Key bits:
His new autobiography, Known and Unknown, is variously described by reviewers as “score-settling” or “a revenge memoir.” It is understandable that Rumsfeld, who has been demonized by a number of media-created myths, would want to point out a few facts to anyone willing to listen. But few are. And here’s the thing: On many subjects, Rumsfeld has a point! A recurring theme is that many of the knocks against him are based on widely misunderstood or mis-reported events.
At a town hall meeting with troops, the soldier complained about a shortage of armor for Army vehicles. You remember Rumsfeld’s infamous and oft-quoted response: “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want.“
‘Insensitive’ was the word used, ” Diane Sawyer says, leaning in accusingly.
Rumsfeld’s answer: “Was it insensitive? No. Go back and read the whole thing. I cared deeply about the troops and my answer reflects it.“
But did anyone at ABC “go back and read the whole thing?” I’ll wager they did not. I’d be surprised if one person at ABC bothered to check the context of Rumsfeld’s exchange that day, even though the full transcript remains on the Pentagon’s web site.
If they did they would see that Rumsfeld did not — figuratively — tell the soldiers to suck it up, as the brief, edited clip implies. In fact, he gave a much longer, nuanced response, explaining what was being done to ramp up production of armored vehicles, how the Army was “sensitive” to the problem that some vehicles were under-armored, and stating the goal was to do as much as “humanly possible” to fix the problem. The next day Rumsfeld even praised the soldier who spoke up, saying it was “good” that ordinary soldiers express their concerns. “It’s necessary for the Army to hear that,” he told the New York Times.
Then there’s the oft-repeated canard that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and everyone else “lied” about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. To lie is to knowingly convey a falsehood, or by omission allow a known falsehood to remain uncorrected. There is simply no evidence Rumsfeld, et al did not believe what they were saying, at the time they were saying it, based on the intelligence they were getting. As Rumsfeld pointedly says, “The President did not lie. The Vice President did not lie. Tenet did not lie. Rice did not lie. I did not lie. The Congress did not lie. The far less dramatic truth is that we were wrong.“
And that really is the larger point of Rumsfeld’s rambling ruminations on his career. The truth is often far less dramatic than the myth. It’s hard for some people to accept, so enamored are they with the appeal of the oversimplified caricature that has up to now eclipsed a more nuanced portrait of a man who, though an imperfect human, has devoted his public career to trying to do the right thing.
The book’s title also somewhat ironically illustrates the difficulty so many in the press seem to have grasping even the simplest nuance. When Rumsfeld explained his straightforward concept of “known knowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns,” ABC’s Diane Sawyer called it a “lecture” that “confounded” the reporters in the Pentagon press room.
No, actually, it did not. It was not some mangled malapropism, or bureaucratic gobbledygook. It was a clear, perfectly lucid explanation of the challenge of making decisions with imperfect information. Any schoolchild could follow the logic, apparently just not some ADD-afflicted members of the media, who disingenuously and inaccurately mocked it as some sort of embarrassing gaffe.
“Dismissive” is a word often used to describe Rumsfeld, but “dismissive” perfectly describes his critics, who are unwilling or unable to re-examine their own assumptions in the light of new or overlooked information and fresh perspective provided by Rumsfeld, in his exceedingly well-documented work.
Ouch. That one will leave a mark.
Read the whole thing
No comments:
Post a Comment