Rummy appears to be upset about something... ____________ Rumsfeld avoids questions on Iraq role WASHINGTON (CNN) --Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld canceled a news conference Thursday in part to avoid questions about whether the White House recently reduced his role in Iraq's reconstruction, Pentagon and NATO officials said. The White House said Monday it is creating an Iraq Stabilization Group to be headed by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. The group will be responsible for handling the day-to-day administration of Iraq, a task previously handled by the Pentagon. Rumsfeld was scheduled to brief reporters at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Colorado. He was questioned at Wednesday's NATO press briefing about his relationship with Rice, a memo she circulated establishing the new Iraq Stabilization Group, and whether he was "in the loop." The defense secretary has "said everything he has to say about it," Pentagon officials said. The change in the oversight of reorganization efforts inside Iraq stemmed from numerous discussions on the topic among Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Rumsfeld and President Bush, a White House official said. A report in Thursday's New York Times quoted several administration officials who said Rice discussed the issue with Rumsfeld and other members of the National Security Council last week. Earlier this week, Rumsfeld said he did not remember discussing the topic with Rice. He said he was informed of the creation of the group by way of a memo sent to an undersecretary of defense. Referring to the flap about the memorandum, a NATO official said they were told Rumsfeld canceled the news conference because he didn't want to answer any more questions on the topic. But Rumsfeld's chief spokesman said the news conference was canceled so he would have time to meet from representatives of several countries at meetings that were not on his original schedule. "I would say that is the reason" Rumsfeld canceled, Rumsfeld spokesman Larry Di Rita said.
and this is what he's upset about ------------------------------------------------ Irked Prez moves to redo Iraq team By THOMAS M. DeFRANK DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF Friday, October 10th, 2003 WASHINGTON - President Bush's overhaul of his top Iraq strategists reflects deep unhappiness with his national security team - particularly Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld but also Secretary of State Powell, Bush sources told the Daily News yesterday. Bush's displeasure means that neither Powell nor Rumsfeld will keep his job in a second Bush term, the sources said. Powell already has signaled his intent to leave after the 2004 election but Rumsfeld had indicated he wanted to stay on. "All this does is validate [Bush's belief that] it's time for new blood in a new administration if we're reelected," one official said. "There will be a changeover at Defense and a changeover at State." Despite official White House denials, Bush's creation of an interagency Iraq Stabilization Group headed by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice is designed in part to halt the intramural turf battles between the Pentagon and State - infighting Bush believes has contributed to flagging public support for the war and its aftermath. Bush 'let down' by Rummy Much of Bush's disappointment is directed at Rumsfeld, who is widely seen within the administration to have been more adept at waging war than peace in Iraq. "The President feels let down," one well-placed source told The News. "He feels as if Rumsfeld was unwilling to come and get help [for the postwar effort] and thinks his inability to trust anyone other than his immediate subordinates created a serious, ongoing problem in both Afghanistan and Iraq." Moreover, the source added, "After the war, Rumsfeld wanted to get back to [Pentagon] modernization and transformation and took his eye off the ball." But the secretary of state comes in for his share of criticism as well. "Powell has basically absented himself from this situation because he wanted Rumsfeld to fail - and believe me, the President's unhappy about that, too." The White House did not respond to calls seeking comment. Earlier this week, press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that Bush has full confidence in Rumsfeld and other members of his foreign policy team. Though Bush is aware that some of his senior advisers believe Rice has failed to control the warfare between Rumsfeld and Powell, there's no evidence Bush is upset with her. Rice has the closest personal relationship of any staffer with Bush - who has told friends for more than a year that he intends to appoint her the next secretary of state. "She emerges as the winner," one top Bush adviser said yesterday. Vice President Cheney, who, with his onetime mentor Rumsfeld, is a primary architect of the Iraq policy, has defended Rumsfeld's stewardship internally, arguing that Iraq has proved a more intractable problem than anyone could have imagined. Bush, however, has a less sympathetic view. Asked if Bush's unhappiness might conceivably extend to Cheney, one source replied, "That's a complicated question, but if there is [unhappiness], the only two people who would ever know that would be the two of them." http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/125463p-112485c.html
Secretary of the Treasury, Head of the EPA, Press Secretary, Sec of State, Sec of Defense.........hmmmmm, naw, no pattern here....
And all this time I thought Bush was just a puppet controlled by Rummy and Cheney. Now Rummy's getting fired over Cheney's objections. Anyone want to re-write the Dems' CW of the Bush administration?
I wondered earlier whether Big George is stepping in to help the boy. GHWB never cared for Rummy and always liked Condi...
