GQ: Bush (and Rumsfeld) and his Crusade

AND HE SHALL BE JUDGED

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld has always answered his detractors by claiming that history will one day judge him kindly. But as he waits for that day, a new group of critics—his administration peers—are suddenly speaking out for the first time. What they’re saying? It isn’t pretty

By Robert Draper
GQ Magazine

on the morning of Thursday, April 10, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon prepared a top-secret briefing for George W. Bush. This document, known as the Worldwide Intelligence Update, was a daily digest of critical military intelligence so classified that it circulated among only a handful of Pentagon leaders and the president; Rumsfeld himself often delivered it, by hand, to the White House. The briefing’s cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous days’ war efforts: On this particular morning, it showed the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in Firdos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Baghdad. And above these images, and just below the headline secretary of defense, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death.”

This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine. On March 31, a U.S. tank roared through the desert beneath a quote from Ephesians: “Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” On April 7, Saddam Hussein struck a dictatorial pose, under this passage from the First Epistle of Peter: “It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.”

These cover sheets were the brainchild of Major General Glen Shaffer, a director for intelligence serving both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense. In the days before the Iraq war, Shaffer’s staff had created humorous covers in an attempt to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle. Then, as the body counting began, Shaffer, a Christian, deemed the biblical passages more suitable. Several others in the Pentagon disagreed. At least one Muslim analyst in the building had been greatly offended; others privately worried that if these covers were leaked during a war conducted in an Islamic nation, the fallout—as one Pentagon staffer would later say—“would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.”

But the Pentagon’s top officials were apparently unconcerned about the effect such a disclosure might have on the conduct of the war or on Bush’s public standing. When colleagues complained to Shaffer that including a religious message with an intelligence briefing seemed inappropriate, Shaffer politely informed them that the practice would continue, because “my seniors”—JCS chairman Richard Myers, Rumsfeld, and the commander in chief himself—appreciated the cover pages.

But one government official was disturbed enough by these biblically seasoned sheets to hold on to copies, which I obtained recently while debriefing the past eight years with those who lived them inside the West Wing and the Pentagon. Over the past several months, the battle to define the Bush years has begun taking shape: As President Obama has rolled back his predecessor’s foreign and economic policies, Dick Cheney, Ari Fleischer, and former speechwriters Michael Gerson and Marc Thiessen have all taken to the airwaves or op-ed pages to cast the Bush years in a softer light. My conversations with more than a dozen Bush loyalists, including several former cabinet-level officials and senior military commanders, have revealed another element of this legacy-building moment: intense feelings of ill will toward Donald Rumsfeld. Though few of these individuals would speak for the record (knowing that their former boss, George W. Bush, would not approve of it), they believe that Rumsfeld’s actions epitomized the very traits—arrogance, stubbornness, obliviousness, ineptitude—that critics say drove the Bush presidency off the rails.

Many of these complaints are long-standing. Over the past three years, several of Bush’s former advisers have described their boss’s worst mistake as keeping Rumsfeld around as long as he did. “Don did not like to play well with other people,” one cabinet official told me—stating a grievance that nearly everyone in the White House seemed to share, except for Bush himself. “There was exasperation,” recalls a senior aide. “‘How much more are we going to have to endure? Why are we keeping this guy?’” Rumsfeld has also received ongoing criticism that his Bush-mandated efforts to modernize America’s Cold War–era military contributed to the early stumbles in Iraq. But in speaking with the former Bush officials, it becomes evident that Rumsfeld impaired administration performance on a host of matters extending well beyond Iraq to impact America’s relations with other nations, the safety of our troops, and the response to Hurricane Katrina.


[To read the rest of the GQ article, click on the title link.]


Ok, so a couple things come to mind. I understand Mr. Draper wants to sell magazines, maybe even a book. Fine. I also realize Mr. Draper most likely wants to prevent a revisionist history of the Bush years (in his opinion) and he fears the Bushies might just pull it off. It is also quite likely that Mr. Draper considers himself objective about these issues, but for the words he chooses (carefully I assume) in his essay. I should copy and paste everything, but for need - the above make the point I need to, and allow for enough so as to search it out at a later date. (if necessary).

There are two points about the first paragraphs that are worth noting - the scripture on the daily briefing book, and Rusmfeld was not well liked.

These are two different issues and rather than write two articles, they are conflated. In an article dealing with the scriptures, it could easily have mentioned Rusmfeld supported the quotes even though others didn't and then move on ... but no, Mr. Draper ties the two issues together - wrongly so.

So what if Rumsfeld didn't play well with others. Does that say something about Rumsfeld, the others, or both. I think the others more so than Rumsfeld. Everyone including Mr. Draper could have looked up Rumsefled's time at the Pentagon the first time he was there - reviewed how well he played with people and found he was still not good with others. Likewise - anyone who thought he would be different, was ... not paying attention. What is more important is did he serve the president well. No whether he made friends. I understand the need, seeming drive today, to qualify people based upon how friendly they are, how much they smile, how much they say they care - the Obamification of the media. So what if Rumsfeld was a cranky bastard who no one liked. Did he serve the president well? yes or no, and if no, it was time to leave - and at that time (when he resigned) he was under attack daily by the media and from within - the more the media attacked, the more blood in the waters and the more sharks in the Pentagon circled which in turn led to more media stories and more sharks and ... none of it absolutely defines Rumsfeld nor does it prove he failed to serve his president - it does prove he was dead in the water.

Leave that issue and move to the religious.

We are fighting an enemy who was as passionate about their beliefs as we .. no, we aren't passionate are we? We actually don't want to appear to be religious out of offending someone else, even if they want to kill us and make us accept their belief. We should still not mention our belief because it could disturb some people.

Is it not clear how idiotic that mentality is?

The Muslims in Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan (or wherever on earth), a few people are concerned about offending, respect the religious more than they respect the secular. Bin laden would respect a devout Catholic more than he would a secular academic who was open minded. The Wahhabi respect the religiosity of Christians and hold the non-religious in the highest contempt. The Iranians would rather have dinner with the Pope than sit down with an ACLU lawyer to discuss how best to incorporate Shiism into American culture.

it is only the academic left who believe devout Muslims are offended and the fact the left, generally very secular, hold Christianity in such contempt does not mean the Islamic masses do, but when the media portray it as a Crusade, what are the masses supposed to believe after all - they have been conditioned by generations to believe what the western media say, for only our media is free, and they know this. So they watch and read as the Western media call it a Crusade and the extremists call it a Crusade so it must be a Crusade.

It is not more complicated than that. It is really quite that simple.

Further - assume as Muslims, Jews, and Christians do, that there is a God - they also believe in a Satan (even if Judaism has diminished his role and significance). One does the good and one does the bad (in very simple terms). So - if I was writing a brochure to put scripture on it, is there any question as to what scripture I should put on it? There shouldn't be if you are rational / logical. A Christian nation would not put Jewish slogans on their brochures - war is not Affirmative Action. We should also not put Islamic slogans as they would be an inherent contradiction if placed next to many Christian slogans.

For me, it is a non-issue turned into an issue by very small minded petty people.


















Stuff happens