I don’t think this one needs a punchline.

rob

A couple of weeks ago, I stumbled upon a young conservative blogger from Washington state. Literally, his blog is called “The Young Conservative” and comes complete with proud photographic homage to Reagan and Bush-current. As you might have expected, I quickly found a post that dropped my jaw. So, I decided to leave a comment or two…or twelve. For 4-5 days we went back and forth on everything from Social Security reform (the primary discussion) to Ann Coulter being a nutcase (the only thing we agreed on).

It is really a fun read if you’ve got a few minutes. And if you only have 30 seconds, the comment posted by RightWingRocker is the most awesome comment I’ve ever read. And in my response I managed to nail Sean Hannity and Time magazine covergirl Ann Coulter.

One interesting thing I took away from the exchange is that I am in favor of private accounts in which Americans invest a portion of their earnings in the stock market. Where we fundamentally differed in the argument was the fact that I don’t think you need to carve those accounts out of Social Security and erode the principle of the program, which is security. I think every American should have a private investment account (are there public investment accounts?). It would make a nice add-on to Social Security (add-on, not carve-out). Surely Mr. Bush wouldn’t have a problem providing a tax-free way for Americans who currently pay into the Social Security program to contribute–at their own disgression–to an investment account that they could one day pull money from in addition to their Social Security benefit. Makes sense to me, but remember, I’m just an idiot.

rob

I don’t mean to editorialize so much, but this has been nagging me.

Since the reelection of the Bush doctrine, many of his cabinet secretaries have departed for the highly desired “time with family” or the more likely “high-paying corporate position.” It is not unusual for a cabinet member to leave after one term. What strikes me about these departures is not how many, but who. Specifically one person.

Rumsfeld.

Can you name a Bush cabinet member who has done a worse job? From institutionalized torture at Abu-Grahib and Guantanomo to insufficient troop numbers and lack of post-war strategy in Iraq, Rumsfeld has been nothing if not incompetent and out of touch with reality. Yet he stays. Why?

Of course there is the usual argument against a changing of the guard during a war. But with this administration, you have to assume arrogance plays a larger role.

If Rumsfeld left, that could be interpreted as an admission of mistakes in the Bush administration during first term concerning its combative foreign policy. Plus, many of us who opposed the war in Iraq might feel vindicated by Rummy’s departure.

Not going to happen. Nope. This administration will never admit that maybe the Iraq debacle was a bad idea. No admission that things were mismanaged or ill-planned. From the first debate between Bush and Kerry, we are all aware that Iraq is-by Bush’s own words-”tough work,” which is, by any account, insulting to anyone above a 2nd grade education in its oversimplification of 1,100 troop deaths and potentially a decades-long military presence.

Rumsfeld will stay because he was pushing for Iraq from day one of the Bush presidency and got his wish. Regardless of how he got the war or ran the war, he gets to stay, and we get to continue to pay for it.

Can’t wait for the sequel.

By the way, Iraq and Rummy go back a long way, into the 80′s when Rummy was telling them not to worry about using chemical weapons on Iran. Declassified government memos are available here.

rob