Are the Democrats finally getting smart? If this is any indication, then yes:

Under assault from Republicans on issues of national security, congressional Democrats are planning to push for a vote of no confidence in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this month as part of a broad effort to stay on the offensive ahead of the November midterm elections.

That is an excellent idea. Rummy has come under attack not just from THE LEFT!!!!11!, but from several former generals and even a couple of neocons. Forcing the GOP to stand by such an obviously unpopular favor will show the public how subservient they are to the will of President Bush.

Bring it, peeps.


Comments: 16


That idea shouldn’t come up for a vote because it would undermine the morale of the troops and embolden the enemy.

But it doesn’t stun me that the Democrats would consider such an idea.


Did it embolden the enemy when Rumsfeld said we’d only be in Iraq six months and it turned out to be six years? (counting from when we invaded to the end of the Bush presidency)


I think that’s the wrong play. Dems need to take their cue from campus comedies and treat Rumsfeld like the stodgy dean: pantsing, pies in the face, bra bombs at state functions…


Gary- quite the contrary. Getting rid of Rummy would be one of the biggest morale boosters the troops have had in years.


Gary, keeping a raving lunatic as Secretary of Defense is what “emboldens the enemy”. If you were an Islamocommiefeminazifascist, which would you prefer: Having your opponent’s army at the beck and call of a man who’s made nothing but disastrous military decisions for the last six years?

Or having that tin-plated disaster replaced by someone who might possibly have some strategic idea beyond “send too few troops into a a realm of ‘known unknowns’, and blame whatever happens next on an illusory fifth column”?


ok, waitaminute. This “morale of the troops” line is worse than a red herring, it’s just silly. Troops deployed overseas don’t give two shits who the SecDef is. Unit morale comes from three things. Immediate Leadership, the LTs and Captains and Sergeants who lead and “manage” the troops day to day. Unit composition. Squads, Platoons and Companies tend, like other organizations, to take on a particular character. If you happen to be in a unit that has it’s shit together, isn’t too hung up on military discipline but still everyone understands their place and their role, you’ll be in a good unit. If you’ve got a bunch of fuckups, shit disturbers and whiners, morale is gonna suck. Last is what you’re doing. If you’re on patrol in Anbar or working a Sunni neighborhood with a lot of ambushes and IEDs, your life is going to suck much worse than if you are doing civil affairs in a relatively peaceful area or even better doing admin crap in the green zone. Nobody in washington, or even outside of the immediate AO has any impact at all. And Gary? If you’d served your nation you’d know that…



Troops deployed overseas don’t give two shits who the SecDef is.

Actually, a lot of them would be pretty happy to see Rummy get canned.


Nobody in washington, or even outside of the immediate AO has any impact at all.And Gary? If you’d served your nation you’d know that…

I think we’ve just found out why the military tends to vote Republican – because they can’t make the mental link between their being in a ME shithole with no clear mission, and the idiots in Washington who sent them there.


It’s quite obvious this is a bad idea. Pointing out that the bus driver is driving us off a cliff will only undermine the morale of the passengers.


Oh, and mikey, I’ve had it up to here with your “facts” and “empirical evidence”. We’re creating our own reality here, and it’s full of tasty nougat.


ok, waitaminute. This “morale of the troops� line is worse than a red herring, it’s just silly.

The RePugs have nothing left but their hoary cliches about “emboldening the enemy” and “supporting the troops.” The enemy is already pretty fucking emboldened. When Rumsfeld failed to guard Al Qaqaa and the insurgents walked away with 380 tons of explosives, that was all the emboldening they needed.


I love the smell of desperation in the morning. Smells like…Dolchstoßlegende!


How much more emboldened could the enemy be? They attack pretty much at will already. I guess Garypublicans think that if Rummy gets a no-confidence vote, what, the insurgents will start swaggering out in the middle of the street, taunting troops? Terrorists in airports will begin announcing their intentions while boarding? I don’t get it. Nor do I see how slavish, unwavering, unthinking devotion to BushCo policies and personalities has struck much fear into the hearts of “the enemy.”

Seriously, Garybot, what concrete, measurable things do you think will happen to demonstrate the “emboldening” of the enemy if Congress dope-slaps Rumsfeld?


Actually, the administration tipped its hand long ago. It took me a while to figure out who the “enemy” in the phrase “embolden the enemy” is supposed to be. They see the American people as the enemy. We will be emboldened if the administration responds to the public. It would show that we can affect the decisions of the people who governs us (outside of “accountability moments”, i.e. elections). So of course they want to prevent that.


But if we issue a no confidence vote, then Tinkerbell will die!


Great image, Otto Man! And in this Repub Theatre production, the part of Tinkerbelle (usually “played” by a spotlight, an empty twinkle darting about the stage) goes to — the Oval Office Resident.


(comments are closed)