#12012: Abiola Lapite — 12/28  at  08:02 AM
My own assessment is that it's a combination of two things: an unwillingness to concede any administration errors whatsoever, lest they leave an opening for other criticisms to follow, and an attitude of hero worship towards a man who looks and sounds the part of the tough guy they all wish they could be.

#12014: — 12/28  at  08:13 AM
I agree with Abiola's first point, and I think it's heightened to the Nth degree because it's the SecDef. If Rumsfeld is questioned, it's implicitly opening the door to criticism of the whole Iraq enterprise. (Not that that would be a bad thing.)

#12015: PaulH — 12/28  at  08:13 AM
I was about to post my opinion, but I see there is no need. What Abiola said!

#12016: — 12/28  at  08:19 AM
It's the 'William Casey' strategy.

He's ballast. When the impeachment trial starts they'll let all the scandals they can accrete to him, then jettison him.

We'll all be deeply shocked if he dies in a plane crash.

#12017: DarkSyde — 12/28  at  08:44 AM
Cov,
I keep waiting for an undocumented nanny to turn up in Rummy's closet.
Seriously though, it doesn't make any sense that Rummy sat out with the intention to screw things up. It's not plausible that the guy was thinking "OK... how can I really FUBAR everything?"
But what does it really matter? Besides, it's not like we'rea tlaking about sending him away to jail or anything. he's over 70 years old. If he retires, he's looking at a nice life speaking, wealth, nice fancy homes and so forth. Nothing to be afraid of at all, hell we all should be so lucky.

#12019: — 12/28  at  09:47 AM
Come on, people.

Rumsfeld was (by proxy) God's choice for Secretary of Defense!

We wouldn't want to offend God, would we?

Following Abiola's comments, this is very typical of the ignorance coming from this administration.

I mean, obviously Bush and his cronies have made a few mistakes in the last four years. But, this would be somewhat tolerable (maybe) if they weren't so damn stubborn and unwilling to admit any lapse in judgement.

A President who will not go back on his word - even when he/she turns out to be blatantly wrong and/or misinformed - is clearly not concerned for the safety of the American people.

George W. Bush is simply trying to cover is back, and preserve his name in history as a "tough guy" who never waivered on the war against terrorism.

But, even this is all a cover up for his true motivations - to strengthen his "secret" Jihad, which has been camouflaged as nation-building, peacekeeping, and conservative legislation.

#12020: — 12/28  at  10:07 AM
He's McNamara.

#12023: Andrew — 12/28  at  11:00 AM
Wouldn't you say that Bush or Cheney are the ones who deserve to be fired? I know that's not an original sentiment, but as DS points out, did Rummy really set out to screw things up on purpose? I think that he seems less freakishly fundamentalist than others in the administration, and there's just a chance that he was pushed into a corner over lack of planning by those who considered it a deity-given right to roll into another country and be greeted with open arms (rather than open arms fire). Not that I'm trying to defend him, but I think that these things, like so much else, may have been decided for him.

#12026: — 12/28  at  11:11 AM
Of course Bush is ultimately responsible. But Rumsfeld is the architect of the "war on the cheap" meme that infects the entire administration, and which was the root of the underdeployment and underfunding issues.

#12027: DarkSyde — 12/28  at  11:13 AM
Well good point Andrew, and Believe me, I tried very hard to fire Bush and Cheney. It wasn't in the cards, nothing I can do about it now. And no doubt at all that there's some freaky thing going on with Bush, or with their thinking, that is preventing them from taking the action every knows needs to be taken. However Rummy was the guy allegedly who really pushed for the lower number of troops thing, and he allegedly didn't mind frying people who questioned him on it. So fuck him, it's as much his fault as anyone elses. Most every problem we have going on Iraq stems directly from poor post war planning. Not just in title, which it is, but in action, Rummy carries a fair amount of blame imo.

#12035: Hank Fox — 12/28  at  12:26 PM
I'm still toying with an epiphany I came up with some months back, trying to whip it into intelligible essay form. It's something that grew out of my experience with arguing with fundies and neo-cons.

I realized that with some of these types, it's so difficult to get them to accept or agree with ANY point you attempt to make, it's almost as if they aren't really hearing you. As if, in some ways, there's no conscious human being there, but some sort of mock-up of a human being. I finally decided that what was happening was that they were thinking in some distinctly different way, a way that prevented them from accepting new data on the fly.

Hopefully, I'll have the essay out in a few days or a week.

However, I see that type of thinking richly represented in this situation. It appears that SOME minds are being changed, but it's happening at the speed of glaciers. Rummy might eventually resign, but I'm betting it will take hundreds or thousands more American soldiers dying before it happens.

