Biking with Rumsfeld

Last week, someone slipped New York Times reporters Michael R. Gordon and David S. Cloud the secret memo finished by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld just two days before he "resigned." It was the last in a flurry of famed Rumsfeldian "snowflakes" that have fluttered down upon the Pentagon these past years. This one, though, was "submitted" to the White House and clearly meant for the President's eyes. In it, the Secretary of Defense offered a veritable laundry list of possible policy adjustments in Iraq, adding up to what, according to Gordon and Cloud, is both an acknowledgement of failure and "a major course correction."

Think of this last zany, only semi-coherent Rumsfeldian document--part of Washington's grim ongoing silly season over Iraq--as Rumsfeld's last stand. In it, he quite literally cycles (as in bicycles) back to the origins of the Bush administration's shredded Iraq policy. It is, in a pathetic sense, that policy stripped bare.

Here are just three last-stand aspects of the memo that have been largely or totally overlooked in most reporting:

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

From the early, carefree, "stuff happens" period of the occupation comes the wonderfully patronizing image embedded in this mixed metaphor of a passage--though I suppose Iraqis perched on bike seats could indeed have crumpled socks. The image of the Iraqi (child) learning how to ride the bike of democracy--or whatever--with the American (parent) looming behind, hand steadying the seat, was already not just a neocolonial, but a neocon classic by the time the President used it back in May 2004. (In fact, in an even more infantilizing fashion, he spoke of taking the "training wheels" off the Iraqi bike.)

Many others in the administration proudly used it as well. Rumsfeld in his rococo fashion elaborated wildly on the image in a speech to U.S. troops that same year:

"Getting Iraq straightened out… was like teaching a kid to ride a bike: ‘They're learning, and you're running down the street holding on to the back of the seat. You know that if you take your hand off they could fall, so you take a finger off and then two fingers, and pretty soon you're just barely touching it. You can't know when you're running down the street how many steps you're going to have to take. We can't know that, but we're off to a good start.'"

And now, long after kids stopped riding bikes in Iraq and started ending up dead in ditches, our nearly former Defense Secretary just couldn't help cycling back to the good old days.

2. "Conduct an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases. We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007."

Talk about cycling back to the beginning, Rumsfeld's "major course correction" takes us right to the original basing plans the Pentagon had on entering Iraq. As the New York Times reported in a front-page piece on April 19, 2003 (and then no one, including reporters at the Times, paid much attention to again), the Pentagon entered Iraq with plans already on the drawing board to build four major bases well beyond urban areas. These were to be permanent in all but name and, from them, the Bush administration planned to nail down the oil heartlands of the planet (while making up for the loss--thanks to Osama bin Laden's efforts--of our bases in Saudi Arabia).

Now, here we are, over three and a half catastrophic years later, back to those four bases (built to the tune of multibillions of American taxpayer dollars) plus one--undoubtedly the former Camp Victory, the huge American base that grew up on the edge of Baghdad International Airport (as well, of course, as the new, almost finished billion-dollar U.S. embassy with its "staff" of thousands inside Baghdad's Green Zone).

3. "Aggressively beef up the Iraqi MOD [Ministry of Defense] and MOI [Ministry of the Interior], and other Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces]--the Iraqi Ministries of Finance, Planning, Health, Criminal Justice, Prisons, etc.--by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve/National Guard volunteers (i.e., give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it.)"

This mad suggestion, hardly noticed by anyone, cycles us back to the attitude with which Bush & Co. first entered Iraq. Iraqi sovereignty? Who ever heard of it? Just do what you want. Flood any ministry with a bunch of U.S. military retirees, all of whom can have their heavy hands on untold Iraqi bureaucratic bike seats. This is an idea just about as brilliant as every other one initiated by this administration in Iraq.

And why do I have a sneaking suspicion that all those "U.S. military retirees" and other "volunteers" might just not rush to offer their services to Iraq's death-squad infiltrated Ministries of the Interior and Defense? If you biked around that corner without those training wheels--and some body armor--I suspect you'd be likely to find yourself in the Baghdad morgue in no time at all.

In this way was Rumsfeld's last stand remarkably like his first pedal. If only, after September 11, 2001, someone had left the training wheels on when the Bush administration went pedaling off on its merry, shock-and-awe way.

