Monday, December 18, 2006

How not to pick your Secretary of Defense

The departure of Rumsfeld as the Secretary of Defense was a big huge love fest last week. The only think missing was Bush getting down on his knees and servicing the guy. But what was said about the man and the job he did by Cheney and the Village Idiot speaks volumes about why Rummy was probably a really crappy choice for the job in the first place. I'm not talking about the whole "hind sight is 20/20" thing here. I'm talking about Red flags as to why he was likely chosen in the first place that should have told people, "This guy will likely lead us in the most costly, senseless war in the history of the United States."

First and most obvious we have Cheney's comments describing Rummy as "his best boss, best friend, an 'ideal' public servant and 'the finest secretary of defense this nation has ever had.'" OK, stop laughing. I know, that last bit is so warped that you have to laugh to stop from crying. We all know that Bush has surrounded himself with close friends and political supporters regardless of back ground and experience (think Brownie as FEMA head). But it's one thing to hire some guy you have known for a while and trust to do a good job to paint your house. It's another thing to hire a former boss and "best friend" to be your Defense Secretary. I love my friends Blair and Eddie but the most they would get if I were President are speech writer and gambling advisor, respectively.

The Village Idiot's comments were far more subtle in their foreboding and far more obvious in their idiocy. I know, it's pretty tough to top calling this guy 'the finest secretary of defense this nation has ever had.' Here is what VI had to say: "Don Rumsfeld has been at my side from the moment I took office. We've been through war together. We walked amid the rubble of the broken Pentagon the day after September the 11th, 2001. He was with me when we planned the liberation of Afghanistan. We were in the Oval Office together the day I gave the order to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In these and countless other moments, I have seen Don Rumsfeld's character and his integrity. He has always ensured I had the best possible advice. . . . He spoke straight. It was easy to understand him." I know what your expression is right now. You're sitting there staring at the screen after having reread that last line about 5 times with your mouth open in shock shaking your head. This one isn't a laugh or you'll cry. You literally don't know if you should scream in disbelief, laugh hysterically or just stare at the screen. The third is the easiest.

Firstly, they haven't "been through a war together." That would suggest that they actually accomplished something and that the war of their own creation isn't still on-going. The appropriate statement is, "We've started a war together." You could probably make a case for, "We've occasionally discussed a war together," as the closest thing to the truth and the actual statement.

Next, do you think Bush can get through a speech without reminding everyone that he was President during 9/11? And at what point is the general public going to put 2 and 2 together and realize that HIS incompetencies partially allowed 9/11 and he has done nothing to bring the perpetrators to justice? I know every time I hear him reference it, I fume for these very reasons.

Next next, If Afghanistan is so liberated, why do we still have soldiers there? And why is the Taliban continuing to re-emerge and make significant headway in parts of the country? You could make this statement if you actually saw the mission through rather than starting a 2nd and completely unjustifiable war. The statement should read, "He was with me when I cut and run out of Afghanistan without seeing the job through and without bringing our attackers to justice." Plus, my version lets him bring up 9/11 again.

That next sentence is not something he should really be hanging his hat on. It only makes the sheep in the country wonder why Rummy is the one getting the boot if this whole Iraq thing was entirely the Village Idiot's decision. Maybe he should have had someone with half a brain or some level of understanding of the Middle East with him when he gave that order to invade Iraq. Unjustly.

The last bit is the doozy: "He spoke straight. It was easy to understand him." That's it? That's the qualifications you were looking for when it came time to pick your Secretary of Defense? I'd love to the the Monster job description on that one. Too bad Fred Rogers wasn't available, he would have been the perfect candidate. The Village Idiot is basically admitting that he has a hard time understanding complex ideas. I can just hear him now, "I like that Simpsons show. That Homer fella is really funny. I always understand what he's saying. That Lisa though, I don't like her. She uses big words. When I try to listen to her, my head hurts." I would like to officially throw my hat in the ring for Secretary of Defense with the following statement. I will now demonstrate my ability to speak straight and be easily understood:

"Mr. President. You are the worst President ever. You have ruined the office of the President worse than Scrappy Doo ruined Scooby Doo. People around the world hate America because of you. The Iraq war is a worse idea than New Coke and it is sure to have a similar ending: pulling the plug and everyone being mad that we had to go through this terrible part of history with no real reason why it had to happen. You suck."


Post a Comment

<< Home