On that note, I work for a newspaper, and just last night we printed a huge picture on page one of a man crying and holding the body of his son, who had drowned in the tsunami. I joked darkly about how free we in the media are about printing pictures of "dead brown people elsewhere in the world," and yet how we never print pictures of dead white Americans -- including soldiers. Come to think of it, we don't even use pictures of their relatives exposed in open grief over such deaths.

Last I read, there are now over 900 American children who have lost a parent in Iraq, 20 of which who have lost their mothers.

Have any of us seen pictures of those kids? I know I haven't. Christ, we had better reporting on the people molested by Catholic priests than we have about these kids who are being, in my opinion, wounded far worse.

Meanwhile, Rumsfeld is sitting somewhere in wealth, comfort and power, "deeply hurt" by all the criticism.

The man is a fucking obscenity.

#12037: DarkSyde — 12/28  at  12:41 PM
I look forward to that Hank. I think it would be a good topic. Here's some food for thought.

#12046: Hank Fox — 12/28  at  01:45 PM
Those of you who are regulars here, I sincerely beg you: Please, please, please don't rise to the trollbait. You know who and what I'm talking about.

#12050: Andrew — 12/28  at  01:54 PM
I'm not rising to trollbait, but that's a fair point - for some reason The People re-elected Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all the rest in spite of all the horrific nonsense they started ineptly and don't seem to be equipped to finish cleanly.

Do we collectively have any idea, as DS says, "what’s so important for the ever shrinking number who are still defending him, that they put their hubris above the welfare of the soldiers they so vocally claim to support"?

#12054: — 12/28  at  02:16 PM
I'm starting to think that Rumsfeld knows where the bodies are buried; figuratively or literally, doesn't matter.

More probably, it's just BushCo's inability to admit any errors of judgement, no matter how minuscule or how massive, and their stubborn determination to finish their faith-based Iraq invasion.

#12062: mattH — 12/28  at  02:51 PM
The soldiers, as individual human beings, do not matter. Only their symbolic existence does, as a means of rallying the public to support whatever the soliders are engaged in. It's easier, emotionally, intellectually and financially, for the public at large to believe that they are doing the right thing if they do whatever the force commanding the soldiers requests. Only as the sodliers themselves, or the families, make noise that things can change. We need to make sure that their voice is heard.

#12077: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 12/28  at  05:27 PM
I think Wakboth's "BushCo" characterization is insightful. The whole charade is very like a performance by seasoned executives of a corporation which has really fallen on bad times, and they are acting to keep investor sentiment up. They show up on talk shows touting how the future of the company is really bright, brandishing little positive facts in the face of tough questions. All the while, however, and behind the scenes, they are moving funds from one account to another, trying desperately to keep anyone from finding out how bad things are.

They can only do it so long.

#12095: — 12/29  at  12:25 AM
Back in the days, conservatives may have held some wacky ideological positions, but at least they possessed a measure of integrity and were capable of managerial competence. The yahoos that are running our government these days defy understanding. I can't figure out what drives their agenda, other than a "screw you liberals" attitude.

#12097: — 12/29  at  01:06 AM
You all make good points regarding Rummy. And speaking from the military side of the house I think Covington made the best point: Rummy is the Republican/Neo-Con encarnation of McNamara! If any of us have studied history, it was McNamara who sent our troops to Vietnam with the M-16 because it was cheeper and more "advanced" than the M-14. Never mind that it would jam in the middle of a fire fight if any dirt was added. I see parallels to this with the Army vehicles that are being outfitted with "Hill-Billy" armor: Just about anything the soldiers can find to increase the structural integrity of a vehicle. It was also McNamara and his "Wize Kids" (I believe) who figured if you shot X amount of ammo you should have X amount of bodies. I don't see a direct correlation to Rummy other than that is just an insane way to fight a war! I would like to know if Vietnam Vets see any correlations between their war and "ours"...it would be shameful that we Americans have forgotten the lessons learned only a generation ago.

Another Point I'd like to bring up is who will replace Rummy when he is shown the door??? If its Wolfowitz (sp?) then we might as well just ask McNamara to come back! If you want to see some good reporting check out PBS' Frontline. They have been reporting on Iraq since '91 and made a claim a year or 2 ago stating that Wolfowitz, Rummy and few other Neo-con clonies have been pushing for an re-invasion of Iraq & over-throw of Saddam since the first Gulf War!

#12099: Ben — 12/29  at  06:59 AM
Paul Wolfowitz makes Rumsfeld look like Neville Chamberlain.

#12104: — 12/29  at  11:05 AM
While others have expanded well on Abiola's post, he has it right, and yes Bush, Rummy and the rest of the corporate types unwilling to fire their own are complicit.

Trolls? Hank, I am somewhat mystified where that comment came from. Has a post been removed? Or are you anticipating comments based on someone's prior patterns? Or am I not reading between the lines correctly.