Well, I'll give Bush some credit for recognizing the failings of his team. But he never should have elevated Rummy over Powell; I imagine Cheney may have had something to do with that. It's prob. too late for Rice to repair the damage.
Yeah, the same GHWB who Dubya ignored to go into Iraq. Why don't you guys just give Dubya props for taking charge of his administration? Okay, maybe it's Condi that is controlling him
And all this time I thought Bush was just a puppet controlled by Rummy and Cheney. Now Rummy's getting fired over Cheney's objections. If you believe the puppet philosophy, then this is just more evidence that it was true. If Bush allowed Rumsfeld to run the post-war contrary to how he felt it should have been running for nearly 6 months, then obviously Rumsfeld was in control. Bush, now that everything's falling apart, is finally asserting some control. The question is whether it's too late or not.
If the puppet theory was true, there is no way Rummy would get fired now. Puppet means you are being completely controlled. Unless you want to change the meaning of "puppet" to "one who delegates work." 6 months is not a long time to decide to dump your Secretary of Defense who did a good job waging war. And it isn't like Bush is upset now, we are only hearing about it now, so there was probably stuff going on a few months earlier.
Really, I didn't know Rove was a neocon. And if he is, then why didn't he push to get rid of Saddam before 9/11, like the other neocons were doing throughout the 90's? I don't even know if he has much knowledge on foreign policy.
6 months is not a long time to decide to dump your Secretary of Defense who did a good job waging war. And it isn't like Bush is upset now, we are only hearing about it now, so there was probably stuff going on a few months earlier. You don't necessarily need to dump your Sec Def, but everyone on the planet could see there are problems with how we were/are handling the post-war situation. The fact that nothing changed over the last 6 months (which is a damn long time when dealing with post-war support in Iraq) is an indication that Bush either (1) didn't see it as a problem, (2) didn't care to make changes, or (3) wasn't able to make changes. None of those scenarios is particularly good.
A lot of the problems are to be expected when rebuilding a country. It didn't necessarily indicate a need to change policy.
Are you calling Rumsfeld a Chicken Hawk? Didnt he serve in the air force or something ? Chicken Hawk is reserved for people who got out of defending their country when called upon , but now feel its okay to send others to die for it. (Bush Jr., Cheney, Delay, etc.)
A lot of the problems are to be expected when rebuilding a country. It didn't necessarily indicate a need to change policy. Except that they weren't by this administration. From the start, this administration has made mistakes, believed things that weren't true, or outright lied ("the oil will pay for the reconstruction", for example). I don't think anyone really believes the post-war situation is going as the administration expected or planned.
And that explains Bush's change. I guess you are arguing that he should have done this sooner, but it's not like we have been stuck with this problem for a very long time yet. Also, you don't know how long ago Bush started to go to other people in his Cabinet for support. Again, we are only hearing about it now.
Now if Dubya would just learn to take responsibility himself. It was very predictable that he would start blaming his cabinet. For those who argue that due to his his limited knowlege and expererience that Bush couldn't help but be bamboozled by the neocons, I think that you have to take into account all the warnings he was getting from his dad's old foreign policy hands. Some argue that he deserves some credit for finally realizing the errors of his ways, but I don't think canning Powell and Rumsfeld should pardon Bush for his bungling in Iraq.
So he's gone from dumb puppet to a Machiavellian character who visciously takes advantage of poor and defenseless Rummy, Cheney, and Powell.
Mr. C; You can, I suppose, extrapolate from this certain implications about the whole puppet angle...I myself was never a proponent...but wouldn't you agree that that's rather a narrow and convenient angle for a pro-war person to take from this? Aren't there clearer and more impactive implications? Such as...contrary to what certain hortocluturally inclined posters would suggest, clearly things in Iraq are not going at all wll, or according to plan? In fact,they are going significantly wrong, and those in charge are at least partly responsible? Or that it would appear that Powell is, in fact, leaving? Now if you acknowledge that things aren't going well, higher ups are responsible, and combine that with what we now know were and were not factual reasons those in charge had for going in in the first place...well...doesn't that say a lot more than to what degree Bush is controlling/controlled, or when/if that changed? BUT...if you are going to argue that Bush was in fact in control...I never got into this debate either way, as I see no evidence to support any position on it either way...but, just as a matter of argument...IF, as you are contending, this supports your contention that Bush is calling his own shots, then that would mean the following: * Bush is in charge, calling the shots on Iraq. * The war does not go well. * Bush fires those underneath him, for lack of a better word, even though, it would seem, they were operating under his guidance. Is this really the way you prefer to take this? You feel that this makes Bush look better!?!?! The buck stops anywhere but here!?!?
