Spider Holes
Rumsfeld refuses to testify before Senate Armed Services Committee.
Of course, another way of looking at this is that John Warner and the committee's Republican members have declined to make Rumsfeld testify. Ordinarily, executive branch officials don't so openly thumb their noses at the congressmen who oversee their departments. But the current congressional GOP has made it clear that they live merely to serve the greater glory of George W. Bush and his staff, so if Rumsfeld doesn't want to show up, Rumsfeld won't show up.
Advertisement
Wrong.
Rumsfeld changed his mind and decided to show up.
August 3, 2006 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
...so if Rumsfeld doesn't want to show up, Rumsfeld won't show up.
Al: Wrong.
This bit of news does not exactly contradict Matt's main point.
August 3, 2006 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it contradicts Matthew's point. Rumsfeld felt pressure to show up and, just like every other Defense Secretary, decided it was in his best interest to show up.
After all, the phrase "if X doesn't want to show up, X won't show up" hardly applies solely to Rumsfeld. It applies to everybody.
August 3, 2006 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt didn't say, "Rumsfeld will never show up" or, "Rumsfeld will never feel pressure to show up." Here's what he did say, "...the current congressional GOP has made it clear that they live merely to serve the greater glory of George W. Bush and his staff, so if Rumsfeld doesn't want to show up, Rumsfeld won't show up." Indeed, the article you cite says Hillary Clinton brought further pressure to bear. According to the article, Mark Warner asked once amd was rebuffed.
August 3, 2006 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real issue is: Will he actually say anything meaningful at the hearing?
I've seen Rumsfeld questioned on a number of occasions, don't ever remember him saying much that was useful.
August 3, 2006 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"if X doesn't want to show up, X won't show up"
If 'X' is George W. Bush during the Vietnam War showing up for his National Guard duty = True
If 'X' is Joe or Jill Cannon Fodder showing up for National Guard duty in Iraq = False, unless they want to be prosecuted.
August 3, 2006 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does it matter if he showed up or not? His initial reaction tells me everything I need to know. Accountability? The administration junta has always viewed requests for accountability as a partisan political stunt instead of the Congress exercising it's oversight responsibilities.
Rumsfeld's comments to Senator Clinton were completely over the top. He never said things were going well or on the right track in Iraq? What a load of cow manure...Things are completely FUBAR in Iraq and the administration knows it. The "stay the course" engine is running on fumes. That dog won't hunt anymore and there is no "Plan B"...
August 3, 2006 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Warner, not Mark.
August 4, 2006 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another point inferred in Matt's statement is that there are few if any checks and balances in government today. The Prez (decider) rules.
The next election will determine if the slippery slope we are sliding down to one party government continues to gain momentum or not. I'm an optimist, but feel very scared by how the elections have been manipulated of late. Rummy might show up for hearings, but as one person said, will he say anything?
August 4, 2006 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand the purpose of the attack on Warner. I think it is ludicrous to assume that Sen. Clinton's 'pressure' in front of the microphone was more effective than the type of pressure Warner likely made quietly.
Senator Warner is to a very large degree the reason that McCain's anti-torture amendment was even proffered on the floor last October. Frist had decided to use his administrative power over scheduling to keep McCain's amendment from being voted on by the whole Senate body by axing all Armed Services Committee matters from the schedule. Absurdly, Frist decided to bring up the DoD appropriations bill before the Armed Services Bill. Nice accounting principles from an insider trader.
Warner and Levin worked together to bring many of the Armed Services Committee's proposals up as amendments to the appropriations bill, and had to jack control from the Appropriations Chairman, Ted Stevens.
Stevens whined and moaned, and at one time implied that he is a derelict, as far as I'm concerned:
The Geneva Conventions are lawful treaties the US government has entered into; therefore The US Constitution; Article VI; Clause 2 states that they are "the supreme Law of the Land". Clause 3 then goes on to state:
How can Stevens claim competence when he admits ignorance of the Supreme Law of the Land, but knows all about the money?
You can read some of what Warner had to say on October 5, 2005, online.
And yeah, I don't think Warner has pressed hard enough either, but he has on a few points of honour, and that's a damn sight more than the nine Republicans who voted against the McCain Amendment: Allard, Bond, Coburn, Cochran, Cornyn, Inhofe, Roberts, Sessions and Stevens. Four of these nine SOBs are on the Armed Services Committee; Coryn, Inhofe, Roberts, and Sessions. It's a wonder Warner has been able to do anything.
August 5, 2006 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
John Warner.
August 5, 2006 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink