Army Times, how about one example of a Rumsfeld 'rosy assurance'?

The Army Times editorial today says that because Donald Rumsfeld has misled America on how easy it would be to win the war in Iraq, he should resign. But it gives no evidence.

The Times centers its panicky call on this idea:

One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples....

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

'Back off.' What? The best example of Rumsfeld's over-optimism is "back off"? Rumsfeld made that comment in response to questions about deadlines for Iraq progress and the U.S. withdrawing from Iraq. He was making it clear that, because the situation remains dangerous, the U.S. isn't going to set absolute deadlines.

This is The Army Times? In its coverage of nearly four years of the Iraq war, it can't find a better example than "back off"? Maybe it's because there isn't one. Maybe it's because Rumsfeld has repeatedly reminded us of the bloody work ahead in Iraq. He's the one, after all, who asked his staff to consider seriously how you know if you're winning a war with terrorists.

Much of the amnesia on Rumsfeld's performance is intentional, much of it is induced by political hysteria. Opponents to winning the war have tossed out the Rumsfeld-said-it-would-be-easy lie for three years now. They've even got The Army Times repeating it.

Why not Cheney? The rosy scenarios have come from Vice President Dick Cheney. Why not ask him to resign? He should have resigned in the first place, knowing his Halliburton ties would dishonor the liberation of Iraq with the appearance of self-dealing.

Instead, in their panic at the political hour, the staff of The Army Times has called for Rumsfeld's head. It's their right. But they've given no good reason.

Frank Warner

* * *

Update: The Pentagon offers a point-by-point rebuttal to The Army Times.

Comments

[jj mollo]

Rumsfeld, in my memory, has been consistently pessimistic about how hard this was going to be. The word "cakewalk" was unfortunate, but it didn't come from him.

[Jim]

Uh, in case you missed it, the Halliburton/VP Cheney thing was debunked. www.factcheck.org. Though his remarks were much more "rosy" they were always followed by: this is going to be hard work. The only way anyone can get to an "all rosy" statement is to edit one. Hey, it works for Michael Moore.

[Frank Warner]

Uh, in case you missed it, I said “appearance of self-dealing.” Cheney was Halliburton’s CEO for five years until he sought the vice presidency in 2000. And he got that Halliburton job by ingratiating himself with the defense contractor when he was defense secretary.

When Cheney left Halliburton, under complex salary terms, he took 50 percent of his 1999 salary in 1999 and was paid the other half of his 1999 salary over the next five years. This is where the appearance of self-dealing comes in.

Even with an extra insurance policy guaranteeing that Cheney would get the final 1999 payments if Halliburton went bankrupt, the whole arrangement was so questionable and complicated it would inevitably spawn sinister conspiracy theories dishonoring any major military action while Cheney was vice president.

After his election and before he was sworn in, Cheney should have negotiated a complete severance from Halliburton. His connection and continuing pay through 2005, even if it was 1999 pay, was bound to raise questions of a conflict of interest.

If he was too careless to end his Halliburton relationship by January 20, 2001, the idea had to have popped into his head on Sept. 11, 2001, when it became obvious we would be going to war, and Halliburton probably would be in the mix.

Cheney should have said “No more” to Halliburton money on 9-11, or resigned.