McCain on Rumsfeld: hardly flattering

By Jesse D. Hamilton
Senior Staff Writer
February 28, 2007

In light of his recent criticism of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, it is irrelevant whether or not Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is playing politics in anticipation of his 2008 presidential campaign, but what matters is whether or not his assessment of Rumsfeld is justified.

Last week, McCain told a crowd that, “We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement… of this war [in Iraq].” McCain later went on to say he thought that “Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history,” according to a Feb. 20, 2007 issue of The Washington Post.

McCain’s comments immediately sparked a harsh response from the White House, who defended Rumsfeld’s public service, describing him as an “effective” leader. The White House, however, should not have been surprised at the senator’s remarks.

McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has long expressed discontent with Rumsfeld, telling reporters in December 2004 that he had “no confidence” in Rumsfeld. In fact, McCain is just one face in a crowd of critics, and Rumsfeld should be accustomed to the criticism.

Retired generals have demanded his resignation in front of Congress. CEOs have taken out ads in newspapers, claiming he was unfit to run an organization. Even former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State Colin Powell questioned Rumsfeld’s effectiveness as head of the Pentagon. Why all of the criticism?

Some of the more notable possibilities could include when Rumsfeld failed to properly utilize the most powerful and technologically advanced military in the world to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Or maybe it was because he sent 120,000 troops to Iraq, going against the advice of then head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, who insisted that between 300,000 and 400,000 troops would be needed to prevent an insurgency after the invasion. It also could have been because he admitted to using an Autopen (an automated signature apparatus) to sign the death certificates of those killed in Iraq. Finally, it could have been the fact that he resigned in the wake of the mid-term elections after Democrats seized control of Congress.

Are these the marks of an effective leader?

The notion that Rumsfeld will be remembered as anything better than a horrible secretary of defense is absurd. Equally absurd is Vice President Dick Cheney suggesting that McCain apologize to the former secretary. Since when did Cheney become the moral compass for the nation’s government? Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, is on trial for releasing the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose husband coincidently refuted the Bush Administration’s claim that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium in Niger.

McCain’s vitriolic remarks towards Rumsfeld are not only justified, but they are what this country needs. We need our elected representatives to speak their minds, hold individuals accountable for their actions and not glorify the failed careers of incompetent people, as the Bush Administration has become so keenly adept in doing. Furthermore, McCain’s comments about Rumsfeld offer a best case scenario for the former secretary’s place in history. Being remembered as “one of the worst” is better than being remembered as the worst, which, given Rumsfeld’s track record, is entirely possible.

hamiltonj2@lasalle.edu