Defending Rumsfeld? That's, like, SO 2002.

I caught this article on the (relentlessly conservative...) Town Hall website ref: Rumsfeld and the pressure he takes from all sides these days:

Almost every time Mr. Rumsfeld opens his mouth in public, people accuse him of arrogance, rudeness, evasiveness and insubordination to people who aren't even his superiors. Day after day, week after week, month after month, this brilliant, sagacious man is treated like a punching bag by people who couldn't hold his briefcase. We are talking about a man who is in his late sixties, independently wealthy, professionally accomplished beyond the wildest dreams of his detractors, and who has nothing personally to gain through his position.

[...]

To them, Secretary Rumsfeld is an exasperating paradox, a man who they think craves more power, yet just this week recommended against the Pentagon taking charge of CIA paramilitary operations. He's a fossil out of step with modernity, but who advocates a futuristic, leaner military machine. He's an ogre who delights in placing our troops in harm's way, yet resists the quarterbacks' calls for more troops in Iraq. This guy just drives them crazy.

[...]

While Old Media agents like Milbank are indignant about Rumsfeld's refusal to grovel, I savor his politically incorrect answers and his unwillingness to manufacture phony responses to accommodate their childish insistence on his divulging the unknowable. There is no substitute for such Rumsfeld gems as, "There's never been a war that was predictable as to length, casualty or cost in the history of mankind."

I challenge you to read the transcript of Rumsfeld's testimony and Milbank's piece. Study carefully every Rumsfeld response Milbank chose to highlight, and tell me what on earth is wrong with any of them.

The article above (written by David Limbaugh) references this piece originally published by Dana Milbank in the WaPost from earlier in the week. I think he gets a bit carried away in describing Rumsfeld's wonderful work...and I've already voiced my own concerns ref: Rumsfeld (here and here). The written transcript David refers to can be found here. Having quickly skimmed through it, I find several instances where I agree with David. Consider this comment from Mr. Milbank:

Asked about the number of insurgents in Iraq, Rumsfeld replied: "I am not going to give you a number."

Well that's certainly quite rude! Let's see what the transcript says (notice I've highlighted the portion Milbank chose to quote in his article):

SKELTON: Mr. Chairman, an additional question regarding, as we all know, of course, American troops are still paying a deadly price.

[...]

So may I ask, what is our current estimate of the size of the insurgent force? And how much uncertainty is connected with that estimate, Mr. Secretary?

RUMSFELD: The intelligence community looks at that. The CIA does, DIA does, others do. And they have differing assessments over, at different times.

And, as you know, they're made up of former regime elements, Baathists, and they're made up of Zarqawi-type jihadists and terrorists, and they're also include a varying number of criminals who are paid to do these things. And it's that aggregation that constitutes the insurgents.

I am not going to give you a number for it because it's not my business to do intelligence work.

Maybe, Dick, you want to comment on it.

MYERS: Well, I think your description is right. The primary insurgents that we need to be concerned with, there are two types.

One is the al Qaida-associated Zarqawi folks in-country and the foreign fighters. We think that is a fairly small percentage of the total number of insurgents.

And then we have the former regime elements and Sunni extremists that are hard core. The hard core, the ones that need to be captured or dealt with on the battlefield, is a smaller percentage of the overall total, which includes folks like common criminals and it includes folks that are opportunistic and perhaps because they don't have a job are willing to take money to attack the coalition or dissatisfied because they don't see a political future for themselves or their families or their tribes. So the number is, like all insurgencies, very hard to measure.

These are generally small cells. They don't keep very good records as we capture individuals you can't simply go into their paraphernalia and say, “Ah-ha, here's their organizational diagram, “ because they don't have one. So the estimates are hard to come by.

And it goes on from there. Bottom line: Rumsfeld did NOT respond with a pithy, one sentence reply. Instead, he turned the question over to someone he thought more well-qualified to answer. Again from Milbank:

How long will the war last? "There's never been a war that was predictable as to length, casualty or cost in the history of mankind."

And again from the transcript:

ORTIZ: Mr. Secretary, Mr. Chairman, welcome to our committee today.

I was looking at the chart that you have there: neutralize insurgents, ensure legitimate elections and so on down the line.

To do that, how long will it take us to get there?

RUMSFELD: I'd be happy to start and maybe General Myers wants to comment.

There has never been a war that was predictable as to length, casualty or cost in the history of mankind. Anyone who attempts to do it is, within a relatively short order, proven to be not quite as wise as they thought they were.

You say, “How long will it take? “ The goal is to have the Iraqis have the security capability to manage their own insurgency.

We can predict how long it will take to train up and equip various types of forces.

RUMSFELD: And we have materials we send up to the committee weekly that explain all of that and show all the types of forces and the numbers and what the projection is.

The question is: How does that capability match with the actual problem of the insurgency? Is the insurgency going to grow or decline?

