If there’s one point that the White House has made clear of late, it’s that questioning the administration during the war is, using Bush logic, to undermine the country. The enemy thrives of dissension from within, the theory goes, so our troops are literally in greater danger if critics of the administration, especially those in Congress, express their concerns publicly.
It’s why I was fascinated to see a report about one member of Congress who insisted that the White House “clarify its intent” with regards to the war.
“People lack confidence in the credibility of our government.” Even our allies are beginning to suspect what we say, he charged. “It’s a difficult thing today to be informed about our government even without all the secrecy,” he said. “With the secrecy, it’s impossible. The American people will do what’s right when they have the information they need.”
The same member of Congress added, “[I] believe it is important to the future of our Nation to recognize that there is a problem of credibility today.”
“Accurate judgment is predicated on accurate information. Government has an obligation to present information to the public promptly and accurately so that the public’s evaluation of Government activities is not distorted. Political pundits speak of the ‘credibility gap’ in the present administration. Indeed, this appellation is so widespread that it has become a household word.”
If Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and the White House message machine are right, these kinds of remarks are literally dangerous. In a time of war, there’s no reason members of Congress should be using such irresponsible rhetoric, right? Remarks like these tell the enemy that America is divided and they should keep up their violence to weaken our collective resolve, right?
So, which lawmaker would offer such treacherous comments?
As it turns out, it was Donald Rumsfeld.
It wasn’t all that long ago when a young conservative congressman from Illinois named Donald Rumsfeld spoke eloquently on the floor of the House of Representatives during the Vietnam War about the need for the Johnson administration to speak more truthfully about that conflict.
Funny how times change. I guess we can say Rumsfeld was for presidential accountability before he was against it.