Comments (18)

1. If I'm reading it right....

   Isn't Rumsfeld basically calling for ...withdrawal by 2007?

   Posted by Mask at 12/05/2006 @ 08:33am

2. Some wording on that might lean a bit towards no, if I can interpret it in a way that I think they're used to writing.

   To me it sounds like Rumsfeld was calling for a scaling down of US bases, perhaps down to the last 5 which would be permanent, but that wasn't stated. What also wasn't stated was whether he was calling for a proportional withdrawl of US troops or not. It's possible it was suggesting scaling US bases down by 95%, but troops by a much smaller amount. Smaller visual footprint I suppose if you don't see so many US bases of operation, even if there are more soldiers per base.

   Posted by Tsuki at 12/05/2006 @ 08:49am

3. Looking at two items (less Mr Engelhardt's commentary) from Rumsfeld--

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

   2. "Conduct an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases. We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007."

   Sorry, but doesn't that sound an AWFUL lot like the "Murtha-lite" plans being floated by the Democrats.

   Almost nobody in power in DC (Dem or Repub) is calling for quick, massive "strategic deployment". Most are calling for "modest withdrawals" and "draw-downs" of American bases in Iraq.

   Just throwing this out, but ...could Rumsfeld have been FIRED because he was trying to pull a "McNamara redemption" and be the first in the Administration to call for withdrawal and the end to "stay the course"?

   I know it doesn't fit the "template" of Rumsfeld as part of the "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld stay to the bitter end, even if Dems win the Congress" triumvirate....and maybe because what's apparently in this memo is breaking with that template, that's the reason that it SEEMS as if Mr Engelhardt is snarkily COMPLAINING....about Rumsfeld promoting, what most Democrats are promoting!

   Posted by Mask at 12/05/2006 @ 08:57am

4. But, Rumsfeld was whistling to the wind. Nobody seems to have paid any attention to this cut and run plan. If only there had been planning BEFORE the invasion. Other than on the PR front.

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/05/2006 @ 10:04am

5. There are still questions posed at "Pinochet Death Watch", for those interested.

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/05/2006 @ 10:19am

6. The Army and Marine Corps have sunk more than 40 percent of their ground combat equipment into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to government data. An estimated $17 billion-plus worth of military equipment is destroyed or worn out each year, blasted by bombs, ground down by desert sand and used up to nine times the rate in times of peace. The gear is piling up at depots such as Anniston, waiting to be repaired.-WP 12/5/06 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR200612 0401347.html?nav=rss_print/asection

   Posted by crabwalk at 12/05/2006 @ 10:43am

7. Posted by CRABWALK 12/05/2006 @ 10:43am

   So, uh CRAB...doesn't that mean that all that equipment is going to need to be REPLACED?

   But...wait...Dems will HAVE TO cut defense spending to get their numbers to "add up" on their new claim at fiscal responsibility.

   So....that 40% of equipment won't get replaced, will it?

   Posted by Mask at 12/05/2006 @ 10:45am

8. Posted by MASK 12/05/2006 @ 08:57am

   I'll get to your other comments below Mask, but the answer to the question in your first post is "no", at least if your looking at what Rumsfeld calls "above the line" options in the full memo. He does mention the idea of withdrawal as part of the "below the line (less attractive options)" section at the end of the memo, but this is clearly meant as an adjunct to the real proposals "above the line". So no, there's no possibility that Rumsfeld is seriously calling for withdrawal or bucking the BushCo party line with this rather daft piece of strategic hashery.

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

   2. "Conduct an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases. We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007."

   Sorry, but doesn't that sound an AWFUL lot like the "Murtha-lite" plans being floated by the Democrats.

   By some Democrats maybe, but not by most who's ideas I've seen. The serious plans on the table (Murtha's own, Sestak's, etc.) all call for a complete or near complete withdrawal. I think you must be confusing the leaked ISG position with that of most Democrats.

   Almost nobody in power in DC (Dem or Repub) is calling for quick, massive "strategic deployment". Most are calling for "modest withdrawals" and "draw-downs" of American bases in Iraq.

