“I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said.”
~ William F. Buckley Jr.
Isn’t it amazing that one of the architects of one of the worst U.S. foreign policy debacles in history would have the nerve to accuse President Barack Obama of driving Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai to recognize Russia’s Crimean land grab as Karzai put it, “the free will of the Crimean people”?
Maybe it was the free will of the Crimean people, maybe it wasn’t.
But that isn’t the important question right now.
The important question is, why do failed politicos from the ‘W’ years, guys like former Vice-President Dick Cheney, former National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley and Donald Rumsfeld continue to play at being political critics?
You remember Donald Rumsfeld, don’t you?
He’s the now-81-year old former secretary of defense who gleefully helped George W. Bush orchestrate the invasion of Iraq while promising and failing to successfully fight the war on terror and effectively modernize the military.
Oh well, 1 out of 3 ain’t bad . . . is it?
After laying fairly low since he stepped down as secretary of defense in 2006, Rumsfeld is talking again; theorizing a day or so ago that because the Obama administration has called out Karzai for what the corrupt, flip-flopping, erstwhile ally he is, Karzai refused to sign the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that would have kept as many as 10,000 American troops in Afghanistan after December, 31, 2014.
“By golly,” Rumsfeld said to a FOX News interviewer Monday, “they (the Obama administration) have trashed Karzai publicly over and over and over.”
Rumsfeld added, “I really think it’s understandable” (Karzai’s support for Russia’s takeover of Crimea) “given the terrible, terrible diplomacy that the United States has conducted with Afghanistan over the past several years.”
Referring to SOFA, Rumsfeld said, “A trained ape could get a status of forces agreement; it doesn’t take a genius.”
Is the former secretary of defense revealing some sort of dark heretofore hidden prejudice here?
After all, this is a man with a history of failing to think before he speaks and for failing to think at all.
Remember . . . this is a guy who could not figure out how to effectively respond to the 9/11 attacks much less articulate a winning strategy for the war on terror.
Moreover, Rumsfeld has never admitted that his boss, President George W. Bush, was dead wrong to invade Iraq and ultimately kill and main hundreds of thousands and throw away trillions of taxpayer dollars for absolutely nothing.
So, why would anyone listen to a failed, non-thinking political hack like Donald Rumsfeld?
Why would anyone listen to anyone who refuses to take responsibility for his failures to successfully prosecute the war on terror, for his failure to stand against invading a country that had not attacked the United States, and for his failure to come even close to fulfilling his promise to modernize the military after he was appointed secretary of defense by George W. Bush in 2001?
Remember . . . this is a man who once said, “I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that.”
And, if that isn’t enough to prove that there is no reason to give a whit about anything Donald Rumsfeld has to say, how about this Rumsfeldian gem: “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.”
Perhaps the time has come for Rumsfeld and his cronies from the ‘W’ years to finally sit down and shut up!
What do you think?
Comments? Questions? Contact the author at: email@example.com or Tweet: @DavyZJones