Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in an appearance before The Bee's editorial board this afternoon, blamed our military problems in Iraq on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The California Democrat said Rumsfeld should be replaced because of his mishandling of the war effort in Iraq.
Feinstein told Bee editors and reporters that Rumsfeld has many flaws: "He's arrogant, he's stubborn, he doesn't listen, he thinks he has all the answers." Rumsfeld's inability to consider other points of view has resulted in a war strategy that's not working now and has little chance of future success, she said. "Stay the course is not a strategy, not a military strategy."
Feinstein has long been a critic of Rumsfeld and first called for his resignation back in March.
But if Rumsfeld is stubborn, so is President Bush. It's doubtful that the president would remove Rumsfeld unless leaders in his own party demand it. Even then, Bush probably would not give in to pressure to dump Rumsfeld.
It seems Rumsfield has boxed himself into a corner. Any admitting that he was wrong at any point and his house of cards folds.
This simply means that when the next Presidential election is up the country will most likely vote for the polar opposite of the warhawks.
I for one would love to see Hilary back in the white house. =)
Did Mrs. Feinstein mention what she, or the Dems would do differently? Quite frankly, I'm tired of hearing a lot of complaining, but no real plan from the Democrats. Remember the first Twin Tower bombing? They put the lead guy in jail, but that didn't stop them from doing it again. They sent Former-Pres Carter to North Korea to sign an agreement to halt nuclear weapons, that didnt stop them. Pulling out of Iraq now is al Queda's plan. Is that the plan we should follow? Make life easier for the extremists? Putting them in jail and making nice doesn't work. When the Iraqi President tells us to leave, we should leave regardless of which American party is in power.
It's true that jailing one group of terrorists didn't prevent another group from attacking the same site several years later. We may never eradicate terrorism completely, as long as there are people in this world willing to kill others to make their point.
As for protecting ourselves, we can look to other nations, such as Britain, for examples. They don't catch all the plots, but they catch a lot of them. Good police work and reasonable security measures seem to work best in the real world. Reducing tensions in the Middle East would probably help, too. Invading other nations doesn't. Iraq wasn't an al-Qaeda stronghold until we invaded. This attitude of "just keep pounding them until they cry uncle" only seems to feed the terrorist mindset.
A Senator never needs to say what they'd do differently-- they don't have any power, save the power of the purse. Feinstein could come up with the perfect plan... and still have no way to implement it.
Obviously, those with the perfect plan should share it. Of course, if Step One of the perfect plan is to jettison what doesn't work and the President refuses to take that first step...
Technically the power of the purse was supposed to reside in the House, although the Senate has to approve of spending bills as well. The role of the Senate, as originally envisioned, was to give "advice and consent" in matters such as this.
Although presidents do follow the requirement to have treaties ratified and their nominees confirmed by the Senate (with a few notable exceptions, such as Bolton), they rarely (or never) ask the Senate for advice.