In an op-ed article yesterday in the LA Times, "Democrats: Get loud, get angry!," Morton Abramowitz and Samantha Power bring up an interesting proposition--a resolution to censure Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld.
Yes, I know various Dems have called for Rumfeld's resignation, and it's not gotten much traction. They should continue to push for resignation, but a censure resolution would present a new tactic, one that would re-light the candle at an opportune moment, as military opposition to Rumsfeld is mounting and the situation in Iraq is rapidly deteriorating. Censure may well lead to resignation. If officially censured by Congress, Bush might be compelled to ask for resignation or Rumsfeld to offer it. It seems like a winning strategy for the Dems.
First, this would intensify the spotlight on Rumsfeld and his incompetency in managing the war in Afghanistan and Iraq (not to mention any future military actions, think Iran!). His actions would be brought under further scrutiny, bringing attention to the numerous retired military leaders who have discredited or disavowed Rumsfeld and his policies. Their voices have been all but ignored, but this action would bring them to the forefront collectively.
Second, it would further define Dems as the party that cares about the troops and the war as a whole. Dems are willing to take steps to place our troops and those in charge of actually determining and executing military actions into the hands of capable leadership. Our troops are giving their lives--the least we can do is provide the best possible leaders.
Third, it would heighten the realization that Bush, and the Repubs as a whole, have been unwilling to cope with changing the course of a failed action. As reflected in the polls, the whole nation has become increasingly aware that this war has been a loosing effort, along with a terrible plunder of lives and money. Yet the Repubs, who have been in control of Congress, have allowed this president to continue on, unchecked, unchallenged. The Dems are willing to stand up to this. The Repub Congress has been ineffective.
Fourth, this would force Repubs in Congress to take a public stand. Are they going to continue to blindly support a President, a Commander in Chief, who has lost the confidence of the American public? He leaves Rumsfeld in office, despite his failures. This would be a defining moment for each elected member of Congress. If they don't support censure, they're giving Bush a blank check to continue allowing this war to be run by one who has demonstrated his inability, from the initial planning to the current execution of this military action. If the Repubs refuse to censure, their party as a whole is labeled as a rubber stamp for a discredited leader (both Rumsfeld and Bush). If the Repubs endorse censure, it will be at the Dems' leadership. The public will see what they'll be getting if they vote Dems into office. (The Dems will not be discredited by proposing this resolution, as Rumsfeld is almost universally considered to be incompetent. Dems are facing reality, Repubs are in denial.)
Fifth, the whole effort will further discredit the Bush Administration. If Bush continues to strongly defend Rumsfeld, it will only heighten public awareness that he cannot manage a crisis--incapable of comprehending complex situations and making competent appointments--"You're doing a great job, Brownie!"--one of many examples of Bush's poor judgment in making appointments--and his failure to remove them before the disaster is full blown.
I don't see the downside of this. It would take a unified stand on the part of the Dems (yeh, well, there's always "Trader Joe" Lieberman, but this might be a defining moment for him, too). This would be a chance for the Dems to let the public know where they stand. How the Dems would run the show if they were in charge--they would not condone incompetence when so much hangs in the balance. They would take action. If the resolution passes, it will be under Dem leadership. If the resolution fails, the Repubs will be linked with endorsing the continuance of a blundering leader determining our military policy.
The Dems need to capture the public in order to capture the vote in 06 and 08. If they have not been able to get together and take a unified stand against the war, they should be able to stand up (yes, a UNIFIED STAND) to demand competent management for our military. The only downside I can see is a claim that you don't want to question the leadership at a time of war. But I don't see this holding much water at this time because the public is very dissatisfied with the way this war has been going, and Rumsfeld is a major figure responsible for the failure. (We know Bush is at the top, and his turn will come soon, I hope. But this is just one step toward getting rid of all of them.)