Regarding Willaim Safire's article today
"Rumsfeld Should Stay"
in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/opinion/10SAFI.html?th



I guess after a few years of being William Safire, eventually, no one looks at your columns. Maybe a copy editor, but no one to ask, really, if this argument holds water, or if, like a sieve, it is leaking badly.

This essay on keeping Rumsfield around one is a prime example of something that needs help.

Wading into the fray, the simple impulse is to say, "who cares?," i.e. - who cares if Rumsfield gets fired? It would of course be a great delight to many of us if any of the neocon cadre in Washington took a hit (of some kind, anyway), and Rumsfield is a large player on that chessboard. The liberal crowd would love to see him scratching his head in some Washington cafe, wondering what happened.

But it's simply not enough to dump Rumsfield. And it won't happen, of course. He blew it, as Safire here notes, but blowing it is nothing new in this administration.

It's no fun ditching Rumsfield when really, the whole crowd has to go. Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney, Ashcroft, Condi, and yes, due to his gross error in supporting the Iraq lie (and missing his moment to resign and become a real presidential candidate THIS time), Powell.

Personally, I would like to see them all JAILED, but... a simple voting out of office may have to do.

That is one's first thought. Just Rummy is not enough.

But then, reading Safire here, you realize that criticism of the argument is not enough either. He doesn't simply defend Rumsfield, he makes a mess of simple argumentation at the same time.

I don't get it. Do these guys have Margaritas or something and then start writing?

Here's the fishnet hose that Billie boy has presented this morning:

Rumsfield has taken responsibility, so he's a good guy. The precedent (unspoken) is the Bay of Pigs, where Kennedy took responsibility, and won the love (forgiveness) of the populace.

It's great that R. stepped up to the mark. But where was George? Does all damage control stop at the door of the president?

Why doesn't George take responsibility? For prisoner abuse. For no WMD. For a sinkhole of after-war incompetence?

Why do we laud the lieutenants for somethng that the general should do? Ths is not a hole in Safire's argument, on the face of it. But in the larger context, it is a glaring omission. A selective omission.

Then, is it grandiose for Safire to imply causality between his (laudable ) criticism of draconian post 911 measures and Rumsfield's softening stance: "One Bush cabinet member paid attention." Perhaps. Seems unlikley that Rumsfield is reading Safire. But, then again, who cares?

The idea that somehow we have a softer, gentler world because those measures did not take root is somehow delusional. Draco would fit right in here in the unjustified domestic detentions, the nether world of Guantanamo. Or rather the popular opinion of Draco (unpopular) rather than the real nature of his laws, which would be welcome (impartial).

I have to go to work.

Other people will have to take more issue with Safire.

Suffice it to say that he blew it today in:

1. Not holding Bush to the same standard as Rummy
2. Gaving himself a role that is not clearly factual

Plus (the big one), he tried to justify the prison abuse cover up as necessary to avoid giving support to the enemy.

At what point would that not be the case?

I agree that it's useless to fire the guy. But that's because so many people up and down the chain of command need to be ousted.

And we can't fire Safire either (for some reason).

But I think he should send me his columns before he publishes again.

If he doesn't have a paid editor, I think maybe he needs a volunteer.

best...

Paul