   If by that you mean the leaderships, then yes, because they're not calling for anything specific at this point. Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders are waiting to see whatthey're going to have to work with and not tipping their hand before they actually have the reins of power. If you mean all Democrats in the new Congress, I've already posted links to Sestak's plan which clearly does call for a complete redeployment by the end of 2007 (and remember, this is the guy who just retired as the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, the Navy's number two man.) Plenty of other Democrats are also of like mind (Jerry McNerney, just elected over Pombo in CA-11 springs to mind) as is a majority of the American public in poll after poll (and yes, those are real ones Mask.)

   Just throwing this out, but ...could Rumsfeld have been FIRED because he was trying to pull a "McNamara redemption" and be the first in the Administration to call for withdrawal and the end to "stay the course"?

   This memo is no "McNamara redemption", no matter how you try to read it. It's much more in the throwback vein that Engelhardt suggests. Almost all of the "above the line" options are predicated on very large U.S. forces remaining in Iraq for the indefinate future, some of them even for much larger forces than are currently deployed (though where exactly Rumsfeld thinks those are going to come from is understandably a bit obscure.) As I said above, there is nothing here that could have gotten Rumsfeld fired by BushCo, rather this is a restatement of their currect position of "adjusting direction" and presents only a fuller picture of exactly what that entails (i.e., nothing that would even remotely satisfy the majority of the American public or that has a snowball's chance in hell of actually working.)

   I know it doesn't fit the "template" of Rumsfeld as part of the "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld stay to the bitter end, even if Dems win the Congress" triumvirate....and maybe because what's apparently in this memo is breaking with that template, that's the reason that it SEEMS as if Mr Engelhardt is snarkily COMPLAINING....about Rumsfeld promoting, what most Democrats are promoting!

   It fits the template perfectly. Rumsfeld is simply the second BushCo official to fall on his sword for the boy-emperor. He was "fired" (resigned willingly) to appease the new Democratic Congress and attempt to deflect them from investigation and substantial action before BushCo's term is up. But make no mistake, this memo shows the real intentions here; to obfuscate on what the "course corrections" will be, to continue on the BushCo path of build up and permanent presence in Iraq, and to try to keep the Democratic Congress in check and undecided as long as possible (preferably into the 2008 election season.)

   As far as Tom Engelhardt and what you imply, you're talking nonsense. What Engelhardt is calling into question is the throwback nature of Rumsfeld's "above the line" ideas, all of which show no particular cognizance of the actual situation on the ground in Iraq. He's accusing Rumsfeld of living in BushCo fantasy-land (sort of like Disneyland, but with more explosions) and focusing on the same old goals without any realization that those goals are now essentially moot. Thus his attack on the ridiculousness of the bicycle metaphor and the way in which it demonstrates how none of the BushCo functionaries (much less Georgie-boy himself) have come to grips with reality.

   Posted by Stwriley at 12/05/2006 @ 12:40pm

9. Posted by STWRILEY 12/05/2006 @ 12:40am

   Couple of points...

   "By some Democrats maybe, but not by most who's ideas I've seen. The serious plans on the table (Murtha's own, Sestak's, etc.) all call for a complete or near complete withdrawal. I think you must be confusing the leaked ISG position with that of most Democrats."

   how is THAT resolved with this from you as well???

   "If by that you mean the leaderships, then yes, because they're not calling for anything specific at this point. Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders are waiting to see"

   "Most Democrats" have serious plans on the table...but Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders are "waiting to see"?

   So how are they not "tipping their hand" if YOU (and I presume others) have knowledge of their "serious plans"?

   Second...If Rumsfeld has BOTH "above the line" ("stay the course" nonsense) ideas AND "below the line" (withdrawal) ideas in his memo....how does that mean he is ONLY endorsing the "above the line" ones? If so, wouldn't he have LEFT OUT the "below the line" ones...or said explicitly that they were "completely undesired or impossible".

   Again, all I'm doing is reading what was in the memo as quoted by Mr Engelhardt. He's mocking it with his "bicycle" joke. But it seems as if Rumsfeld WAS laying out some "options" for withdrawal, which (despite your claims for them) seem in conjunction with many things SAID by key Democrats.

   Posted by Mask at 12/05/2006 @ 12:51pm

10. Posted by MASK 12/05/2006 @ 10:45am

    So, uh CRAB...doesn't that mean that all that equipment is going to need to be REPLACED?

