I Hate To Say It, But Rummy's Got To Go!



Did anyone catch Bill O'Reilly's interview with Donald Rumsfeld last night?

I watched it with the hopes that Secretary Rumsfeld would shed some light on current progress in Iraq, respond boldly to common accusations and just put things into perspective. Unfortunately, the only thing he put into perspective was the fact that he is completely inept and unfit for his position. Now to be fair, some people just have a difficult time speaking articulately in a public setting, I understand that. But for god's sake, this guy couldn't answer a few simple questions that he's undoubtedly been asked a million times already. He spent the entire half hour clearing his throat, waving his hands like he was doing sign language and parroting such classic one-liners as "Saddam gave twenty-five thousand dollars to suicide bombers" and "Abu Musab al Zarqawi was treated in Iraq."

Well, duh.

Now I'm not saying Rummy's heart isn't in the right place. Personally I like the guy, and I agree with him on a great many things, but he's not a vacuum cleaner salesman. He is the Secretary of Defense, the solid rock of the pentagon, America's most authoratative symbol of militarism. If he can't stand strong and make a solid, definitive case for the war in Iraq, then I think it's time we sacked him and hired Christopher Hitchens, because apparently there are freelance journalists who understand the conflict better than Rumsfeld. Am I the only one who finds that just a little bit scary? When Hitchens defended the war on Al Franken's radio show, I literally felt chills, and even Franken was rendered speechless. However when Rumsfeld faced Bill O'Reilly last night (a guy who basically shares the same views as himself), he couldn't even answer a few simple questions without stuttering.

I'm not saying that Rumsfeld was wrong, and I'm certainly not saying that he was lying; I'm merely saying that he was weak in his presentation, for which there is no excuse. O'Reilly only asked the questions that are on everyone's mind (for instance, why are we safer now with Saddam out of power?), all of which have been asked million times. There were no surprises; no curveballs.

I think one likely reason for the weaknesses in Rumsfeld's argument is the fact that the administration already has its foot in its mouth. Early on, they chose to overemphasize the WMD argument, making it appear as though we were going to war merely for the sake of destroying Saddam's arsenal. Many Americans bought it. So now, if Rumsfeld were to emphasize other important factors, such as Saddam's many Gulf War resolution violations (which play a key role in examining Saddam's credibility and the threats he posed), or the ominous relationship between Mohammed Atta and Abu Nidal, then it would appear as though the administration were backpeddaling (and understandably so). The mistakes they made in the beginning will continue to haunt them.

Nevertheless, Rumsfeld would have been infinitely more convincing had he been careful to avoid the cliches, or at least back up his cliches with a bit of support or explanation. For instance, yes, Saddam Hussein paid large sums of money to the families of suicide bombers....in Israel (as O'Reilly pointed out). There's no secret that Saddam is a vicious anti-semite bent on Israel's destruction, but how does that relate to us? O'Reilly wanted to know how WE as Americans are safer. Well, Rumsfeld COULD have pointed out that most of the suicide bombers supported by Saddam Hussein were from groups like Hezbollah (whose slogan is "Death to America") and Hamas, thus making Saddam Hussein one of the world's wealthiest and most powerful funders of Islamic terrorism. Apparently, though, he didn't want to overload our brains with too much information.

So even though Rumsfeld was technically correct, his words didn't inspire much confidence (at least in me), because they were just words. He made very few connections, offered very few specific details, and in fact appeared--at least by his body language and hesitation--uncertain of his own convictions. Is this really who we need as our Secretary of Defense? I have been patient with Secretary Rumsfeld for a long time, but I think that at this point he is just playing into the hands of his critics. The war critics want us to make simple, monosyllabic statements because their lack of substance makes them easy to tear apart. The war, however, is not simple. It cannot be summed up in five-second soundbytes. Bush is just as guilty of this as Rumsfeld, but I was hoping that our Secretary of Defense--in regard to military action--would at least be capable of moving beyond the charming but lowbrow utterances of our president. Donald Rumsfeld, however, has demonstrated time and time again that he just isn't up to the task.

I say he needs replacement. What do you say?