Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

The Kean Mutiny
New Jersey state senator Thomas Kean, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate, is calling for Rumsfeld's head. David H. Chen writes for The New York Times:

...Mr. Kean said that he had become dissatisfied over the summer with what he said was Mr. Rumsfeld’s refusal to consider “competing points of view.”

But what compelled him to advocate publicly for a “fresh face” leading the troops, Mr. Kean said, were Mr. Rumsfeld’s recent remarks chiding critics of the war for “moral and intellectual confusion,” and comparing them to those who advocated appeasing Nazi Germany in the 1930’s.

“By engaging in that kind of rhetoric, this secretary has stepped over the line,” Mr. Kean said.

Mr. Kean stopped short of criticizing President Bush, other than saying he had not been “well served” by Mr. Rumsfeld. He says he does not support a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops, because he thinks that could lead to a humanitarian crisis and destabilize the region.

Still, Mr. Kean’s call for Mr. Rumsfeld to step down comes as more Republicans are distancing themselves, however gingerly, from Mr. Bush and an unpopular war.

Predictions? Will Rumsfeld resign? And will the voters finally pull their collective heads out of their ass and remember that dissent is an essential part of democracy, and that the quashing of it with the tactics of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, and others in the Bush administration is a quashing of democracy -- and using propaganda techniques reminiscent of actual fascism?

Frank Rich makes some good points, too:

Here’s how brazen Mr. Rumsfeld was when he invoked Hitler’s appeasers to score his cheap points: Since Hitler was photographed warmly shaking Neville Chamberlain’s hand at Munich in 1938, the only image that comes close to matching it in epochal obsequiousness is the December 1983 photograph of Mr. Rumsfeld himself in Baghdad, warmly shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in full fascist regalia. Is the defense secretary so self-deluded that he thought no one would remember a picture so easily Googled on the Web? Or worse, is he just too shameless to care?

Mr. Rumsfeld didn’t go to Baghdad in 1983 to tour the museum. Then a private citizen, he had been dispatched as an emissary by the Reagan administration, which sought to align itself with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was already a notorious thug. Well before Mr. Rumsfeld’s trip, Amnesty International had reported the dictator’s use of torture — “beating, burning, sexual abuse and the infliction of electric shocks” — on hundreds of political prisoners. Dozens more had been summarily executed or had “disappeared.” American intelligence agencies knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons to gas both Iraqi Kurds and Iranians.

According to declassified State Department memos detailing Mr. Rumsfeld’s Baghdad meetings, the American visitor never raised the subject of these crimes with his host. (Mr. Rumsfeld has since claimed otherwise, but that is not supported by the documents, which can be viewed online at George Washington University’s National Security Archive.)

...Next up is the parade of presidential speeches culminating in what The Washington Post describes as “a whirlwind tour of the Sept. 11 attack sites”: All Fascism All the Time. In his opening salvo, delivered on Thursday to the same American Legion convention that cheered Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush worked in the Nazis and Communists and compared battles in Iraq to Omaha Beach and Guadalcanal. He once more interchanged the terrorists who struck the World Trade Center with car bombers in Baghdad, calling them all part of the same epic “ideological struggle of the 21st century.” One more drop in the polls, and he may yet rebrand this mess War of the Worlds.

“Iraq is not overwhelmed by foreign terrorists,” said the congressman John Murtha in succinct rebuttal to the president’s speech. “It is overwhelmed by Iraqis fighting Iraqis.” And with Americans caught in the middle. If we owe anything to those who died on 9/11, it is that we not forget how the administration diverted our blood and treasure from the battle against bin Laden and other stateless Islamic terrorists, fascist or whatever, to this quagmire in a country that did not attack us on 9/11. The number of American dead in Iraq — now more than 2,600 — is inexorably approaching the death toll of that Tuesday morning five years ago.

Oh yeah...anybody remember "Mission Accomplished"?

Posted by aalkon at September 3, 2006 9:22 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1650

Comments

Be afraid, Amy! It's scary! Be afraid!

Posted by: Crid at September 3, 2006 11:10 AM

The question is, Crid, why you don't find it very scary.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 3, 2006 12:18 PM

Aiiiieee! It's "reminiscent of actual fascism"!

FEAR!

Posted by: Crid at September 3, 2006 12:41 PM

Rumsfeld has supposedly TRIED to resign--several times in the past--but Bush and Co. supposedly won't let him.


The supposed thinking behind this? Rumsfeld's bosses equate his resignation and/or firing as a tacit admission that the Iraq war is a failure.

.
...As if our lying eyes haven't told us this already...

Posted by: Doobie at September 3, 2006 8:18 PM

So what your saying then, Doobie, is that Rumsfeld wants to quit but that they wont let him?

Are they threating to kill his familly should he quit working, or do they have some other hold over him that makes him unable to act on his own?

Posted by: lujlp at September 4, 2006 2:31 AM

"So what your saying then, Doobie, is that Rumsfeld wants to quit but that they wont let him?"


Perhaps you should ask CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/rumsfeld.resign/

Posted by: Doobie at September 4, 2006 5:37 PM

You are being stupid and intellectually lazy, he offered to resign, he didn’t try resign. There is a difference. You don’t try to quit, you simply do.

Using the word try signifies an effort, he tried to save the downing boy.

On the other hand you have offer, he offered to save the drowning boy - and while discussing his offer someone with a set of ball took ACTION as opposed to TALKING about the possibility of perhaps taking action.

Posted by: lujlp at September 5, 2006 2:03 PM

To hell with both of these guys AND their supporters. They learned about war with popcorn in their lap. Guadalcanal? My Dad was there, with Marine Air Group 23.

Japan and Germany were first-world powers. We lost more people in an HOUR in several of our battles then than in YEARS of dancing around in Iraq. Keep in mind, when these comparisons are made they are INVALID. Military actions are not matters of faith, hope, decency or anything fancy like that; what matters is: What is the goal, and what is an acceptable price to get there? Also, "coming home" is NOT the goal of military action, VICTORY is.

People who have NO IDEA see fit to comment in ways that make the truly ignorant seem gifted. I don't care if you love or hate Mr. Bush - that's irrelevent.

Posted by: Radwaste at September 5, 2006 4:07 PM

If you're suggesting I remain silent in order to preserve what America stands for, I'll suggest you're unclear on the concept.


The irony is, during WWII America toppled countries whose leaders--and their followers--had mentalities similar to this.

Posted by: Doobie at September 6, 2006 5:59 PM

Leave a comment