Throwing Rummy from the Train
Like it or not, Don Rumsfeld's time as Secretary of Defense is running out. The real question is who will be next to step out of the shadows and denounce him. So far, six retired Generals (four Army and two Marines) have stepped up to the microphone to denounce Donald Rumsfeld as an incompetent, failed leader and the list is likely to get longer in the coming days. The list, so far, of retired Generals is impressive (for those non-military folk, a Brigadier General has one star, a Major General has two stars, a Lieutenant General has three stars, and a General has four stars; four stars outranks the others) :
Lt. General Gregory Newbold, (Marine) retired director of operations at the Pentagon’s military joint staff;
Major General Paul D. Eaton (Army);
General Anthony Zinni (Marine) former Commander Central Command
Major General John Batiste (Army)
Major General Charles Swannack (Army)
Major General John Riggs (Army)
Up to this point, President Bush could offer the lie that he was giving the military everything they asked for and no one challenged him. To quote Edgar Allen Poe, "nevermore". The die is now cast for the Republican controlled Congress. The respective heads of the Armed Services Committees, Senator Warner and Congressman Duncan Hunter, now realize that a critical mass of generals has come forward and that Don Rumsfeld has suffered the parliamentary equivalent of a vote of no confidence.
Consider, for example, Lt. General Newbold. He was the J-3 for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In other words, he was the top General with the specific responsibility for planning operations. You do not start a war without a plan. Although the responsibility for crafting the plan to invade Iraq fell specifically to CENTCOM, which was under the command of General Franks, General Newbold was in a position to monitor and comment on those plans. He can now appear before both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees and explain precisely how Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz fiddled with the plan first developed by Generals Zinni and Peay (former Centcom Commanders) in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War and circumvented the recommendations of senior military officers.
This is not a simple case of the military trying to usurp or embarrass civilian leaders. The growing chorus of senior military officers recognize that if they do not speak out now that the debacle in Iraq could erode the publics' confidence that military leaders, especially those in the Army and the Marines, and leave the military with a tarnished legacy like the aftermath of Vietnam.
Don Rumsfeld may want to stick it out, but stick a fork in him. His goose is cooked and his reign will soon be over.
Bush just gave Rumsfeld a rousing vote of confidence. I give him a week tops now. When Fredo gives support to someone, the rest of the Coreleon family knows to whack him.
April 14, 2006 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rumsfeld my be going, going...gone, but what will get as a replacement?
Another political hack that won't be any more talented than this incompentent boob. How do I know this? I have seen all the other incompetent idiots Bush has surrounded himself with, so at this point, there is little doubt, we are simply into replacing 'old incompetence' with 'new incompetence'. It is a 'constant' with this administration.
Beware of the fanatics, they never see gray.
April 14, 2006 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I could believe this. But I don't. Rummy may resign (for real) but the chances of Bush firing him are not high. According to one theory, Bush has been so disengaged that he basically has been out of it for a while. Sure he signs off on the big decisions, but he's such a numbskull that he probably doesn't ask too many questions.
I think the focus on Rummy is misplaced actually. The war is Bush's responsiblity and blaming Rummy means taking your eye off that fact.
April 14, 2006 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does it take any number of generals to show Rumsfeld is incompetent? Isn't the fact that 3 years later things are far worse in Iraq than they were before we invaded? Are Bush's supporters really that blind?
April 14, 2006 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman's the one.
April 14, 2006 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Rummy is responsible for the conduct of the wars; Bush is responsible for putting the military in that situation. Rumsfled's the SecDef, and it's his job to make sure that whatever Bush wants done with the military gets done properly.
It has not. Fire his ass. Later Bush can give him a Medal of Freedom, but get him out of there and get someone competent in there.
April 14, 2006 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grannus said: "Bush just gave Rumsfeld a rousing vote of confidence. I give him a week tops now..."
Here's Bush's full statement on Rummy:
Earlier today I spoke with Don Rumsfeld about ongoing military operations in the Global War on Terror. I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our Nation.
The Department of Defense has been tasked with many difficult missions. Upon assuming office, I asked Don to transform the largest department in our government. That kind of change is hard, but our Nation must have a military that is fully prepared to confront the dangerous threats of the 21st Century. Don and our military commanders have also been tasked to take the fight to the enemy abroad on multiple fronts.
