previous post next post  

Rumsfeld dodges bullet.

By The Armorer on May 7, 2004 | | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (1)

Bush isn't firing Rummy, yet. I've got issues with Rumsfeld, but I sit so far from the center of that particular universe these days, I tend to let the elephants play on their own.

But if I were Prez, Rumsfeld might well have lost his job over this abuse thing, as the straw that would have broken my back. Not because the abuse happened, I've covered that. Things like this happen in war, what's instructive is what's done about it. And the major media, when breaking and feeding on the story, didn't do so based on their own sleuthing the story the military was hiding - they did it using the military's report on the subject. Discuss amongst yourselves.

No, what would have torqued me is the Rumsfeld knew about this, and the depth of it, months ago - but no one told the President?

Bush said he told Rumsfeld on Wednesday that, "I should have known about the pictures and the report" done by the Pentagon before they turned up in news reports.

That wasn't oversight. That was deliberate. For those of you Army vets old enough - this, and it's true meaning - should cover it: Simply amazing.

Share This Article:

Categories:

1 Trackbacks

TrackBack this entry at http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/1935

Life & Times of Madfish Willie from Madfish Willie's Cyber Saloon on May 14, 2004 5:14 PM

Madfish Willie was friends with an axe murderer after winning the lottery and got 2nd degree burns because he had no sleep the night before and fell violently ill. Madfish Willie just dodged three bullets, he blew up a truck... Read More

7 Comments

By Boudicca on May 7, 2004 8:57 AM
I agree with you whole heartedly. For that and for that alone, he would be gone in my book. You never hide stuff from your boss, especially not bad stuff that has the potential to come out and bite him in front of others. (Shaking my head.) We even learn that in the civilian world. I only see arrogance here.
 
By Jack on May 7, 2004 12:50 PM
Inquiring minds want to know, what exactly ARE your issues with Donald Rumsfeld? I might have missed something while I was moving to France, but I don't recall anything you've posted that was indicative of serious issues that it sounds like you have. My concern with Rumsfeld is the same I have with the entire administration, only he seems to have it the worst. Overall, they seem to get ideas in their heads and do not test those ideas against reality, but instead stick to the ideas no matter how screwed up the situation gets. Sticking to principles is indeed important, but sticking to ideas that have been proven wrong on the ground is ill advised at best.
 
By Aaron's Rantblog on May 7, 2004 3:22 PM
I'm reminded of the Patton slapping incident. Rumsfield is too important (and right) to dismiss because of this. I'm also curious about the political parties of those involved. In theory, a motivated Democrat hostile to a Republican administration could enlist and wreak political havoc. Smashing Rumsfeld will set the jihad and its sympathizers giggling for weeks and will castrate-before-the-fact any of Rummy's successors.
 
By Juliette on May 7, 2004 10:31 PM
We agree, John. Also I think that if it were anyone else other than Rumsfeld or Rice, that person would be gone by now. The president has likely calculated, however, that giving DR the boot would bring on more dire consequences than keeping him, like the one Aaron mentioned, for example. It was a good decision to keep him.
 
By Phil Fraering on May 8, 2004 10:58 PM
I don't know, BL; after all, he's kept George Tenant, and Norm Mineta...
 
By John of Argghhh! on May 9, 2004 7:01 AM
I think you can say that GW is nothing if not loyal. Generally that's a good thing. Not always. Your two examples being illustrative.
 
By rammer on May 10, 2004 12:03 AM
this is exactly the problem. what else is hiding in some file folder in an undersecretary's desk?
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.