Putting Rumsfeld to a ‘no-confidence’ vote

August 25, 2006

I’m delighted to see that congressional Dems have come up with a fairly clever idea — which might put Republicans in an awkward position.

Campaign strategists seek intraparty consensus by focusing on accountability rather than Iraq troop withdrawals. A “[tag]no-confidence[/tag]” vote in Pentagon chief, which Democratic lawmakers might offer on defense spending legislation, could embarrass Bush while appealing to Republicans who defend ousting Saddam but criticize war’s execution.

One House Republican predicts leaders would heed White House urgings to block a vote. But a Republican consultant says some incumbents may embrace idea for distance from war setbacks.

It would be a non-binding measure — Bush can fire his [tag]Defense[/tag] [tag]Secretary[/tag], but a congressional resolution can’t — but as Raw Story noted, this would have the effect of a) punishing the president for allowing Rumsfeld to continue to serve, despite his fiascos; and b) shift the discussion about the war “from troop withdrawals to questions of accountability.”

It’s also a classic wedge strategy: before the election, just how many congressional Republicans are prepared to publicly announce their confidence in Donald [tag]Rumsfeld[/tag]?

And speaking of Rumsfeld, Laura Rozen reported this week:

Bush has put out a quiet feeler to replace Rumsfeld in recent weeks. He was politely turned down by at least one candidate he personally called. Unknown: is this one of many candidates Bush has sounded out? Is there a Bernacke-style search going on quietly in the background?

Stay tuned.

I’m glad Dems might push this, but after yesterday’s post about voter stupidity, I’m not sure how many people know who Rumsfeld is.

  • Turned down – wonder why???? Anyone the prez should be considering (as opposed to is) should be smart enough to avoid it like the plauge – at least until there is a new prez. While Rummy is bad enough on his own, Bush/Cheney and their WH flacks wouldn’t make Rummy’s job easy even if Rummy was good at being SecDef (which has proved he isn’t).

  • What would Republican Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick of suburban Philadelphia do? He’s already dancing and flipping and flopping. Article here: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/219-08132006-697324.html

    At this point, cowardly Fitzpatrick will say anything, do anything, to save his own skin. Voting for a resolution to remove Rumfeld (RRR) would only reinforce the image of a shallow and opportunistic small-time Republican hack.

    Now is the time for the Democrats to rip Republican smucks like Fitzpatrick into little pieces.

  • Why would the Republicans allow the resolution to go anywhere unless they find is useful for their election plans? I can see how it would give some Democrats some advantages, but in other cases it gives the Republican candidates a way to separate themselves from Bush — and that’s the last thing Democrats should want.

  • Dems, wake up. Who exactly is going to replace him ??
    Another incompetent Bush hack, this is a futile fight, it will change nothing. Rumsfeld is bad, but I promise you Bush can find worse.

  • As a political maneuver, this isn’t a bad idea. But on the specific point of replacing Rumsfeld, what makes anyone think that Bush will pick someone better to replace him? Nearly anyone who passes the loyalty tests doesn’t have the ability and knowledge to do the job.

    As ET notes above, anyone truly qualified for the job will run away in a hurry. The job is a no-win situation. Iraq is totally screwed up, and getting out of there without an even bigger mess is going to be nearly impossible. Last I heard, Afghanistan was deteriorating, though I haven’t heard much about it recently.

    But probably the biggest problem is that the new SecDef will be working for Cheney and his cabal. They’re running the show, which is the primary reason why things are so screwed up. It would take someone of real skill and energy to outmaneuver that crew, and even then, you can’t count on Bush having your back. Ask George Tenet.

    William Cohen, Clinton’s SecDef and a Republican, was on the Daily Show recently. Let me say that again: Cohen was Clinton’s SecDef and a Republican.

    Man, I feel like Bushco has driven us right off a cliff.

  • Ditto for impeachment should we regain Congress.
    Rah, rah, rah, Bush is gone…. ops, who is in charge now ??
    Ok, let’s get Cheney too… ops that leaves Denny.

  • Is it time to resurrect those rumors about Holy Joe becoming the next Secretary of Defense? One less neo-con senator and another neo-con Secretary of Defense.

  • kerzleg,
    I love CB, but I am getting so tired of these “fairly clever ideas that might put the reps in a awkward position”.

    There is always a ‘fairly’ and ‘might’ or a ‘hopefully’ in these ideas.

    They are never thought out, but to be honest, I am much better at criticism then ideas. So hats off to the folks, CB, that are at least coming up with some ideas, cause I have none.

  • “Ditto for impeachment should we regain Congress.” – ScottW

    Cheney first. And that is not going to happen unless Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House, so Denny is right out.

    By the time we are done with Cheney, I don’t know whether there will be momentum to get Boy George II or not. It will certainly affect his selection of a replacement Vice President, if he gets the chance.

  • At first I though the Lieberman for SecDef fell into line with the comments that Bush could pick an even worse candidate that Rumsfeld (shiver.) But then I got to thinking … Joementum could give a series of speaches in Iraq and bore the opposition to death.

  • Where is Donald Rumsfield lately anythow? I’m so used to him spitting invectives like “go to war with the army you’ve got” and “freedom’s untitdy” into the camera that I forgot that “freedom is on the march”. Where is that beligerant “I stand for 8-10 hours a day” workaholic anyway? I wonder what kind of gems he would shoot his mouth off with this time?

  • Ditto for impeachment should we regain Congress.
    Rah, rah, rah, Bush is gone…. ops, who is in charge now ??
    Ok, let’s get Cheney too… ops that leaves Denny.

    Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand. Write that down.

  • I’d be willing to remove Bush and have him replaced by Cheney. We wouldn’t be any worse off in terms of what the administration wants to do, and they’d no longer have the “friendly” face at the top that appeals to some still-shockingly-large segment of the public. Bush may be unpopular, but Cheney popularity is much lower still.

    Besides that, if there’s never any impeachment, then we’re sending a message to future presidents that everything that’s happened is perfectly acceptable.

  • Rumsfeld isn’t the problem. Bush’s weakness is the problem, along with the mouth breathers who want an American despot.

  • ***…even if Rummy was good at being SecDef (which has proved he isn’t).***
    ————————————–Comment by ET

    Actually, he’s doing a perfect job. It’s just that no one told him that he was “Secretary of Defense.” He thought the “Def” stood for “Defeat”—which in all honesty, he’s been pretty damned good at it! We declare “Mission Accomplished” before the job’s even one-tenth done, and we’ve snatched impending defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan. Three cheers for the Secretary of Defeat!!!

    As for the impeachment path, it would be nice to get both of those dogs out of their respective throne—but they leave Pelosi with an almost-insurmountable task. The midterms are ten and a half weeks away, and there’s about another eight weeks after that before a Dem-controlled Congress would be seated. That’s a lot of time for a dying regime to destroy whatever tools the opposition would need to change course in Herr Bush’s “Forever War….”

  • Good post. You make some great points that most people do not fully understand.

    “It would be a non-binding measure — Bush can fire his [tag]Defense[/tag] [tag]Secretary[/tag], but a congressional resolution can’t — but as Raw Story noted, this would have the effect of a) punishing the president for allowing Rumsfeld to continue to serve, despite his fiascos; and b) shift the discussion about the war “from troop withdrawals to questions of accountability.””

    I like how you explained that. Very helpful. Thanks.

    • Comments are closed.