Things would certainly have been much better for the United States had we not had those millstones, Mark. The saddest thing is most of the people in America don't really understand just how damaging the MSM and the left have been to our efforts in the War on Terror.

First, I miss Rumsfeld. I think America's lost a strong warrior in this GWOT. Second, some people are waking up to the damage the MSM has done to America in the GWOT-

Crittenden: The AP Has Lost Its Rudder "Say no to AP’s shoddy work"

Boston Herald ...The Associated Press is embroiled in a scandal. Conservative bloggers, the new media watchdogs, lifted a rock at the AP.

Curt at Floppingaces, www.floppingaces2.blogspot.com, led the charge. He thought there was something strange about an AP report, and took a second look at it, then a third look. He and others blew the lid off it. The AP is making up war crimes. But the resulting stink in the blogosphere has barely wrinkled a nose in the mainstream press. The ethics-obsessed Poynter Institute seems to be oblivious to it.

It has to do with the AP’s Iraqi stringers and an oft-quoted Iraqi police captain named Jamil Hussein. Problem is, the Iraqi police say Capt. Hussein does not exist. The Iraqi police and U.S. military say an incident described in an AP report - Iraqi soldiers standing by as people were burned alive in a mosque - didn’t happen. Another AP-reported incident, U.S. soldiers shooting 11 civilians, also never happened, the military says.

When the AP was forced to acknowledge this situation, it did so in a story about a new Interior Ministry policy regarding false reports. The AP buried the fact that its own false report prompted this new policy. ...

The AP, once a just-the-facts news delivery service, has lost its rudder. It has become a partisan, anti-American news agency that seeks to undercut a wartime president and American soldiers in the field. It is providing fraudulent, shoddy goods. It doesn’t even recognize it has a problem.

The left really should be ashamed of themselves the way they hounded this honorable patriot out of office.

So, while I freely admit that a great majority of those whom you would label as "the left", Mark, are happy that Secretary Rumsfeld has resigned, I wonder what leads you to blame the left for his departure? Let me make a couple of points that make it difficult to pin this on the left:

• The President has made it clear over and over again that he doesn't make decisions based on what is popular but based on what is "the right thing to do". It is also factual that the President has, on many occasions praised the performance of Sect. Rumsfeld.
• The Democrats have for the entirety of the Bush presidency had very, very little real power in terms of forcing decisions on the President

As I said previously, I lean toward the left politically so I may be missing something but tell me, please, how exactly we "lefties" succeeded in "hounding" Sect. Rumsfeld from office?

19kguy,

President Bush doesn't make decisions based on polling, but the plain fact of the matter is that the new Democratic majority was going to go after Rumsfeld relentlessly. Letting him go was a matter of pratical, forward-looking politics: rather than having the first few months of 2007 tied up in re-hashes of the past five years, by nominating a new SecDef President Bush makes it possible for us to have a debate about the future course of action. The shame is the way the left has demonized this patriot - a disgusting character assasination done for no other reason than partisan politics.

freedom 1, thank you for your post. You are right, this has been almost totally ignored by the Agenda Media, and I think it is very important.

19k, to think the constant hounding and harassing by the radical Left, directed at Rumsfeld, had nothing to do with his departure is simply ignoring the power of the press.

This brilliant, good, and decent man, who not only had the intelligence to understand the principles preached by those such as Thomas Barnett about the need to modernize our military and the nature of the dangers we face but also had the courage to act on this information, was called a criminal and far far worse.

The treatment of Rumsfeld was shameless, and at the same time the M.O. of the radical Left. If, as you say, you only "lean" left, I hope you will be able to stand back from your political wish list to take a hard look at the death spiral the radical Left is trying to impose on what was once the Democratic Party. There is a desperate need for a moderate, rational, liberal party in this country, a party based on political philosophy and not on emotion-based vicious attacks on opponents in the pursuit of political power.

The New Left in this country, those I refer to as Liberals (with a capital L to distinguish them from those who are truly liberal) is a cunning and calculated political machine, appealing to those who prefer to first pick those they hate and then try to cobble together a political philosophy which they beleive will justify their emotions.

