Following up on an item from last week, the congressional Dems’ idea for a “[tag]no confidence[/tag]” [tag]vote[/tag] on Donald [tag]Rumsfeld[/tag] seems to be gathering steam.
Under assault from Republicans on issues of national security, congressional Democrats are planning to push for a vote of no confidence in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld this month as part of a broad effort to stay on the offensive ahead of the November midterm elections.
In Rumsfeld, Democrats believe they have found both a useful antagonist and a stand-in for President Bush and what they see as his blunders in Iraq…. Democrats and some Republicans had maintained that Bush has never held anyone in his administration accountable for decisions in the Iraq war that many military analysts say went disastrously wrong. The decisions include not mobilizing enough troops to keep the peace, disbanding the entire Iraqi army and purging all members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party — including teachers and low-level technocrats — from the Iraqi government.
“Secretary Rumsfeld’s stewardship of this effort is a failure, and he has let down our armed forces,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who is pushing for the no-confidence move.
I think this is definitely a cause worth pursuing. Dems are pushing the notion of “accountability” hard this fall, and there’s no better way to show it than to put lawmakers on the record: do you have confidence in Rumsfeld’s abilities at the Pentagon or not? It’s also a sign of Democratic aggressiveness — going on the offensive against an administration figure many Republicans are loath to support.
Indeed, Dems are pursuing this with an unusual degree of gusto.
…Emanuel said the move is set. And he hopes to stage the resolution with as many as 12 retired generals and other military officers who have called for Rumsfeld’s resignation.
“We’re going to go for a no-confidence vote on Rumsfeld,” Emanuel said.
Senate Democrats are considering a similar move. Next week, Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) will offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution demanding Rumsfeld’s resignation.
First, of course, there’s the question of whether the vote can actually reach the House floor (Dems are reportedly “exploring the parliamentary mechanisms” now). After that, there’s the question of whether this might have any effect on the administration. RedState, a far-right blog, said Dems would only solidify Rumsfeld’s position.
It seems to me that if their goal is really to get rid of Mr. Rumsfeld, they’re barking up the wrong tree here. The history of the last six years tells us that there’s no surer way to keep Donald Rumsfeld in office than to call for his resignation. He doesn’t respond well to such pressure, and more to the point President Bush really doesn’t like it.
Fair enough, but that’s missing the point. Congressional Dems don’t actually believe the president will see the resolution and say, “Well, Congress doesn’t like Rumsfeld, so he’s got to go.”
Rather, this is symbolic politics. Rumsfeld’s tenure has been a disaster. Is it so unreasonable to think lawmakers should have something to say about it? Particularly in an election year when voters want to know where lawmakers stand on national security and the war in Iraq?