I have seen first-hand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to complete these missions. Secretary Rumsfeld's energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060414.html
Based on that statement, I'd say Grannus is correct, a week at most and then Rummy's health problems lead to a resignation, effective, say, the first week of Nov. It is the kiss of death for Bush to say "He has my full support and deepest appreciation."
I know it sounds nuts but I think they are really considering appointing Lieberman. It's a rat fuck move and, well, that's a lot of that going around.
April 14, 2006 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rumor mill at this point,
Senator John Warner and Former SecDef Cohen. Libermann seen as too light.
April 14, 2006 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe there are seven? I heard that General Clark was not a happy camper, either. Maybe he does not count because he is a politician.
April 14, 2006 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is worth noting that two of the generals, Batiste and Swannack, are commanders that served in Iraq. Batiste commanded the 1st Infantry Division and Swannack commanded the 82th Airborne Division. These guys aren't all Pentagon desk jockeys.
This may signal the start of a split with military personnel and GOP as they have more and more public acknowledge from the military's top people of the total separation of the Bush White House from the reality on the ground in Iraq.
That said, I don't think there will be any change in the situation until the next Presidential, not Congressional, election. Bush doesn't care what we, or the military, think, it stay the course, all the way.
April 14, 2006 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see his possible replacement as Liebermann, only because they can spin any further "mishaps" as being the fault of a Democrat at the wheel.
April 14, 2006 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Contrary to all opinions on this page, I'll believe that Rumsfeld is slated to resign only when it happens. Bush is a despot, and he will damn well do as he pleases, and only become more resolute when pushed.
April 14, 2006 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew Card is gone. Bush is looking for a legacy. His current one is not looking too good. He'll throw anyone from the bus that he has to.
April 14, 2006 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Michael O'Hanlon sez that if Bush dumps Dumsfeld, he might just as well dump himself - it's his Disaster too, after all.
What Michael, a supporter of the Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History doesn't tell us (quoted today in a wire service report) is that if Bush throws Rummy from the train, and then jumps himself, O'Hanlon, Daalder and the rest of the Brookings claque won't be far behind.
Will they
April 14, 2006 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Tom DeLay needs a job.
;)
April 14, 2006 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks like Leiberman has been angling for the job for a long time now. Why else would he make the silly statements he has been making.
That said, and agreeing with everybody who says 1) Rumsfeld is incompetent and ought to go, and 2) in the rest of the world a statement like "He has my full support and deepest appreciation" would be his cue to clean out his locker, I think Rumsfeld is going to stay as long as he wants. That is Bush's way.
Anyway there are three people who count in the Bush administration. Bush is number 3. Rumsfeld out ranks him. (Small snark.)
Ron Byers
April 14, 2006 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Donald Rumsfeld is running a clandestine operation in Iran, as some are saying, an operation that's been hidden from congress, then he's not going anywhere. He serves at the pleasure of the madman that gave him those orders.
April 14, 2006 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Yesterday my old pal Charlie Cook said the same thing about GWB. Thuugh we have a bit of disagreement about the effects of the Cheney/CIA leak case, on this point I wholeheartedly agree.
Bush staked his presidency on a pack of lies. Lies have consequences.
That goes for Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton too. Let's have a bi-partisan house cleaning.
April 14, 2006 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
The "cooked goose" part that is. As far as I can tell, Charlie's fork is still in the drawer.
Personally I prefer DEAD DUCKS to cooked geese. Another point of disagreement.
April 14, 2006 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Rummy's days are numbered, or would be in a rational administration. What's difficult is how this could play out without an acknowledgement of error. By this sad stage, who could utter a phrase like 'time with family' while keeping a straight face?
When they start to talk about 'moving on to the next phase' in Iraq, Rummy is as good as gone. For that to happen, they need to be able to point to a successful end of the previous phase. I'm not counting on reality to provide that. Short of that, Bush will have to essentially say, "We really screwed the pooch - big time. We're going back to the drawing board" That's the part I can't imagine happening.
