The cacophony and caterwauling grows louder - a red state enlisted man's comments in Kuwait are chopping SecDef off at the knees. The chorus for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation seems to be building a head of steam by the minute. On the way into work this morning, I listened to an interview with William Kristol (yep, that PNAC guy) who was blistering in his criticism of Rumsfeld. Kristol joins a growing list of neocon GOP-types calling for his head on a plate.
What's puzzling to me is the origin of the criticism. Are the GOP Senators and "civilian neocon apologists" like Kristol finally figuring out the deal with Rumsfeld? Damn, there's nothing there that any number of people on the left couldn't have told them months and years ago.
Is it the fact that his answer was to a red-stater, and perceived as non-supportive? You bet it is. Rummy's been using the same language, the same arrogance, and the same intransigence with MSM reporters since he's occupied his suite in the Pentagon. It's just that now, the perception is: a kid on the front lines, from Tennessee by way of Georgia, finally brought the problem to a head.
I'd posit that if the kid had been from, say, Vermont or California, the response of the press (and the public) would have been a whole lot different.
And finally, is Rummy being positioned to take a fall for a much larger problem? Like the earlier Kerik withdrawl, this whole episode has a touch of stank hanging around the perimeter of the narrative. The story is just too "clean".
Supporting Our Troops? (from the SF Chronicle)