When and if this country returns to having TWO major political parties which are based on actual issues, it will be a step forward. But for now, it seems that only the conservatives have a foundation of true political beliefs and philosophies, and then try to find candidates which are most likely to support and implement those ideas.

Some very strong points in that memo. Sadly thanks to the democratic concept of co-operation, the left will now spin 180 degrees in the opposite direction and run as fast as they can to get away from itl

Almiranta,

"If, as you say, you only "lean" left, I hope you will be able to stand back from your political wish list to take a hard look at the death spiral the radical Left is trying to impose on what was once the Democratic Party.

I do only lean left. That doesn't change the fact that our president decided to get rid of Rumsfeld (at the same time that Mark points out Rumsfeld's current view of Iraq was a good one). Choosing to fire someone with good ideas, even if she or he is unpopular, reflects poorly on the decision-maker. If Rumsfeld is doing a good job, let him stand up to scrutiny, right? Furthermore, the argument that this decision was only made based on inevitable congressional investigation from the left is a poor one. Why, if that is the case, has the President Bush not replaced VP Cheney? Or others who may face oversight hearings from the incoming Congress? Finally, allow me to re-state my original point in responding to Mark's post: to blame the left for the president's decision to remove Rumsfeld is to minimize the power of the presidency. President Bush made this decision himself; he alone is in charge. I am a Democrat. However, that does not mean I am incapable of seeing poor decisions by the party I normally support. Are you so blinded by partisanship that you cannot credit a decision made by our president to "the man" himself?

I've got to say - reading about what Rumsfeld thinks we should do as he's leaving makes me think... well why didn't he just do that while he was in a position to get it done?

Seal the borders? Duh. Attack Iranian units operating in Iraq? Duh. This is the stupidist thing I've ever heard. Why the hell didn't he do this like... last month? Or the month before? The big "conservative" problem with Rumsfeld was that we went in on a shoestring and never took the post war seriously. The result of being penny-wise and pound-foolish is the current situation. So what, now he agrees that we should have done something else, that we should do something else? Why didn't he just do it himself?

Anyone remember the part in Apocolyse now where they get jumped by the tiger? If you're not going to go all the way, then stay in the g#$-damned boat.

Oh Kahnada:
--For once I agree with you. If Rumsfeld was so brilliant as some of your knucklehead cohorts claim, he should have changed course at least a year ago, not just a month or two ago. It was obvious to the sane that Iraq was a mess at least a year ago, if not longer. And Rumsfeld has to accept the blame.(I don't know if you agree with me after my 1st sentence)

With as long as Bush stayed with Rumsfeld--up to the day he left--there's no reason that at that moment Bush gave up on him. He took the heat for Bush on so much and was doing just fine. I can see how what Rumsfeld recommended could have rubbed Bush the wrong way. Redeployment, setting measureable goals (and measuring them), redefining to a "minimalist" victory, severe reduction of US bases, etc. Could be that all that was the straw that broke the relationship and Bush needed another yes person to go along with his decisions. Hope some of those more interesting ideas make it into whatever does happen after all the recommendations (from all parties) are sorted out.

Nate,

Reading some punditry today about this, I get the impression that no one really knows who leaked this, or why - or whether the ideas in it made Bush want to keep, or get rid of, Rumsfeld.

I'm going with my theory for now - that it was a deliberate leak in order to deflate the ISG report.

Libs - lets get one thing straight. I think we needed to go into Iraq. There was evidence. Sadaam is a bastard. And we needed to throw a lightining rod into that region.

But - due I believe to political considerations (meaning I thing the national leadrship didn't thin the liberals would allow a larger force), we decided to go in with too small a force. What did that mean? We defeated the organized and uniform wearing Iraqi Army easily. But, much of the Army and others lost their uniforms and melted into the woodwork.

With enough manpower - and the proper national will we could have gone into the Sunni areas and cleaned them up. The Kurds were with us and the Sunnis were (mostly) with us. Neither of those groups then had arms. We needed to blanket ALL the Sunni cities at the same time, or in a wave that pushed all the insurgents or wanna-be insurgents toward a waiting blocking force. And - we needed to just flat out shoot combatants out-of-uniform.

