 |
It makes perfect sense -- doesn't it? Getting Better All the TimeBy Rick Horowitz I like to think of myself as a logical guy. You give me an issue to consider, or a problem to solve, I like to think I'll be up to the task. I won't jump to conclusions. I won't fudge the numbers to make things come out the way I want them to come out. Being a logical guy, I'll pile one fact on top of another fact -- carefully, methodically. I'll acknowledge my assumptions and poke at my premises. When I'm ready to reach conclusions, they'll be based on -- ta-dah! -- the evidence. That's what being logical is all about. I figure (based on the evidence, of course) that I'm better at it than some people, not nearly as good as others. There are always going to be folks with sharper minds, deeper memories, more facts and figures at their disposal. Compared to them, I'm only an amateur. But these other people -- they're the pros. People like Donald Rumsfeld. Is there anybody in all of Washington more logical than Donald Rumsfeld? Anybody better at cutting right to the heart of things, asking all the pertinent questions, sifting the data and coming up with solid answers? It's no wonder that President Bush relies so heavily on his advice. Don Rumsfeld is one logical fellow. Which is why it was such a comfort to hear from him the other day on the subject of Iraq. I admit it -- I'd been feeling a little worried about Iraq lately. If it wasn't another roadside device exploding and killing another American soldier, it was another car bomb going off and killing dozens of innocent Iraqis. Or terrorists kidnapping another journalist. Or saboteurs blowing up another oil pipeline. Or insurgents taking control of another city. Or -- Anyway, it's been a mess. A bloody mess. At least I thought it was a bloody mess before I heard from Don Rumsfeld. Now I'm calm and confident again. I've been looking at it the wrong way! According to Donald Rumsfeld. He was up at the microphone the other day, right around the time we passed the 1,000 mark. I'd have guessed he'd sound pretty depressed -- even if it's a smaller number (so far) than in some other wars, 1,000 Americans dead in Iraq is still kind of a landmark. But that's because I'm not nearly as logical as Mr. Rumsfeld is. He was explaining how all the latest violence and bombings and killings are proof of the progress we're making! Our success has prompted a "backlash," he explained. Those desperate bad guys have been causing so much mayhem lately because we've been doing so well! So the very kinds of things I'd have thought of as major danger signs -- death and destruction, more and more Iraqis hating us, even more death and destruction -- they're actually mileposts on our march to victory! What a relief. The worse things are, the better they are -- it's so darned logical, I wish I'd been able to reason it out for myself. (I guess that's why Cabinet secretaries get the big bucks.) So I'm trying to use what I've learned -- use some of that first-class Rumsfeld logic -- to look into the future. But it's harder than I thought. For instance: If more attacks in Iraq mean that the bad guys are getting more desperate, then wouldn't fewer attacks mean that the bad guys are getting less desperate? Logically speaking, I mean. So if things ever quieted down over there, wouldn't that mean we're doing...worse? Not that I'd expect Don Rumsfeld to say that -- not in so many words, anyway, and certainly not into a microphone. I'm sure he'd try to explain that fewer attacks mean we're winning. Just like more attacks mean we're winning. And a consistent level of attacks? I'll bet that would mean we're winning, too. So now I'm trying to understand exactly what facts and figures Donald Rumsfeld would have to see to decide that we aren't winning. Or am I missing something? Posted 9/16/04. Don't
let your friends miss any of Rick's award-winning commentary -- spread
the word!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
