Posted on 01/02/2005 2:58:07 PM PST by Former Military Chick
The most curious turn of the worm this season is the attack by the neoconservatives 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 neoconservative 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 neoconservative. He just found them useful as he took over the Pentagon for the second time. Clearly the neocons found Rumsfeld useful as well as they pushed their ideas on transforming the Middle East.
Sharpening attacks
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 neoconservative. 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 neoconservatives 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 neoconservatives 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.
America's damaged standing
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 neoconservative 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 U.S. 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 preemptive strikes.
Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers.
Joe Galloway survived the VN war to write We Were Soldiers.
"It is a Straussian play!"
Yeah, but which act are we in?
For once, you said something true! I invite anyone to read my entire posting history - - all six years of it (or however far back the archives go) so they can discover what a fraud you are to suggest I'm in any sense a racist, merely because I disagree with you on policy issues. (Of course, a lot of people already have your number - - - I get private emails from people telling me not to be troubled by your rantings, as if I needed them to tell me about your problems!) As I predicted, you were unable to cite a single specific post by me that bears out your charge that, because I disagree with you on Iraq, I harbor racially or ethnically discriminatory views. Freepers who review my posts will see that you're full of (to use the word Harry Truman finally adopted) manure.
Oh, brother. You've been called an anti-semite more often than I eat every day. As far as freepmails, if you knew what we said about you behind your back, you'd kill youself.
This is but one of your attacks on people who are Jewish:
Most of the activist trouble-makers are liberal Jewish lawyers. The ACLU is heavily Jewish. The Anti-Defamation League is also active in fighting Christmas displays. And as the posted article notes, the the American Jewish Congress was in the thick of the fight against the Chicago Nativity scene. It's not politically correct to say this, but the main instigators of the anti-Christmas crusade are Jewish liberals.
19 posted on 12/19/2004 2:22:35 AM EST by churchillbuff
That's not antisemitic. It's a statement of fact. It may be politically incorrect to say, but it's true. Notice I said "liberal" Jewish lawyers. on the other hand, some of the biggest defenders of traditional values happen to be Jewish -- Medved, Lapin, Feder. They're not liberals. Is it antisemitic to point that out, too?
Question. How is Peach like Maxine Waters? Because of the following parallel:
Maxine Waters: I disagree with George Bush on welfare, spending and most everything else, so therefore he's a racist.
Peach: I disagree with Churchillbuff on Iraq and abortion and traditional values , so therefore Churchillbuff is antisemitic.
Have a nice day Peach, you small-minded bigot!
LOL! You asked for a post; you got it and now can't stand the heat. How like Neville.
On the contrary, I'm glad you exposed yourself as nothing more than a political correctness cop - - somebody who shouts "racist" or "antisemite" for no good reason. Thanks for once again outting yourself, you small person! Keep it coming, you only reveal yourself to freeperdom as an angry fool whose obsessed with political correctness!!
When you type "LOL" I picture a truly manic laugh - because you're really nutty! Part of me enjoys making you angry -- I alway enjoy getting under the skin of the politically correct --- but the other part of me feels sorry for you, as I do for losers in general.
Oh, brother.
This from the freeper who said that Bush didn't really believe the war in Iraq was worth doing since he didn't send his daughters there.
You're attacked on FR more than any other poster; and for good reason.
Back some time ago you couldn't even read an article on FR about the neocons without your screaming about the undue Jewish influence on Bush and what a mistake it was for him to listen to "them".
Your dozen or more posts in the last month alone about how the Jews hate America and are opposed to Christmas and head up the ACLU are proof alone of my charges.
Now stop being a girly man.
Every time I listen to another hysterical carrying on about the irrelevant Pat Buchanan, I think of how that energy might be better spent in trying to get some support for Israel from liberal Jews in the US.
Because I don't see how the US is going to be able to continue its support for Israel without Jewish leadership--and the few conservative US Jews seem more upset about Buchanan than they ever were about Arafat.
Huge lie. You can't find me ever saying such a thing, because I don't believe such a thing. You shouldn't be allowed to post such an incendiary charge without proof --- and there's no proof, because I've never said anything of the sort. You are a Picasso-class smear artist, Peach.
without your screaming about the undue Jewish influence on Bush and what a mistake it was for him to listen to "them".
Huge lie. You can't find me ever saying such a thing, because I don't believe such a thing. You shouldn't be allowed to post such an incendiary charge without proof --- and there's no proof, because I've never said anything of the sort. You are a Picasso-class smear artist, Peach.
Since 1) such charges by Peach against me are very serious -- i.e., they imply racist thoughts; and 2) they're not true - and Peach has offered, and can offer, no evidence to support Peach's reckless charge, I think Peach's posts should be stricken. Someone shouldn't be allowed to recklessly, without cause and proof, accuse another freeper of "hate crimes", or "hating blacks" or being "antisemitic"; throwing those words around, without proof, is dangerous, and evil. And it cheapens the meaning and power of the word, "antisemitism."
Ahem. You seem to have missed where I did list one of your posts about the Jews.
And one need only go through your past posts to see your other various references.
Truth hurts, doesn't it? Maybe next time you'll be more careful before posting that the Jews hate America and Christmas.
You can go back to October/November/early December and see the references to the fact that Jews hate America and Christmas. I'm certainly not going to do your research for you but it's there on the open forum for you to look.
That assumes that 1) all these people are primarily loyal to Israel 2) that they work in concert 3) that George W Bush is either going along with them for reasons that are not clear or that he is too stupid to see what these geniuses see. This is the garbage that annoys me. If you are saying something totally different fine.
Rummy is still a darling as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, they might hate Christmas (after all, they are Jewish), but hate America? Probably the liberal ones do who also hate Israel. But I doubt very much that all Jews hate America.
Oh, I agree with you. I'm merely quoting someone else.
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.