We still could do this. We would also have to clean up certain Shiite area. But at least the Kurds are still with us. I don't see it happening though. Does anyone?

Either its a war. Or its not. Can you believe we haven't secured the borders? How about roving AC130 patrols? The result of doing it half-assed has been that we've spent almost all the rebuilding money on security and contracters who rightly demand a premium to support us. When we went into Fallujah (two damn years ago) to clean up, we should have hit Ramadi, and Takrit, and the Sunni parts of Bahgdad at the same time. But, we wanted to be what? Sensitive? I don't get it.

If we just pull out now, it will be an open admission that we lost. But, if we're not going to do it right.... then hell I guess we did lose.

By the way, the Marine Corps has been putting up a hell of a fight in the triangle and along the Syrian border. It is rarely (very rarely) reported on.

There are currently 3 active divisions and one reserve in the Marine Corps. If we need to clean up Iraq and slap down Iran (which I beleive we need to do), then it's time to re-activate the 5th and 6th Marine Divisions and some Army Divisions also. It was our shrinking from responsibilty after Viet Nam that allowed the Kmer Rouge to rape and mrder an entire generation in Cambodia (I blame liberals for Cambodia.

Iran may say they are not worried about our forces in Iraq - but they're lieing. Having forces that close would allow us to easily bring in our reserves. And, we've already shown we can defeat a conventional unifomed military handily with even a small force. They are not stupid.

We CAN NOT just get out of Iraq without it being stable and able to stand up to Iran. Or, we'll need to smack Iran down. Don't forget that the awful way we and the Europeans handled the peace after WW1 led to WW2. And the awful way we handled the peace after WW2 led to the cold war, Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia, all the crap in the mid-east, and Angola. In fact - hell the way the Brits handled the sub-continent led to the India pakistan wars.

We must have the fortitude and forsight to see this through to the end.

There are three courses of avtion.
1. Stay as we are.
2. Pull out.
3. Re-engage and go on the offensive.

Some people want option one, because they don't think we have the balls to do number 3. Liberals seem to want number 2. But.... do you? Does your leadership? I'm not sure. I think they may go with number 1 also because they don't want the Republicans pointing to a defeat in the 2008 races and blaming them.

But, if we're not willing to win then what the heck are we thinking. Send MORE troops. Build up the military (if we need to) and lets clean up that damn region. We can't let the war beteen tha Arabs and Israel go on forever or we'll never have peace there. We can't let the wackos in Iran get the bomb and we can't let them take over one to two thirds of Iraq (which could happen if we leave). So - lets kick their butts. Lets act like the imperialists you say we are and secure oil sources in Iraq and Iran - so we can then tell the Saudis to go to hell and wipe out the wacko Islamists there who are funding terrorism in the whole region.

Ask yourself - how would this book read if MacArthur and Patton were running things?

No wonder he didn't release these suggestions before the election, he would have been seen as caving in to the left's position. Most of these are things that the country in general and left in particular have been asking for years.

The most damning thing about this memo is the reveltion that, surprise!, Rumsfeld agrees with the liberals. What we are doing in Iraq isn't working. We've been saying so for years. Guys like Noonan have been saying the opposite. "We're winning!" they crow, "But the MSM is covering up all the good news!"

Finally, we have the unvarnished admission from the Secretary of Defense that no, actually, we are NOT winning and a major course correction is in order. His solutions? Mostly what the lefties have been advocating all along: troop withdrawals, giving more autonomy to the Iraqis and tighter border security.

Must really hack you guys off to see Rumsfeld, of all people, agreeing with the guys from our team.

