Stewart v Rummy

Last night I watched the Rumsfeld interview on Jon Stewart. I was apprehensive to watch it, because any interview with Rumsfeld makes me boil with anger instantly and takes its toll on me. It is a visceral reaction that I don’t think I have for anyone else on the planet. Maybe Cheney I suppose, but at least Cheney has his daughter, so there’s some hope on social issues. There is something about Rumsfeld’s reflective glasses and trademark neo-con smirk. The glasses remind me of the glass panes used in the Federal building across the street from my dad’s office. It’s where the Manhattan Project was “pursued” and the glass is reflective, so no one can see inside and steal secrets. I imagine that this is also the reason why Rumsfeld has chosen this style.

I was also nervous to watch, because I know that Jon Stewart can go for the jugular. It’s not often, but I figured this would be quite a clash and it would make me pace the room while watching it. In the end, it wasn’t that bad. I kept my cool at the sight of Rummy, because I wanted to hear if Stewart could get to him. The thing is, I think Rumsfeld won. I absolutely adore Jon Stewart and, like so many others, I feel he kept me politically sane during the darkest days of politics in this country. (Oh, I’m now just realizing why he called his event the March to Restore Sanity…)

But last night, Jon Stewart attempted to point out the arrogance and deception of the Iraq war and to link it directly and rightfully to one of its chief architects. However, that very arrogance prevented it from coming close to penetrating Rumsfeld. The apology that Jon Steawrt jokingly proclaimed to have scored in the opening moments was really its only flimsy appearance.

I haven’t yet seen the full interview yet. I concede that with the 12 minutes or so that Jon Stewart has to interview his guests, he would have had to be superhuman to extract a mia coppa from this evil little man that’s never fought in a war. And he doesn’t have the luxury I have to say it exactly that way, i.e., “Mr. Rumsfeld why are you an evil little man who’s never had the guts to fight in a war and has no problem placing our military and innocent lives into the depths of the most brutal violence?” That might end the interview a little too quickly and burn a bridge or two.

Instead Jon Stewart’s tactic was a slightly jocular yet incisive quizzing that pointed out incongruous or downright inhumane passages from the book and called Rumsfeld on it. Clearly Jon Stewart had read and memorized the entire book, which is impressive and must have been difficult. However, without offering an alternative, I think his approach didn’t and couldn’t work. The reason is because Rumsfeld really, truly doesn’t believe he’s done anything wrong. I’m sure he sleeps like a wee babe at night. This man clearly doesn’t worry about a thing and is at peace with the decisions he’s made. Logical and impossibly cool questioning from Stewart was never going to be victorious or even satisfying. It couldn’t possibly infiltrate such a slick, self-aggrandizing and pervertedly guilt-free man. Perhaps the only crack at this sociopath-like veneer was when Rumsfeld pulled this Midwest schtick about gosh or golly or whatever the word was that he used to put him in tune with the “heartland.” It gave Stewart and the crowd the one opportunity to snicker and was perhaps the only upper hand moment. Jon Stewart pounced on this and got to say “gay sex” in Rumsfeld’s face several times.

I’m not sure there could really be a way to skewer this sanctioner of Abu Ghraib human rights decimation. He is soulless and stays one step removed behind the safety of his reflective Manhattan project glasses. It was a good attempt though, albeit inevitably disappointing.