it's interesting to follow the discusion about the Rumsfeld rumble. Some military people,retired and current, are speaking up in R's defense. My read on the comments is that R is being "damned by faint praise". What has yet to be determined is, were R's decisions correct, or at least good ones, under the circumstances?. His apologists say he listened, his critics say he intimidated. Again, my read is that among those in power there was an arrogance and casualness affecting the decisions that brooked no desention and punished criticism (Shinsecki's removal). General Frank is cited as one who worked well with Rumsfeld, easily aquiesing to R's ideas. Also Frank neglected reports from his field commanders that the Fehdaheen(sp?) were posing an ominous threat to the advancing units. These were strong forces that were being bypassed in the rush to Baghdad. The Fehdaheen had been established by Saddam as a parallel army to put down a feared uprising by the Shiites and it was widely disbursed in the South. There were also tremendous arms and explosives caches made ready. These are the apparent source of all the IEDs that are so deadly to our troops currently. Frank was intent on Baghdad and impatient with such reports. He also is quoted as calling Zinni a traitor for critisizing the battle plan. Frank was outspoken about the conduct of the war and he also retired as the fight turned nasty.

Whether or not the controversy gains momentum or is squashd remains to be seen. I think that, as Chris Matthews says, "it has legs". Bush by nature sticks by his decisions and his people. He not only seems oblivious to the discontent of the public, he seems to have no concern for the future of the Republican party. ?????

The last attempt I made to post was summarily closed and all the text was lost. Bummer. No big loss, it was just more of my harangue about the Bush administration and its latest gaffs. Then the latest was his admission of leaking info that was clasified, until he declasifies it, which may have been after he leaked it to "Scooter" to give to Miller, who never printed it, and about which, Scooter lied to the federal prosecutor, Fitzgerald. That matter is still in the works and may have interesting ramifications.

Criticism of Donald Rumsfeld, and his handling of the wars is growing as former military Generals come forward to voice their opinions about his management style, mostly intimidation, not inteested in team building or taking recommendations. His predictable rejoinder was, "why didn't they speak up when they were in command?". They reply that any questions raised or remarks made were turned aside and point to Gen'l Shineseki, who was simply booted when he spoke up. However, Rumsfeld's boss, the supreme leaker in chief says Rumsfeld is doing a heck of a job and ha wants him to stay despite calls for his resignation. This is typical of Bush to be too vain to accept such advice, in spit of all the evidence to the contrary. He just cannot make good decisions. It is a fatal flaw.

There was an article in the Christian Science Monitor recently which I felt compelled to write the editor about. It always strikes me as unfortunate that people have their minds made up and then attempt to fit the facts to suit their fantasy.

Letter to Editor March 30, 2006
Re: John Hughes’ article “With patience in ……” Mar. 29, 2006 referred to comparisons between the Iraq war and the Vietnam war as “careless talk”. It indeed is a valid comparison. Both wars were based on trumped up charges. The public was lied to intentionally to gain support for both wars.
Hughes states the “U.S. faced Viet Cong and North Vietnamese military units whereas in Iraq the enemy is comprised of faceless terrorists”. Actually in Iraq the foe is an insurgency against the U.S. occupation and increasing manipulation of the electoral process. The Shiite majority is being forced to accept a disproportionate representation of Sunnis.
Comparison of casualty numbers in Vietnam and Iraq is as dumb and meaningless as comparing Iraq casualties to traffic fatalities. This is purely a Rove “talking point”. Also, attributing attacks on Iraqis by Iraqis for the purpose of gaining T.V. exposure to discourage U.S. citizens is simplistic, as are most of Bush’s assertions. The Iraqis, by their historical nature, are engaged in a civil war because of their religio-ethnic differences. The U.S. cannot impose democracy merely by forcing elections and, so called, government formation.
The Bush Iraq adventure, (gamble), has been, not only poorly planned, it has been mismanaged from the beginning and consequently overly drawn out. All of the problems being faced today were foreseen before the war and summarily dismissed because of ideology and wishful thinking.
The Muslim nations are theocracies, generally under secular dictators. The populace may not like that, nor prosper under such conditions, but until they themselves come to the realization and resolve that only they can bring about change it is futile for the U.S. to assume the responsibility to do it for them.
The list grows daily chronicling Bush administration mismanagement and poor judgment. Unfortunately we can’t just vote “no confidence” and bring about a change.

This , of course never saw print in the paper but I had the fun of getting it off my chest. One of t