Posted on 05/13/2004 6:48:31 AM PDT by Moose4
PRESIDENT BUSH WENT to the Pentagon on Monday to publicly tell Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that he is doing “a superb job.”
A superb job?
Mr. Rumsfeld has been overseeing a Defense Department where such outrages as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal have taken place, and there are disturbing hints that it is not an isolated incident. The International Committee of the Red Cross says it has been frustrated for months in trying to get Pentagon action on prisoner abuse problems. As the independent Army Times newspaper observed: “This was a failure that ran straight to the top.”
The impact of the Abu Ghraib scandal was amplified by Pentagon mishandling. Pentagon leaders could have regarded the evidence as something that, however unpleasant, must be shown to the world — not to mention the Congress — along with proof that the situation was being addressed. Instead, the story came out first in the media, and the administration has been struggling to cope with it ever since.
Even if the president had decided to support his defense secretary, was it wise to tell the world, as more pictures come out, that he is doing a “superb job”?
If President Bush thinks that our occupation and rebuilding of Iraq constitutes a superb job, then one must wonder about the wisdom of retaining him in his job. The president must realize how crucial this rebuilding of Iraq is, and that Beltway considerations — looking stalwart or loyal — have to be secondary to the vital mission our troops are on. And that mission would be best served if Mr. Rumsfeld left office.
The prison scandal certainly is not the only failing for which Mr. Rumsfeld should be held accountable. Centrally, Mr. Rumsfeld has insisted that all the troops needed to secure Iraq were there, even as first looting, then rebellion spread. The coalition’s inability to patrol the borders, highways and rebellious towns of Iraq has been the key failing of this endeavor, and the responsibility for it lies in Mr. Rumsfeld’s office.
The troop strength issue highlights Mr. Rumsfeld’s key weakness: While he has been quick to challenge the status quo of the Defense Department as he found it, he has been utterly resistant to correcting failing policies of this administration. To protect such policies, he has neglected to keep Congress and the president informed. And blindsiding his boss and the legislative branch on Abu Ghraib was unforgivable.
Top Pentagon leaders knew the material was explosive, as Sen. Lindsey Graham points out: They had been lobbying CBS to hold off broadcasting its story. But members of Congress saw the images first on CBS, instead of from the defense secretary in a meeting earlier that day. This isn’t just bad public relations; it’s a fundamental failure to do his job.
There’s another reason that Mr. Rumsfeld should be removed: It would demonstrate how seriously the United States takes the failures of the prison scandal, and the entire war on terror.
This benefit alone would not be enough to convince us to call for his ouster, were he otherwise succeeding.
But Secretary Rumsfeld is not succeeding, in a mission where the United States must prevail. It’s impossible to see him continuing as an effective and credible leader. For the good of the country and Iraq as well, he should step down.
If you read The State, you'd think that Columbia was Berkeley East or Ithaca South instead of a conservative, military-loving part of the country. I expect that this editorial will generate at least a 5:1 ratio of letters to the editor denouncing them...when they start printing the letters in a few days, I guarantee you they will print no more than an even ratio of anti- and pro-editorial letters. Guaranteed.
I love this state. I hate this newspaper.
}:-)4
}:-)4
When you begin discussions of firing someone, you must consider with whom that person will be replaced.
1.) Who has the experience of leading this military in two wars?
2.) Who has the qualification of actually WINNING two wars?
3.) Who has the ability to lead an invasion of Iraq, rebuild their infrastructure, quell the inevitable rebellious attempts at power-grabbing, and do it all with fewer than 1000 American deaths?
The nameless editor accuses Rummy of holding back on troops. Rummy counters that he has granted every request for additional troops. What proof does the nameless editor have that Rummy has turned down such requests?
The nameless editor accuses Rummy of withholding info from congress re: Abu Graib. When will this editor call for the resignation and replacement of the 17 congressmen who knew about the "atrocities" in January?
The nameless editor is excited about college-level abuses in the prison, yet suggests that we should replace the current President with someone who knowingly killed women and children. I suppose the drunk, smoking whore in the pictures should be his running mate?
We couldn't fight WWII today.
We are a country of wusses.
Oh, that is good. Very good.
You may be right, but we may not have a choice. The Islamifacists want to bring the fight to us. They want us either dead, or bent over five times a day, butt in the air, forehead in the dirt, whispering to Satan just like them.
I am going to start adding ammunition to the emergency supplies I keep for hurricanes. When a storm approaches you need to be prepared.
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.