of Congress and their phone numbers.

RUMMY: Who put that there?

CLARENCE: Sam Nunn. He's the defense secretary. Sam consults with Congress. Never acts arrogant or misleads them. He didn't banish the generals who challenged him - he promoted 'em. And, of course, he caught Osama back in '01. He threw 100,000 troops into Afghanistan on 9/11 and sealed the borders. Our Special Forces trapped the evildoer and his top lieutenants at Tora Bora. You weren't at that cabinet meeting the day after 9/11, so nobody suggested going after Saddam. No American troops died or were maimed in Iraq. No American soldiers tortured Iraqis in Abu Ghraib. No Iraqi explosives fell into the hands of terrorists. There's no office of disinformation to twist perception abroad. We're not on the cusp of an Iraq run by Muslim clerics tied to Iran. Here's Sam. He's with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

GENERAL SHINSEKI: We got some good news today on the National Guard, sir. Recruiting is up 40 percent. With the money we saved killing that useless missile defense system, we up-armored all our Humvees.

RUMMY, fists and jaw clenched: Grrrrrrr...I want to see Wolfie!

CLARENCE: Sam never hired any of those wacko neocons. Wolfowitz is a woolly headed professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and a consultant to Ariel Sharon. Richard Perle was never in charge of the Defense Policy Board, so he was unable to enrich himself through government connections, or help Ahmad Chalabi con the administration. Perle stayed an honest man, running a chain of soufflé shops. His soufflés were so fluffy he became known as the Prince of Lightness. Doug Feith never worked here, either, so he never set up the Office of Special Plans to spin tall tales about W.M.D. and Qaeda ties to Saddam. And he never bungled the occupation because there was no occupation. Without you to swoon over in a book, neocon doyenne Midge Decter became a fallen woman, like Violet.

RUMMY, dyspeptic: Holy mackerel! Take me to Dick!

CLARENCE: Dick and Lynne run a bait, tackle and baton-twirling shop in Casper, Wyo. You didn't exist, so you never gave him those jobs in the Nixon and Ford administrations, and he never ran for Congress or worked for Bush 41 or anointed himself 43's vice president. W. chose Chuck Hagel as his running mate. So without you and Dick there to dominate him, he was guided by his dad and Brent Scowcroft, who kept Condi in line. Colin Powell was never cut off at the knees and the U.N. and allies were never bullied. There was never any crazy fever about Iraq or unilateralism or "Old Europe." Here's Colin now, heading for the Oval Office.

POWELL: Merry Christmas, Mr. President. With the help of our allies around the world, we have won the war on terror. And Saddam has been overthrown. Once Hans Blix exposed the fact that Saddam had no weapons, the tyrant was a goner. No Arab dictator can afford to be humilated by a Swedish disarmament lawyer.

RUMMY: Goodness gracious, I've heard enough now. I'm going home. Unless you're going to tell me my wife is an old maid, because I wasn't around to marry her.

CLARENCE: Oh, no. Joyce lives across the street from your old house on Kalorama Road. She's happily married to the French ambassador.

"Auld Lang Syne" swells as we FADE OUT.

[bluenoter]

A Not So Wonderful Life
By MAUREEN DOWD

You go, MoDo!

[Gary Sisco]

Lugar toeing the new party line. Stand by your decisions, no matter how stupid! March forth boldly proclaiming your incompetence!

[Gary Sisco]

There are several ways I could think of to "hold him accountable."

[lynn]

Perhaps we will know more after Bush's "End of the Year" Press Conference in about 15 minutes.

They are so rare they have given them names.

[BFrank]

Originally Posted by lynn

Perhaps we will know more after Bush's "End of the Year" Press Conference in about 15 minutes.

They are so rare they have given them names.

Can't wait until he holds his "Press Conference for Freedom".

[lynn]

Bush Comes to Defense of His Defense Secretary
Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:47 AM ET
By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Monday brushed aside criticism of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over his handling of the Iraq war and described him as a "caring fellow" who will win over doubters on Capitol Hill.

"He's done a fine job and I look forward to continue to work with him," Bush told a news conference.

Bush said Rumsfeld would "reach out to members of the Hill, explain the decisions he's made. And I believe that, in a new term, members of the Senate and House will recognize what a good job he's doing."

Rumsfeld over the weekend came under barrage of fresh criticism and accusations of "insensitivity" after admitting he did not personally sign his name on letters of condolence to families of soldiers killed in Iraq.

Rumsfeld acknowledged that letters to family members of more than 1,000 U.S. troops killed in action had been signed by machine and in a statement said he would now sign them in his own hand.

Bush defended Rumsfeld. "I know Secretary Rumsfeld's heart. I know how much he cares for the troops," Bush said. "I have heard the anguish in his voice, and seen his eyes when we talk about the danger in Iraq and the fact that youngsters are over there in harm's way. He's a good decent man. He's a caring fellow."

"Sometimes, perhaps his demeanor is rough and gruff. But below that rough and gruff, no-nonsense demeanor is a good human being who cares deeply about the military and deeply about the grief that war causes," Bush said.

