A handsome, but cranky, coot (Rumsfeld)
A handsome, but cranky, coot
By Charles M. Madigan
Copyright by The Chicago Tribune
Published September 5, 2006
Oh, for the days when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was merely the sexiest man in the Bush administration, the heartthrob of the conservative distaff and in appearance, the Lionel Barrymore, I would suggest, of modern-day politics.
How did he go from being so craggy-cute, suggesting Barrymore in the stage and film classic, "You Can't Take It With You," to being so cranky, suggesting Barrymore in a much more familiar flick, Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life"? (He played scheming old Mr. Potter.)
Rumsfeld does look a bit like Barrymore, if you squint and imagine Barrymore updated in a good suit and very modern surroundings. Being a hack of some age and not pretty to boot, I must confess I admire this look.
The secretary of defense is one handsome coot.
But not very engaging of late.
I have my suspicions of almost everyone who came through the Nixon administration (and Rummy was young, handsome and on the move in those circles). I feel there is a darkness, a resentment inside that only comes out when they are under fire.
Hence, the behaviors of Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and their creation Karl Rove, over the last few weeks. It seems as though this little power trinity of Bush functionaries has been hitting the same bile bottle on the subject of criticism of the war in Iraq.
This sends the necessary message about divisive characters who are not united against the enemy while President Bush stays on the high road and announces he would never question the patriotism of his critics.
First, let me note that I am a patriot.
I pray every week for the soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though I think we have undermined success in the first conflict by becoming overinvested in the second.
This does not make me un-American, weak, liberal, a sissy, a fellow traveler, a communist or a wuss.
It is my birthright to disagree as strongly as I can with my government because, surprise, I am 100 percent American.
It is your birthright too, and shame on anyone who defines disagreement as disloyalty.
This whole country started that way, remember? Cranky, clever rebels.
Dissent may be disloyal to the incumbent administration, then, but not to American ideals.
Rumsfeld carried his message to the fire-breathing choir a few days ago, addressing the American Legion's annual convention in Salt Lake City. He suggested opponents of the war are suffering some kind of "moral and intellectual confusion" and somehow have forgotten the lessons of history.
There were references to Hitler and appeasement in the speech.
Critics, then, are quislings?
No.
We're very good at historical lessons. Take, for example, the reasons advanced for the Iraq war: Weapons of mass destruction. Connections with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"Not true."
That's a historical lesson we learned late, but well.
President Bush, Rumsfeld and the others are now trapped by their own shifting rationales for starting the war. There was no Sept. 11 connection, we now know, no viable weapons of mass destruction program, not much of anything other than an evil man named Saddam Hussein, lakes full of crude oil and a passion for retribution after the shocking terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field.
Don't get me wrong.
I think it's terrific that we blasted the Taliban into bits, stopped their forward march into the 16th Century and sent them all running into the hills. Gosh, how I wish we could have plugged Osama bin Laden. Why did we stop? So we could focus on Iraq?
For his part, the vice president says war opponents are guilty of "self-defeating pessimism." Rove popped up in August to label Democrats "obstacles" to national security.
I know they are just trying to get those loyal forces all pumped up so they can rush to the polls in November and protect the Republican Congress from being sent packing by an electorate that seems very angry these days.
Just remember one thing.
In this beloved country, we are allowed to dissent, in fact encouraged to dissent by the ghosts of America past. The voices of those who oppose the war have as much value as the voices of those who support it. They are not traitors, appeasers, quislings and certainly not anti-American.
We are entitled to believe what we will.
Perhaps this rhetoric will draw what's left of their army to the polls in November.
Perhaps it will only fuel more passion in the hearts of the "good, decent people," as President Bush called his critics, who want a change.
----------
Charles M. Madigan is a Tribune senior editor and correspondent. E-mail: cmadigan@tribune.com
By Charles M. Madigan
Copyright by The Chicago Tribune
Published September 5, 2006
Oh, for the days when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was merely the sexiest man in the Bush administration, the heartthrob of the conservative distaff and in appearance, the Lionel Barrymore, I would suggest, of modern-day politics.
How did he go from being so craggy-cute, suggesting Barrymore in the stage and film classic, "You Can't Take It With You," to being so cranky, suggesting Barrymore in a much more familiar flick, Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life"? (He played scheming old Mr. Potter.)
Rumsfeld does look a bit like Barrymore, if you squint and imagine Barrymore updated in a good suit and very modern surroundings. Being a hack of some age and not pretty to boot, I must confess I admire this look.
The secretary of defense is one handsome coot.
But not very engaging of late.
I have my suspicions of almost everyone who came through the Nixon administration (and Rummy was young, handsome and on the move in those circles). I feel there is a darkness, a resentment inside that only comes out when they are under fire.
Hence, the behaviors of Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and their creation Karl Rove, over the last few weeks. It seems as though this little power trinity of Bush functionaries has been hitting the same bile bottle on the subject of criticism of the war in Iraq.
This sends the necessary message about divisive characters who are not united against the enemy while President Bush stays on the high road and announces he would never question the patriotism of his critics.
First, let me note that I am a patriot.
I pray every week for the soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though I think we have undermined success in the first conflict by becoming overinvested in the second.
This does not make me un-American, weak, liberal, a sissy, a fellow traveler, a communist or a wuss.
It is my birthright to disagree as strongly as I can with my government because, surprise, I am 100 percent American.
It is your birthright too, and shame on anyone who defines disagreement as disloyalty.
This whole country started that way, remember? Cranky, clever rebels.
Dissent may be disloyal to the incumbent administration, then, but not to American ideals.
Rumsfeld carried his message to the fire-breathing choir a few days ago, addressing the American Legion's annual convention in Salt Lake City. He suggested opponents of the war are suffering some kind of "moral and intellectual confusion" and somehow have forgotten the lessons of history.
There were references to Hitler and appeasement in the speech.
Critics, then, are quislings?
No.
We're very good at historical lessons. Take, for example, the reasons advanced for the Iraq war: Weapons of mass destruction. Connections with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"Not true."
That's a historical lesson we learned late, but well.
President Bush, Rumsfeld and the others are now trapped by their own shifting rationales for starting the war. There was no Sept. 11 connection, we now know, no viable weapons of mass destruction program, not much of anything other than an evil man named Saddam Hussein, lakes full of crude oil and a passion for retribution after the shocking terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field.
Don't get me wrong.
I think it's terrific that we blasted the Taliban into bits, stopped their forward march into the 16th Century and sent them all running into the hills. Gosh, how I wish we could have plugged Osama bin Laden. Why did we stop? So we could focus on Iraq?
For his part, the vice president says war opponents are guilty of "self-defeating pessimism." Rove popped up in August to label Democrats "obstacles" to national security.
I know they are just trying to get those loyal forces all pumped up so they can rush to the polls in November and protect the Republican Congress from being sent packing by an electorate that seems very angry these days.
Just remember one thing.
In this beloved country, we are allowed to dissent, in fact encouraged to dissent by the ghosts of America past. The voices of those who oppose the war have as much value as the voices of those who support it. They are not traitors, appeasers, quislings and certainly not anti-American.
We are entitled to believe what we will.
Perhaps this rhetoric will draw what's left of their army to the polls in November.
Perhaps it will only fuel more passion in the hearts of the "good, decent people," as President Bush called his critics, who want a change.
----------
Charles M. Madigan is a Tribune senior editor and correspondent. E-mail: cmadigan@tribune.com
posted by Carlos T Mock at 9:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home