I’m still blogging about the revolt of the rocking chair generals. Last night I attempted a WuzzaDem takedown of one of the generals but deleted it because it was just lame. That a half dozen generals are calling for the Secretary of Defense’ resignation in a time of war deserves a more serious response.

It’s been utterly disheartening to watch generals in the United States Military ratting-out Donald Rumsfeld in the media like scorned bimbos on the Jerry Stringer Show. It wasn’t surprising that the media eagerly latched onto these generals, treating them as if they had something important to say because that is the agenda of the MSM. Anything to hurt Bush.

It’s just more evidence that the United States media couldn’t care less about our military victory in Iraq. But what is really depressing is that the generals themselves are obviously enjoying it. Are they creating a new career path for themselves and other top-ranking officers in the military? Is it even lawful? I don’t think it’s moral. Why are these generals demanding the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld? My initial reaction was that it’s political and Donald Rumsfeld is not the man they are after. It’s President Bush. That’s still my opinion.

Harry Reid’s been crowing about having a big crop of veterans of the War in Iraq run for office as Democrats. It would be naive not to consider whether these six generals haven’t flirted with that option.

It is heartbreaking that one particular general among the half dozen generals is one we would have expected a little more of but we obviously don’t know him anymore. Or, as another friend has stated, he has reverted to type.

Tony Blankley has been thinking about this Seven Days in April Revolt and has a brilliant, must read article at Real Clear Politics. Hat tip: Powerline
Here’s a bit of it…….

This may sound far-fetched, but in Sunday’s Washington Post the very smart, very well-connected former Clinton Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke published an article entitled “Behind the Military Revolt.” In this article he predicts that there will be increasing numbers of retired generals speaking out against Sec. Rumsfeld. Then, shockingly, he writes the following words: “If more angry generals emerge — and they will — if some of them are on active duty, as seems probable . . . then this storm will continue until finally it consumes not only Donald Rumsfeld.”

Judith Apter Klinghoffer’s thoughts about the revolt are quite astute. Hat tip: Betsy’s Page

To hear two and three star generals whine that Rumsfeld is too intimidating causes one to ask who else can so easily intimidate them? Are we talking perhaps of the insurgents, Ahmadinejad, Assad Fils, the North Korean or China? Imagine being a soldier who has served under the command of so easily intimidated a general.

If these revolting (in more ways than one) generals were fearful of confronting the powers that be in my opinion it was for one reason only: to preserve their own careers.

And what would happen if President Bush actually fired Donald Rumsfeld? John Podhoretz writes (very convincingly) that we would lose Iraq.

Imagine the aftermath of a Rumsfeld firing: The presumption in the press and from gleeful Democrats would be that Bush was effectively acknowledging that the military campaign in Iraq would be doomed to failure with Rummy at the helm.

In this hothouse atmosphere, Bush would then nominate a successor for Rumsfeld. That nominee, whoever he might be, would have to appear before the Senate in confirmation hearings that probably couldn’t start until June.

For those of us who have family members in the military on their way to Iraq that is just not acceptable.

We have not only a war on terror to fight and win but a more subtle war being waged right inside our own country. To win the War in Iraq we must open the eyes of the American people to the reality of the Media/Democrat insurgency.

UPDATE: Gayle Miller has something to say to the useful idiots of the left.

Welcome Betsy’s Page Readers!