I just finished listening to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the maltreatment by the U. S. military of Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib prison. I felt that he said what was necessary. He acknowledged the facts and took responsibility but did not abase himself.
Mr. Rumsfeld has, in fact, committed the one of the most egregious offenses possible for a presidential cabinet officer: he has subjected the president to embarrassment and criticism as the result of activities within his department. But so long as he retains the president’s confidence which, apparently, he does, he should remain in office.
There’s only one question that should concern us: would removing Mr. Rumsfeld from office further the war effort? I think the answer to that is pretty clearly no. If you believe otherwise, I’d be very interested in your reasoning and who you think would do a better job. The burden of proof is on the affirmative here.
If, on the other hand, you believe that there are more important considerations than the war effort that warrant removing Mr. Rumsfeld, well, I think you should re-consider that position.
It’s pretty clear that quite a few prominent Democrats believe exactly that. Their statements are pretty much self-lampooning:
Congressman Rangel calls for Rumsfeld’s Impeachment
To the best of my ability to determine no Secretary of Defense/War has ever been impeached let alone impeached in wartime. In addition all of the members of the House and a third of the members of the Senate are running for re-election. Not to mention putting on a convention. This wouldn’t even get to the floor. Mr. Rangel is making an empty threat.
Senator Biden Calls for God’s Impeachment
Presumeably the Senator has someone in mind for the job?
