It was just last week that the editorial board of the Washington Post abandoned any pretense of journalistic integrity with the publication of “A Good Leak.” Today, in the interest of not letting anyone push George Bush around, they’ve apparently abandoned their humanity. How else can you explain going from this:
…the defense secretary was directly responsible for the policy of abuse toward detainees…
…his self-defeating insistence on minimizing the number of troops; his resistance to recognizing and responding to emerging threats, such as the postwar looting and the Sunni insurgency…his slowness to acknowledge the emerging threat of Shiite militias and death squads last year.
To this:
In our view Mr. Rumsfeld’s failures should have led to his departure long ago. But he should not be driven out by a revolt of generals, retired or not.
…in the same editorial?
The editorial is harshly critical of the Secretary, and of Bush for not accepting Rumfeld’s previous offers to resign. The newspaper that “editorially has supported the war,” begins by calling Bush stubborn and states that Rumsfeld’s “criminal mistreatment of foreign detainees” has contributed to the current violence in Iraq. They list his many missteps before, during and since “Mission Accomplished.” They call it a “signal failure” that Bush has not held Rumsfeld accountable and opine that that lack of accountability no doubt led to the unprecedented public rebuke by retired Generals.
This editorial lays the blame for the current state in Iraq squarely at the feet of Donald Rumsfeld, but in the interest of:
…the essential democratic principle of military subordination to civilian control —
…[Rumsfeld] should not be driven out by a revolt of generals, retired or not.
That’s right, he should stick it out…and George Bush must stand up to democratic principles and keep Rumsfeld on. Never mind that standing up for that principle means that the incompetent architect of a war that has killed nearly 2400 US military people and more than 30,000 Iraqis, will remain in charge. Of course the main concern about the Rumsfeld controversy is:
Now it is deepening the domestic political hole in which the president is mired…
Rather than decrying this “revolt” against Rumsfeld, perhaps the Washington Post should be more concerned about the soldiers mired in Iraq.
Truly, the Mariana Trench is not deep enough for these idiots.
I have a different reading of it.
I read this editorial as the WaPo putting the blame squarely at Bush’s feet.
They blame Bush for not giving Rumsfeld the boot AND they also blame Bush for in him not doing so leaving it to the Generals to speak up – a step the military is not supposed to take in a democracy, but alas, Bush’s inaction is forcing that step upon them.
I think if you read it like I do this editorial is reflecting the sadness of it all.
I agree that they place the blame with Bush and Rumsfeld…but they also say it is important to uphold the principle of civilians running the military and they finish by saying Rumsfeld shouldn’t be “driven out.” I think they could have argued against the military (retired or not) speaking out (although I’d disagree with that), but still called for Rumsfeld’s resignation. They nearly the whole editorial calling him incompetent, but their conclusion is a cop-out, IMO.
I can see where they are ostensibly coming from: We don’t want the military, retired or no, calling the shots. We want to keep civilian control of the military.
I get it.
But it seems as if they were serious, they would say that DumbRum and the rest of their cronies should be out, not on the say-so of retired generals, but because they provide yet more examples of rank incompetence when they smell and see it. Their just another section in the chorus.
My apologies. Not enough caffeine.
I was going somewhere else with that sentence: Their voices are just another section in the chorus.
No apology needed…I just reread the (apparently) caffeine-free reply I posted earlier. 😉