    But...wait...Dems will HAVE TO cut defense spending to get their numbers to "add up" on their new claim at fiscal responsibility.

    So....that 40% of equipment won't get replaced, will it?

    The equipment replacement costs are a drop in the bucket to the current military budget, Mask. You could do the whole thing with only nine week's redirected spending from the Iraq war (at the rough consensus spending level of $2 billion per week) and still have a cool billion left over. Of course the equipment will be replaced, though some of it should not be. Ineffective equipment (unarmored Humvees and trucks, for instance) would be better of on the scrap pile. Besides, the one thing the military will not be abandoning at this point is "transformation" and that means replacement of equipment in any case. The real budget-buster is staying in Iraq, not fixing the military's broken toys after we get out.

    Posted by Stwriley at 12/05/2006 @ 12:56pm

11. Posted by STWRILEY 12/05/2006 @ 12:56am

    Wasnt my full point to CRAB, ST (BTW, is a response coming to my post to YOU???)

    My point was on the Democrats claim to fiscal responsibility....AND no massive tax hikes...AND a bold new expensive domstic agenda.

    Getting out of Iraq DOES save us some money, but not enough to pay for EVERYTHING....from more money for health, education, infrastructure, "Apollo Programs for alternatives" AND replacing all that equipment.

    Something's gotta give....either the budget, taxes, defense, or the Dems veracity on being "fiscally responsible".

    Posted by Mask at 12/05/2006 @ 1:45pm

12. Posted by MASK 12/05/2006 @ 12:51am

    how is THAT resolved with this from you as well???

    and

    "Most Democrats" have serious plans on the table...but Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders are "waiting to see"?

    So how are they not "tipping their hand" if YOU (and I presume others) have knowledge of their "serious plans"?

    Having trouble reading today, Mask? No contradiction at all. You were the one claiming that "the Democrats" are backing "Murtha-lite" and I was pointing out both that the leadership isn't backing much of anything yet and that those Democrats who have put forward plans mostly haven't been falling into line with what you suggest. The critical line that you quote but overlook is "but not by most who's ideas I've seen", and then I go on to note specific examples (Sestak and McNerney.) I never said anything about what "most Democrats" have proposed, because a great many have not proposed anything and also are not part of the leadership. That makes these clearly non-contradictory statements. As far as "tipping their hand", the proposals I mentioned specifically are from new members and not from the leadership, so that is a statement that clearly does not apply to what I was talking about. The plans by Sestak and McNerney have been public since before the midterms, as has Murtha's, and that hardly constitutes any kind of tip-off when it comes to the leadership and their thinking. You can try to play the obfuscation game with me Mask, but it won't work. I can word-fence with the best and seldom leave an obvious opening for your typical tricks. This one was so easily dispensed with, you should have been ashamed to even write it.

    Second...If Rumsfeld has BOTH "above the line" ("stay the course" nonsense) ideas AND "below the line" (withdrawal) ideas in his memo....how does that mean he is ONLY endorsing the "above the line" ones? If so, wouldn't he have LEFT OUT the "below the line" ones...or said explicitly that they were "completely undesired or impossible".

    Again, all I'm doing is reading what was in the memo as quoted by Mr Engelhardt. He's mocking it with his "bicycle" joke. But it seems as if Rumsfeld WAS laying out some "options" for withdrawal, which (despite your claims for them) seem in conjunction with many things SAID by key Democrats.

    You could actually follow the link Engelhardt provides and read the memo Mask. Then you would see that as it is structured by Rumsfeld it is intended to give what he sees as the fullest possible range of options that might be considered, with extremely heavy emphasis on the "above the line" set, which is roughly 85% of the memo (657 of 743 words, to be exact.) This is typical of this kind of memo, since it is not presenting a preferred policy alone, but all possible options for a superior with emphasis to indicate which are preferred and which might come up but are not within the preferred set. It reads like many another memo of this kind that I have seen from U.S. officials going back to the beginning of our government. Rumsfeld makes quite clear (in this typical bureaucratic-speak form) that the "below the line" options are not what he recommends but are things that might come up (and the Georgie-boy must therefore be ready to deal with); again, very typical of this kind of document where these things would not be left out because to do so would expose the superior to the possibility of being sandbagged by something the writer didn't cover. It's in the best tradition of CYA.

