Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld put one over on the Senate Armed Services Committee and media this week. The inquiring senator failed to take exception and we’ve seen and heard nothing about it in the media.
When his turn at questioning came, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., recited a litany of Rumsfeld’s missteps and misstatements. These included ones in which Rumsfeld had dismissed the notion of a guerrilla war in Iraq, saying our forces were just dealing with a few diehard “dead enders.”
It was clear at the time, and widely reported back in 2003 and 2004, that Rumsfeld was talking about Saddam and Baathist Party loyalists seeking a return to the status quo ante. They had been on top and in charge in Iraq, and they wanted to restore that situation.
Yet in his testimony this week, Rumsfeld, affecting bewildered umbrage, talked about somebody strapping on a bomb and going into a cafeteria to set it off, killing a bunch of innocent soldiers and civilians, including Iraqis. So there, obviously, you have a dead ender, he explained, his voice conveying annoyance and frustration at how anyone could fail to grasp such a simple concept.
Rumsfeld implied this simple concept is what he’d meant all along. Remarkably, no one called him on this deceit.
Maybe there have been so many changes of story from Bush administration officials during this dark, deadly Iraq episode that such an obvious dodge fails to register. Maybe Rumsfeld’s skill at spinning triggered suspension of disbelief. Whatever — same ol’, same ol’, so what?
Well, Rumsfeld’s latest denial of the truth, substituting a glaring twist of his own words, does matter. It says, baldly, that the arrogant, fast-talking mess makers of this administration have gotten so far for so long by spinning, twisting and lying that they feel emboldened to go right on being dishonest.
Given that this got completely by Kennedy, his committee colleagues and the media, it would seem Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush/neoconservative political infestation are right about that.
Don’t let the door hit your butt on the way out: Kennedy punctuated his blunt reproach with a face-on suggestion to Rumsfeld that it’s time to resign. Rumsfeld told Kennedy he had turned in his resignation twice, but the president made it clear he wants Rumsfeld to stay on.
Unfortunately, Kennedy also passed on the opportunity to remind Rumsfeld, You know, Mr. secretary, they say third time’s a charm.
Ted Kennedy has never impressed me too much. He gets high marks for responding to constituents complaints. Most of the time his voting record is the easy way out: vote to spend more money, vote for a new program to fix the presented problem. I do respect his work on deregulation in the early 80′s.
When we talk about money wasting and non-accountability, let’s be sure and mention the “big dig” in Boston, and E.M. Kennedy’s role.
Wars by there nature are messy and wasteful affairs, and intelligence is always poor. Rumsfeld has a diffucult job, and responding to hindsight criticism will never never never satisfy the left wing bloggers of this world.
Please use a respected Democrat when trying to prove your point,
not a womanizing, alcoholic, blind liberal for you case. There are
so many other democrats that I do have respect for, like Senator
Byhe from Indiana. Seconday, during the first month after the fall
of Bagdad, it was Bathis party member doing the attacks. It was
months later when the foriegn insurgents came into Iraq in droves…
Facts, son, facts.. you gotta get them right…. You are close to
proving your case, just use “wrong assumptions” tactic. This is
a new war, fought differently than any other before. There are
going to be mistakes until intelligence services catch up. Did
Rumsfield make mistakes, yes….did Rumsfield adjust tactic accordingly,
again yes…. the crystal ball can only look so far forward, and mine
has been broken for quit a while… Maybe I can borrow yours. I
would next weeks winning lottery numbers please…
Randy, someone once complained to President Lincoln about Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s rough talk and whiskey drinking. Lincoln replied with something to the effect that he’d like to find out what Grant was drinking and send a case of it to all his generals.
That was Lincoln’s way of saying he didn’t put the guy where he was to be an example of temperance and virtuous behavior. He put Grant there to lead soldiers and win bloody battles, and Lincoln was satisfied Grant was doing a good job at that.
Republicans and conservatives have their share of drinkers, womanizers and worse. Here at Oh!pinion, we try to concentrate on how and whether people are worth a damn in areas of public policy. Those who present themselves as pillars of virtue and rectitude when they are not draw fire from us for their hypocrisy.
You’re not going to win hearts and change minds by sliming Ted Kennedy. If doing that gives you a cheap feel-good experience, please do it somewhere else. There are plenty of blogs where dittoheads will cheer you on. Meanwhile, if you’ll re-read my post about Rumsfeld, you might notice I didn’t run him down as a person, didn’t cast off on every aspect of his character. I did criticize Rumsfeld’s self-serving lack of honesty in defending something he’d said.
Kennedy’s intelligent, well educated, extremely experienced, hard working and his heart’s in the right place on most important issues. No, he’s no angel, nor does he claim to be.
The last paragraph of your comment indicates you somehow missed the whole point of my post. Nowhere did I claim Rumsfeld was wrong in saying, initially, that most of the insurgents were Baathist loyalists.
I reread your article and take back my bathiest statement. I stand
by my statements with Kenedy. I had alcoholics in my family who
continue to drink today, I dispise them just as much. Nuff said