Is anybody here talking the memo itself, instead of how shoddy reporting on a few incidents which placed next to the totallity of what is happening there lead Rumsfeld to declare that the strategy in Iraq "isn't working well enough or fast enough." That a "major adjustment" is needed, and in a concession to public opinion, and such change muste be made to appear to be on a "trial basis only".
Nowhere in his memo does Rumsfeld mention either progress with the eventual hope of victory,
nor the medias reporting of the war, and certainly not any instances of shoody reporting that in their totality, amount to a conspiracy against him or Bush.
There's a problem there folks, a big one. And it isn't going to be covered up by Bush supporting bloggers with a memogate type focus on a single document or incident. Thousands of people are dying, being tortured by their own countrymen before being killed. You can call Saddam what you want. He's been gone since 2003.
Reviving media conspiracy theories isnt going to change a thing over there now.
Rumsfeld says so.
Post the memo in its entirety. Somebody anybody. Not just a summary. It's not nearly as sanguine about victory as the post here makes it out to be. If it was, I think it would have been posted here.

My apologies to the editors. It is at least linked here, and easy to get to. As for the rest of my post, it stands. Read the memo for your self.

Read the memo for your self.

"Yourself" is one word, you America-hating asshat. Why do you hate this country so much, jerk?

Keefer, Keefer, Keefer

Is that the best you can do, you grammarian, you. Your self is one word. What's wrong. Trouble with the "mife". You remember, the one you gas up the cars for.
As far as anything being wrong with this country, I think the major problem is that there are people with your IQ's in it.
Proof positive that you have such an IQ is that 1) you thought your pointing my grammatical error was a huge zinger and 2) Predictably, you failed to read the memo.
Congratualtions, Keefer! You've proven once again the value of the statement "A penny for your thoughts." grossly overestimates the value of yours.
Look forward to your response.
Have a good day.
PS: Keefer, I tink you need some therapy to help get your dander in check. I hear measuring the drapes after a good "thumpin" works wonders. You oughtta try it.
PS PS: I hear Nancy likes 'em dark.
PS PS PS: Still got the diaper changing problem you refered to in an earlier post?

I'm reading this memo, and it's written in a simple-minded black & white point of view. THAT is the problem with this administration.

Case in point.

Rumsfeld states: Do not reward bad behavior. If there is violence in an area do not send reconstruction funds to that area.

WOW! SIMPLE! PERFECT! in an unrealistic black & white kind of world.

We're trying to stabilize the country. A statement like that simply tells the insurgents... ok, if there's reconstruction going on here and we want to topple this infant democracy... blow it up.

It's called a viscious circle. Let's reconstruct the country to stabilize it. Hey, there's violence! Stop the reconstruction thus halting any further stability.

I swear this memo is like it's written by a neanderthal man. It's about as thought through as burping the ABCs.

You want to know why Iraq is a mess? Arrogant, simple-minded plans. If these guys were CEOs in my company I'd be living on the street.

Grrrrr.... At least have the decency to admit your failures (at the cost of American blood & money) and move forward - even if that means complete withdrawal... Yikes, did I say cut and run?

Simple viscious circle. American occupation = Hatred of American forces = Hatred of puppet government = ongoing violence. Anyone heard of cost-effectiveness? Start putting a % of victory to cost of American lives & dollars?

If we have a 5% chance of victory at a rate of 40 military personal and a billion dollars a month... uhm that's called a bad investment.

Most of the people in this administration come from the business world. I wonder how often they've used the term "Cut your losses"... But, then again it was out of their pocket... now it's all on the taxpayers & the american service men & women.

I have enough humanity in me to realize that stubborn pride is not worth a parent's grief.

PS PS PS: Still got the diaper changing problem you refered to in an earlier post?

Hey, hey--you're confusin' my posts with your boyfriend's posts. Be careful...

Walcrow-wacko, So, of the three choices you choose get out now and damn the consequenses? Fair enough. A valid position.

I don't hear the Dem leadership saying that these days. Do you? I think that maybe your in the middle of a betrayal by your party. I think they'll stay. I think maybe they played on your anger to get back in power.

Maybe you should start protesting them.

"If we just pull out now, it will be an open admission that we lost. But, if we're not going to do it right.... then hell I guess we did lose."

Exactly.

Even for those like me who were against the Iraq invasion but strongly for Afghanistan, there was a wish that we'd listened to Colin Powell, gone in with overwhelming force, gotten Saddam, but left the army in place like we did with the Wehrmacht. That way you'd have some semblance of stability.

