Stray thought
Maybe Rumsfeld's crazy rant about appeasers was an attempt to turn the coming "no confidence vote" into a more partisan argument rather than a straight forward referendum on his performance to allow Republicans some cover to support him.
Certainly, the overall line, repeated by Cheney and Bush, is an election strategy separate from that issue, but perhaps that's why Rumsfeld was chosen to give the most strident and partisan elements.
He hasn't really ever taken on that role before. Just thinking.
(Oh, and on the appeaser speech, Peter Galbraith has an editorial in the Boston Globe pointing out Reagan and Bush the Better's appeasement of Saddam even after he used gas and Rumsfeld's part in that.)
Certainly, the overall line, repeated by Cheney and Bush, is an election strategy separate from that issue, but perhaps that's why Rumsfeld was chosen to give the most strident and partisan elements.
He hasn't really ever taken on that role before. Just thinking.
(Oh, and on the appeaser speech, Peter Galbraith has an editorial in the Boston Globe pointing out Reagan and Bush the Better's appeasement of Saddam even after he used gas and Rumsfeld's part in that.)
posted by mikevotes at
9:03 AM
6 Comments:
Rumsfeld is an appeaser.
By
zen, at 9:11 AM
Yeah. The Boston Globe has a good editorial pointing out that past Republican administrations "appeased" Saddam after he had used gas against the Iranians and then the Kurds.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/31/the_true_iraq_appeasers/
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:14 AM
GD right!
I guess Reagan also "appeased" the Soviets because instead of invading, or nuking them, he used dipolmacy and negotiation.
I guess Reagan also "appeased" the terrorists in Lebanon by withdrawing after our Marine barracks were bombed.
But you have a point, are they just pushing Rumsfeld out on the plank? If he eventually is pulled from the position, the admin will somehow blame him. Though 't see how that would work. And still probably give him a medal.
Otherwise if this "over the top" BS somehow works for the admin (which I guess they'll not know till Novemeber) then he'll be the prophet and not the quack. Only in the spin (lies) mind you.
Makes me think of how Bush always talks about how history will be the judge. Strange that they cannot look at back 20 years to what these same MFers were doing and saying. Tells me all I need to know about their idea of judging history.
By
zen, at 10:32 AM
Mikevotes, that is an exceptional piece of analysis.
By
Bravo 2-1, at 11:07 AM
The idea of turning the coming vote of no confidence into a partisan argument is intriguing. It departs debate from considering Rmmy's actual performance (of lack there of), and brings the debate around to "which side of the conflict are you on?"
It's the same strategy that the admin has applied elsewhere. "With us, or with the terrorists" now becomes "fight terrorists, or appease them." It's about setting up the false choice between two polarized extremes.
Or it could just be that the old man has finally lost all semblance of an inner monologue and let's what he's really thinking fly. Seeing it in that way, I can almost convince myself that it's almost refreshing.
By
zen, at 11:27 AM
Thanks, copy editor.
Zen, First thing, if Rumsfeld ever does go, there will be a two part storyline.
Officially, there will be overflowing tribute, "years of selfless service," "never a greater patriot," while at the same time through the backchannel, EVERYTHING that can be pinned on him will be. They will sink him with everything they can find and hope it all stays down.
And on the swing on the no confidence vote, that's pretty much what I was trying to say. The idea being that any significant defection from the Republican camp against Rummy would be very complicating nationally as well as undermining Bush's stand as head of the war on terror or whatever. As congressmen look at their futures, a vote against Rumsfeld might not be a bad move as it would put them blamelessly for the war but against the tactics.
I might be working the wrong angle, but from this administration, I don't think it was uncalculated.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 12:48 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home