    If you had read the memo you would have seen that only one of the "below the line" options deals with withdrawal at all, while the other five do not, and the one that does is an obvious reference to a more direct withdrawal plan than your "Murtha-lite" idea:

    (from the original memo [nytimes.com]) Set a firm withdrawal date to leave. Declare that with Saddam gone and Iraq a sovereign nation, the Iraqi people can govern themselves. Tell Iran and Syria to stay out.

    None of the "above the line" options has any significant withdrawal attached and only one (the first one you quote from Engelhardt's article) mentions withdrawal from Iraq at all. You can quibble over the meaning of "modest withdrawal" all you want, but what is being proposed is clearly not Murtha's plan. It is much more like, as I pointed out previously, the ISG plan that has been leaked wherein at least half of the current force remains in Iraq. So no, this is not in tune with what the Democratic leadership has been saying. This is the same form of BushCo "change" that we've seen before, appearance without substance. It is not what I was discussing nor what those Democrats I cited (or even a majority of Democrats) are likely to agree to. Your point fails to pass the test Mask. The only one I see pushing "Murtha-lite" is you.

    Posted by Stwriley at 12/05/2006 @ 1:50pm

13. Posted by MASK 12/05/2006 @ 1:45pm

    It will be taxes that give, of course. Many Democrats were explictly elected with the campaign issue of revisiting taxation. They'll get around the "massive tax hike" charge by the simplest of means, they'll let the BushCo tax cuts expire naturally (as many are about to do) and then state that they have not raised taxes at all. I know that that's semantics, but it's effective semantics and it brings a fair chunk of change back into the Treasury. They're also after other tax provisions whose repeal will be very popular (such as the tax breaks to oil companies) that will also help with fiscal balancing. They'll manage a fair percentage of new programs while still being fiscally responsible. And yes, defense cuts will be in there, but not on the wasted equipment from Iraq, which is largely that lower-end equipment used by the ground forces in low-scale combat. Where they'll cut is in high-end programs with big price tags and no obvious use. More cost savings and a defensible election point to boot, since eliminating boondoggles can always be sold to the public.

    Posted by Stwriley at 12/05/2006 @ 2:03pm

14. "that as it is structured by Rumsfeld it is intended to give what he sees as the fullest possible range of options that might be considered, with extremely heavy emphasis on the "above the line" set,"

    Posted by STWRILEY 12/05/2006 @ 1:50pm

    FULLEST possible range, including the "under the line" item, huh?

    Odd thing for a warmongering imperialist neo-con to do, isn't it?

    I mean even if he included withdrawal, shouldn't he have DENOUNCED it as totally flawed and leading to absolute disaster at home and abroad.....did he?

    Let's quote the WHOLE "below the line" options-

    Below the Line (less attractive options):

    ¶Continue on the current path.

    ¶Move a large fraction of all U.S. Forces into Baghdad to attempt to control it.

    ¶Increase Brigade Combat Teams and U.S. forces in Iraq substantially.

    ¶Set a firm withdrawal date to leave. Declare that with Saddam gone and Iraq a sovereign nation, the Iraqi people can govern themselves. Tell Iran and Syria to stay out.

    ¶Assist in accelerating an aggressive federalism plan, moving towards three separate states -- Sunni, Shia, and Kurd.

    ¶Try a Dayton-like process.

    Again...so ODD, why is this neo-con offering ANY "below the line" options?

    Posted by Mask at 12/05/2006 @ 3:25pm

15. Posted by STWRILEY 12/05/2006 @ 2:03pm

    Sorry STW....the numbers don't add up.

    Expired Bush tax cuts, plus SOME kind of Iraq pull out (after they "get the reigns of power and tip their hands" of course), and a POSSIBLE hit on Big Oil....on the plus column...

    doesn't come back to balance when on the negative column you've got TWELVE YEARS of "pay-back" due to the Democratic Party coalitions and special interests....plus new health care, education, infrastruture, "Apollo energy alternative programs", more Homeland Security at ports and borders, plain ol' pork (no, that's not "going away"), etc., etc., etc.

