Over at Murdoc’s place, he has a piece up about the calls for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign. It got me thinking, and as is my wont, I started looking at it from a technical historical perspective.
Cabinet officers serve at the pleasure of the President. They are appointed by him (with Congressional review), and serve as long as he wishes to keep them in office or they wish to depart. There are only a few ways for a cabinet officer to leave office:
1) Death.
2) Resignation (either voluntarily or at the “request” of the President).
3) Change of president.
4) Impeachment.
The last has been attempted exactly once — when Secretary Of War William Belknap was caught up in a bribery scandal. He got word the House was about to reveal his corruption and resigned on the morning of March 2, 1876. Five hours later the House, infuriated their actions had been revealed, impeached him anyway. Belknap was eventually acquitted by the full Senate, but the widely-held opinion was that many of those who voted for acquittal felt that since the only punishment for conviction was removal from office and he had resigned anyway, the matter was moot.
(No, I didn’t know this before today. The story of Mr. Belknap came to my attention when I plugged “can cabinet officers be impeached?” into ask.com.)
So, some people want Mr. Rumsfeld out of office. Killing him is kind of illegal, changing presidents won’t achieve much in the short term (Cheney would likely keep him on, and the next presidential election isn’t for another 2 years), and there isn’t much evidence to hang an impeachment on — especially when it’s looking more and more like the Republicans will keep at least one House of Congress, and even if the Democrats win, they’ll have a very slim majority.)
That leaves the resignation option, so that’s what they’re playing right now.
But that’s overlooking the elephant in the room. Most of those who denounce Rumsfeld on a regular basis (along with Karl Rove) don’t, I suspect, don’t give a damn about either of those two men. They are seen as extensions of President Bush, and he is their real target.
There are two schools of thought for bringing down the powerful. The first is the “cut the head off the snake” principle — an extension of the Machiavellian “when you strike against a king, be sure to kill him.” Attacks on someone vastly powerful better be damned sure to succeed, else the retaliation will be ferocious.
The other is a bit more subtle — the “pecked to death by ducks” approach. It’s a slower, more gradual, more subtle tactic. Don’t directly attack, but chip away at the perimeter, staying below the level of open assault. Be at best a nuisance, but never stop picking away at the perimeter, going after not the king, but those the king depends upon. Eventually, if enough nibbling is done, the king will fall much like the famous Saddam statue in Baghdad.
Personally, I don’t care much about Rumsfeld or Karl Rove or any of the others Bush has chosen as his advisors. I respect Rumsfeld for his forthright, honest speaking (“you go to war with the army you have” and “but there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know” are actually very profound insights, but hardly originals), and Karl Rove recently went after a spammer who was harassing subscribers to President Bush’s campaign site. But never forget that these gentlemen — and other cabinet officials — are, for all intents and purposes — extensions of the President. He is ultimately accountable for their conduct, their actions, their decisions. And to repeatedly “call for their resignation” or “demand they be frog-marched out of the White House” are simply the impotent flailings of those who don’t quite have the gumption or ability to vent themselves against the true target of their fury.
OK, now you’re just resorting to making sh-t up. You are wrong, and even your own side says so:
So, Brian, you and the morally-corrupt dems think you know what’s best for our country and you feel the corrupt dem laws are worth they’re weight in gold. If you and the Clinton nazi dem movement had any morals at all you’d condemn your statements about Iraq and our President. I personally need only listen to the rightous people on my side to find the true substance of this argument. I can dress up in silk stockings and rouge blush all I want and do the salsa with a hunky Spanish dancer as I slip a single stemmed rose between my lips. My hips will sway to and fro as Tito Fuente plays his spicy salsa sounds. Sometimes I like to howl at passing cars while I pirouette in my tutu. But that’s my business and you should be ashamed of your opinions.
I was about to add a somewhat humorous aside, a quote from an amazing movie in which Kevin Spacey stars, The Usual Suspects (I just recently watched it again): “How do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?”
….
Am I the only one turned off by this entire thread? Violent spewing from the readers and trolls going back and forth. Ugh. Flacy, just because he was a squid doesn’t mean that he knows squat about naval war tactics. We haven’t had a full blown navy war since World War II. The Navy since then has been in a full support role, because we already own the oceans (us and our NATO allies).
Is someone else posting as Scrapiron? Cause that last message was just way to absurd to have been posted by someone who would actually put their own name to it.
I mean, I know Scrap-for-brains is usually pretty out-there, but this last one is way over the top.
We haven’t had a full blown navy war since World War II.
I know why….we would kick butt.
