Rumsfeld filled his pockets with Pyongyang's nuclear loot?

If this is true, well, all I can really say is that it doesn't surprise me.

It's a well-known fact--oft detailed in this column--that the boys in the Bush Regime swing both ways. We speak, of course, of their proclivity--their apparently uncontrollable craving--for stuffing their trousers with loot from both sides of whatever war or military crisis is going at the moment.

That's why it came as no surprise to read last week that just before he joined the Regime's crusade against evildoers everywhere (especially rogue states that pursue the development of terrorist-ready weapons of mass destruction), Pentagon warlord Donald Rumsfeld was trousering the proceeds from a $200 million deal to send the latest nuclear technology--including plenty of terrorist-ready "dirty bomb" material--to the rogue state of North Korea, Neue Zurcher Zeitung reports.

George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld both skipping Ford ceremonies!!!!

While George and Laura Bush simply refuse to cut their "vacation" at their Texas ranch short to attend ceremonies for former President Gerald Ford tonight, Donald Rumsfeld actually attempted to excuse his absence. According to various reports, Donald Rumsfeld (who is supposed to be an honorary pall bearer) issued a statement saying he was unable to make it tonight due to snow in New Mexico. However, the only part of New Mexico experiencing ANY type of wintry precipitation tonight is the EXTREME northeastern part of the state, which has had some on and off light snow showers. Hmmmmm......

I wonder if this has anything to do with Ford trashing the Bush administration over the war in Iraq, including the following quote:

"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction, and now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

Regardless, both Rumsfeld and Bush are aware of their responsibilities, and NO DOUBT they were informed of the death shortly after it happened on TUESDAY. There is NO EXCUSE FOR EITHER ONE OF THEM TO BE "SKIPPING OUT." I can't believe this hasn't been covered more in the media tonight, but I'm holding out hope they may eventually catch on.

UPDATE: Based on some of the comments I've gotten, looks like the right wing would rather sling mud than denounce yet another Bush mistake. Stop "informing" me that Harry Reid will not be in attendance. HARRY REID IS NOT A SITTING PRESIDENT NOR IS HE ONE OF FOUR REMAINING LIVING PRESIDENTS. George Bush is in the wrong (again), so please stop being pompous asshats and ADMIT IT FOR ONCE.

Furthermore, Rumsfeld has known since TUESDAY that he was supposed to serve as an honorary pall bearer at the state funeral, so the weather situation in New Mexico is NOT an excuse.

UPDATE #2: This is a hot topic over at AmericaBlog too.

A summary of the Iraq study panel's report

You can view the report here (PDF format).

Most of what I've seen today has been Republicans attacking the report, and Democrats are having mixed reactions, but the majority are receiving it favorably.

Check out Tony Snow today CALLING A REPORTER "PARTISAN" FOR QUOTING DIRECTLY FROM THE REPORT! Amazing, he manages to ANSWER NOTHING, while pulling a page RIGHT from the GOP playbook: attack the media!!!

According to another AP article which appeared on the Boston Globe's website, some U.S. soldiers didn't see a short term withdrawal from Iraq coming:

"There's no way we're leaving in two years no matter what any recommendation says," Spc. Eisenhower Atuatasi, 26, of Westminster, Calif., said. He thought 2012 was more realistic.

Sgt. Christopher Wiacik, 28, of Lavonia, Mich., also was pessimistic.

"It's just a study group. It's not really going to affect the president. I don't see any major changes happening until presidential elections start," Wiacik said. "I think both sides will promise to get troops out and give timelines then, but not before."

"We've been here for 12 months now and there's been no progress," said Spc. Richard Johnson, 20, of Bridgeport, Conn., as he manned a machine gun on the rooftop of an outpost ringed by a shallow moat of sewage.

"It's like holding a child's hand. How long can you hold onto his hand before he does something on his own?" Johnson said. "How much longer do we have to get shot at or blown up?"

