If Rumsfeld didn't leave over Abu Ghraib...

...he certainly won't leave because six retired guys now say he should, no matter how many stars they used to wear, no matter how many different reasons they list for his dismissal. Rumsfeld is the chief architect of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, wholly and repeatedly endorsed by a president who wanted this war in the worst way.

President Bush said Friday that his embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has his "full support and deepest appreciation."

"Earlier today I spoke with Don Rumsfeld about ongoing military operations in the Global War on Terror," Bush said in the statement released by the White House. "I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our Nation."

This goes well beyond George Bush's vaunted penchant for personal loyalty, which was always markedly overstated anyway. Ask Colin Powell about that sometime. Or Harriet Miers. No, Rumsfeld's viability is inextricably bound to Bush's credibility regarding the war on Iraq, its unlikely yet still-hoped-for success, its cost in blood and treasure, its effect on the stability of the wider Middle East and even the world.

A repudiation of this secretary of defense means, for Bush, a repudiation of the entire Iraq misadventure.

And that's why the SecDef's job is as safe as houses - as safe as the White House, at least. The only way that Rumsfeld leaves is if Bush leaves with him.

(Identical to this piece cross-posted here. Not identical to Paul's piece on the subject cross-posted there.)

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus