Avoid False Modesty
Back to back, they were:
The Associated Press noted the departure of Donald Rumsfeld with a curious retrospective, quoting a biographer who suggests that he is a "tragic figure" because of his wasted "talent and promise." But Nixon, who called him a "ruthless little bastard," had Rummy's number from the start. His "talent" was as a political hit man, a vicious insider who would do whatever his bosses wanted. He was and is a nasty person of shrewd but limited intellect, a bully and a braggart and a bullshit artist. Nobody will miss him.
[RJ Eskow, "Rumsfeld: You Go To Posterity With the Reputation You Have, Not The Reputation You Wish You Had", Huffington Post, 16 December 2006.]
(Fabulous title, there.) And then:
[Quoting]
"I believe the record speaks for itself — Don Rumsfeld is the finest secretary of defense this nation has ever had." — Dick Cheney, today[Tim Dickinson, "Cheney: Rummy 'Finest Ever' SecDef", Huffington Post, 16 December 2006.]
9 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Saturday, 16 December 2006 at 15.05
Permalink
Obviously, Deadeye (or is it Deadhead?) Dick is bucking to outdo his mindless "final throes" pronouncement about Iraq insurgents. I don't think he quite managed with this, but he's definitely in there pitching.
on Thursday, 21 December 2006 at 08.06
Permalink
I give Cheney some latitude for coaching hype. He is trying to win a war (or whatever it is we are doing in Iraq).
on Saturday, 23 December 2006 at 22.13
Permalink
Let me get this straight. Cheney is trying to win a war by singing the praises of someone who's bad thinking, worse attitude and overbearing management style ensured our troops and hapless noninsurgent Iraqis would end up in the hellish quagmire they're now in? This is supposed to be coaching hype?
Amazing.
on Tuesday, 26 December 2006 at 09.56
Permalink
Amazing grace to you, too.
I give Rumsfeld and Cheney more latitude than you do. The minimalist approach to military action seemed to work well in Afghanistan, less so in Iraq.
To cast them as demons, carrying the burden of failure, is too simplistic.
on Tuesday, 26 December 2006 at 20.45
Permalink
Simplistic is not quite the word I want. I think of your analysis as limited, S.W.
You are fond of casting political leadership as THE deciding factor. I'm less inclined to do so. I'm thinking of Cortez, defeating the Inca empire in South America. I imagine the S.W. Andersons of the time were criticizing Inca leadership of the day, calling for better politicians to deal with the Spanish, when there was so much more in play.
Cheney and Rumsfeld and the government they lead embody alot of the America of today. We try to do an invasion quick and cheap, and it costs $2 billion a week. That is America of today, that can't build a motorcycle for less than $10,000, while the Japanese can ship some over here for $1000. Put whoever you want in power: much of the disfuntion remains.
on Wednesday, 27 December 2006 at 00.19
Permalink
So true: I now see Cheney as the long-suffering, much beleaguered but heroic white knight taken advantage of by evil, conniving war-profiteers like, say, Haliburton. It must be difficult being president when you can't even buy a war on sale any more; no doubt a Japanese model would save us money. Perhaps someday soon real conservatism will prevail and pure market forces will outsource our wars to third-world countries so we can have a nice invasion for less than $7.59/hour. The invaded may not greet us with flowers and chocolates as liberators, but surely they will cheer our masterful sense of economy.
on Wednesday, 27 December 2006 at 06.43
Permalink
See, Jeff, now you know.
Interesting to contemplate the "Japanese model". Japan occupied Korea for 40 years in the first half of the last century, and probably did it for less than $7.59 an hour, adjusted for inflation. We took over and promptly spun off North Korea, who sold missiles to Iraq, who is now selling them to us, in a way.
I like your post better with the "but heroic" phrase excised. Putting Cheney and heroic in the same sentence is a wee bit much, even for satire.
I still count our Iraq invasion as an attempt to bring democracy to the Middle East. That Iraqi mojo is the equivalent of putting your head under a car tire is another story.
on Thursday, 28 December 2006 at 00.52
Permalink
Given your observation about Japan's occupation of Korea, perhaps a market economy is not the best springboard from which to launch an occupation.
As for attempts to export democracy, I suspect we'd do better sticking to selling Coca Cola, tight-fitting jeans, and televisions in overseas markets. We'd be more likely to make money rather than lose it, too!
on Friday, 29 December 2006 at 15.23
Permalink
Jeff, your mercantilism makes too much sense; it's too based in real reality.
BTW, there was a joke back in the late days of the Vietnam War.
It was to the effect the Israelis were willing to take over the war for us, for cost plus 10 percent. It drew relevance from Israeli Defense Forces successes at hot-and-fast campaigns.
RSF, I've learned a few things over the years, sort of immutable truths. Among them: Never buy a woman in your life a pair of shoes as a surprise gift; Never try to put my cat somewhere you think she'd like to settle down in; and you can't bring democracy to other people when it's not their idea.