Neocons want someone else blamed for their Iraqi warThere's that word again. What the HE11 does that mean? WTF is a "neocon?"
I note, with some amusement, that "neocon" is not in the FR spell-check dictionary :)
Actually, I sem to recall Kristol and McCain, at least, being critical of Rumsfeld for quite a long time
The next time one of these talking heads says the word "neocon" on television I hope the host asks him or her to define that word.
Neocons want someone else blamed for their Iraqi warThere's that word again. What the HE11 does that mean? WTF is a "neocon?"
I note, with some amusement, that "neocon" is not in the FR spell-check dictionary :)
The problem is not necessarily Rumsfeld. The biggest problem is that DOD and State/CIA have had different and incompatible plans. Having two plans is tantamount too having no plan. The problem with State is that Powell never really got control of it but merely echoed the entrenched bureaucracy. Unfortunately, because of his popularity, replacing Powell was never really an option. Leaving Tenet at CIA was a mistake as well.
It is a Straussian play!
If you look at the flow of events you know that this problem should have been addressed in 1995. The problem grew, the proof of the problem shifted, and we are now wondering where the next dangers will surface and how many people will die.
Regardless of what weapons are available to the terrorists, they wouldn't use them if they didn't have the hatred necessary to use those weapons. They have found an ally in their campaign of hatred: our liberal press and idiots like Michael Moore.
Failures in Iraq? Is Saddam still in power? Have they cancelled the elections? Is Iraq's infrastructure and oil industry not being restored? Are terrorists in Iraq not being killed and captured?
I must be missing something!
I'm all for NeoCons, if fighting muslims is what they want us to do.
Cuz 9/11/2001 shoulda taught us muslims want to fight.
From what I've seen, Rumsfeld and the neocons agree on the need to fight muslims.
The details come down to which ones, where and when. We've been plodding along on that.
The entire political left, and the anti-war right can bring no light, for they mistakenly believe muslims don't need fighting.
Or that they have a superior insight into the question of which ones, where, and when.
That is it for me, in a nutshell. Between Rumsfeld or Buchanan, I'll take Rumsfeld.
Kristol and Buchanan have a lot in common. They've earned livings their entire adult lives, by stirring up controversy to write and talk about.
Rumsfeld has NEVER been in that category, which elevates him immensely.
Somehow...I just don't think Rummy's most trusted supporters were Bill Kristol & his friends.
Rummy's base consists of the same core support that supports this President. Unlike kristol, or McCain, or Hagel or any of the other civilian Generals WE, the American people, are the strength behind the war on terrorism including the removal of Saddam Hussein. The others have been consistently critical, except when we have a really good week they want to share credit for.
And I reject the labeling of this as anybody's war. It is not "Bush's war", "Rumsfeld's war", or the "neo-cons war. It is a world wide war against terrorism being led by the United states of America at the blessing of the majority of the population with the intent to protect this nation, with establishment of freedom in oppressed nations being a positive consequence. It is not Vietnam, it is not a failure. So long as Liberals or isolationalists continue to designate it as such they were continually lose favor with the American populace.
That has got to be a .. well, stupid argument.
Surely no one expected that to occur.
Primarily because of Saddam himself. Who knew for sure that he would not (won't?) be ba-a-a-a-k,
What of our encouragement to revolt against Saddam after the Gulf War? What happened to those who took our words seriously? They're finding them a few hundred at a time where Saddam left them.
Galloway is no longer a "War Correspondent". He's not reporting anymore. Now he's just another out-of-touch fogey commentating from a cushy stateside office.
Blamed? Heck, I'm still proud!
Rummy is still a darling as far as I'm concerned.
I'm curious to know how many would prefer a "paleoconservative" like Pat Buchanan who is an isolationist and TRUE anti-Semite and prefers to deny
any form of pre-emption in the war on terrorism. You should
also read Victor Davis Hanson's article in National Review
on why it would be a BIG mistake to remove Rumsfeld. All
the jabber about "neocons" reminds me of Chris Matthews -
that's his favorite epithet too. The war in Iraq is part
of the broader war on terror -- and in any war there are
difficulties and temporary setbacks -- but I suppose
you would rather cut and run.
No, I feel it's more like the media and whatever name they can drag up, firing tennis balls at a brick wall. It was the media that made "neo-con" an evil spirit that had taken over White House Policy as part of a grand design. On it's face it was always an absurd claim, the neo-cons supported McCain in 2000 and except for harping on the sideline had no special role in White House policy. Of course that didn't prevent the media from believing that they could see an evil neo-con symbol carved on Cheney and Rumsfeld's right arms.
William Kristol is a jerk and I said it the day he called for Rumsfeld's resignation. We didn't hear from him going into a war he supported when the media claimed he and his were in control but he certainly is taking this opportunity to bail and preserve his agenda and world vision. (As an aside, Kristol and his supported McCain because they thought he would be more likely to run an activist foreign policy.)
First, i dont think i could care less what this "Neoconservative" monstrosity really is anymore, if it is anything. And all William Kristol is to me is that pompus idiot with the annoying voice who somehow keeps getting onto Brit Hume's show. I dont care what he thinks or whats going on "behind the scenes" of the "neocons". Rumsfeld is a Brilliant Sec. of Defense, period.