I don't know enough about the real story on von Rumsfeld but this piece of character assassination does ring true to me in many parts.
I include it here for comment from those better informed than I.
THE US MID-TERM ELECTIONS: BURYING THE BODIES
=
The stench of death and defeat that's now hanging around George
Bush's presidency is reminiscent of downtown Baghdad on a hot
day. There are bodies all over the place. And just as Saddam, the
architect of Iraq's pre-war abattoir got notice of his come-
uppance this week (a long drop and a short stop), the architect
of its post-war slaughter was also pushed from his perch (with an
admittedly softer landing, cushioned, no doubt, with lucrative
job offers from the defence industry).
Yep, in the aftermath of the Republican's wipeout in the Midterm
Elections, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld was given the job
of taking the blame. However, he doesn't exactly seem to have
been fired for the Iraq disaster and its wider fallout. Indeed,
as George Bush put it - we're presuming ironically (the wag!) -
when announcing the Secretary's noble sacrifice, 'America is
safer and the world is more secure because of the service and the
leadership of Donald Rumsfeld'.
The difference between Saddam and Rumsfeld is that Rumsfeld's
orders and actions killed all those people by way of some kind of
unfortunate side-effect (or at least that's what the remaining
supporters of the war, if you can find any, would have you
believe) whereas Saddam *really* meant it. That Saddam was a
monster but Rumsfeld merely a fool seems to be the perception. As
the epigram 'Hanlon's Razor' states, 'Never assume malice when
stupidity will suffice'. The road to Hell is paved with both good
and bad intentions. In the final analysis though, all those Iraqi
civilians are still fucking dead. We killed a lot of them and
then created the conditions for the insurgency to kill the rest.
Hanging one raddled former dictator doesn't bring them back or
make up for the chaos Rumsfeld set loose.
It's hard to overemphasise the careless malevolence of the man.
'As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not
the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time,' he
blithely told troops who'd had the audacity to point out they
were being blown to shit in Iraq for lack of proper armour.
'Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war,' he
said with his customary dark insouciance as if there was such a
thing as a war that wasn't depressing. Then there's Abu Ghraib
and Guantamano Bay. He even had the balls to say in his departing
speech that Iraq was a 'little understood, unfamiliar war'.
Whatever that means after three years of 24/7 news coverage and
countless inquiries.
Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State for disgraced President
Richard Nixon, once said 'it is an act of insanity and national
humiliation to have a law prohibiting the President from ordering
assassination'. That he also described Rumsfeld as the most
ruthless man he knew should give you an idea of Rumsfeld's
character. It's like finding there's someone the Devil looks up
to and envies.
It's a sign of how polluted the debate over Iraq has become that
by this point many of you are no doubt waiting for the obligatory
proviso about Saddam being a bastard and it's a good thing he's
gone (if not that he's going). It's still mandatory apparently,
despite being as unnecessary as continually reaffirming Darth
Vader's status as villain every time he comes up in conversation
lest you risk being accused of having sympathy for the atrocities
committed by vicious Stormtroopers. Can't we just take it as a
given?
The thing is, Rumsfeld's demise, as sexually arousing as it is,
is only one part of the story and as such his sacking is
something of a distraction (for a few days at least) from the
wider problems of the Bush presidency. There's a very good
chance, for instance, that the newly-empowered Democrats will now
start rooting through the Republican's bins, turning up all kinds
of juicy bones on which to chew. The minutes of Vice President
Dick Cheney's secret meetings with oil industry chiefs in 2001,
for example. Or, tantalising for British viewers, the so-called
'Downing Street Memo' which purports to show that the British
Government knew the Iraq war was going ahead whatever and
'intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy'.
And it's not good news for Iraq either. Despite all the current
death, destruction, incompetence, death, torture, mismanagement,
arrogance, death, torture, and corruption (the Iraqi Government
is currently leaking up to $4bn a year - 10% of the country's
national income - with some of it finding its way to the
insurgency, according to US monitors), don't be fooled into
thinking the downfall of Rumsfeld somehow signals a change of
American, and therefore British, policy in Iraq. Since October 25
when Bush said of Rumsfeld, 'I'm satisfied with how he's done all
his jobs' and called him 'a smart, tough, capable administrator',
what's changed exactly, apart from a kick in the polls?
That being the case, you have to wonder what the point actually
was of replacing Rumsfeld with ex-CIA Director Robert Gates (a
man with his own murky CV). The Bush Administration clearly
thinks that they'll be able to implement what passes for their
'strategy' in Iraq if only it's presented by a friendlier face.
The military has been outspoken in their criticism of Rumsfeld in
recent weeks - maybe the troops and Generals were on some kind of
go-slow/work-to-rule thing because Rumsfeld wasn't a 'people'
person. Like office workers the world over, they had an arsehole
for a boss and felt disinclined to go the extra mile, the
unprofessional slackers. Maybe, like a football team, getting a
new manager after a run of poor form, they'll now up their game.
Bush, in a similar spirit in this new political era is asking the
Democrats to up their game as well. 'It is our responsibility to
put the elections behind us and work together', he said. Well, he
would *now*, wouldn't he, now that the Democrats control the
House of Representatives *and* the Senate. Only a few days ago,
according to George, it was the 'terrorists win and America
loses' if the Democrats won the vote. Now he needs these goddamn
terrorist-lovers' help. Over the last six years the Republicans
told the spirit of co-operation to go and fuck itself. It's
immature and probably bad for the world, not least for the people
of Iraq, but it'd be sweet, sweet justice if the Democrats told
George to do the same now that he's desperate.
Poor George. He must be feeling like the Jerry Lundegaard
character in the movie 'Fargo'. In what he thought was a stroke
of genius, he hired two sinister but incompetent hoods (in this
case, Donald Rumsfeld and the equally terrifying Dick Cheney) to
solve all his problems. Now, as things go inevitably, horribly
wrong and Donald is metaphorically fed into the woodchipper, can
the hapless Bush's downfall be very far behind?
- The Friday Thing
But, just to balance things, we get this