    Defense cuts?....Love to see them TRY. It'll play great to bringing BACK the stereotype (maybe not one) of "Dems soft on defense". They were even arguing FOR a Ballistic Missile Defense a few weeks before the election when North Korea was "acting up"....how the hell are they going to CUT defense???

    And I'm pretty dubious about it being taxes. Same principle "Tax and spend" attacks still WORSE than "borrow and spend" attacks no matter how they were tried in the last 12 years.

    My bet? The "fiscal responsibility" thing is what gets junked.

    Oh, deficit down to $200-250 Billion (from 330B), but nothing much more until 2009. And they'll claim "it's a start", start working on some "secret taxes", but anything close to "balance"?...not for years.

    Too many IOUs to be paid off since 1994!

    Posted by Mask at 12/05/2006 @ 3:33pm

16. Posted by MASK 12/05/2006 @ 3:25pm

    "that as it is structured by Rumsfeld it is intended to give what he sees as the fullest possible range of options that might be considered, with extremely heavy emphasis on the "above the line" set,"

    Posted by STWRILEY 12/05/2006 @ 1:50pm

    FULLEST possible range, including the "under the line" item, huh?

    Odd thing for a warmongering imperialist neo-con to do, isn't it?

    I mean even if he included withdrawal, shouldn't he have DENOUNCED it as totally flawed and leading to absolute disaster at home and abroad.....did he?

    Let's quote the WHOLE "below the line" options-

    (Cut out as irrelevant to the question at hand.)

    Again...so ODD, why is this neo-con offering ANY "below the line" options?

    Just going to ignore the rest of that paragraph where I actually elaborate on why Rumsfeld would do exactly as he did, are you Mask? Here's the rest of it again for you, read carefully:

    "This is typical of this kind of memo, since it is not presenting a preferred policy alone, but all possible options for a superior with emphasis to indicate which are preferred and which might come up but are not within the preferred set. It reads like many another memo of this kind that I have seen from U.S. officials going back to the beginning of our government. Rumsfeld makes quite clear (in this typical bureaucratic-speak form) that the "below the line" options are not what he recommends but are things that might come up (and the Georgie-boy must therefore be ready to deal with); again, very typical of this kind of document where these things would not be left out because to do so would expose the superior to the possibility of being sandbagged by something the writer didn't cover. It's in the best tradition of CYA."

    I'll add just this; remember that this was a secret memo for internal consumption (i.e., to Georgie-boy himself), so the typical public denunciations simply don't apply. It is designed to prepare BushCo for all the options they may face, whether implimented by themselves (the preferred "above the line" options) or coming from the outside (the not preferred "below the line" options.) So no, not odd at all that Rumsfeld would come up with these in a secret memo to his boss. It's only odd to you Mask, because you want to imply that this makes Rumsfeld an advocate of the same things that the Democrats are advocating. But he isn't and this document does not show him to be, no matter how you try to spin it.

    Posted by Stwriley at 12/05/2006 @ 5:15pm

17. Posted by MASK 12/05/2006 @ 3:33pm

    Sorry STW....the numbers don't add up.

    Numbers not adding up? You don't have anything like workable numbers, nor do I. That was never the question. I was talking general policy options that could produce new tax revenue without the political problems of instituting "tax hikes" and gave the opinion that we'll see much more on the tax front than anything else. The Democrats have figured out that as long as you can look like you're watching out for Joe and Jane six-pack's tax bill, the general public won't care a fig what you do to those who make more, especially if you're not talking about individuals (though even rich individual don't get much sympathy). Corporate tax rates, for instance, will probably go back up under this Congress and that won't hurt them a bit in 2008. They'll be much more keen to keep at least looking like they're being fiscally responsible because that could hurt them. That's where I see the policy side coming down and why I don't think they'll have much problem making numbers add up when push comes to budgetary shove.

    Posted by Stwriley at 12/05/2006 @ 5:25pm

18. What a disgrace for America! Rumsfeld and the whole neocon team. Destroying a beautiful nation and murdering over 650,000 innocent Iraqis. What a mess they have made of Iraq. Shame on the lot of them, from Paul Bremer to George Bush. The Nazis may have been a disgrace for the Germans but the neocons are no better.

    Posted by Macreb at 12/06/2006 @ 07:05am