Gutless Generals Taking Pot-Shots at Rummy

Belated Dissenters

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 12, 2006; 8:51 AM

You know the administration's argument: We are slowly making progress in Iraq, but the media are so fixated on car bombs and suicide attacks they never get around to reporting that.

I would suggest this line is growing dated. The war has aroused a growing number of critics who have nothing to do with the MSM and can't by any stretch be called liberal.

When Republicans and former military men are ripping the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld handling of the war, I'd say that Houston, we have a problem.

My only question in these matters: What took them so long?

I'm not saying they're necessarily right. I am saying that I'm suspicious when people leave jobs where they can actually do something about a policy, and only then -- in articles, books and TV appearances, unburden themselves of the grave doubts they dared not voice when it mattered.

That's probably a little harsh, but so be it.

Paul Bremer, for instance, writes a book and suddenly tells us the that Unites States did not anticipate the Iraqi insurgency and that he raised his concerns about the size and quality of our military forces with Bush, Rummy and senior military officials. At the time, he toes the line. The rest of us find out when he hits the book circuit. Thanks a lot.

In this week's Time , retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold also goes the belated candor route:

"I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon. . . .

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that 'we' made the 'right strategic decisions' but made thousands of 'tactical errors' is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it.

"What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions -- or bury the results."

I see Kurtz old boy, you're using tho old non-denial denial routine..."I'm not saying they're necessarily right..." No, but you do seem to be lending them a great deal of column space and by implication credibility. You also fail entirely to report one single statement by Rumsfeld in response to these gutless Generals. But that's alright Howard, I'll be happt to correct your (I'm sure) unintentional omission.

Rumsfeld said he doesn't recall retired Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold raising any objections to the war planning when he was working in the Pentagon for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"He never raised an issue publicly or privately when he was here that I know of," said Rumsfeld.

Just so you know Howard, he also spanked the reporters for doing that which you are so good at, imputing assent to an absence of refutation. When a reporter began to ask a question relating to unrefuted reports in several books about plans by the administration for invading Iraq, Rumsfeld stated that he has a real job to do and that if he was to spend his time refuting all the mythology coming out of the press, he would not have any time to do his job.

You see Howard, how totally irrelevent you are to the administration. You in the mainstream media (MSM) have become, by your own biases, inaccuracies, and misteps, irrelevent in virtually every respect. We in the general public know you for what you are, political hacks out to promote your own Left wing agenda.

The mere fact that the administration had contingency plans in 2001 to invade Iraq means absolutely nothing beyond the fact that those individuals assigned duties in national security were doing their jobs. Every administration draws up contingency plans for every conceivable military contingency they can think of. I would be very surprised if their weren't contingency plans for an invasion of Canada or Mexico. I would be very surprised if their weren't contingency plans for an attack against our closest allies. That's what the military does, that is their job.

I realize that a degree in journalism requires very little actual intellectual power, but really guys I would think that you would want to exercise your little brains to some small degree.

Full Story: More Bias Coverage from Kurtz

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below