Tom Keane says Don Rumsfeld should resign. And, of course, Rumsfeld has been a poor Secretary of Defense. Overwhelmingly, however, this poorness has tended to manifest itself in Rumsfeld advocating horribly misguided policies that the President of the United States also advocates. Now, there's a question as to what extent Rumsfeld is actually influencing Bush to adopt the same horribly misguided policies as Rumsfeld, or to what extent Rumsfeld and Bush just happen to be in agreement on all this stuff. Probably the question isn't answerable. The issue, however, is Bush, not Rumsfeld. It's not as if Rumsfeld just did some one dumb thing two weeks ago and Bush has the chance to wash his hands of it. The problem with Rumsfeld just is the problem with the Bush administration's national security policy. Pretending that there's some "Rumsfeld issue" that could be resolved with a resignation at which point everything will be back on track is absurd.
« Get Out More | Main | Good Plan! »
Resignation Theater
03 Sep 2006 02:31 am
Comments (14)
It's been said before that the reason Rumsfeld is still SecDef is that firing him would be a repudiation of Bush's entire foreign policy. Rumsfeld has his job because when he speaks, Bush's words come out his mouth. Firing Rumsfeld is shooting the messenger, even if in this case the messenger is legitimately part of the problem and happens to agree fully with the message.
If Bush were to defenestrate Rumsfeld, that has a pretty serious chance of being sufficent blood in the water that it leads to a horrific media shark pack on Iraq, the Army's problems, and all the other issues Rumsfeld's had his fingers in. Rove would probalby go to significant lenghts to avoid having that sort of conversation in Time.
The responsible centrist argument about Rumsfeld has always been, that defenestrating him would encourage American and Iraqi opponents of American policy in Iraq. There was also opposition to his military reforms. Admittedly, the guy blew it in Iraq, and his reforms encountered more opposition than even Rumsfeld can combat. As Fred Kaplan argued in Slate, the man is capable of forming good opinions, and he's a great performer for the administration. Perhaps the key is not to embarrass him, but to encourage the side of him Kaplan noticed in Rumsfeld's October 16, 2003 memo. Moderates on both sides of the aisle should co-opt him to construct good policy and continue to unravel the Bush administration. If Rumsfeld is cornered, we'll get three months of American Legion-like speeches and op-eds. And, if there's blood in the water, then it's black v. white, right v. left, all the time, no-stop until 2008. Moderates need to stay focused and responsible, and paint the extremists as the terrible kids.
Moderates don't have a great record of getting stuff done this administration, Joseph. You need to make a stronger case than that to argue against six years of this administration alternately ignoring and using moderates to further their own totalist agendas. Most of us who would be, in better times, moderates ourselves recognise that there's nothing moderate in failing to learn from one's mistakes.
Step one would be a quid pro quo from the Bush administration to quash any action in the House to discredit Rumsfeld. If Clinton wants to be the new minority leader in the future perhaps she can get exert influence on House Dems. Pelosi v. Clinton would be worth the price of admission.
quid pro quo from the Bush administration
The Democrats should demand a pink sparkle unicorn. Bush has shown that he is about as likely to find one of those as he is to offer any quid for a quo.
I'm not sure which is more lunatic - the idea of trading with Bush in September '06, or the idea that Rumseld is a "moderate."
----
While I think that Matthew is completely right on substance, the more salient question, I believe, is the politics. The Democrats aren't in power, and so I don't think that maneuvering like this, trying to make Rumsfeld the face of Bush's foreign policy, is going to have particularly substantive effects. I know that Matthew is rightly worried about the foreign policy of Democratic leadership, but I think that's a fight to have in the primaries, not in the midterms.
Given that this is midterm political maneuvering, the question to ask is, will it work? Will the unified Democratic message work to disentangle Iraq from the War on Ter', because Rumsfeld is so associated with Iraq in the public mind? Will the Republicans rushing to agree with the Democrats look weak, or will they score cheap "independence points"? The same questions apply if this causes Bush to dump Rummy. (I think that in that case, he would look like a craven flip-flopper, and so the Dems don't need to worry about that outcome too much.)
