The Weekly Standard dumps on Rumsfeld thus:
For years, Rumsfeld pursued his own agenda in Iraq. He denied things were getting worse. He ignored calls for more troops and dismissed those critical of his conduct of the war. Rumsfeld now suggests that the US “go minimalist” in Iraq. Unfortunately for the president, his defense secretary has followed a “minimalist” approach in Iraq since March 2003. And here we are.
Sounds like me, doesn’t it? With the obvious exception that, er, how do I put this so the good folks at the Weekly Standard can get it into their skulls?
Rumsfeld offered to resign three times three years ago.
The president refused. Where we are is not Rumsfeld’s responsibility. It’s Bush’s. He’s the president. It’s been his non-strategy all along. And yet the WS did nothing but back him, lionize him and enable him. Do they really think that if the GOP had won the last election, Bush would be pouring more troops into Iraq, as they and I would have liked three years ago? Or have they really lost their minds?
The Dish 