Reflecting on Rummy

15 November 2006

This isnt the topic that I started with today and I will finish that post, but I got diverted and somewhat bogged down. So in an attempt to get my mind headed in some direction, even if it was backwards I went out to read some of my favorite blogs ( I will have to make that an upcoming post). And a couple have given their thoughts on Rummy's resignation. In reading the expert's opinions and our real people opinions about the expert opinions, I thought everyone seems to be missing the real event that happened. At least the real political event in my view.

Remember this one; the thing that Pres. Bush did that guaranteed my support of him 'forever' was his decission to go to war and then sticking to it without worrying about the political fallout. Another words he said we are going to war and he did it, even in the face of devasting political consequences. With that action he became MY President! I may even have to write him in in the next election!!!

How does this relate to Rummy, very similarily in my eyes. There were alot of calls for the firing of Rummy before the election. But did MY President buckle under pressure? NO! If he were Clinton or maybe even Bush Sr., Rummy would have been out the door as soon as he became political baggage. That is why I like Bush. He did not play the political card and fire Rummy to gain Republican votes. You gotta love that about him.

As for Rummy, I like him-albeit it in that Cold War nostaliga way. But I do over all like him, he has served his nation and her citizens well. That being said I do believe that it was time for him to go. My reasons are probally not the same as others calling for his resignation, I think the politics so marred him as to make it impossible for him to do anything effective. The general public does not see and therefore is not always aware of the behind the sences restrictions and power strugles that go back and forth between Capital Hill and the Pentagon.Hello, Congress-you are to give the military a mission and then let them plan, execute and complete the mission. It is called delegation of authority--here's an example that you might be able to relate to, or at least comprehend; a pipe in your house breaks, causing a flood, what do you do? You call the plumber and have him come and fix it, and if you are smart and do not want to pay double for his services you stay out of his way and let him do the job.

Congress has become so populated with egomaniacs that they do not know when to stop. Here's one for you, Congress; If you approved these Generals and Civilian Leaders and you are the experts in what we need, then why tell them how to do their job? If they were not the best qualified for the positions, why did you approve their appointments?

So either you were right and you need to leave them alone to do their jobs; or you were wrong and we need new members in Congress, because you are not qualified to determine the capabilities of the military leaders that you have approved. So which is it?