It's Kean, not Keane (and pronounced Kane, like the governor of Virginia). He's the son of Tom Kean, co-chair of the 9/11 commission. And, since a few commenters seem confused on the point, he's a Republican. So this is his way of distancing himself from an unpopular war without distancing himself from the President--which he couldn't do if he tried. Expect to see a lot of Repubs do the same dance.
Granted, getting rid of Rummy by itself won't change administration policy. But if the administration wanted to change policy, getting rid of Rummy would be step one. Bring in a war skeptic (think Scowcroft, though GWB would sooner die) who'd have the credibility to say, this is why we should stay, or this is why we should get out.
BoBN -
Just to be clear, Kean is distancing himself from Rumsfeld only following coordinated work by national Dems to attack Rummy and call for his dismissal. Kean is not going out on a limb on his own, he's standing with the Democrats. That's why we're talking about Democratic strategy - because Kean's defection is a small part of the effect of that strategy. The question is whether this helps blue state Rs in electoral doodoo, and whether it helps them more than the work of disentangling Iraq and the War on Ter' helps the Democrats.
With all due respect, a Republican who calls for Rumsfeld's resignation but supports the president's war aims is not "standing with the Democrats." I think you're giving the Democratic message too much credit here. Calling for Rumsfeld's hide would be a smart thing for Kean to do even if it weren't part of the Democrats' talking points. And much as we all like to be cynical, I think Kean's comments were immediately inspired by a genuine revulsion at Rummy's speech last week. (Yes, outside the Beltway, there really are still independent-minded Republicans. Here in the Garden State, they tend to be named Kean.)
Will it help him politically? You bet. He's running against a weak pseudo-incumbent whose strongest issue is the war. A lot of independents are going to look at what Kean said and decide that the kid seems to have his head screwed on straight.
Pretending that there's some "Rumsfeld issue" that could be resolved with a resignation at which point everything will be back on track is absurd.
Although calling for Rumsfeld's resignation without also condemning the President for whom he speaks may be wrong, I don't think it's "absurd."
Rather, it's of a piece with what Matt has previously called the "Incompetence Dodge." By going after Rummy, there is a chance--however slim--that the GOP can keep alive the notion that the war was an OK idea, and that if we just give the GOP another electoral cycle to work things out sans Rumsfeld, things could still work out. So it's not that going after Rummy is absurd--i.e., meaningless--but rather that it has an underlying meaning, and that meaning is intentionaly deceitful.
I think there should be a focus on the news media to ask the obvious followup question of Kean, Lieberman, and others taking this tack - should Bush fire Rumsfeld if Rumsfeld doesn't resign? If the answer is yes, then that should actually be part of the lead of the story. If the answer is I don't know or no, then what is the point of their position again?
By going after Rummy, there is a chance--however slim--that the GOP can keep alive the notion that the war was an OK idea, and that if we just give the GOP another electoral cycle to work things out sans Rumsfeld, things could still work out.
This parallels the question of whether the Republicans can distance themselves from Bush by attacking Bush. The Rove argument is that voters are going to tie Republicans to the President in all cases. Attacking the President amounts to throwing the rock to which you're tied off of the cliff. That strikes as a reasonable perspective. Similarly, I think it more likely that getting rid of Rummy will make war supporters more susceptible to attack than not: the defenestration is an admission that the war is going badly. People who supported the war are tied to it, and admitting that it is going badly amounts to pushing the rock closer to the cliff's edge.
I think it more likely that getting rid of Rummy will make war supporters more susceptible to attack than not: the defenestration is an admission that the war is going badly.
Probably so.
Comments closed September 17, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Rumsfeld is the symptom, not the cause. And he's actually among the most capable members of the Bush team. Think about that.
Dems are clue-free. Sistani is washing his hands of the whole affair, and if Iraq collapses the chances of US troops being attacked by Iranian proxies goes up about a zillion percent.
And then the Dems can support Bush's attack on Iran.
Posted by kidneystones | September 3, 2006 2:47 AM