Republicans start to turn on Rummy

Well, I'll give them credit for being organized, the moment one of their guys becomes a liability, a la Gingrich, Lott, and now apparently Rummy, the Repubs are quick to stick the knife in the back and get rid of the body:

September 9, 2003
PENTAGON CHIEF
Troubles in Iraq Dim Rumsfeld's Star, but He Fights Back
By ERIC SCHMITT and DOUGLAS JEHL


WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 — Only a few months after basking in the military's swift victory over Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld seemed to be on the defensive today after absorbing criticism from several sides over the Pentagon's planning for postwar Iraq.

Even some of Mr. Rumsfeld's supporters acknowledged today that his star, at least for the moment, had lost a little luster.

"A high water mark for Rumsfeld was the period when they were winning decisively," said Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House and an informal adviser to Mr. Rumsfeld. "Now, he has a little bit less aura than in that period."

Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Armed Services Committee and a former officer in the 82nd Airborne Division, put it more bluntly: "Rumsfeld's been diminished."

Mr. Rumsfeld has been so barraged by critics that today, on his way home from a six-day trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, he spoke out against his detractors, suggesting that critics of the administration's handling of Iraq could be encouraging foes to believe that the United States might walk away from the effort.

"We know for a fact that terrorists studied Somalia, and they studied instances that the United States was dealt a blow and tucked in, and persuaded themselves that they could in fact cause us to acquiesce in whatever it is they wanted to do," Mr. Rumsfeld said, echoing remarks Mr. Bush made on Sunday.

"The United States is not going to do that; President Bush is not going to do that," he said.

While Mr. Rumsfeld's once sky-high standing may have been taken down a notch or two in the messy postwar period, even his critics acknowledge that he is in no danger of losing his job or the confidence of Mr. Bush.

Supporters dismissed the criticism as part of Washington's running parlor game of "who's up and who's down."

"In pressland, Rumsfeld is the piñata of the week, but the president still trusts and believes in him," said Mary Matalin, Vice President Dick Cheney's former senior political counselor who is still an informal adviser.

Mr. Rumsfeld has been criticized before, during the uneasy early days of the invasion of Iraq, when he was accused of bringing too few troops to the battle. The swiftness of the military victory, however, allowed him to mock the armchair experts as ill-informed and misguided.

But this time, the complaints seem to be sticking. His response has been typical, a blend of combativeness, charm and savvy from a man who nearly always seems convinced that he is on the right side of history, but who is also quick to reposition himself to avoid being seen as a loser.

"You take a lot of thumps over a period of time," Mr. Rumsfeld said aboard his plane today about those who have cast him as the architect of policies that have been called too unilateral in their dealings with allies, too cavalier in their reliance on small numbers of troops, too credulous of optimistic scenarios spun by Iraqi exiles and less than honest with the American public.

Most of the time, Mr. Rumsfeld insisted, the critics have been proved wrong. The costs and casualties of the Iraq occupation are on the rise, but he said a major shift in course would be unwise. Meantime, the sniping is coming from all quarters.

William Kristol, a conservative publisher with close ties to the administration, said today that Mr. Rumsfeld's standing had fallen with some White House aides.

"Rumsfeld assured them he knew what he was doing in the run-up to the war, and he was utterly vindicated," Mr. Kristol said in an interview. "Then he assured them he had the postwar under control, knew what he was doing, and wanted to run it. Now the White House feels they've been falsely reassured by Rumsfeld."

As if to underscore the point, this week's issue of Mr. Kristol's magazine, The Weekly Standard, which supported the Iraq war, is filled with articles lambasting the current Iraq policy. One article about Mr. Rumsfeld carries the headline, "Secretary of Stubbornness."

Indeed, mid-level White House officials grumble privately that poor postwar planning by the Pentagon has dumped a huge political liability into Mr. Bush's lap.

Last week, a senior House Democrat, Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, called for the resignation of Mr. Rumsfeld and his top deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, saying that their miscalculations had cost American lives in Iraq and damaged the nation's fiscal health.

A growing number of retired military officers are voicing anger over Iraq policies.

"The guy is a patriot and a dedicated public servant, but he has enormous difficulty listening to other people's views," Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a decorated Persian Gulf war veteran, said of Mr. Rumsfeld.

Mr. Bush's decision last week to seek another United Nations resolution, and perhaps attract more international peacekeepers, was seen as a setback to Mr. Rumsfeld. Throughout his trip this past week, Mr. Rumsfeld sought to emphasize successes over setbacks, but he has sometimes bristled over criticism. He has insisted that the administration's decision to seek a new United Nations mandate for Iraq did not represent a policy shift. He has said that there is no need for the United States to dispatch more troops to Iraq, suggesting that such a step would only make more Americans targets and would delay a handover of responsibilities to Iraqis.

He had not previously suggested that the administration's critics might unwittingly be aiding the terrorist cause. He made that point in response to a question about criticism from Democratic presidential candidates and others, which Mr. Rumsfeld described as the "hits" that the administration was taking over issues related to costs, casualties, and whether the United States had enough troops in Iraq.

"There should be a debate and discussion on these things. We can live with that," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "We can live with a healthy debate as long as it is as elevated as possible, and as civil as possible."

But he said that his experience as a Middle East envoy, after the 1983 bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut killed 241 Americans, had persuaded him that the United States needed a higher tolerance for the costs of warfare.

"Anytime an act of terrorism is rewarded, a lesson is learned by the terrorists," he said. "There are going to be losses if you do nothing, as we learned on Sept. 11, and there are going to be losses if you do something."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

 

I am, credit for cutting the dead wood when the going gets tough. Republicans are ruthless when it comes to that sort of thing, Dems are not.

But then the dems wouldn't have had a nut like Rummy in charge in the first place....

 

No, they've had many nuts.

Just not some dude as Sec of Def (these days, I guess I have to admit McNamara shares some similiarites w/Rummy) who wants to run around and invade everybody and who thinks he's smarter than any general who ever lived and won't ever, ever, ever admit that he's wrong, even when he's in the process of admitting that he's wrong.

Hell, I can't remember one William Perry press conference, can you?

 

You're right, since the griping is on page 1 of the NYT, I guess its a knife in the front.

 

You can make whatever value judgment you want: the general observation is that Republicans are willing to jettison baggage whenever it becomes damaging regardless of loyalty, sentimentality, etc. It's got pluses and minuses, like most things.

 

As to the larger issue, I admire their sense of discipline yet lament their lack of loyalty.


As a substantive matter on the smaller question, I freaking hate Rumsfield, Wolfowitz & Crew, think their policies are an unmitigated disaster, and think they should be thrown out on their asses, along w/GWB for appointing/listening to them.

So yeah, I'm glad he's stopped listening to him. Probably too little too late though.

What disappoints me is that it took a Zogby poll to make them realize that Rummy has been wrong about Iraq when me and Bobby McGee have been saying so the whole time.

 

No, it's an unavoidable tradeoff. One or the other. They chose one, not the other.

It's just an observation.

I can couch it in different terms: the Democrats keep running Kennedys in elections despite the fact they have become embarassing. I'm glad they're loyal to the Kennedys, but lament the fact that they keep them around even though it may hurt the party.