1st Lt. Gerard Dow said he agreed with the commission's assessment that the situation in Iraq was "grave and disappointing."

"In Iraq, we try to win the hearts and minds of population," said Dow, 32, of Chicago. "They want Americans out of here. They blame us for all their problems. They look at us as the terrorists and then they turn around and help the terrorists who are trying to kill us."

He went on to say that he was angry because US soldiers are dying trying to help people that DON'T WANT THEIR HELP. That from a US SOLDIER ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ, NOT ME, NOT THE DEMOCRATS, BUT A U.S. SOLDIER!

He also told the AP that soldiers in Iraq welcomed the confirmation of new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who will replace Donald Rumsfeld:

"Yes, please! All of us want to change what we're doing because we're not doing very much," said Staff Sgt. Rony Theodore, 33, of Brooklyn, N.Y.

"We're just sitting around not making any progress. It's annoying. You're not motivated to help anybody," he said, adding his contract was up in 2008 and he did not plan to re-enlist.

"I don't want to live my life like this," he said.

Members of Congress reacted earlier today as well:

"The report is an acknowledgment that there will be no military solution in Iraq. It will require a political solution arrived at through sustained Iraqi and region-wide diplomacy and engagement," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE).

"If the president is serious about the need for change in Iraq, he will find Democrats ready to work with him in a bipartisan fashion to find a way to end the war as quickly as possible," incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

A quick look at the Virginia blogosphere showed that not many were talking about this. Vivian Paige gave it brief mention, and Rick Howell had a pretty good summary.

Although admittedly I have not read the entire report, maybe the reason some are neglecting to write about it is because it, in all honestly, really serves to do nothing more than confirm what most of us already knew. Again though, I have not read the whole thing, and would be interested to hear what other's think about it...

The plan to dumb down Americans and their expectations to avoid "losing"

Oh, this is rich, last night when I planned to write this, I thought it would just be a recap, and a brief opinion piece on how Rumsfeld had written a memo outlining the need for a change in strategy in Iraq just two days before he resigned. However, I've come to understand that, that wasn't his only intention. No, instead, Rumsfeld thought the White House needed to change strategy in Iraq, and LOWER AMERICAN EXPECTATIONS, BY REDEFINING VICTORY, TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF LOSING. That's right, instead of trying to change the strategy in an attempt to improve the situation in Iraq, he simply wanted to "trick" Americans into thinking we were winning by DUMBING US DOWN - and here's how the story goes:

Two days before resigning as Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld wrote to the White House explaining that he thought the strategy in Iraq was not working, and a major change was needed. According to an article which appeared on the New York Times' website, Rumsfeld recognized the need for a change:

"In my view it is time for a major adjustment," Rumsfeld wrote in a Nov. 6 memo to the White House. "Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough."

The story goes on to say that DONALD RUMSFELD HIMSELF WAS NOT CONFIDENT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WOULD ACCEPT ANY PLANS TO DEVELOP AN EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY, AND TO LIMIT FURTHER POLITICAL FALLOUT, HE SUGGESTED A CAMPAIGN TO LOWER PUBLIC EXPECTATIONS FOR SUCCESS IN IRAQ.

Hook. Line. Sinker.

Rumsfeld said that upon announcing any new strategy, the Bush administration should ALSO announce that they are only doing so on a "trial basis." Rumsfeld apparently wanted nothing more than to avoid appearing to have "lost."

“This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not ‘lose.’

Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist."

According to the article, Rumsfeld wants to withhold reconstruction funding (and security), from areas prone to violence:

One of the more provocative options would punish provinces that failed to cooperate with the Americans by withdrawing economic assistance and security. “Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Falluja when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior,” the option reads. “No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence.”

But wait, wouldn't this amount to "cutting and running?" One of the main talking points the GOP has used against the Democrats for MONTHS now?

To be fair though, no one is really paying any attention to this inane proposal by the outgoing Bush puppet. I'd also like to point out one proposal that's being disregarded (according to the NYT article) as "below the line (of acceptability):"

"...an international conference modeled on the Dayton accords that produced an agreement on Bosnia..."

