Monday, May 10, 2004
Rumsfeld Debate and Greater Implications
Compare Mr. Safire's case for why Rumsfeld should stay with The Economists argument of why he should go.
Mr. Safire makes just as good of a case as to why Mr. Rumsfeld should stay as the Economist does on why he should go. Read them both and decide for yourself.
Mr Safire, though, brings up an excellent point in his column:
There is more here than simply the irresponsible acts of a few in the prison. The whole situation was caused by the need to interrogate aggressively which simply spiraled out of control.
The need to extract intelligence is still there. Mr. Rumsfeld, a leader that already knows more about what the DoD is doing to get intelligence than any other leader, is also the most qualified to institute reforms that allow us to interrogate aggressively while not torturing for pleasure.
Mr. Safire doesn't articulate this, but I think it's the key reason Rumsfeld should stay on as the Defense Chair. He is the best qualified to reform our intelligence gathering without crippling it and putting millions of Americans at risk.
Rumsfeld should stay.
UPDATE: Oxblog's David Adesnik doesn't voice whether or not he thinks Rummy should stay, but he does say that in light of the recent WaPo editorials that say that Rumsfeld did little to stop the abuse of prisoners, President Bush's unabashed praise of Rumsfeld is disturbing.
I'll review the editorials and get back to you on this.
Mr. Safire makes just as good of a case as to why Mr. Rumsfeld should stay as the Economist does on why he should go. Read them both and decide for yourself.
Mr Safire, though, brings up an excellent point in his column:
Torture is both unlawful and morally abhorrent. But what about gathering intelligence from suspected or proven terrorists by codified, regulated, manipulative interrogation? Information thus acquired can save thousands of lives. Will we now allow the pendulum to swing back to "name, rank, serial number," as if suspected terrorists planning the bombing of civilians were uniformed prisoners of war obeying the rules of war?
There is more here than simply the irresponsible acts of a few in the prison. The whole situation was caused by the need to interrogate aggressively which simply spiraled out of control.
The need to extract intelligence is still there. Mr. Rumsfeld, a leader that already knows more about what the DoD is doing to get intelligence than any other leader, is also the most qualified to institute reforms that allow us to interrogate aggressively while not torturing for pleasure.
Mr. Safire doesn't articulate this, but I think it's the key reason Rumsfeld should stay on as the Defense Chair. He is the best qualified to reform our intelligence gathering without crippling it and putting millions of Americans at risk.
Rumsfeld should stay.
UPDATE: Oxblog's David Adesnik doesn't voice whether or not he thinks Rummy should stay, but he does say that in light of the recent WaPo editorials that say that Rumsfeld did little to stop the abuse of prisoners, President Bush's unabashed praise of Rumsfeld is disturbing.
I'll review the editorials and get back to you on this.
Comments:
Post a Comment
