Letter of the Day

In a constitutional democracy with a civilian commander in chief, it would be considered borderline treason for generals to call for a president’s resignation.

Generals rebel against presidents in banana republics and military dictatorships. In the United States, the generals, outraged by the incompetence and arrogance of their commander-in-chief, with thousands of troops either killed or maimed due to bad planning under their watch, call for the resignation of the secretary of defense. It’s the American and courteous way of calling out the man in the White House without actually calling out the man in the White House.

But we should see through this smokescreen. The generals who have called for the removal of Donald H. Rumsfeld are really talking about his boss and their commander-in-chief, George W. Bush. The media side-step this obvious point. But it’s obvious to the White House, and its only rebuttal, which assumes we’re idiots, is to challenge these generals and question why they didn’t speak up before they “retired.” This comes from an administration that labels journalists, members of Congress and other public figures who challenge White House policy in Iraq as unpatriotic Americans who are aiding and abetting the enemy.

And so the White House defends Rumsfeld. It must. The growing Rumsfeld scandal is a thin veil that barely masks the truth. With Rumsfeld gone, who would be left to blame?
— William Stosine, Iowa City.

attribution