"The Right’s Rumsfeld Reacts"
I’m not sure Donald Rumsfeld’s dismissal will make any real difference on the ground, but it sure has led to some sweet bitching and moaning from the right. Fake war opponent Michael Ledeen, for example, is all kinds of sad:
And while I thought he should be replaced, I found the manner and the moment of his purge utterly disgusting. What was the rush? It was one of the worst moments of W’s presidency. It was a double surrender by the president, throwing a severed head to the Democrats and to the terrorists. You can be quite sure that the terror masters saw the election as a great victory, and Rumsfeld’s ritual sacrifice as a moment of glory. It will encourage them to redouble their efforts, both in Iraq/Afghanistan, and elsewhere. They believe they have Bush’s number, that they have broken him, and all they must do now is keep the blood flowing to accelerate our retreat. My heart breaks for the Iraqis.
My heart breaks for the Iraqis, too. Even the Iraqi health ministry is now acknowledging that casualties have been far higher than convention press estimates have put it — around 150,000 according to the minister. Why sympathy for the Iraqi people should lead to continued political support for the architects of the disaster that’s befallen them I couldn’t quite say. J-Pod has emerged as National Review‘s voice of reason. Crazy Cliff May has a good take, too, noting that “Bush gave the lefty blogs and CNN another wonderful opportunity to call him a ‘liar’ for saying last week that he expected Rumsfeld to stay with him when he was obviously contemplating change.” The opportunity to call Bush a liar was, of course, present by Bush’s admission that he’d been lying.