The Economist: Bush is a fool for keeping Rumsfeld

[katinmn]

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1145657413805&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1112188062620

The defence secretary is one liability a battered White House can't afford

The Economist Magazine
(Apr 22, 2006)

In the innocent days before Sept. 11, 2001, a popular parlour game in Washington was guessing when Donald Rumsfeld would be given the boot. The new secretary of defence had managed to alienate both Congress and the Pentagon bureaucracy. And the media were full of stories about his abrasive style and pig-headed arrogance.

September 11 transformed a has-been into a national hero.

Rumsfeld immediately captivated the country by running into the burning Pentagon to rescue the wounded.

And he kept it captivated with a series of news conferences that projected a mixture of defiance and determination. This was American manliness at its best.

more

Reuters File Photo
Donald Rumsfeld's biggest mistake was trying to fight the Iraq war with too few troops. But there are a slew of other missteps that have forced the U.S. Defence Secretary into a battle for his political life.

[TheCowsCameHome]

1. Bush is a fool, Rumsfeld or not.

It's in his genes.

[Demeter]

18. Rumsfeld and Cheney are Fools for Keeping Bush and Rice

Got to follow the puppet strings in the right directions, if you want to know which ones are the masters, and which the slaves.

[napi21]

2. I like the idea he's keeping Rummy. It's a Great Big

MILLSTONE and it;s doing a great job hanging around Shrubbies neck!

[ROakes1019]

3. one more millstone

I've been thinking this, too. Anything that keeps Bush's numbers down bodes well for the November take-back of the House and Senate. Let Bush keep doing exactly what's he doing.

[katinmn]

5. The only thing is, people are dying and being tortured because of him

We all want a political win but every day that goes by with this monster in place allows death, destruction, and torture to continue unquestioned. And they keep planning to nuke Iran.

Forcing Rumsfailed to step down is the greatest defeat we could hand Bush. Bush is Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld is Bush is failure.

Take him down!

[Skittles]

16. no, we need what is best for ourt troops

Rumsfeld needs to GO

[Ready4Change]

4. The linked article is spot on. n/t

[BeyondThePale]

6. He has to keep Rummy because...

the senate confirmation hearing for his replacement would bring all of * and Rummy's failures under the microscope.

Keeping Rummy = CYA!

[glitch]

7. Good point. nt

[rocktivity]

9. Bush is shaking up his staff, not his management team

Keeping Rummy = CYA!

DING DING DING! BeyondThePale, you're our grand prize winner!

Rummy, along with Cheney and Rove, are the real power behind Bush's throne. Bush knows he can't function without them because they share the same sadistic schoolyard bully mentality. He's gotten rid of his office manager (Card) and messenger boy (McClellan), and his executive secretary (Miers) is rumored to be next. That's a shakeup? Notice that his "board of directors" is still intact!

:headbang:
rocknation

[BeyondThePale]

17. as long as the grand prize isn't...

2-1/2 more years of the * administration circus!

And good point yourself, RN. It isn't hard to guess where the real power lies (just ask Harry Whittington!

[acmavm]

8. What really pisses me off about articles like this is that is takes the

tone that there was some justification for the attack on Iraq. That hey, it wasn't that this was an immoral and uncalled for action (not unlike what Hitler did to Poland and other European countries) but that it was the 'planning and execution' that was wrong.

Bullshit. These guys are all thugs with thug mentalities. No matter how you dress this mess up, it will always come down to the fact that they did exactly what every 'invader' has done since shortly after the first ape stood upright and picked up a club.

[Tempest]

10. The Economist is a conservative publication

I subscribe to it and it has a distinct conservative bent, which should come as no surprise.

Despite that, it's a good read.

[katinmn]

13. Yes, it's read by business execs all around the world.

A business magazine for business people. It is a little less conservative than US bus magazines, IMO, and runs some good commentaries.

They've been blasting at Bush for years now. Did you see the cover a few weeks ago of him riding a nuke? They also disapprove of the sale of nuclear tech to India.

[Tempest]

14. I find it more conservative than Business Week and other U.S. publications

They started blasting Bush when he abandoned his promise of fiscal conservatism and started running up record deficits. Up until then, they whole-heartedly supported him. Unlike Americans, foreigners understand the folly of running record deficits.

Europe overall disapproves of expanding the nuclear family and they don't like the idea of a renewed arms race between India and Pakistan. They also fear the India deal will turn out like Pakistan, where a black market for nuclear material and technology will become available to rogue states. Like Pakistan, there are factions within India's government who would gladly turn over nuclear secrets to further themselves monetarily or politically. But Bush is too ignorant to understand India's government.

[katinmn]

15. Yes, I suppose ithat's the difference right there

true conservativism vs. neoconism

[Atlanticist]

19. I would say "liberal" rather than conservative

and I mean liberal in the proper sense of the word - ie the John Stuart Mill definition.

The Economist is very socially liberal - it's :

- in favour of legalising drug-use (certainly soft drugs);

- for legalising prostitution;

- for school vouchers;

- for stem-cell research;

- for keeping criminals out of prison;

- against lobbying;

- against the Patriot Act;

- for low taxes;

- for globalisation and free trade;

- for as unobtrusive a state as possible.

I've subscribed to it for most of my adult life, and find it at least consistent in it's viewpoint (unlike Repubs who are generally conservative socially and liberal economically and Dems who are generally the opposite).

I find it unfailingly thought-provoking, even though it continues to cling to the idea that invading Iraq was a GOOD THING. They're really really pissed at the Bush administration though - described Bush's response to Katrina as "shameful".

I'm British, and still understand that the word "liberal" in a political context actually means "relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom". In the US, liberal is usually a slur thrown by struggling Republican candidates at their opponents.

[grasswire]

11. the Economist IS a conservative publication, remember (EOM)

[T_i_B]

20. It's better then the usual Lexington column

Usually if the Lexington column makes any criticism of Republicans it is buried beneath a mountain of praise. This column is a lot more critical of the GOP then usual.

Mind you, even then they have a large section of this week's Economist devoted to weighing up the Democrats chances and concluding that the Democrats are themselves a shambles. That's even the cover story.

[cliss]

12. My God I love it that

they're keeping it up. They're just hammering away, relentlessly. Rumsfailed thinks he's tougher than they are.

It's just a matter of tenacity! OR at least that's what Rumsfailed thinks.

There is really only ONE choice: jettison him, or sink together in November.

I'm writing an article about Rumsfailed. In my article, I point out that while Rumsfailed feels he "modernized the army, making it "lighter more agile" he has in fact failed to do so. This is his claim to fame, his "legacy" that he wants to be remembered for.

It ain't gonna happen.