Posted on 12/29/2004 10:55:20 PM PST by churchillbuff
WASHINGTON - The most curious turn of the worm this season is the attack by the neo-conservatives on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for the failures in Iraq.
It should be noted that until now Rumsfeld was the darling of that same bunch. He hired a batch of them as his most trusted aides and assistants in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Paul Wolfowitz as his undersecretary. Douglas Feith as his chief of planning. He installed the dean of the pack, Richard Perle, as chairman of the Defense Policy Board for a time.
The doyenne and room mother of the whole bunch, Midge Decter, wrote a fawning biography of Rumsfeld titled "Rumsfeld: A Personal Portrait."
Now, suddenly, the voice of the neo-conservative movement, William Kristol, editor of The Standard, suggests that Rumsfeld has fouled up everything in Iraq and ought to be fired for his failures. Ditto, writes Tom Donnelly of the right-thinking American Enterprise Institute.
Rumsfeld himself was never a neo-conservative. He just found them useful as he took over the Pentagon for the second time. Clearly the neo-cons found Rumsfeld useful as well as they pushed their ideas on transforming the Middle East.
So what happened? Why is Rumsfeld being stabbed in the back by those he trusted the most to back his play? By the very people who have argued for years in favor of taking out Saddam Hussein, installing democracy and creating a bully pulpit, and the military bases, from which the Middle East would be weaned from dictatorship and an implacable hatred of Israel and the United States.
Simple. They want someone else to be blamed besides them for fouling up their marvelous plans and schemes - someone who is a handy lightning rod and who is NOT a card-carrying neo-conservative. So who better than Rumsfeld?
Now those folks who cheered Rumsfeld, and the Bush administration, the loudest of all nearly two years ago are marching behind such grumpy Republicans as Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska in laying much of the blame at the feet of Rumsfeld.
The sharpening attacks on the defense secretary as the old year fades and the new year approaches prompted the one man who has a vote on Rumsfeld's survival, President Bush, to step forward and praise him. That, in turn, prompted a semi-spirited defense of the secretary by Republican congressional leaders.
Rumsfeld himself, who has basically no people skills at all, found it politic to spend the holidays with the soldiers and Marines in Iraq. He was even pictured wearing an apron and serving up turkey and dressing in an Army mess hall in the desert. How could anyone think, he asked, that he was not totally committed to providing those troops everything they need for survival in a bad place?
We do not for a minute suggest that Rumsfeld be let off the hook, be absolved of responsibility for gross miscalculations and gross lack of planning in the Iraq war and, especially, the post-war period. But neither do we absolve the neo-conservatives for shooting the horse they've been riding the last four years.
They were the loudest proponents of an attack on Iraq from the beginning. It was the neo-conservatives who wanted to unleash the dogs of war. It was they who championed Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraq National Congress and saw that their bogus defector tales of Saddam's nuclear weapons program and his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons gained attention and traction.
They believed Chalabi and the INC's predictions that American troops would be welcomed with showers of rose petals and there would be no need for an American occupation. Ergo, no need for anyone to actually plan to secure the country in the wake of victory or lay the groundwork for rebuilding a nation whose water, power and sewer services were falling apart before we bombed and shelled them.
When Rumsfeld goes, so too should every neo-conservative who squirmed his way into a Pentagon sinecure. They must also bear responsibility for a war that so far has cost nearly $200 billion and the lives of more than 1,300 American troops and has damaged America's standing in the world.
They cannot be allowed to load all the blame on Rumsfeld and scoot away to lick their wounds and dream again their large dreams of conquest and empire and pre-emptive strikes.
---
ABOUT THE WRITER
Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young."
One so-called neo-con goes against Rumsfeld. One. More great reportage from the MSM.
Can someone please explain Billy Kristol to me? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I remembers that when military men were telling Rumsfeld that the Iraq invasion was foolish, or that invading Iraq would require many more soldiers than he proposed, Billy Krisol's magazine run an article entitled something like, "War's too important to be left to the generals" Didn't such an article run - help me ought here, if you're a subscriber to Billy's magazine???? But now, Billy Kristol is saying the generals who criticized Rumsfeld - and who were themselves, if I recall, criticized by Billy Kristol's magazine - - were right? I don't get it. Can someone please explain Billy Kristol to me?
As a fiscal conservative and low-tax supporter, I find the staggering cost of this war to be appalling. It's going to create real pressure for a tax increase, I fear.
It aint no bargain to be dead!!
You may find the cost of the war in Iraq appalling, but it still hasn't even come close to the Wall Street estimate that 9/11 took over $500 billion out of our national economy.
As to your constant mantra that it's the wrong war at the wrong place, you still can't answer for us why you don't care about the following:
Between the Senate Intelligent and 9/11 Commission Reports, the following was stated:
1. 78 reports from different sources provided information that Hussein's regime was actively training Iraqi intelligence soldiers for terrorist attacks against America and American interests.
2. Iraq provided Al Qaeda with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear training and bomb making.
3. Direct meetings between senior Iraqi military officers and top Al Qaeda operatives took place between the early 90'sand 2003.
4. An Iraqi national was present during at least one pre planning 9/11 meeting.
5. Some interesting observations were made about Iraq's involvement in the first WTC bombing in 1993. This is not a surprise to those who have been paying attention.
6. Iraqi knew that 9/11 was coming. This was in their July 21, 2001 state-run newspaper:
Baath party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the United States and "he will try to bomb the Pantagon after he destroys the White House." The article said that OBL "will strike America on the arm that is already huring" and that the United States "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs" which is a reference to Sinatra's song NY, NY.
go to hell traitor scum.
That's kind of like saying, "One Catholic came out against birth control. One --Of course, that Cathollic's the pope."
Only if every other Catholic favored birth control and the vast majority didn't think that guy who says he's the Pope actually is the Pope. Kristol's an unstable commentator who swings with the DC winds -- often in bizarre directions. Any so-called "neo-con" I respect favors Rumsfeld.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.