Saturday, November 04, 2006

Putz doesn't "know what to make" of criticism of Rumsfeld.

I didn't think it was possible, but Putz's head might actually be further up his ass than previously thought. (Updated below).
NOBODY LOVES DONALD: Or at least, there's a sudden wave of anti-Rumsfeld sentiment from people who have been supportive in the past. Jules Crittenden called for Rumsfeld's resignation earlier this week (he also wants Cheney to resign and be replaced by Condi); on Tuesday the four military papers (Army Times, Navy Times, etc.) will call for Rumsfeld to be replaced, and it's hard to avoid a sense that the buzzards are circling. On the other hand, this December Vanity Fair article -- conveniently made available just before the election -- suggests that the issue isn't so much Rumsfeld as President Bush, though the critics, especially Ken Adelman, get in plenty of swipes at Rumsfeld, too.

It's hard to know what to make of this. Rumsfeld's a polarizing figure, and antiwar people have been talking smack about him for so long that legitimate criticism tends to get lost in the fog of politics. But this critique of Rumsfeld's management style from Michael Ledeen is more troubling, because it's specific.

Putz only now notices that there are knowledgeable people critical of Rumsfeld? He thinks only now there's a "sudden wave" of Rumsfeld criticism?

Is he serious?

Anyone remember those 8 generals who called for Rumsfeld's dismissal? Were they anti-war smack talkers? At the time, Putz deemed those generals "gutless"and George Djerejian said he "pissed on" them.

Look at this post from last April, when it was clear to everyone that Iraq was spiraling out of control, in which Putz shrugs off the generals' criticisms as nothing more than cowardly self-promotion.

If things were so bad before, they [the generals] should have resigned in protest instead of complaining publicly once they were safely in retirement and, in some cases, had books to promote.
How disgusting, as George Djerejian wrote at the time. Putz ends an already shameless post with this turd:
There are a lot of generals out there, after all.
To express surprise and befuddlement now that all four military newspapers and the neoconservative architects of the war are calling for Rumsfeld's ouster -- after 8 generals and a scores of Republican lawmakers and conservative pundits have been doing so for many months -- is nothing short of astonishing.

There's really no other way to say this: Putz is nuts.


This should give you an idea of Putz's clueless readership, from which he plucks this gem, and responds below.

That's why we are lucky to have him [Rumsfeld], and that's why everyone hates him, because in the end Rumsfeld will be remembered as the greatest change agent of all time.

I certainly hope so.

Keep hoping, Putz. Keep hoping.

Geez, these people checked out a long, long time ago and aren't coming back.


Charles Giacometti said...

You are right; he is nuts. I have often thought this, but his bizarro justification of voting for Corker (because the Democrats play politics with homosexuality) sealed it for me. No sentient being can come up with the things Instarube does unless he is (1) completely ignorant, (2) lying, or (3) crazy.

I don't like to think people are lying, and he seems to have some GED-level knowledge, so crazy it is.

Charles Giacometti said...

By the way, the quickest Google news archive search finds bipartisan of criticism of Rumsfeld going all the way back to September of 2003.

Blue Texan said...

Good post, Max. But one minor correction: it wasn't actual Democrats' behavior that Putz was really objecting to. It was some obscure blogger in Idaho that he held all Democrats responsible for.

Either way, he's still nuts.

Anonymous said...

But putz did find a solution to his noisy coffee grinder, thanks to fellow nutjob Lileks. I hope a future post will address the issue of the noisy power drills that the Iraqis use on each others heads, not to mention how to keep the victim from screaming while you are drilling.