Rumsfeld’s book brings clarity to chaos after Sept. 11

Former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s new book Known and Unknown is out, and according to most accounts, it’s not a typical political tome. Kimberly Strassel at The Wall Street Journal also noted the book isn’t an apology—she said called it a “serious memoir.”

I haven’t got my copy of the book yet, but I am glad Rumsfeld wrote it and I plan to read it.

For most of the years George W. Bush served as president, the political climate was toxic. The left was aided and abetted in vitriol and hatred for a Republican administration charged with defending a nation attacked by radical Islamists. Rumsfeld wasn’t spared. WMDs comprised one critical issue. Did Saddam Hussein have them? Or not?

Ironically former president Bill Clinton escaped much of that sort of anger although he had his own issues with WMDs. In his second term, Clinton bombed a factory in Sudan after a former assistant to Osama bin Laden claimed al Qaeda was working on chemical weapons in that country. A soil sample taken by a spy showed traces of a chemical used to make a type of nerve gas. In August Clinton sent Tomahawk cruise missiles to Khartoum after US embassies were bombed. The factory was wiped out and eventually the administration came to believe the factory turned out only drugs and veterinary meds. Sudan lost a significant manufacturer. I don’t recall masses of leftwingers coming together to shout, “Clinton lied.” At least they didn’t shout it about the bombing although a certain blue dress comes to mind.*

There’s the same lack of logic if you compare what happened at Abu Ghraib where rogue troops broke some serious rules in the handling of detainees. Rumsfeld offered to resign.

But when a soldier (allegedly) shot and killed 13 people and wounded dozens of others at Ft. Hood, no one called for the Obama administration’s secretary of defense Robert Gates to resign—nor did anyone fault Obama or Gates when soldier Bradley Manning (allegedly) leaked classified military documents. Both incidents, as a matter of fact, were not even ascribed to leadership in the current administration. Both incidents are profound breaches of national security.

For insight on how some journalists manipulate or truncate quotes to shore up a position they’ve taken, read the column Finally asking my question of Donald Rumsfeld at Red State.

Strassel compares Rumsfeld’s memoir to serious works by those who follow the “older Washington tradition of Dean Acheson or Henry Kissinger.” That assessment suggests Rumsfeld’s book will provide fodder for analysts, armchair pundits and academics both present and future.

The more I read about each president’s administration, the more I am aware that a legacy often depends in part on the narrative big media adopted. I’m sharply aware of the differences in that narrative when it comes to Democrats. Consider the hero media made of Franklin Delano Roosevelt despite his disastrous policies and outright lies about his health.

Rumsfeld has set up a website to archive many of the documents cited in his book and the papers are searchable. It’s likely many more issues will be clarified as those documents unfold. We may be surprised once again at the contrast between the record and politically skewed narratives by big media.

Related Articles and Sources

Rumsfeld’s ‘Slice of History’
By Kimberly Strassel at The Wall Street Journal

Senate panel finds Ft. Hood shootings could have been prevented
Gateway Pundit

Donald Rumsfeld opens up...
CBS: Sunday Morning [interview transcript]

*[Print source] The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright; pg. 282

(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Feb. 14, 2011)