But I would have been thrilled had we gotten the real bastard, OBL, you remember, the one who blew up all those liberals in lower Manhattan. Something tells me Mark and Matt don't care as much about those dead Americans since they weren't Bush supporters. Mark's hatred, in particular, for people who are a) smarter or b) more liberal supercedes his hate of terrorism. Saddam is a bastard, but he was no threat to us. Osama lives on freely, and he blew up a bunch of our countrymen.

If a Democrat had let him get away after 9-11, Mark would have sanctioned assassination.

Keefer,

It's not me who has a "mife", with the W replaced by an M meaning male, I guess. I don't know what lingo you use to describe your kind, and don't know of many who do or even want to. But, given your concern with spelling, there must be some significance you attach to having a "mife".
And, predictably, you still haven't read or are able to discuss the memo.
I would like to hear your thoughts on it...that is, of course, if you have any.
Have a good day.

Uhm to respond to "Kahn" calling me a wacko---

I have been a member of the republican party since 1979 when I actually campaigned for Reagan.

Equally, I lost my father to Vietnam, and currently have 2 nephews, and a brother serving in Iraq.

You, on the other hand are an obvious neocon with your blinders on... Anyone who doesn't fall in line with your thinking (if you can call it that) is a whackjob or a democrat.

I think for myself thank you very much, and I have no doubt in my mind that our country has fallen on ill times because we've fallen into believing anything our party throws at us no matter how obviously faulty their logic may be.

I love this country. And to see this administration and the whackjob neocons destroy everything it stands for is beyond political party ego pride bull$**t. I am an American. I support the troops. And would welcome back a thoughtful, logical, open-minded, intellectual like Bush 41 with open arms.

I am member of the conservative rightwing republican party. NOT the whackjob neos that are no better than the lunatic left fringe.

Walcrowe,

Part of the problem your encountering here is that Bush is not a republican at all. To me, modern, conservative republicans hearken back, not to Reagan, but to Goldwater. An honest man whose image was ripped apart in the '64 election by a sly operator, LBJ.
Goldwater believed in the wisdom of the average American, and that the booming economy of the early 60's was a good time to scale back government. He believed that a persons private buisiness was just that, private. He believed that the government did not have the right to reditrubute wealth down for the sake of secular humanism, or up for the sake of theological liberalism. He believed that we should either put up what was necessary to win in Vietnam, including nukes if necessary, or back away. But no half measures. No little increments. Do what must be done to finish the job and leave. War is a horrible buisiness, and there's only one thing good about it...its end.
How different our nations history might have been in the 60's if Goldwater had been elected. Luckily, there are still republicans who look like republicans. John McCain, Jeff Flake from Arizona, and John McClintock in California are real conservatives trying to bring their party back to its' idealological roots. Smaller government, balanced budgets(Either raise the taxes or llower the expenditures. Don't put it on the Chinese credit card.)
Bush, however, is nothing more than a scripted media event who has captured a following that is almost cult like. Followers of this cult believe victory can only come in Iraq with Bush being able to take the credit for victory.
If we were able to win at the cost of recognizing Bush as a failure who nearly brought the mid-east to the brink of war due to his arrogance, there are people who post on this Blog regularly who would see that as a defeat. If America loses with Bush in charge, its someone elses fault. What these bloggers hold Bush accountable for I can't see. But the standard one must use to judge the validity of any of their statements is this: would a Bush supporter look upon any action that was identical to Bushs', and be able to call it heroic.
Prime examples:the seven minutes after Bush was told "Americas Under Attack!" that he sat in a classroom, or Bush actions during and after Katrina.
If it was a Dem, Bush supporters would be calling actions of the president a coward, or an inept fool. Bush supporters cannot do that. As George F. Will wrote, "Liberals follow personalities. Conservatives follow principles." Bush supporters are liberals through and through, as they cannot discuss principles. And that's why Bush lost his congress. I do not believe that Americans have turned away from conservatism in the last election. It's just that they couldn't find many conservatives among Bush supporters.