The Crucifiction of Rumsfeld

Posted by Moonage on 21 Dec 2004 | Tagged as: National Politics, The Media

In early 2004, Kerry made the Iraq War the centerpiece of his campaign.  The media jumped all over it.  Dan Rather assisted by running documentaries supporting the concept that the Iraqi conflict was so divisive it would run Bush out of the White House.  The media pounded the US with anti-war propoganda daily.  Hell, a movie was even made cashing in on the overwhelming anti-war sentiment. They ran polls showing how unpopular the war was.  Given all this polling data, Kerry would have been declared brain-dead not to believe the media.  Bush also made Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign as well.  That looked pretty dumb given all the polls.  A strange thing happened election day though.  Bush won in an election not generally perceived as being all that close.  It was wide enough that Kerry did not feel the support was there to challenge it.

Was that a confirmation that the US loves Bush?  I don’t think so.  I think it was a confirmation that the lesser of two evils in today’s complicated world was Bush.  The media horribly misjudged this election, again.  They looked inside and came to the conclusion that the exit polls were to blame.  It couldn’t be that main stream media has an inheremt bias or geographic bias.  It was someone else’s fault, the exit pollers.

Based on that conclusion, main stream media hasn’t given up their anti-war rhetoric and bias.  They can’t do it.  First it was the body counts, that when the 1,000th soldier died, the citizenry would rise up en masse to protest the war so loudly we’d just give up.  When it happened, no one did.  The media went wild, but that’s it.  They patted themselves on the back and went right back to work.  Eventually they realized that the revolution they so expected didn’t happen.  And wasn’t going to.

Having realized that blaming it all on Bush didn’t work, and realizing that the body counts aren’t bad enough to evoke revolution, they’re aiming for something else.  Enter Runsfeld, the man in charge of the war.

First it was the planted question in Kuwait.  Did the media feel duped by jumping on in support of the question?  Not at all.  This guy sums it up:

Our troops in Kuwait, on their way to Iraq, spoke truth to Donald Rumsfeld this week. They make you very proud to be American.

These heroes did more than any politician or journalist could to challenge the administration’s smug presumption that its optimistic predictions were a sufficient basis for planning the war in Iraq. They forced the entire nation to confront deep flaws in the administration’s approach.

The "heroes" Dionne is referring to is actually one of his own, the press.  The soldier didn’t ask the question, he relayed a question the press planted.  Rumsfeld’s answer wasn’t all that good, but it was realistic.  You go to war with the army you have.  Is this the army Rumsfeld wanted?  I seriously doubt it.  It is the army the US Sentate paid for.  Who are critical players in determining what army we have?  John McCain and Susan Collins of the US Committee on Armed Services.  It’s their job to see that the military is properly funded.  Rumsfeld has absolutel no say-so in that matter.  McCain and Collins recently made disparaging remarks about Rumsfeld and the media jumped all over it.  I haven’t seen one media outlet yet that questions why the people who gave Rumsfeld the army he has have been so critical of Rumsfeld for fighting a war with the army they gave him.  IMO, they see that dog biting them, so they’re biting first.  The media likes McCain, they don’t like Rumsfeld.  Bush is supporting Runsfeld, but they don’t like Bush either.

So, we’ll watch the crucifiction of Rumsfeld continue.  The media will pat themselves on the back again for butchering yet another Bush war supporter.  They won’t concern themselves the actual issues ( who REALLY is responsible for the lack of armor?  ).  And, they won’t concern themselves with figuring out what real America thinks.  They’ll take polls in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New Yorjk City, and state that is what America thinks.  And when it’s all over, they won’t be disappointed with the result when nothing happens and no revolts because of it.  They will feel just fine because they got to tell the world what they think, and that’s all that’s important to them.

Thank God for bloggers.

Sphere: Related Content

Technorati Tags: ,

One Response to “The Crucifiction of Rumsfeld”

  1. on 13 Jul 2007 at 9:27 am 1.Moonage Political Webdream » Blog Archive » John McCain’s three year implosion? said …

    [...] close.? During the 2004 election he stood solidly behind Bush in supporting the war in Iraq.? One month after the election, he was critical of people leading the war in Iraq.? So, he’s immediately drawn the ire of anti-war folks and pro-war folks at the same time.? [...]

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

  • The politics of avian flu
  • Rumsfeld Should Have Been Told about embed
  • A brazillion
  • John McCain’s three year implosion?
  • Trashing Rumsfeld
  • Iraq wants US Soldiers To Leave
  • Do unto others as you’d have done to you
  • McCain goes soft on everything that matters
  • Marla Ruzicka
  • Seymour Hersh vs The Pentagon
  • Re-writing history from the bully pulpit
  • Pelosi now ENDORSES the culture of corruption
  • Tweak It, Not Destroy It
  • Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?
  • Bush’s changing Cabinet
  • WMD Hunt - The Big Bust
  • Ted Kennedy’s Torture
  • Moon’s 9/11 Commission
  • Dick Durbin
  • « Senior Moments

    Curtailing Civil Liberties »