How long can Rumsfeld really last? With the election over and nothing to lose, even the hawks are turning on him and calling out his incompetence for what it really is. The criticisms from McCain, Biden and Hagel can't be dismissed as partisanship or potshots from some lunatic fringe. They all supported the war and have all voiced votes of no confidence. If Bush is smart he'll cut this albatross from around his neck; how many people on the right have to wake up to the Defense Secretary's ineptitude before Bush realizes that he is being tainted by association every day that Rummy stays in office?
Update: Biden made a really good point here, in response to Rumsfeld's quote about how "you go with the army you have, not the army you wish you had":
The truth is, as I believe Senator Hagel would agree with me because we have been there four times together, we did not go with the army we had. We had an incredibly heavy mechanized army we left at home.
When the history books discuss the Iraq War, they will note that Rumsfeld stubbornly insisted that he could fight a new type of war that did not involve a number of boots on the ground that would normally be expected. He locked horns with the generals about this and he was proved wrong as the war unfolded. Once the decision to go to war was made, whatever you might think about that original decision, Rumsfeld failed in execution and commitment. It's as simple as that.
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment