Dismantling Rumsfeld’s Successes

Men's News Daily ^ | Dec. 23, 2004 | Christopher G. Adamo

[FairOpinion]

If the left is to have any hope of undermining President Bush’s second term, it must continue its previous efforts to destroy the reputation of every worthwhile conservative in his cabinet. And no one is more likely to remain a target than Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. As the nation prepared for war in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, Rumsfeld’s candor and resolve, expressed daily during his press briefings, made him immensely popular among the American people. Among reporters, he was grudgingly tolerated along with the rampant flag-waving and other expressions of an America that was rising to meet its enemies head-on.

Few could credibly argue with his success during the War in Afghanistan, by which the repressive and barbaric Taliban regime was decimated. Furthermore, the al Qaeda network that had previously flourished there was largely dispersed and destroyed.

Barely a year later, Rumsfeld was victorious once again in the Iraqi campaign, toppling the Baathist party of Saddam Hussein. Eventually, Hussein himself was captured by American troops, and is presently awaiting trial under the new government of Iraq, once it is fully established.

However, during the months that had lapsed between 9-11 and the Iraq invasion, the counterculture had regained its anti-American footing, whereupon it once again engaged in unbridled criticism of every move by the Bush administration to shore-up national security. And once again, the blunt honesty of Rumsfeld made him a favorite target.

Throughout the eruption of the Abu Ghraib scandal, liberal pundits were undisguised in their gleeful hopes of attaching the controversy to Rumsfeld, with hopes of discrediting him and thus, the Bush Administration. But despite their incessant hysterics, he weathered that storm as well.

Recovering somewhat from the shock of this year’s elections, the left now seeks to reassert itself politically. And that means eroding public support for those issues that garnered major Republican victories this past November. Chief among them is the threat of Islamic terrorism, and America’s response to it.

As a result, liberals know they must diminish America’s victories in the Terror War. And that effort requires the neutralization of the most successful “warrior” of that campaign. So, once again, the spotlight is on Donald Rumsfeld.

In the past few weeks, a few events have coalesced to a sufficient degree that, in the minds of President Bush’s political antagonists, they constitute valid criticism of the Defense Secretary.

First, an American soldier stationed in Iraq, at the coaxing of an embedded news reporter, pointedly queried Rumsfeld during a “townhall meeting” regarding a supposed lack of armor for military vehicles. Meanwhile, back on the home front, it has been learned that Rumsfeld utilized a mechanical device to emplace his signature on letters to the families of fallen soldiers.

To nobody’s great surprise, the “me too” wing of the Republican Party quickly chimed in. Seeing blood in the water, Senator John McCain (R.-AZ) told the Associated Press that he has “no confidence” in Rumsfeld. Senator Susan Collins (R.-ME) a renowned Republican “moderate,” quickly followed suit, much to the jubilation of partisan Democrats and the media.

But despite the raucous cries of “foul” from liberal Democrats in both parties, the substance of their complaints is all but irrelevant when compared to Rumsfeld’s overall track record in office.

The mechanical replication of signatures by high-level officials is, in fact, standard practice in Washington. At worst, the entire situation can be termed “thoughtless.” The greater issue here is Rumsfeld’s successful and efficient prosecution of two major wars, and thus the many letters that never had to be written (or signed in any manner) in the first place.

As to the vehicle armor controversy, it is a fact of war that supply lines are occasionally strained, and that personnel often need to make do under less than ideal circumstances. But upon investigation, it turns out that the vehicle armor problem was totally blown out of proportion, with all but twenty of the eight hundred and thirty vehicles from the unit in question already fully armored.

Successes for the Bush administration, particularly as they relate to the War on Terror, will continue to be a detriment to the fortunes of the left. Liberals will remain in the despicable position of needing to undermine those successes in order to have any hope of gaining political traction and credibility.

This, above all else, is at the root of their attacks on Rumsfeld. Therefore, it is equally crucial that America remains steadfastly in support of him.

[conservlib]

Keistol looks like a fag!

[Victoria Delsoul]

HAHAHAHA! Good point.

[Barlowmaker]

Yeah, there's a beard in his marriage, and it ain't on Billy's face.

[Victoria Delsoul]

I have a good idea about what you mean, but I ain't that sure, LOL!

[Barlowmaker]

Urban Dictionary you Hip Hoppa! :^)

[Victoria Delsoul]

LOL, I had the right idea, hahaha.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

To support your viewpoint:

________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

Unholy Alliance

by David Horowitz
Hardcover - (September 2004) - $27.95

In this tour de force on the most important issue of our time, David Horowitz, confronts the paradox of how so many Americans, including the leadership of the Democratic Party, could turn against the War on Terror. He finds an answer in a political Left that shares a view of America as the ?Great Satan? with America?s radical Islamic enemies.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

This just posted:

Neocons vs. Rumsfeld

[PhilDragoo]

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Hey, so true!!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I think I saw that exchange....I love Rumsfeld...that exchange should be craved on a Big Trophy for the MAN!!

[Seaplaner]

Liberals will remain in the despicable position of needing to undermine those successes...

And with President Dubya's and Secretary Rummy's perseverance and sense of duty and honor, they just aren't all that "underminable".

One of the best clues to SecDef's character is that (as I recall) Donald Rumsfeld respectfully declined to be Time Magazine's person of the year, and suggested that all American Service People share the honor.

Rummy enjoys immense respect from most military and veterans.

[NormsRevenge]

Rummy towers over the DC egotists BUMP

[lainde]

bttt

[rlmorel]

You know, I hope that story is true. If so, it makes me appreciate Bush more than ever, because it indicates he knows what is important in a man.

Kind of the same way Lincoln regarded Grant, and Eisenhower regarded Patton.

When you need someone to manage the awful, dirty business of war, you need someone who is good at it, not someone who is good at making people like him. See more RummySpeak at:

http://www.neoperspectives.com/rumsfeld.htm

[prairiebreeze]

Liberals will remain in the despicable position of needing to undermine those successes in order to have any hope of gaining political traction and credibility.

"Despicable" is the first word in the definition of liberalism. Next is "deranged" and "mental disease".

[Edgerunner]

I think it means that some are pitchers and he's a catcher...

[Edgerunner]

Oh, intresting...thanx for the link!

[Victoria Delsoul]

Yikes.