WP: Democrats Target Rumsfeld (Want Vote of No Confidence)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101531.html

Under assault from Republicans on issues of national security, congressional Democrats are planning to push for a vote of no confidence in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this month as part of a broad effort to stay on the offensive ahead of the November midterm elections.

In Rumsfeld, Democrats believe they have found both a useful antagonist and a stand-in for President Bush and what they see as his blunders in Iraq. This week, Rumsfeld compared critics of the war in Iraq to appeasers of Adolf Hitler, a hyperbolic attack that Democrats hope will backfire.

But even before that attack, Democrats and some Republicans had maintained that Bush has never held anyone in his administration accountable for decisions in the Iraq war that many military analysts say went disastrously wrong. The decisions include not mobilizing enough troops to keep the peace, disbanding the entire Iraqi army and purging all members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party -- including teachers and low-level technocrats -- from the Iraqi government.

"Secretary Rumsfeld's stewardship of this effort is a failure, and he has let down our armed forces," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who is pushing for the no-confidence move.

By demanding accountability, Democrats hope to blunt what has been an all-out assault on their positions on national security. The Republican National Committee yesterday blasted Democrats again as "Defeatocrats," and the attacks will continue when Congress returns next week from its month-long recess. Republican leaders plan to consider a full slate of security-related legislation before leaving on Sept. 29 for the campaigns.

[fooj]

1. Nothing less should be considered.

He's about as ANTI-AMERICAN as is gets!

[Telly Savalas]

2. It's smart politics too.

In a lot of places, Republicans running for re-election would benefit by distancing themselves a bit from the White House. A no-confidence vote forces their hand. Either they support a man who's an obvious failure or they contribute to division among their party. It's a no-win situation for them.

Bravo to the gal or guy who thought this one up.

[kristendom]

18. Republicans Sans Republic

More of the same by returning Republicans will leave us Sans Republic.
http://www.kristen540.blogspot.com

[rodeodance]

3. they give out medals instead of looking for accountability!

[MannyGoldstein]

4. One Vertebra In Place...

23 more to go if the Brave Sir Robin Congressional Democrats actually try this... which I doubt...

[The Traveler]

5. I call them "Re-runlicans"

for they insist on playing out re-runs of some of America's most painful experiences. Again, they have charged into an endless conflict promising enormous cost and little strategic gain. They have, again, restructured the economy to transfer wealth into the coffers of the wealthy, bringing to the nation all the ills that go with a dwindling middle class. Again, they seek to re-instate the shallow, paper doll "morality" of the 19th century. Again, they try to trick and seduce the nation in accepting an Imperial Presidency.

Same old shit. Different decade. A Re-Run of past embarassments, evils and failures. Of course, when it comes to imposing failure and embarassment upon the nation, these ass clowns have surpassed all their predecessors. Re-Runlicans. It fits.

[gulliver]

6. Pathetic. Piling on that cracked old man.

I almost think it's cowardly. The Dems ought to go after Republicanism directly. Bush gave them another opening today. Not neo-cons, not Rumsfeld. Republicanism itself. Use the other stuff to get at Republicans.

Don't say "Rumsfeld and the neocons must go." Say "Republicans gave us Bush, Rumsfeld, and the neocons and they all must go."

Dems don't think America is going to get how Rumsfeld is a "symbol" for all that's wrong with the GOP do they? Americans won't get it. The Dems don't get it.

They have to be direct to score on the Republicans.

[slipslidingaway]

7. So true! n/t

[badgerpup]

8. Chivalry doesn't work, I'm afraid.

Being courteous and gentlemanly (I'm using this the collective tense) got our asses kicked.
We are dealing with nasty, underhanded...entities*...who desire to remain in power and don't care what means they use to do it.
They aren't playing by any rules except the Eleventh Commandment...
Thou Shalt Not Get Caught
Gloves are off.

I don't like it either, but taking down Rumsfeld is sound politically. It would benefit the soldiers as well, methinks...
the guy is utterly divorced from reality as far as they are concerned.

*I don't have a word or reference low enough and that wouldn't offend somebody here.
Even slime mold has its adherents...and a purpose.:crazy:

[Hosnon]

14. It would be a score on the Republicans. I agree with Savalas above. nt

[Barrett808]

17. Nice.

But first things first.

[txb]

9. this is an EXCELLENT MOVE by the Opposition,, I believe!

Rumsfeld is so COMPLETELY out-of-touch and without any moral compass these days, and there is no executive-free-pass like there would be for Bush/Satan(cheney). I say HIT HIM EARLY and HIT HIM OFTEN. The more that the United States populace knows about Don Rumsfeld -- the BETTER!

Rummy is a Dummy!

Let's PROVE IT!

(... NIXON HACK ...)






peace!

[truthisfreedom]

10. i guess the laundry list of names is fair game now, huh?

i don't think they're ready for prime-time.

[RonHack]

11. Illegal wiretapping is backed by Americans?

"A bill to clarify the legality of the NSA's wiretapping without court warrants will also force Democrats to choose between a liberal base that believes the program is an unconstitutional breach of civil rights and a majority of Americans who back the effort."

"A majority of Americans"? Last I checked, that majority didn't like the sound of "wiretapping without court warrants". In fact, aren't there more than a few lawsuits based on this?

I move here that the ones with any backbone left (and those finding it) give this bill the heave-ho. Legalizing something that, Constitutionally, isn't legal AT ALL is going down a dangerous path. Bush has been caught - TWICE - breaking laws against humanity and freedom just to benefit his convenience, all wrapped up under "security" and "patriotism" arguments. I say call the Duh-Sider on this, and make the case that the bill not only targets terrorists, but EVERYONE. EVERY SINGLE MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILD IN AMERICA.

Then we'll see who will stand by this Administration.

Not many, I wager.

[Zech Marquis]

12. no confidence in a neo nazi reject

That snarly remark about pople opposed to his and Darth Cheney as appeasers to facists made my blood boil :grr: I hope the Senate DOES have this vote and paint Rummy as the true Nazi bloodsucker his is!!

BTW, who has that side by side image of Rummy and the Nazi general who looked just like him? :evilgrin:

[Felinity]

13. Not enough for Rummy's retributtion

Send him to The Hague.

[grytpype]

15. Add Cheney to that list!

Why not a "vote of no confidence" in Cheney? And Bush as well!

[GOTV]

16. And what will that accomplish?

Does it carry any weight or is it just symbolic?

[civildisoBDence]

19. Of course, the real target is Bush

How ironic--Rumsfeld being used in a proxy war.

News and commentary, left to right