Bush finally heeded our advice on Rumsfeld
I guess President Bush finally got around to reading our editorial calling for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - published May 16, 2004. The editorial came in the wake of the reports of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. That was just one reason we felt it was time for him to leave.
In part, here's what we had to say nearly 30 months ago:
"Over the past two years, the International Red Cross, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have all raised concerns about patterns of mistreatment of detainees by U.S. interrogators in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. Rumsfeld's explanations for how the abuses were allowed to occur, and how they escaped his attention for so long, have not been convincing. Punishing only those directly responsible for the inhumane acts is not enough - not given the gravity of the offenses and the damage it has done to our nation's reputation and our ability to win the war of ideas in the Arab world.
"There are many other reasons why it would be in America's best interest for Rumsfeld to step aside. As defense secretary, he has mismanaged the war in Iraq every step of the way. He helped sell the idea that Saddam Hussein posed a clear nuclear and biological threat to the United States, and was working in concert with al-Qaida. He ignored the advice of many of our long-standing allies and top Pentagon officials to continue what had been a successful strategy of isolating Saddam while continuing our search for weapons of mass destruction.
"Rumsfeld failed to anticipate the hostile reception we received following the 'liberation.' He miscalculated the troop strength needed to stabilize the country. He left Baghdad and other major cities unprotected from looters and thugs. He left museums, hospitals, government ministries and facilities essential to a functioning civil society unguarded. He failed to provide the necessary support, in manpower and materiel, for our military. And he allowed our military prisons to operate with inadequate staffing, training and oversight.
"After the fall of Baghdad, instead of trying to internationalize the occupation and the rebuilding effort, Rumsfeld and other administration leaders chose to go it alone, putting virtually all the costs associated with the occupation - financial and human - on America's shoulders.
To date, more than 770 American soldiers have died in Iraq; another 4,100 have been wounded. We have committed more than $160 billion to the invasion, occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. Estimates suggest the cost could easily reach $600 billion, even if the June 30 deadline for handing over political control to the Iraqis is met - a dubious proposition.
"Our leaders in Washington need to send a clear message to the world that we have not abandoned our ideals. Rumsfeld's resignation would help underscore the point. More important, our leaders need to reinforce that message with the American people, who are growing increasingly fearful that we have lost our way."
I am not sorry to see Rumsfeld go.
In part, here's what we had to say nearly 30 months ago:
"Over the past two years, the International Red Cross, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have all raised concerns about patterns of mistreatment of detainees by U.S. interrogators in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. Rumsfeld's explanations for how the abuses were allowed to occur, and how they escaped his attention for so long, have not been convincing. Punishing only those directly responsible for the inhumane acts is not enough - not given the gravity of the offenses and the damage it has done to our nation's reputation and our ability to win the war of ideas in the Arab world.
"There are many other reasons why it would be in America's best interest for Rumsfeld to step aside. As defense secretary, he has mismanaged the war in Iraq every step of the way. He helped sell the idea that Saddam Hussein posed a clear nuclear and biological threat to the United States, and was working in concert with al-Qaida. He ignored the advice of many of our long-standing allies and top Pentagon officials to continue what had been a successful strategy of isolating Saddam while continuing our search for weapons of mass destruction.
"Rumsfeld failed to anticipate the hostile reception we received following the 'liberation.' He miscalculated the troop strength needed to stabilize the country. He left Baghdad and other major cities unprotected from looters and thugs. He left museums, hospitals, government ministries and facilities essential to a functioning civil society unguarded. He failed to provide the necessary support, in manpower and materiel, for our military. And he allowed our military prisons to operate with inadequate staffing, training and oversight.
"After the fall of Baghdad, instead of trying to internationalize the occupation and the rebuilding effort, Rumsfeld and other administration leaders chose to go it alone, putting virtually all the costs associated with the occupation - financial and human - on America's shoulders.
To date, more than 770 American soldiers have died in Iraq; another 4,100 have been wounded. We have committed more than $160 billion to the invasion, occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. Estimates suggest the cost could easily reach $600 billion, even if the June 30 deadline for handing over political control to the Iraqis is met - a dubious proposition.
"Our leaders in Washington need to send a clear message to the world that we have not abandoned our ideals. Rumsfeld's resignation would help underscore the point. More important, our leaders need to reinforce that message with the American people, who are growing increasingly fearful that we have lost our way."
I am not sorry to see Rumsfeld go.
posted by Randy Bergmann at 11:39 AM
3 Comments:
Tell me, did you happen to write an editorial prior to the invasion of Iraq in which you stated for certain that (a) there would be absoultely no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq should the US invade, or that (b) US casualties will be higher than the administration is/was intimating? Of course you didn't. That being the case, please spare us your gloating. Anyone can be a Monday Morning Quarterback.
Incidentally, and since the editorial board of The Asbury Park Press is apparently so skilled at foreign relations, where, pray tell, can we find Osama Bin Laden? How best do we deal with the nuclear threats present in Iran and North Korea? Will China invade Taiwan and, if so, how should the US respond? Do you have any proposed solutions, Mr. Bergmann, are you going to just sit back and criticize when and if things go wrong?
One more point: Since you are so eager to stroll down memory lane and pull up editorials that put you and your employer in the best possible light, would you also care to pull up some of those old editorials in which The Asbury Park Press endorsed the elections of candidates that are now on their way to Federal prison?
Anonymous:
Which candidates are you referring to in your comment below:
"... would you also care to pull up some of those old editorials in which The Asbury Park Press endorsed the elections of candidates that are now on their way to Federal prison?"
Former Marlboro Mayor and now convicted felon Matthew Scannapieco, for starters. I'm sure I wouldn't have to look all that long to find others that the APP endorsed.
Although he was never prosecuted, John Bennett's double-dipping, if not his corruption, was well known to the APP long before the APP ever began to portray him as corrupt. That didn't, however, prevent the APP from endorsing him time and time again.
Post a Comment
<< Home