Because clearly, meeting with other countries in an effort to solve the problem in Iraq is unpatriotic, and un-American.

All of this was leaked to the New York Times last night, and according to an Associated Press article, Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff denied he was the source, but confirmed the memo's authenticity. Ruff told the AP:

"The formulation of these ideas evolved over a period of several weeks."

What, like maybe 156 of them?

Here's a few of the options listed in the memo, as they appeared in the afore mentioned AP article:

1. "Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi government and the U.S. ... to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made)."

2. "Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi security forces."

3. "Initiate a reverse embeds program ... by putting one or more Iraqi soldiers with every U.S. and possibly coalition squad."

4. Aggressively beef up Iraqi ministries by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve and National Guard volunteers.

5. Conduct an accelerated drawdown of U.S. bases, noting they have already been reduced from 110 to 55. "Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007."

6. "Retain high-end ... capability ... to target al-Qaida, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq, while drawing down all other coalition forces, except those necessary to provide certain key enablers" for Iraqi forces.

7. Provide U.S. security forces "only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate."

8. Stop rewarding "bad behavior" with reconstruction funds and start rewarding "good behavior."

9. "Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi government."

10. Withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions and move to a quick reaction force status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.

11. "Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and coalition forces (start `taking our hand off the cycle seat') so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country."

In conclusion, America, the GOP thinks you're simply too stupid to understand, and all they really want to do is lower your expectations to avoid the appearance of "loss." Please remember this in 2008.

Did Rumsfeld authorize abuses? Former general says yes

Just wanted to give a quick mention to this Reuters article which claims Donald Rumsfeld okayed abuses at Abu Ghraib. Story claims Rumsfeld specifically authorized a lists of methods,

"The methods consisted of making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation ... playing music at full volume, having to sit in uncomfortably ...

The article also goes on to say Rumsfeld authorized the army to break the Geneva Conventions by not registering all prisoners. Interesting indeed...

I'd also like to apologize for the lack of updates today, and yesterday, as I stated in my Thanksgiving Day post, my Mom's side of my family didn't celebrate Thanksgiving until tonight, so I've been away from home all day, and won't be returning until tomorrow evening. Having said that, there will be no "Daily RunDown" this evening, look for a new one tomorrow night.

Hope everyone enjoys the remainder of their holiday weekend!!

Is Dick Cheney upset that Rumseld was fired?

You may remember that when Donald Rumsfeld was 'fired' after the November 7 elections, many Republicans were upset that the announcement didn't come BEFORE the midterms, claiming the party may have fared a little better. Well, apparently, Dick Cheney is profoundly disturbed about Rumsfeld's treatment.

His treatment? You mean the fact that he wasn't fired 2 years ago? You mean the FACT that Iraq was allowed to slip into civil war under his watch?

Maybe this is why we haven't seen or heard much from Cheney in a couple of weeks...?

UPDATE: Here is Bob Novak's complete article as it appeared in today's Washington Post. This excerpt strikes me as particularly interesting:

"Apart from Rumsfeld's failures in personal relations, he never has been anything short of loyal in executing the president's wishes. But loyalty appears to be a one-way street for Bush. His shrouded decision to sack Rumsfeld after declaring that he would serve out the second term fits the pattern of a president who is secretive and impersonal."

While I agree with Novak that Bush is secretive and impersonal, I can see why he did what he did regarding Rumsfeld. Bush has been a President always noted for his "loyalty" to friends and the people working for him, no matter how intelligent or stupid they may be. Firing Rumsfeld before the elections would have been a huge risk for the President given that reputation. At the same time he obviously couldn't very well have come out and said "well if the GOP does poorly on November 7, Rumsfeld will be out." So, politically speaking, waiting until after the elections was the best decision to make. I don't think it would have made much, if any difference, and it very well may have backfired amongst the GOP conservative base.