Novak: Neocons pin Iraq on Rumsfeld

[VTGold]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak23.html

In the bowels of the Pentagon, the colleagues and subordinates of Donald Rumsfeld were not upset by Republican senators who were sniping at him. Instead, they complained bitterly about a call for his removal by a private citizen with no political leadership position: William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard. His position was, in effect, a declaration of war by the neoconservatives against the secretary of defense.



The capital's feeding frenzy over Rumsfeld's fate did not begin until Kristol's Dec. 12 op-ed column in the Washington Post. While critical senators did not get to the point of demanding Rumsfeld's removal, Kristol did. He said the troops in Iraq ''deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have.'' A firm declaration by a prominent Republican activist turned journalist who is the clarion of neoconservatism counts for more than equivocation by U.S. senators.

Rumsfeld's civilian colleagues at the Pentagon are furious because they consider Kristol a manipulative political operative, critiquing the war in Iraq after years of promoting it. But his criticism has a broader base. Kristol long has called for big-government conservatism, which on the international sphere involves proactively pursuing democracy around the world. He and the other neocons do not want to be blamed for what has become a very unpopular venture in Iraq. Thus, it is important to get the word out now that the war in Iraq has gone awry because of the way Rumsfeld fought it.

Rumsfeld is often bracketed with the neocons, but that is incorrect. In a long political career that dates back to his election to Congress in 1962, he has not even been associated with the traditional conservative movement. In the run-up to the attack on Iraq, he was not aggressively pressing intervention by force of arms, but instead was shaping a military response to fit President Bush's command.

more:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak23.html

[Ganja Ninja]

1. As if the war is all the fault of one man and GWB was ..

out of the loop. Rummy needs to go along with a whole train load of Republicans.

[Spinzonner]

2. Then why is he surrounded by members of the Neocon Cabal ?

because Cheney is part of that Cabal and Rumsfeld are old cronies.

Would Rumsfeld go quietly and keep his mouth shut if part of the Neocon Cabal turns on him and results in his ouster ?

What happens to the Neocons remaining in the DoD ?

Will Cheney let that happen ?

Will Karl let Shrub keep Rumsfeld if he becomes too big a liability or is he a convenient lightening rod ?

[gnofg]

3. keep Rummy

Keep him there because he just makes the administration look incompetent

[susu369]

4. Wow, the "bowels of the pentagon" is a happenin' place

Remember Condi's famous quote? :-)

Is Novak practicing "creating his own reality" - "Rumsfeld is often bracketed with the neocons, but that is incorrect."

Laughable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Of course he's a neocon - possibly the biggest one of all

he was one of the founding signatories of the PNAC - chairman William Kristol.

Instead, I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting Al Qaeda. Then I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq.

On the morning of the 12th DOD's focus was already beginning to shift from al Qaeda. CIA was explicit now that al Qaeda was guilty of the attacks, but Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were not persuaded. It was too sophisticated and complicated an operation, they said, for a terrorist group to have pulled off by itself, without a state sponsor-Iraq must have been helping them.
...
By the afternoon on Wednesday (after Sept. 11), Secretary Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and "getting Iraq." Secretary Powell pushed back, urging a focus on al Qaeda. Relieved to have some support, I thanked Colin Powell. "I thought I was missing something here," I vented. "Having been attacked by al Qaeda, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor."

Powell shook his head. "It's not over yet." Indeed, it was not. Later in the day, Secy. Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq. Instead, he noted that what we needed to do with Iraq was to change the government, not just hit it with more cruise missiles, as Rumsfeld had implied.

Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies

http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Donald_Rumsfeld_War_+_Peace.htm

Does Novak ever write anything that isn't designed to support the neocons in the Pentagon?

[KoKo]

6. Ahhhh Novak and Rummy go way back.....and I wonder what Rummy has

done for Bobby boy that he felt he needed to do a "pay back." Plame, perhaps?