September 06, 2006
Dems Call For "No Confidence" Vote on Rumsfeld
The Senate on Wednesday is set to debate a resolution that cites "no confidence" in the Bush administration's national security policies or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's "ability to carry out the job," a Democratic leadership aide said.The resolution, which was first proposed by Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, will be offered as an amendment to the Defense Department appropriations bill.
Hey, I'm all for it.
While we're at it, why don't we debate a "no confidence" resolution for the Democratic Party, which nearly five years after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack on American, still advocates headlong retreat and disarming our allies as defense policy.
Rusmfeld has made mistakes as has every other Defense Secretary in wartime in American history, but at least he's trying to fight. Democrats are trying to tell us that running away from terrorists is the path to victory, but as a hallowed, still empty hole in Manhattan attests, there is nowhere left to run.
We can't spare this man, he fights.
Posted by: monkeyboy at September 6, 2006 01:57 PMThere's a difference between not wanting to fight and being upset that the administration started the wrong war.
Posted by: Sylvester Moriarty at September 6, 2006 11:58 PMInspections would have been a much better option, but too many folks were opposed to that. As for the "Start" of wars, the begining of violence is rarely the start. Saddam should have let the inspectors in.
As for Democrats trying to get rid of Rumsfeld, it's just a symptom of the belief of complete pacifisim. I'm not saying that Democrats are lay-down pacifists, but their voter base is.
Posted by: brando at September 7, 2006 01:19 AMRumsfeld tried--and failed. Spectacularly. The Democrats want to try something new, things Rumsfeld and Republicans have denigrated for years, but which clearly would have worked better. Do you keep a manager around who tries to increase sales but fails? No. Do you keep a coach around who tries to win, but fails? No. Do you keep a general in the field who tries to beat the enemy, but fails time and again? No. Why should Rumsfeld be any different? At least McNamara, who was as much of a failure, was bright enough to realize what a hash he'd made of Viet Nam. Rumsfeld has been blinded by his own propaganda.
Posted by: angry young man at September 7, 2006 09:11 AM"The Democrats want to try something new, things Rumsfeld and Republicans have denigrated for years"
Actually, appeasement of dictators amd mass murderers when American safety is at issue is nothing new to Democrats. Consider their silence on Pol Pot, their avid support of Joseph Stalin, McDermott and Bonior's fondness for Saddam Hussein...
Let's also not forget which political party got us into Viet Nam, which one enacted the incrementalism that made it a disaster, which one decided that having the rest of the world see America defeated was a small price to pay to court the essential hippie vote.
Evidently war is only wrong when Americans are waging it.
How about a no confidence vote in the democrats!!!! and their inability to stand up and protect this country!!! and their inability to not sell-out this greatest county on earth.
Posted by: captainfish at September 7, 2006 07:34 PMbrando: "Saddam should have let the inspectors in"?
The inspectors made literally hundreds of searches and found nothing. What planet are you from exactly?
Posted by: Sylvester Moriarty at September 8, 2006 07:32 PMSLY, are you an idiot? There are documented videos from news crews, satellite video, eye witness reports that when the inspectors tried to gain entry into Saddam's chemical and biological, and nuclear facilities they were not allowed in until Saddams bunch could carry off documents and equipment out the back door. so come on how could you spew this incessant whining rhetoric?
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at September 11, 2006 02:30 PM
