Posted on 11/19/2006 2:42:04 PM PST by neverdem
Donald Rumsfeld's downfall is replete with sad ironies.
For a start, he is primarily associated with a cause — the democratization of Iraq — that he never gave much sign of believing in. Far from being a neocon, Rumsfeld remains a resolutely traditional Midwestern Republican who was happy to thrash Saddam Hussein but never evinced much enthusiasm for remaking the Middle East. It was no accident that he neglected the kind of post-invasion planning needed to implement the sweeping changes envisioned by his boss, President Bush, and his erstwhile deputy, Paul Wolfowitz.
From the day U.S. troops arrived in Baghdad, Rumsfeld was plotting to pull them out. It was this very resistance to a prolonged and massive troop commitment that probably doomed the mission from the start. The problem was that he was not enough of an ideologue — not, as so many now claim, too much of one.
Another irony: Rumsfeld was a micromanager who took a hands-off attitude on the most important issues. He became famous for showering subordinates with memos, and on the eve of the Iraq invasion, he was fiddling with deployment schedules down to the company level. Yet he never accepted responsibility for the biggest decisions made in Iraq. Disbanding the Iraqi army? Talk to Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III. Not sending more troops? See Gens. Tommy Franks and John Abizaid.
Rumsfeld won total responsibility for Operation Iraqi Freedom, but he never accepted the blame, except in the most perfunctory way, when everything went awry. On the other hand, he was happy to accept accolades for the toppling of the Taliban even though the basic strategy — using commandos backed by air power — came from the CIA.
A third irony: For a man with abundant experience running large organizations, he proved to be a...
(Excerpt) Read more at statesman.com ...
Betcha the boot never even talked to Rumsfeld for this article.
LA Times NY Slimes, both identical same sad story same sad beat up on the govt thats all these terrorist Sympathizers kmow. That is until they are out of office and all of a sudden they atempt to rewrite history once again. They still have 5 reporters trying to re-write all the foul ups that Jimy The Peanut Carter did.
Who gave away the Canal
Who was the only President to allow the invasion of a us embassey
who single handed tried to scuttle the Navy
The guy who forced us to pay double for the B1 Bomber
Typical Demoncrat get us in to a war get thrown out and let a republican get us out of it.
Oh, yeah........this sounds accurate...........riiiight......
"doomed the mission from the start"
"everything went awry"
?!? Is he talking about Iraq? His view is not a bit slanted or anything.
In the fullness of time, two people will be seen as key to the Republican loss of power:
1. Ken DeLay, with his K-Street Project gone awry when politicians couldn't resist the temptation to dip their hands in the cookie jar.
2. Donald Rumsfeld, for the reasons laid down in this article. Winning the war against the bureaucrats was more important to him than winning the war in Iraq. He could have done both, but his ego and managerial style stood in the way.
The GO RUMMY crowd just can't come to grips with the damage that this guy has done to the Conservative cause and to the Republican party. He didn't do it intentional, but it was done, nonetheless.
I think some of the article is on the mark.
Bullcrap. The blame for the damage done to the Conservative cause and the Republican Party lies squarely with the Bush Whitehouse.
George W. Bush failed to rally the American poeple behind them. He failed to control and lead the Republican politicians who should have been required to march along side of him in the War Against the Seditious Democrats. Hell, he didn't even try. He allowed the lying 'Rats to define us all.
Worst Whitehouse public relations teams ever.
"Of course I bear responsibility, my lord, I'm the Secretary of Defense. Write it down, quote it. You can bank on it."
I'm in agreement with that. By rebuilding, we're empowering them - a dangerous thing. Can't anybody at BushCo see that?
Muslims are just too difficult to try to save. They are too wild, and they need missionaries or something else.
It kinda reads like he's Rummy's wife, doesn't it?
Quite right. The GOP needed a leader and Bush refused to do it.
Agreed.
But it goes deeper than that.
There was a SUBSTANTIVE FAILURE right at the top. At some level, Bush really believes in the liberal critiques himself. He is truly liberal...a multiculturalist, an OBL, an Globalist, and a Big Spending, antithesis of conservatism. He had to rebrand himself as a "compassionate conservative" to somehow euphemestically DISGUISE his liberalism. To get nominated, and elected.
Real conservatives rankled appropriately at "compassinonate conservatism" recognizing the implicit attack it represented against honest conservatives.
It did sound like "Kinder, gentler" redux, (which was a slap at Reagan conservatives).
Indeed it did.
Although this is all history now, and he has made his bed... that was McCain's opportunity...to run hard to the RIGHT of W... Exposing W for who and what he really was. (And perhaps make a deal to put Keyes on as Veep to put a lock on the Reagan support) ...but no...which way did he steer? And has continued ever since.
Hard to port.
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.