Rumsfeld got himself into trouble earlier this month for appearing to brush off a soldier headed to Iraq who complained that military vehicles did not have sufficient armor and troops were having to piece together scraps of metal for extra protection.

Some prominent Republicans in Congress, including Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, have questioned Rumsfeld's performance.

But two key Republicans, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Richard Lugar of Indiana and Senate Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner of Virginia said on Sunday that it would be too disruptive to change the leadership at the Pentagon given the pending elections in Iraq on Jan. 30.

Pointing to the coming Iraqi elections, Warner said on NBC's "Meet the Press," "We should not at this point in time entertain any idea of changing those responsibilities in the Pentagon."

http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArti...toryID=7141620

How does February look for a long vacation Donald?

[Root Doctor]

As usual, the Daily Show captures this mess best:

Jon Stewart: But Stephen, what you seem to be suggesting is that the way to keep your job in this administration is to be a failure.

Stephen Colbert: Not so, Jon. A colossal failure.

[BFrank]

Too bad the Daily Show is off for the next 2 weeks.

+++

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Monday brushed aside criticism of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over his handling of the Iraq war and described him as a "caring fellow" who will win over doubters on Capitol Hill.

"He's done a fine job and I look forward to continue to work with him," Bush told a news conference.

Bush said Rumsfeld would "reach out to members of the Hill, explain the decisions he's made. And I believe that, in a new term, members of the Senate and House will recognize what a good job he's doing."
>>> This is a joke, right?

[Gary Sisco]

No, it's not. This Gang is so mad that they actually believe their own gibberish.

[Dr Dave]

Do we have a short list of possible replacements for Rummy? (I assume Bernard Kerik is out of the running)

It might be easier to push him out the door if there were a credible candidate for replacement. Me, I haven't got a clue.

[BFrank]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

Do we have a short list of possible replacements for Rummy? (I assume Bernard Kerik is out of the running)

It might be easier to push him out the door if there were a credible candidate for replacement. Me, I haven't got a clue.

They wouldn't DARE offer Wolfowitz, would they? Naaahhhhhhhh ...

Although with THIS crew, who knows.

[patricia]

Whenever I hear Mr Bush insist that some do-do, who has just made another collossol error in judgement or committed some horredous act is "doing a superb job" I always wince.
Although I tend to cut those I love HUGE slack and defend them, when everybody else thinks I should have them, at least flogged, I'm not responsible for thousands of deaths through my poor judge of character.

Mr Bush is directly responsible for those who serve under him, whether people want to absolve him of personal guilt or not. He has assumed responsibility as well as prestige by being the Commander In Chief. People don't just kiss your ring when you're President. They also get to fling over-ripe fruit and vegetables, verbally speaking, at you when you make dumb decisions. Democracy in action. Take up your baskets of fruit and vegetables people and head for the town square!!! Let your dissent manifest itself in actual outrage!!!!

[Dr Dave]

We can't do outrage right now, Patricia. It's the holiday, and the Dow Jones is up, and gas is down a bit, and we're upset about 18 of ours getting killed in Mosul, plus three Iraqi National Guards. And the wounding of 69 others, all done by a suicide bomber (golly, where do they all come from?). We need to hope right now, hope that our December sales are respectable compared to last year's. Hope that the Japanese and Chinese decide that it is better to hold on to their dollar-denominated debt than to sell it.

We'll get to outrage in March, when most people see their performance-related pay for 2004 drop. Except of course on Wall St., which will come out of 2004 smelling like a rose.

In the meantime, we hope.

[BFrank]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

We'll get to outrage in March, when most people see their performance-related pay for 2004 drop. Except of course on Wall St., which will come out of 2004 smelling like a rose.

Too late. I've already been advised to "down-size" (my term, not theirs) my expectations regarding my bonus. Our sector hasn't done as well as expected and that's 70% the short-term incentive.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

We can't do outrage right now, Patricia. It's the holiday, and the Dow Jones is up, and gas is down a bit, and we're upset about 18 of ours getting killed in Mosul, plus three Iraqi National Guards. And the wounding of 69 others, all done by a suicide bomber (golly, where do they all come from?). We need to hope right now, hope that our December sales are respectable compared to last year's. Hope that the Japanese and Chinese decide that it is better to hold on to their dollar-denominated debt than to sell it.

We'll get to outrage in March, when most people see their performance-related pay for 2004 drop. Except of course on Wall St., which will come out of 2004 smelling like a rose.

In the meantime, we hope.

Dr Dave, I know you're right. I just wonder at what point the scales will fall from the public's eyes and they will see the incompetence and downright lack of the much ballyhooed "compassionate conservatism" that Mr Bush is rumoured to possess.
Compassion is not the first thing that occurs to me when I read every day that more deaths have been suffered, on both sides and that more families will forever be without some or all of their family members because of this ill-conceived decison, made so cavalierly. Forgive me if I stand alone and rage.