SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: michael97123 who wrote (154164)12/16/2004 9:59:32 AM
From: Win Smith  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hey! I was just going to post that one. You may be right about the "only some of us", except that by all indications, we still got a knucklehead in chief. And that's pretty much all that matters.



To: michael97123 who wrote (154164)12/16/2004 10:02:03 AM
From: Win Smith  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Grumbling Swells on Rumsfeld's Right Flank nytimes.com

[ The grey lady picks up the trail ]

By TODD S. PURDUM

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's terse response last week to a National Guardsman's concerns about a lack of battle armor in Iraq has set off a sharp round of fresh criticism of him from some fellow Bush supporters, including prominent Republican senators, a retired general and a leading intellectual architect of the war.

"I think there are increasing concerns about the secretary's leadership of the war, the repeated failures to predict the strengths of the insurgency, the lack of essential safety equipment for our troops, the reluctance to expand the number of troops," Senator Susan Collins of Maine said Wednesday.

Ms. Collins, a member of the Armed Services Committee and a leader in the recent successful fight to pass a bill overhauling intelligence-gathering, over the objections of some in the Pentagon, added that "all of those are factors that are causing people to raise more questions to the secretary."

The sharp comments by Ms. Collins, together with other recent statements Senator John McCain of Arizona, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, who led American forces in the Persian Gulf war in 1991 and, after his retirement, twice campaigned for President Bush, suggested that the ground might well be shifting a bit under Mr. Rumsfeld.

Mr. Rumsfeld has been the subject of criticism and the butt of jokes on late-night television since he answered a complaint by Specialist Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee National Guard about a lack of armor on vehicles bound for Iraq by asserting, "You go to war with the Army you have." But several Republican aides on Capitol Hill, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said it was an op-ed article in The Washington Post on Wednesday by William Kristol that distilled the criticism. Mr. Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, had long been one of the war's most ardent supporters among intellectuals, but he cast Mr. Rumsfeld's comments as part of a broader pattern of misjudgments and buck-passing and concluded that Mr. Rumsfeld was not up to winning the peace. "Surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term," he wrote. American soldiers "deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have."

The White House communications director, Dan Bartlett, told reporters that "the president has every bit of confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld."

But some Republicans predicted that he would face even greater skepticism and scrutiny from Congress in the coming months.

"My prediction is that the secretary will face tougher questioning when he comes before the Senate Armed Services Committee and other Congressional committees," Ms. Collins said. But, she noted, "it's obviously the president's call on whether Secretary Rumsfeld goes or stays, and it looks like the president wants him to stay, at least for now."

Mr. Kristol, whose magazine has been critical of Mr. Rumsfeld for nearly two years, said Mr. Rumsfeld's comments to Specialist Wilson were "really the final straw."

"For me, it's the combination of the arrogance and the buck-passing manifested in that statement, with the fundamental error he's made for a year and a half now," Mr. Kristol said. "That error, from my point of view, is that his theory about the military is at odds with the president's geopolitical strategy. He wants this light, transformed military, but we've got to win a real war, which involves using a lot of troops and building a nation, and that's at the core of the president's strategy for rebuilding the Middle East."

He added, "His stubborn attachment to his particular military theory had really hurt the nation's ability to carry out its foreign policy."

Mr. McCain, a frequent critic of Mr. Rumsfeld, told The Associated Press on Monday that he had "no confidence" in the secretary.

On CNN last Sunday, Mr. Hagel said, "That soldier, and those men and women there, deserved a far better answer from their secretary of defense than a flippant comment."

General Schwarzkopf told MSNBC on Monday that he was angered "by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, the secretary of defense, didn't have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up."

Sheryl Gay Stolberg contributed reporting for this article.



To: michael97123 who wrote (154164)12/16/2004 10:10:36 AM
From: Win Smith  Respond to of 281500
 
Open Season on Rummy? washingtonpost.com

[ Howard Kurtz follows up on Kristol's salvo. Personally, on the knucklehead-in-chief issue, I think Huffington's bit at the end is pretty much correct. ]

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 16, 2004; 6:39 AM

If Don Rumsfeld has lost Bill Kristol, he's losing his conservative base.

Kristol, after all, is a leading foreign-policy hawk. Editor of the Weekly Standard and Fox talking head. Former Republican strategist and White House chief of staff for Dan Quayle. Major backer of the war in Iraq.

Which is why the town is buzzing about Kristol's Washington Post op-ed yesterday, in which he called for Rummy to be thrown overboard.

Not that Rumsfeld should be worried about his job. The only man who counts wants him to remain at the Pentagon. But this has gone beyond predictable potshots from Democrats and liberals. Now some visible figures on the right have had enough of Rumsfeld--a far cry from the days when his press sessions were regularly televised and he was depicted as a rock star.

The Kristol blast comes days after his friend John McCain said he had "no confidence" in the Secretary of Defense. And the turning point seems to have been Rumsfeld's dismissive-sounding "you go to war with the Army you have" response to that question in Kuwait from a Tennessee guardsman worried about inadequately armored vehicles. (Yes, the question was planted by a Chattanooga reporter, but the emotion of the soldiers in that room was real, and had Rumsfeld managed a more convincing and sympathetic answer, the story wouldn't have had legs.)

The sight of Colin Powell and so many other Cabinet members being jettisoned has also prompted critics to ask why the Pentagon chief gets to stay, given his insistence on a smaller invading force for Iraq whose consequences we see every day.

If other voices on the right join Kristol and McCain, look for journalists to start attaching the word "embattled" to Rumsfeld's name.

Here's what Kristol wrote after citing Rummy's comment that you don't have "the Army you want or wish to have at a later time":

"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. . . .

"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."

That would include the president whom Kristol supported, no?

Andrew Sullivan seconds that emotion:

"It reads at times like the arguments on this blog. The most effective argument is about Rumsfeld's absolute refusal to take responsibility for any of his own errors, and his instinct, when in trouble, to blame others. This is not straight-talking; it's buck-passing. And, of course, Kristol's points about insufficient manpower for the post-invasion period remains blindingly obvious - except, of course, to the people running this war.

"Check out this simple statistic from one of the official reports on Abu Ghraib: at one point, General Sanchez had only 495 of the 1400 staffers he needed. There were 92 military police guards for 7,000 prisoners in Abu Ghraib. The responsibility for the consequences of that under-manning lies with Rumsfeld and the president. It's a responsibility they still both refuse to take. And by reappointing Rumsfeld and anointing Bremer and Tenet, Bush has just told his critics to pull a Cheney. I think the stakes in Iraq are too great for this kind of petty intransigence. But that's the president we have."

On National Review's "The Corner," Mark Levin has a contrary view:

"Kristol's piece is unimpressive. . . . At no time does Kristol, or his Senate friends McCain and Hagel, explain where the additional troops will come from. It's very odd that those who supported the war from day one now complain about troop strength, when surely they knew at the time that we didn't have another 100,000 to 150,000 troops to deploy to Iraq. And, as numerous experts have pointed out, exactly what would these troops do there? Create more targets for the terrorists who attack our convoys, I suppose."

Arianna Huffington sees it this way: "Iraq is Bush's signature offering to the world -- and firing Rummy would be like McDonald's deciding to pull the Big Mac off its menu. Instead, the president continues to operate in a fog of denial, serving up rosy assessments of the mayhem he has unleashed."