|Friday, May 7, 2004
12:14 - We had a point! I swear, it was here somewhere!
MoveOn.org in a mass e-mail:
In the wake of revelations of torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners, John Kerry has launched an important petition calling for President Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld. Getting rid of Secretary Rumsfeld would be a huge step forward for all of us who oppose the Bush war policy, and Kerry needs to hear our support.
"Getting rid of Secretary Rumsfeld would be a huge step forward for all of us who oppose the Bush war policy". Read that line again.
Now explain to me: How? How would firing Rumsfeld "be a huge step forward" for war opponents? Especially since Kerry is for the war (today, anyway)?
Is Rumsfeld seen as culpable for prisoner abuse? Considering that the Pentagon already took care of this problem when it was an issue back in January, months before CNN even "broke" the story, through sweeping demotions and dismissals? This would be like suing McAfee today for damage caused by the Michaelangelo virus.
Does MoveOn.org think that by firing Rumsfeld, we'll lend more "legitimacy" to the occupation? No, that surely isn't what "all of us who oppose the Bush war policy" are hoping for.
Or is this nothing more than the baldest of opportunistic slashes at their foe's unprotected belly—a chance to eradicate one of their ideological arch nemeses, just because he's peripherally connected to something bad that happened?
I love the implication inherent: that Bush needs to fire Rumsfeld, and, uh, hire someone new for the position of Secretary of Defense. Someone who doesn't condone prisoner abuse. Because, y'know, obviously Rumsfeld has no problem with that sort of thing! Bush can't have someone like that around!
It's telling that this MoveOn.org mail consists of nothing more than this brief paragraph and a Kerry statement that accuses the Pentagon of "being the last to know what is going on in the ranks". It then includes a timeline of events which, laughably, categorically deny the claims they're making. Rumsfeld was in the loop early on. The Pentagon took action. Only months later did CBS and CNN suddenly go insane over the story.
Don't we have a "double jeopardy" clause in the Constitution preventing people from being excoriated twice for the same crime? Especially if the second time only happens because people weren't paying attention the first time?
"Getting rid of Secretary Rumsfeld would be a huge step forward for all of us who have always wanted to get rid of Secretary Rumsfeld, no matter how or why!" Let's at least be honest here.
Thom T. sends the following comment:
Actually, I think these vermin are even worse than you
suggest, at least if the snipet you posted is
representative of the whole.
What is the implication from this statement? That the
scandal should be used to get rid of Rummy because it
would be a huge step forward, etc., AND NOT BECAUSE IT
WOULD BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO, GIVEN THE SEVERITY OF
RUMMY'S BREACH OF DUTY.
In other words, there is nothing to suggest that
Rumsfeld should be fired simply for his dereliction of
duty, but rather only because it would advance their
cause. Missing from this is any mention of concern
for the Iraqis injured (okay, maybe they don't deserve
it), or any view toward improving how our military
operates. Rather, to them the value in having
Rumsfeld removed is in advancing their own goals, so
what they're advocating is not action to rectify what
has occurred, but rather a cooption of it to in aid of
said advancement. And any attempt to actuaaly correct
the problem and see that it doesn't happen again be
More and more, the message I get from the Left is the
famous one attributed to Richard Nixon: "Screw the
Yeah. The MoveOn.org message is actually quite different from the Kerry statement that it's built upon. Kerry says, "The Pentagon didn't move fast enough; we need to do something decisive to show resolve and good faith." MoveOn says, "It's Rummy! Let's get 'im!"