Should Rumsfeld resign?
Six retired US generals have called on Secretary of Defence Donald . President Bush is standing by his man.
It's set off a furious debate online. Some say its long overdue, and others say the .
Another blogger who calls himself a modern Jon Swift says the criticism might be down to and wonders if the retired generals were retired for a reason.
He says:
Clearly, it is unfair to blame Rumsfeld for mistakes that were made on the ground while he was back in Washington. I'm sure Rumsfeld had no idea about some of the things that were going on in Iraq so I don't see why he should be scapegoated for mistakes he didn't make.
And he adds that he doesn't see Rumsfeld stepping down anytime soon.
Another blogger who writes at the simply named site, My Weblog, had:
It's hard work keeping track of recently retired generals in the US Army demanding regime change in the Department of Defense...starting at the top. ... Bush'll stand by him. He always stands by those who do the most damage to our country.
John Cole who co-writes the blog Balloon Juice with Tim F said that it's more than counting the number of generals calling for Rumsfeld's resignation:
It is important to look at what they are actually saying rather than just whooping it up that someone is gunning for Rumsfeld’s head. ... I also have enough experience with the military that I recognize how intensely political the upper ranks are- there is a reason Colin Powell managed to win so many of his behind the scenes street fights- he had years of experience with bitter political infighting from his days working in the Pentagon and in the upper echelons of Army leadership.
Tim asks how President Bush's defenders will attempt calling for Rumsfeld to step down:
Honestly the only question was whether Bush defenders would go with Mentally Imbalanced, Partisan Activist, Disgruntled Ex-Employee or Promoting a Book (MI, PA, DEE and PaB for short). PaB it is, although the writer () can’t help throwing in aid and comfort for spite’s sake.
At the blog , the writer asks:
Will this blow over, or will Rumsfeld be provided with a route to honorable withdrawal? Does it make much difference? Frankly, it may be better for those that want to see an end to the occupation if Rumsfeld keeps his job - he is a wholly appropriate figurehead who effectively alienates an increasing number of slow reactors - and as his position becomes weaker so does the war machine. His sacrifice would imply a major shift in strategy - but in reality there can't be a major shift until Americans vote the GOP and its neocon dogs out of office.
Comments Post your comment