General Myers pointed out that the nature of the insurgency is dependent not simply upon the security forces to deal with it but also on the political progress and the economic progress. And both of those are making headway. So that ought to be encouraging.

But I regret -- I'd dearly love to be able to give you a specific date. I can't.

Rumsfeld may not tell everyone what they want to hear...and he may have a "just do it myself" attitude that makes it difficult for other federal agencies to work in conjunction with DOD. He may have placed too much faith in the analysis of neo-cons and intel-types who listened too closely to the Iraqi National Congress and Iraqi National Accord. But, as David Limbaugh says, Dana Milbank's article has little to do with Rumsfeld's actual testimony to the House committee. If people disagree with Rumsfeld and choose to seek his removal, they would do themselves far more of a service by covering real stories rather than cherry-picking quotes from a transcript they are confident most people won't take the time to read or watch.

This of course, brought another topic to mind. In years past, a Washington Post article, without any changes, would have been published - maybe sent over the wire to other papers, and that would have been that. We wouldn't have seen a transcript from the Congressional hearing and there would likely have been little chance to question the article in a public forum. Not anymore.

I read this piece from the WaPost (via MSNBC) earlier today in which a Post reporter documents the current woes of newspapers...without ever stopping to consider the need for a wider reinvention of the medium. Instead, the article concentrates on how "difficult" it is to fund the old-style journalism model with Internet advertising. No kidding. When a revolution comes, those who try to fit the old square peg into the new round hole aren't going to do too well. And suggesting that charging fees for access to the site...in order to sustain an unworkable model is an ugly admission that someone isn't looking far enough forward.

Peggy Noonan wrote this insightful piece on the Wall Street Journal's online Op-Ed page. I'll quickly cover a couple of her predictions:

Some brilliant rising young reporter with a growing reputation at the Times or Newsweek or Post is going to quit, go into the blogging business, start The Daily Joe, get someone to give him a guaranteed ad for two years, and become a journalistic force. His motive will be influence, and the use of his gifts along the lines of excellence. His blog will further legitimize blogging.

Most of the blogstorms of the past few years have resulted in outcomes that left and right admit or bray were legitimate. Dan Rather fell because his big story was based on a fabrication, Trent Lott said things that it could be proved he said. But coming down the pike is a blogstorm in which the bloggers turn out to be wrong. Good news: They'll probably be caught and exposed by bloggers. Bad news: It will show that blogging isn't nirvana, and its stars aren't foolproof. But then we already know that, don't we?

Some publisher is going to decide that if you can't fight blogs, you can join them. He'll think like this: We're already on the Internet. That's how bloggers get and review our reporting. Why don't we get our own bloggers to challenge our work? Why don't we invite bloggers who already exist into the tent? Why not take the best things said on blogs each day and print them on a Daily Blog page? We'd be enhancing our rep as an honest news organization, and it will further our branding!

Does she sound too far out? I don't think so. Take a look at several recent pieces published by Jack Shafer at Slate (here, here, and - most meaningfully - here). Let me highlight the simple steps Jack took at the end of the last linked article - with probably five additional minutes of work, he tied the blogosphere into his work:

Watch the bloggers work me over here. (I've collected some comments below.) I'll send a U.S. dollar to the first who writes "Shafer doesn't get it." Send e-mail to pressbox@hotmail.com . Disclosure: The conference covered by airfare and lodging. (E-mail may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)

Bloggers Rip My Flesh: Here are comments from the blogosphere about my "Blog Overkill" column. Note on methodology: I harvested them from Technorati, Daypop, Blogdex, and from e-mails sent to me by bloggers.

By just including links to Daypop, Blogdex, and Technorati, Jack has opened the door for those who wish to find opinions that either support or disagree with his...and by advertising this, he has increased the odds that people will write about what HE writes. And by doing THAT, he is ensuring more hits for his own site as people read others' work and are referenced back to the original article. Readership? Up. That's what advertisers want to hear. That's the money that can drive online news - without subscription fees.

Jeff Jarvis elaborates on the relationship between MSM and blogger (and its evolution) here as he builds upon an exchange of correspondence with Bill Keller of the NY Times. Mr. Keller shows a greater understanding for the blog and its role than many bloggers might expect...and raises the equally important point that the Times serves as a major "jumping-off point" for blogging in general. Now if only they'd stop shoving their articles into a paid archive!

Update:

Hindrocket at Power Line takes a much more negative view of the Jarvis-Keller exchange:

Let's just note a few blind spots here: First, Keller is right to note the challenge to print journalism, but the big problem is not competition, it is what Keller called "failures in credibility." The print media can't beat us and other bloggers when it comes to speed. Ultimately, news organs like the Times can only survive if people believe that their slow, ponderous pace generates better accuracy and thoughtfulness.

Rumsfeld Journalism MSM