April 14, 2006 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before I'll believe that Rummy will be fired, notwithstanding his demonstrated incompetence, someone has to tell me how the Bush Administration would be able to survive the confirmation hearings for the new SecDef. These would quickly become a three-ring-circus in which GOP senators out-bloviate one another as they find fault with the execution of the war they so enthusiastically supported. Unlike Supreme Court confirmation hearings, these would be all about policy positions and hypotheticals. No one with a reputation strong enough to preclude such questioning would accept the job.
I'd pay to see it, but I just can't imagine that the Bush Administration will allow it to happen. Unless it could pull off a recess appointment, which it couldn't, the only way to replace Rummy is to expose themselves to a firestorm of criticism that would be devastating enough to assure major Democratic Party gains in November.
April 14, 2006 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Out of all of this Revolt of the Generals' Alumni Assn, the most significant thing in my view is the charge that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld "micro-managed" the Greatest Strategic Disaster in US history, this in the face, of Bush's repeated remonstrances that the Generals would tell him how to act.
Well, that's a lie but it is more than that. I virtually confirms my thesis that the manifold lies of Bush & Co, oerneated EVERY significant strategic and tactical decision over the past 3 years from Day 1 - from Falluja to Tal Afar.
Relatedly it also demolishes the Packer War Lies - this was to be a debacle of the first order, just as predicted with 20/20 foresight by so very man.
Hello Daalder, O'Hanlon, Lindsay, Ken Pollack
April 14, 2006 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rumsfeld said on Arabic TV (al-Arabiya, the one the Admin likes and seems to be trying to help, must have intel sources there or something) and also in his press conference that there are thousands of retired generals and admirals.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2006/tr20060413-12826.html
Is that true? How many retired generals and admirals are there? How many that retired in the last 5 years? I bet the relevant number for comparison is not so large as Rumsfeld makes it out to be. He really is a slick liar. No one parses his words as closely as is necessary. His press conference answers about the generals challenging him are a good case in point.
SEC. RUMSFELD: We'll make this the last question.
Q -- General Pace in his opening statement was responding, as he mentioned a moment ago, to Lieutenant General Newbold's essay in Time magazine. And in calling for you to step down, Mr. Secretary, in referring to the civilian leadership he said, "The commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who had never had to execute these missions or bury the results."
Do you take that personally? Does that sting? I mean, what is your reaction to a statement like that?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven't read it. Second, he never raised an issue, publicly or privately, when he was here that I know of, or -- do you know of any?
GEN. PACE: No. And to make sure you understand, my opening comment was not directed at General Newbold. My opening comment was directed at several articles that have been out here. I used his timeline as an example in answering Barbara's question.
Q You did mention General Newbold's name. And in response, you were saying, sir, that General Newbold never raised any objections or --
SEC. RUMSFELD: Not to my knowledge, no.
Q -- concerns about the war plans.
GEN. PACE: Nor to mine. Nor to mine.
SEC. RUMSFELD: No, I just -- he just didn't. Plenty people did, and I did, lots of people did, and talked about it. But we had discussions in the department, we had discussions in the National Security Council, we had discussions with the president. And they were extensive discussions. There are an awful lot of people around here who aren't shy about giving their views. So it's not something that concerns me, because I think that -- I guess he was working on the Joint Staff, but in terms of why he would come up with this now, I just can't speak to that, I'm sorry.
Q Do you think people are rewriting history?
GEN. PACE: Okay, wait a minute. It would be unfair for me leave you with the idea that he never said anything critical. As the director for operations on the Joint Staff, he certainly had the responsibility, as we all do as we sit around the table to discuss, and I'm sure during those discussions he did.
What I'm trying to point out is that no later than the 3rd of September of 2002, he no longer had that responsibility. He no longer was on active duty. The plan evolved for six more months before it was executed, and therefore, there's a knowledge base there from which extrapolating to what happened in those six months really should not be done.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2006/tr20060411-12800.html
P.S. O'Hanlon of Brookings also said on NPR that Bush would hurt himself (as if he can do worse!) and said the generals were partly to blame (although oddly enough not himself). I've read or listened to the comments of these generals, and they readily took part of the blame for themselves and their fellow officers, so that's just a red herring.
April 14, 2006 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember 'you're doin' a heckuva job Brownie'? Well, that was a couple of days before political pressure forced Bushco to get rid of him. I can't say for sure if Rumsfeld is going to get the axe, the only point I can make is that you can't believe Bush's vote of confidence in him. It's just spin. When was the last time that anyone could believe anything Bush said?
