Defending Rummy
By Isaiah Z. Sterrett (12/27/04)
SOME SELF-AGGRANDIZING schmuck masquerading as a journalist found an unassuming soldier in the desert and proceeded to demand that the fatigued GI harangue Don Rumsfeld into quick thinking on an ever-changing issue. Then the reporter bragged, the press smirked, and Rumsfeld, an heroic leader, was suddenly transmogrified into the villain.
Even Trent Lott, not exactly a favored member of the Republican Party, has opened his yap on the Rummy Question. “I’m not a fan of Sec. Rumsfeld,” he said, recently. "I'm not calling for his resignation, but I think we do need a change at some point." The last time Lott, a former Democrat, uttered something that stupid, I defended him, noting that he had been caught off guard by a bloodthirsty media. I still believe that. But this time, Lott volunteered the information: he spoke up, all by himself. For that, he should pay.
Rumsfeld has always been hated by liberals — and, apparently, insignificant Senators from Mississippi don’t like him much, either. (Possible State of the Union attention-grabber: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President. I come here today, first and foremost, to announce that I’m not a fan of Sen. Trent Lott. I’m not calling for his resignation, but I think we do need a change at some point. Maybe somebody not so boring, aloof, and conceited.”)
Back at the beginning of the Bush Administration, Rumsfeld was heralded by approximately one zillion press lemmings as “too old.” You may recall that Reagan was also “too old,” especially when he was winning the Cold War. Like Reagan, Rumsfeld wanted to transform American foreign policy — even before 9/11 — and the leftist media wouldn’t stand for it. His demise was planned in newsrooms long before he went to Kuwait to answer questions.
Time magazine wondered in 2001 if Rumsfeld was both too old and too dumb, by subtly posing the question: “Rumsfeld: Older But Wiser?” The serious newsweekly was quick to point out that, amazingly, “Rumsfeld has managed to spook the military, alienate defense contractors, mobilize much of Capitol Hill against him — and even make some in the White House question his toughness.”
The only problem was that Rumsfeld never “spook[ed]” anyone except liberal Democrats, a group which is notoriously easily spooked. Always remember: these are the people who are afraid of France.
We keep hearing about the evil “neoconservative” plot for which Rumsfeld was partly responsible, which, if memory serves, resulted in the liberation of fifty million people. Liberals also like to tease the Sec. Def. about the missile defense shield, which they claim will do absolutely nothing to keep Americans safe from terrorism. (They’re right, except for the part where the missile defense shield shields us from missiles.)
The popular assertion that Rumsfeld has naively set his gaze upon an unreachably precise missile shield couldn’t be further from the truth. To the contrary, Rumsfeld has said time and again that his vision for such a project is anything but idealistic: "They need not be 100 percent perfect in my opinion, and they are certainly unlikely to be in their early stages of evolution," the hard-hearted neocon said in May 2001. "Most systems are imperfect.”
The current anti-shield lobby insists that such a system would be irrelevant. If terrorists can use jetliners for deadly weapons, they argue, what’s the use of a multi-billion dollar missile defense system? That sounds good, but it doesn’t address the fact that the world is scary in more ways than one. Just as we didn’t anticipate the use of 757s in a massive terrorist homicide, maybe we won’t anticipate the next method of attack, either. That’s why we need to do all we can to erase all terrorist possibilities. If American lives can be saved by a few billion dollars, I’d like to do it. So would Don Rumsfeld.
In his news conference Monday, President George Bush categorically defended Rumsfeld, saying: "I know Secretary Rumsfeld's heart. I know how much he cares for the troops.…He's a good decent man.” But that wasn’t enough for the press! One newspaper said Bush’s praise for the “embattled” Rumsfeld was “lukewarm.” Apparently all journalists have been promised a cut in pay if they don’t refer to Rumsfeld as “embattled” at least 600 times per article.
The septuagenarian Pentagon chief is right, and the liberal press is wrong. And as usual, Rumsfeld will win.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Isaiah Z. Sterrett
