I try to think of the President and his men as misguided, not evil. I remind myself that they think they are serving the nation when they perpetrate policies that kill innocents in the name of defending freedom.
And then comes Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to make my life difficult.
When the soldier asked why Americans had to forage for armor for their vehicles, Rumsfeld said – I paraphrase – you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want.
That answer ignores a few realities. First, the specific problem is hardly new. It's bene reported for about a year and hasn't been solved. Nor is it unique – you willremember the soldiers’ families who bought and sent protective vests to their sons and husbands.
Also, when generals told the Secretary of Defense that we needed to send lots more soldiers to Iraq, he retired them rather than beef up the armed forces with a draft. And when economist Larry Lindsay said Iraq would cost lots more than they were estimating, the White House cashiered him.
Oh, and none of this kept the Administration from cutting taxes.
So Rumsfeld was perfectly wrong. The Bush Administration didn’t have to go to war with this army. It chose to go to war with too few soldiers and sent them, sometimes, with inadequate equipment.
This is one of those days where it’s hard to think of this White House as honestly mistaken.
PS This morning, we learn a reporter helped the soldier frame his question, maybe even used the soldier to get his question answered. Those devious reporters. There goes the liberal media, undermining the war effort. Me, I wonder if the reporter also orchestrated the cheers that arose from the assembled fighting men.
PPS Isn’t it time liberals pointed out that the President and Vice-President have been cavalier in putting so many trusting GIs in harm’s way? Why aren’t they calling out Bush and Cheney? If a guy who ducks a fight is a wimp, how do you describe men who do that, then rush to put others in harm’s way?
Me, I’d call them girlie-men.