April 14, 2006 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't help but reflect on how jaw-droppingly arrogant Rummy must be; a real first-class bully.
This is a guy, after all, who has already served as SecDef before. You'd think that he might have learned something the first time around...
April 14, 2006 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
He learned how to run the shop, but not how to run a war.
April 14, 2006 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, when you've got Tim Russert working late on Good Friday to report that they were trying to avert "civil war" at the Pentagon today, sounds like the country has big troubles. Are things in Iraq even worse than we think?
April 14, 2006 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cohen would be a good choice, so he's out for sure. Warner? Probably an order taker, not an order giver. Looking for any actual, real improvements in this administration is futile.
Hoppy in Sacramento
April 14, 2006 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recess appointment!
April 14, 2006 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta disagree here. Bush values loyalty above all else. When and if he throws you from the bus you are certainly disparaged, but the guy hates to throw anyone from the bus. The replacement always seems scarier than the current body to Bush.
Just another sign of what a scared little man he is.
Card doesn't really count here because he was probably just worn out. Chiefs of staff never last that long and he was replaced with a near identical copy. Plus no one was really calling for Card to leave. In Rumsfeld's case, our esteemed idiot President can't just go down one job title and offer a promotion. He must go outside the circle and that terrifies him.
April 14, 2006 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry or others -
Shouldn't Rumsfeld know how many generals there are?
Today Rumsfeld said
What is a better number for generals in the military?
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-bush-rumsfeld-interview.html
April 14, 2006 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Ole Bernie Trainor's takin credit (as he should) for unleashing the Generals
April 14, 2006 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Ole Bernie Trainor's takin credit (as he should) for unleashing the Generals
April 14, 2006 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Ole Bernie Trainor's takin credit (as he should) for unleashing the Generals
onApril 14, 2006 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Ole Bernie Trainor's takin credit (as he should) for unleashing the Generals.
April 14, 2006 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Ole Bernie Trainor's takin credit (as he should) for unleashing the Generals.
(Oberman)April 14, 2006 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Maybe Bernie's just in an especially bad mood today.
April 14, 2006 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paul in Brooklyn:
I have to disagree with your assessment of the political leverage that confirmation hearings for a new SecDef would have. A circus? True enough: but rather, one ringmastered by Karl Rove, most likely, and designed to do what Rove does best, only in reverse: turning an actual flaw into a perceived strength; and using said hearings as a big campaign commercial for the GOP.
Do you really think the Republican p-t-b are going to allow a confirmation hearing for Rummy's successor to turn into a free-for-all critique of the Administration's handling of the war? After 3-1/2 years of lambasting any and all critics of the Bush gang's handling of Iraq as virtual Benedict Arnolds? AND after nearly six years putting GOP prestige foursquare behind Fearless Leader Dubya, Scourge of Terrorism?
Not if those Senators want to keep their seats.
Sorry, much as I would like to see it, I still don't think Bush will become SO radioactive as to push Republicans into attacking him or his creatures overtly: they might not want to be associated too closely, if things get worse; but outright criticism?
April 14, 2006 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rumsfeld killed people. Andrew Card did not. Rummy was an accessory to the crimes of Bush. Rummy is safer for Bush in the Pentagon as he knows too much dirt on this administration. Conversely, a new Secretary would have access to all the dirty secrets and might not be 'loyal'. Like Bonnie and Clyde they are inseparable.
April 14, 2006 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
BradTheDad is spot on-Rummy ain't goin nowhere, Bush would never 'fire' Rummy, Cheney or Rice, and Rummy is too much of a flaming a**hole to leave on his own.
I like Rummy's "Out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed we changed the secretary of defense of the United States it would be like a merry-go-round," Rumsfeld told Al Arabiya television in an interview aired on Friday.
If every time, no Rummy, just leave after a F***ed up war that has killed or wounded 20,000 Americans and cost $500 billion over budget you a**hole. Rumsfeld goose isn't cooked, America's goose is cooked because we are stuck with Bush and his incompetent 'team' until impeachment or 2008.
April 14, 2006 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The late Colonel David Hackworth said it best: "He's an arrogant asshole."
You only have to look at any of his media performances to see this is utterly true.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
April 14, 2006 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink