Brian Greenspun on why we should be blaming Bush

Sunday, April 23, 2006 | 7:26 a.m.

It is what CNN's Wolf Blitzer didn't ask that says the most about the mess President Bush has created and the problem that will confront Republicans this election cycle.

Blitzer is normally a no-nonsense, get-to-the-point kind of interviewer. That is why he is so important to the debate process in this country. People trust him to ask the right questions, always know his subject matter and treat his guests, no matter how despicable they may be, with the respect needed to create a relatively free flow of information. That is how the public is best served, not by the strident nature of most cable news and talk shows in which "gotcha" is more important than fact and responsible opinion.

I was hoping Wolf would continue his probing questions last week when his guest was the indomitable former secretary of state, Henry Kissinger. Say what you will about Mr. Kissinger, he is a statesman and very skilled interviewee. You have to be really good to get what you want, otherwise he will dance on the head of that pin for hours!

I think that is what happened last Sunday when the topic under discussion was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and whether he should resign or be "encouraged" to resign by President Bush.

Rumsfeld is an easy target these days because as defense secretary it has been his responsibility to not only prosecute the war and promote the peace in Iraq but also to advance the administration's position on these matters - no matter how wrong or wrongheaded they were or have turned out to be.

When Blitzer asked Kissinger whether Rumsfeld should resign - at least three times - the answer was clear.

"Why would you solve a problem that occurred three years ago with a resignation today?"

That was the first answer. The second one was an invitation to Blitzer to ask the next question, which, inexplicably, he never did.

Kissinger explained that Rumsfeld picked the right number of troops to win the war in Iraq. It was the aftermath - the peace plan, such as it was - that was woefully underestimated. But that, Kissinger said, was not Rumsfeld's decision.

The obvious next question was, "Whose decision was it?" I am pretty sure Kissinger would have said Bush because, as president and commander in chief, the buck not only stops at his desk but also gets spent based on whatever decision is made in the Oval Office.

If Kissinger's answer would have led the American people to Bush's desk - the right answer as any eighth grader knows - then the public would have a different head to roll. "Forget Rumsfeld, what about his boss?" would be the war cry from a frustrated, disheartened and totally disappointed electorate.

Once that question is asked, all kinds of options are placed on the table. Misleading the public about reasons for starting a war and then bungling the effort because of stubbornness, arrogance, ineptitude or worse could well be reasons for the American people to be asking for a different person's resignation.

It isn't as if the American people have had no experience in matters of removing or encouraging the resignations of presidents. And most people would argue we did it for far less egregious actions.

I wish Iraq had turned out differently and still, as do most Americans, hope for our country's sake that it gets worked out. But, even though I supported the war in Iraq based on what we had been scared into believing, I am not part of the chorus calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.

Like Kissinger, I don't believe that solves anything. A little more candor on this subject will, however.

President Bush loves to take credit for his decision-making ability and his loyalty to his team.

If that is true, shouldn't the questions for Kissinger and others be directed at what to do about the guy who actually made all these decisions?

If the answer to that question is yes, it is easy to understand why the Republicans are nervous about the election party in November.