It's wrong to drive without a license, and I submit it's
wrong to opine without a clue. I wonder if, in the
interest of factually accurate public discourse, maybe we
need some sort of stiffer penalty to those who blather
first and get the facts later.
.... or in some cases NEVER!
ON DONALD RUMSFELD, INACCURATE STATEMENTS, AND COLUMNIST FANTASIES ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN
TKS
jim geraghty reporting
I realize that trying to reason with the Rumsfeld-must-go crowd is probably a waste of time, but here goes…
Brain Shavings has a wonderful graphic depiction of how many retired generals have called for Rumsfeld's departure, and how many haven’t.
brainshavings.com
(Maybe I'm a bit more irritable than usual, but I just feel like when a figure like Katrina Vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation, writes, "Is there a retired general left in the States who hasn't called on Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to fall on his sword?" and the answer to her question is, "Yes, there are roughly 4,700," that the person who writes the spectacularly wrongheaded statement should be subjected to two or three days of being pelted with tomatoes everywhere they go. Not enough to cause bodily harm, just some public humiliation to rebuke their;
a) ignorance or
b) extreme exaggeration to the point of a falsehood.
I think much of life comes down to incentives and deterrents, and right now there are no deterrents to just blurting out statements like that, or my other recent irritants,
<< "The 9/11 Commission Report said there was no passenger revolt on Flight 93" >>
and
<< "Kofi Annan was Time's Man of the Year in 2001." >>
Clearly, being fact-checked by the blogosphere isn't enough.
It's wrong to drive without a license, and I submit it's wrong to opine without a clue. I wonder if, in the interest of factually accurate public discourse, maybe we need some sort of stiffer penalty to those who blather first and get the facts later.)
So - looking at the question of whether there would be any advantage to Rumsfeld's departure, I’m reminded of my attitude towards changing a sports team’s head coach. (When you’re a New York Jets fan, you contemplate this issue a lot.) There’s no point in firing the current guy unless you’ve got a better guy to replace him with. If your current guy is Rich Kotite (4-28 over two years) and you have a chance to get Bill Parcells (two Super Bowl rings), you make that move. If your current guy is Pete Carroll (9-7) and your option for replacing him is Kotite, change will not necessarily be synonymous with progress.
I’d like to see Rummy’s critics give some sense of who they think would be an improvement. You know that if Bush appointed anyone currently at the Pentagon, the new nominee would be greeted with the same whining, wailing, and moaning that Josh Bolten heard when he stepped in as the new chief of staff. (I’m a fan of former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Eric Edelman, currently Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, but I have no idea if he would want the job.)
There was the Joe Lieberman rumor of a couple months back, but that didn’t seem serious. Lieberman’s got a reelection campaign to run.
And let’s not exaggerate the benefits of “fresh faces.” How much goodwill and good press did Bush get by replacing Andy Card with Bolton? Next to none. The press will treat any personnel change, even the departure of a cabinet member hated by the media and administration critics like Rumsfeld, as a sign that the administration is in disarray, not as a reenergizing burst of new momentum.
David Ignatius deserves a half a point for actually suggesting some replacements; unfortunately, he throws out a couple of perennial media favorites, Sens. Chuck Hagel and John McCain.
Not. Gonna. Happen. Why should these guys leave the comforts of the Senate (and botch possible presidential runs) by going across the river and getting grief and aggravation for not immediately fixing Iraq?
(And what’s with all the dreamy wish-fulfillment column themes lately? The New Republic’s Peter Beinart wants John McCain to run for president as an independent. *sigh* Whatever. Jeez, if these guys can write about their wildest dreams, I can write a column saying I want Abu Zarqawi to resign in disgrace and turn himself in, that I want to sell a million books, for the Jets to win the Super Bowl, and for pizza to suddenly become a health food. And I want a pony!)
So – with no immediate, obvious choice to step in and do the job for the next two and a half years, the benefits to replacing Rumsfeld to placate individuals like Anthony Zinni (a smart man with a book to sell) and Wes Clark (a man who wanted Bush’s job a few years back) seem pretty thin.
If a figure appears who would be the ideal Secretary of Defense for the next two years, then great. Thank Rummy for his service, give the new guy a shot and watch him go. (Maybe then the President could name Rummy to replace Scott McClellan and let him mock, browbeat and berate the White House Press Corps for hours every day. If that wouldn’t fire up the GOP base, nothing would.
“Mr. Secretary, isn’t your new position just another sign of disarray and panic within the administration?”
(the trademark Rummy irritated squint) - “Gregory, have you been drinking again? You smell a bit of curry, you have a flashback to New Delhi, and you go on a bender, is that it?”)
But most of the Dump-Rummy crowd isn’t falling for his ouster because they think it will really change anything or improve anything on the ground in Iraq; they’re saying it because they want more fodder for “the Bush administration is in disarray” columns.
And let’s remember, much of the criticism of Rumsfeld comes from generals who want to fight the last war – and by that I mean the 2004 election.
UPDATE: TKS reader Josh asks, "How many tomatoes can we throw at you for getting Caroll's record with the Jets wrong?" He's right, it was 6-10.
I blame post-traumatic stress disorder....<snip>
tks.nationalreview.com
brainshavings.com
washingtonpost.com
tnr.com |