Keep your opinions to yourself, Sean. You dems can characterize me any way you like, but you will always be the cowards you are. I’m free to express my opinion in my way, anytime, anywhere.
Scrap: Be proud of who you are – a true and shining example of the American conservative circa 2006.
I applaud your willingness to share your inner thoughts in such an open fashion, Scrapiron, and I find your comments inspiring and motivating. Please continue.
Lee, there is lying going on, but it is your side doing all of it. Secretary of Defense’s always get criticized if they do their jobs. It is when they do nothing that nothing is said about them. Just check out the last one we had. The one before Rumsfeld. He sure had a brilliant career. By the way, is that Democrat who took the 100k dollar bribe still holding his seat in the House? How about his committed assignment? Is striking a police officer a felony? If you do not think it is, go out and do so. McKinney is a Democrat I believe. Didn’t that Kennedy kid keep his seat while DUI. Where was MADD? Are those rescent enough for you, Bozo?
He said they knew where the WMD’s were, and produced nothing. He also predicted the war would last “six days, six weeks. I doubt six months”.
The WAR didn’t last 6 months. Saddam was toppled quickly.
Again, those resignations came only after drawn-out denials, lies, indictments, and expected conviction. So no, I cannot name a Democrat who has yet followed that path of DeLay, Ney, and Cunningham.
Clinton. Rostenkowski. McGreevey. Reynolds. Frank. Studds. Traficant. Jefferson. All resignations after long protestations of innocence. Most have been convicted of their crimes.
BTW, the case against Delay — as has been the case from the start — is paper-thin. Heck, when one of your “indictments” are for a crime that wasn’t a crime when the crime was allegedly committed, you have a partisan hack trying to make a name for himself
-=Mike
Someone with a clue about waging war could discuss the “mistakes” Rumsfeld has made with some nuance, some depth, that would include also what he has done right and why and would include a discussion of pros and cons for any alternative approaches.
That doesn’t happen. What happens is that Rumsfeld is described as an obvious disaster. So obvious that the obviousness is too obvious to explain. So obvious that a failure to agree has to be explained by charging that those who don’t condemn Rumsfeld want our soldiers to die.
And somehow those with military experience hate Rummy less than the general population hates him. Quite a few people actually like him rather a lot.
And instead of thinking, “Hmm… maybe the obviousness isn’t quite as obviously obvious as I thought…” what?
Want up to date stuff “pucker puss” (lee lee) and
“barney google”? How about old cut and run coward Jack “Ab” Murtha. Care to see the film on H&C of him in the Abscam case . Frigging crook got off by ratting on his buddies. Check it out you whiney pricks.
Get your finger out of your nose, jhow66, and we’d have an easier time understanding what you’re trying to say.
Remember folks, you are arguing with a class of anti-american military bashing people that have convinced half of the American people that we have lost the war on Terror, while the outstanding United States military led by Rummie has convinced Usama that he has had his ass kicked in Iraq. Go figure.
Good to see that the writer is so well grounded in the historical aspects of the case. Try Tenure of Office act and the impeachment of President Johnson, very informative on the subject, as to why they impeached. The law was changed so the famously corrupt Albert Fall was simply arrested they didn’t have to impeach him. History what a concept, agreed upon facts discussed rationally leading to opinion informed by precedent. Who am I kidding?
Clearly Democratic Party operatives in conspiracy with the liberal media elites have undermined public support for our incredibly successful war in Iraq and the splendid job Don Rumsfeld is doing. There is only one solution, in time of war, there is no room for debate or dissension, these voices of dissent no matter how well meaning must be silenced. Congress is out of control so it’s up to the military to restore our political process to a smooth and orderly operation. Disagreement plays into the hands of our enemies so anyone who opposes or even questions this war’s rational must be contained, by any means necessary, for their own good. The General Officer class has been fatally compromised by dissent in their own ranks so it is up to the junior officers, the only Americans with the experience and knowledge of the intricacies of the situation, to seize control and impose order until this national emergency passes.
It may seem draconian but I see no other way of preserving our cherished freedoms and liberties. We must sustain our President, our Commander in Chief, until he sees plan in Iraq come to fruition, and when that golden day arrives he can step aside, or not, and we can be proud knowing we have saved America from those that would destroy her.
Sejanus
Uhh “pucker puss” (lee lee) you could not understand anything if I drew you a picture-dumbass. You need to have old “screw them” teach you how to be less of a Kos castoff.
American soldiers lives or help a moron President who defines the term “in over his head”.
The Republicans have made their choice.
May God have mercy on their souls.