Or at least pull out long enough for Dubya to unlock his jaw.

Wow. If true, this is pretty damaging stuff. Not only that Dubya refused to fire Rummy. But that he did so primarily because it would make Dubya look bad.

The true Bush emerges from the strutting tough-guy myth the right wing has painted since 9/11. A real war leader looks beyond politics to make decisions based on winning and thereby reducing US casualties in the long run. A false leader backs down.

This deserves a Profiles in Cowardice award.

a new book by Bob Woodward

I hope it's two ply.

Woodwards sequel book: "How I kissed a bitter old mans ass and became famous, then made up lies, misquotes, and fictional situations to sell more books."

Card tried again around Thanksgiving, 2005, this time with the support of First Lady Laura Bush, who according to Woodward, felt that Rumsfeld's overbearing manner was damaging to her husband. Bush refused for a second time, and Card left the administration last March, convinced that Iraq would be compared to Vietnam and that history would record that no senior administration officials had raised their voices in opposition to the conduct of the war.

If it was Barney, would Bush have listened?

Maybe id Rumsfeld pulled out and wiped Bush's chin for him, the Chimpinator could appoint Jeff Gannon

YAV- maybe tinky winky.

More evidence of the stubborn close mindedness of a man who has been conditioned his whole life by getting what he wants. His tendency to surround himself with cronies who tell him only what he wants to hear has lead us to the disaster that is Iraq, among other thing.

Probably the only time Bush gets asked tough questions is when talking to the media. He would consider it disloyalty if anyone questioned him so they tell him things about how Iraq WMD's are a "slam dunk" so they get medals.

No chance. Bush is Schizophrenic.

Headline should've read "One-millionth American tells Bush to dump Rumsfeld, Wins trip to Disneyworld"

Another in what'll be a line of books coming out soon to bash the Reps. Better go buy a larger bookshelf!

Good advice, Oorah. Just added two more shelves in the office.

OOrah: To be fair and balanced, I cleared off an 3 x 5 spot on my bulletin board for all the publications coming out highlighting Bush's successes.
Today's Washington Post has some interesting selections from the book.

Don't you worry, Oohrah, I'm sure Ann Coulter's new book will be out soon to tell you how swimmingly everything is going.

And how Bob Woodward is just a journalist wannabe and doesn't have any experience at all with this sort of thing. Unlike herself.

TC...

You know thats its impossible to view Bush's Presidency and its policies without recognizing that everything they've done has been done by the book they've sworn allegiance to, ie. the PNAC. It is the classic example of "garbage in/garbage out", yet they still won't deviate from their plan after all the catastrophic damage its already wrought.

The second part of the equation is our overt favoritism toward Israel coming at the expense of Middle Eastern Arabs of all stripes. Put the two together and the picture of America's mistakes comes into focus. These people aren't going to change direction until they've run the US ship of state onto the rocks of reality, likely sinking most of us in the process.

woe_is_W -- very true. BUT ROVE KNOWS HOW TO USE RELIGION TO WIN ELECTIONS!

It's so cynical a group. PNAC's arch neocons are nominally interested in religion. Ralph Reed and other theocons are nearly entirely blinded to the rest of the geopolitical world except through the prism of their faith. (Could the American Christian theocratic movement, which W has at least one foot completely emersed in, have the potential to become the American Christian Al Qaida movement?)

Tony R -- "...yet they still won't deviate from their plan after all the catastrophic damage its already wrought." It seems that Wodward's thesis is that the top neo-clowns in the cabinet were very divided rather than glued tightly together, so that thesis bears further investigation. Consider this, though:

W is obstinate and never had to admit a mistake except after his DWI arrest before he became a born-again. His conversion had only served to make him even more obstinate (in a "dry-drunk meets newly converted evangelical" sort of way). Dick Cheney and his staff, including Abrams, Libby, Bolton, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al, represented the Rock of Gibraltar of the PNAC movement within the W administration. As long as Cheney has the resolve only granted those who have the good fortune of being "the power behind the power", then all the crises and dissension won't shake the resolve of the executive branch.

"The second part of the equation is our overt favoritism toward Israel coming at the expense of Middle Eastern Arabs of all stripes. Put the two together and the picture of America's mistakes comes into focus. These people aren't going to change direction until they've run the US ship of state onto the rocks of reality, likely sinking most of us in the process."

Were you around in 1983? Do you remember the Lebanon Crisis that time? It was clear that Reagan's policies, as well-intended as they were, ran counter to good military advice. To support the Israel agenda, the US turned a blind eye to the social situation on the ground, and the Reagan administration let Israel get away with murder. So the APEC-pro-Israel to-a-fault political trend has a very mature status in conservative circles. In 1983, Reagan and the USMC got bitten in the butt by mismanagement of the military resources to support well-intended but mismanaged diplomatic efforts.

If this administration could get its coercive head out of the hole, it might take a cue from the PRC policy, which is focusing on "soft-power" initiatives and economic leverage. But because the administration seems to be effectively run by the cranky neocon who resides on Massachusetts Ave rather than the windshield-cowboy on Pennsylvania Ave, "soft-power" will be scoffed at, and hard power and coercion will either work or make a lot of neocon loyalists filthy rich for trying.

Tony and TownandCountry

...These people aren't going to change direction until they've run the US ship of state onto the rocks of reality, likely sinking most of us in the process.

Posted by tonyroma at 2006

A couple questions to hear what you think but can't stick around, I've got to run some errands. Seriously, do either of you think Bush really plans on attacking Iran? Also, with Bush continually beating the war drums on Iran, why isn't Congress DEMANDING that Bush have a full debate before he takes any military action in Iran? Why are they so hesitant to watchdog more over Bush and his Neocon thugs?

"But because the administration seems to be effectively run by the cranky neocon who resides on Massachusetts Ave rather than the windshield-cowboy on Pennsylvania Ave, "soft-power" will be scoffed at, and hard power and coercion will either work or make a lot of neocon loyalists filthy rich for trying."

Whoa! Nice analysis as always by T&C!

Spud gave that one a "newsworthy", btw.

Agreed. They worship blindly at the altar of raw power and seem to have a childlike fascination fer torture.

Tony sed...

"PNAC. It is the classic example of "garbage in/garbage out""

Agreed. You simply can't make a silk purse outta a sows ear.

"Stay the course"?

Wasn't that wot the first lemming sed?

Be Well.

I thought it was the second lemming, and the third, etc.

Why are they so hesitant to watchdog more over Bush and his Neocon thugs?

Like I keep saying Chris, they belong to the same club. To a politician, this is progress.

"I thought it was the second lemming, and the third, etc."

Agreed. Got the joke wrong it's...

"Stay the course, Pass it on"

Be Well.

CC -- Iran is a real urge for the admin. If the GOPs retain control of Congress in Nov, DOD will do a lot more than it has to turn the heat on Iran. The latest NIE is the only stumbling block to a full court press. NPR reported last week that is even possible that the select crowd at DOD (and one suspects at Langley and/or Ft. Meade) working on this Iran thing will present a list of reasons why Iran needs to be attacked.

In one school of international affairs, it makes sense to occasionally demonstrate the willingness to use the military option when coercing another nation into a behavior. If you can demonstrate that you will use it, then others will be afraid if you threaten to use it again. Unfortunately, this gang does not understand that the extremists they helped get elected as President of Iran sides with a group that would welcome an invasion, welcome the opportunity to become martyrs after invasion, and to fight the West. The whole hubris thing has backfired because the administration does not understand the Middle East mentality. They think that everyone there wants to become a Texan.