Christmas hascome early this yearfor a resurgentDemocratic Party.
Rumsfeld Gone As Dems Take CongressBy Cliff MontgomeryWithin hours of the Democrats‘ triumph in congressional elections, and after years of defending his secretary of defense, Bush announced the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday.Bush reached back to his father’s administration to nominate a former CIA director, Robert Gates, as the new defense secretary.The Iraq War was the principal issue of Rumsfeld’s nearly six-year tenure. Unhappiness with the war was a major element of voter dissatisfaction Tuesday–and the main reason for his departure. Even some Republican lawmakers have become critical of the war’s management, and growing numbers of politicians were urging Bush to replace Rumsfeld.Bush said the 63-year-old Gates, who has served in a variety of national security jobs under six previous presidents, would be nominated to replace Rumsfeld. Gates, currently the president of Texas A&M University, is a Bush family friend and a member of an ‘opinion tank’ studying the way ahead in Iraq.The White House hopes that replacing Rumsfeld with Gates will give a fresh voice to U.S. policy on the deeply unpopular war, and perhaps establish a stronger rapport with the new Democratic Congress. Rumsfeld’s rather terse manner produced a rocky relationship with many on Capitol Hill.”Secretary Rumsfeld and I agreed that sometimes it’s necessary to have a fresh perspective,” Bush said in the sudden announcement during a post-election news conference.In a later appearance at the White House with Rumsfeld and Gates at his side, Bush thanked Rumsfeld for his service and predicted that Gates would bring fresh ideas.”The secretary of defense must be a man of vision who can see threats still over the horizon and prepare our nation to meet them. Bob Gates is the right man to meet both of these critical challenges,” Bush said.But underscoring that he would not bow to those hoping to use common sense in dealing with his military misadventure in Iraq, Bush also said, “I’d like our troops to come home, too, but I want them to come home with victory.”A typical logical fallacy from this president: it is known as a “Sweeping Generality”, for it insists that there is a mission to win, even when it’s obvious there is no clear mission in the first place.One must first have a mission, Mr. President, for one to either win it or walk away from it.In brief remarks, Rumsfeld described the Iraq conflict as a “little understood, unfamiliar war” that is “complex for people to comprehend.” That’s true–and no one understood it less then Donald Rumsfeld, who at times really seemed to believe that a devout Muslim country would greet un-invited, non-Muslim American forces as ‘liberators’, and that the fruitless nation-building of Iraq was somehow really going to deal a death blow to Osama bin Laden, who had nothing to do with Hussein‘s Iraq in the first place.If Mr. Rumsfeld understood the Iraq War–or the Middle East–as he still claims, Iraq wouldn’t be in the mess it is today. The man who breaks a country can’t pretend to be the only one who understands it.Rumsfeld told reporters, “It will be a different Congress, a different environment, moving toward a presidential election and a lot of partisanship, and it struck me that this [his resignation] would be a good thing for everybody.”There was little overt reaction among Pentagon officials, beyond surprise at the abrupt announcement.Asked whether Rumsfeld’s departure meant a new direction in a war which has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 U.S. troops and cost more than $300 billion, Bush said, “Well, there’s certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon.”On Tuesday, voters clearly told politicians that the sooner the war ends the better. Surveys at polling places showed that about six in 10 voters disapproved of the war and only a third believed it had improved long-term security in the United States.With a condensending manner which grated many nerves, Rumsfeld had been the administration’s face of the Iraq conflict. He became more of a political target as the war grew increasingly unpopular in America amid rising violence without an end in sight, or a coherent plan for Iraq on the table.Numerous Democrats in Congress had been calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation for months, asserting that his mismanagement of the war and of the military had been a complete failure. Critics also accused Rumsfeld of not fully considering the advice of his generals and of refusing to consider other courses of action.Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Missouri)–the top Democrats on the Armed Services committees–said Rumsfeld’s resignation would only be a positive step if accompanied by a change in policy.”I think it is critical that this change be more than just a different face on the old policy,” Skelton said.