#12110: — 12/29  at  12:14 PM
Covington is closer to the mark than he may know. The style of management to include the lack of any common touch are identical between Rumsfeld and McNamara. It took about 20 years to repair the military after McNamara's policies had had their effect. If Iraq is allowed to drag into quagmire (which it is definitely NOT at this time) it could ruin the military all over again. One must remember that the most important function of our military is to spend money, NOT defend the nation. Anyone who has seen how defense contracting and research are funded knows this. At spending money, Rumsfeld is unexcelled. But maybe, just maybe, if we suggested Vincente Fox for Sec. Def., they might consider letting Rummy go. Grrrrr...

#12121: Hank Fox — 12/29  at  02:49 PM
Was it McNamara who later wrote a book, the gist of which was "I was wrong" -- essentially apologizing for screwing up?

<searches Amazon.com>

Well, there seem to be THREE books with him as author or co-author. One review of In Retrospect : The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam by Brian VanDeMark and Robert S. McNamara says, in part, In the last two chapters, "Estrangement and Departure" and "The Lessons of Vietnam" McNamara bravely admits many mistakes.

So I guess this is the apology book I read about.

On the other hand, another review quotes Chomsky: "Robert McNamara's widely publicized book, supposedly a mea culpa and moral tract, is notable for the fact that his notion of the war's 'high costs,' and the error and guilt he feels, extend only to U.S. lives and the effects of the war on 'the political unity of our society'. He offers neither regrets, moral reflections, nor apologies for his country having invaded, mercilessly bombed, ravaged the land, and killed and wounded millions of innocent people in a samll distant peasant society in pursuit of its own political ends."

Yet another reviewer accuses him of leaving the subjects of Agent Orange and the jam-prone M-16 completely out of his “apology,” calling him, despite this supposed apology, a “monster.”

Here's a telling bit from the Amazon review for Wilson's Ghost: Reducing the Risk of Conflict, Killing, and Catastrophe in the 21st Century by Robert S. McNamara and James G. Blight: The United States, in short, must "not apply its economic, political, or military power unilaterally, other than in the unlikely circumstances of a defense of the continental United States, Hawaii, and Alaska." McNamara and Blight assert that developing antiballistic technologies will lead to "an increased risk of arms races, instability, and even nuclear war."

I have to admit to a very disturbing disconnect in my head between "Support the troops" and what I see militaries, including ours, doing all too often all over the world. In the end, I guess I see myself in the "innocent civilian" category, and such people always, always, always get fucked over so casually it's almost as if they're easily-replaceable cardboard cutouts on a shooting range.

As I get older, I'm feeling more and more strongly that the military, ANY military is, at least partly, my enemy. It seems to me that something like 95% of the people in the world want nothing more than to live well. But there's this small class of others for whom we provide this massive industry and this huge governmental subsidy so they can go out and play their deadly games.

I start to feel that there is not one military here, and another there. They begin to all melt into each other, and become one Military, a single class of killers and gun-toting joy-riders who exist all over the world, wearing a thousand different flags but working as one against the peace, having convinced the world’s nebbishly civilians that we can't survive without them: You need US to defend yourselves against THEM!

All that death in Vietnam ... was any of it for me? Or for anybody or anything I care about? I can't see it. It just seems like decades of murder, and no good result. Other than to serve as a bad example, which was ignored.

All this death in Iraq ... is any of it for me? Or for anybody or anything I care about? Again, I can't see it. I can only make out the death. Stupid young men and women charge gung-ho into a deadly situation set up by their Murderer-in-Chief, and even if they "win," they become victims of the killing. Coming back changed, twisted, injured in places you can't even see. And hell, that’s just “our” boys. We aren’t even COUNTING the dead on the “other side,” much less those wounded in all these other ways.

In the end, is anything important changed? Nope. On the horizon: death and more death, and an even more powerful Military, one big, deadly, expensive, joy-riding lump, all over the world.

Meanwhile, George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell and dozens of other conscience-free murderers retire rich, and safe, and unhurt, and go on speaking tours, and write books, and find cheering crowds everywhere they go, for the rest of their safe, happy, opulent lives.

< Deep sigh. I’m already hearing the thoughtless, inevitable neo-con voices: “If you feel that way, you must love Saddam. Why don’t you just go live in Iraq, you freedom-hating bastard?” >

#12129: — 12/29  at  06:21 PM
Hank,

I'll say it again in support of your last line, anyone who believes that blowing Iraq to smithereens was the best way to remove Sadam from power is lacking in both imagination and creativity.

Richard's comments about the military as the epitome of Keynesian economics in action is too true to be comfortable. What other socialist activity would our fellow citizens support with such conviction; certainly not food, healthcare and shelter for our fellow citizens.

#12137: DarkSyde — 12/29  at  08:50 PM
Shit Hank, that was good enough for a header post on your blog. You're a word toting gunslinger.