This is an idiotic piece of writing. If we'd gotten Bin Laden, it would indeed have been satisfying, but it would have done virtually nothing to change post-9/11 history. Without Bin Laden, we would still have had fanatical terrorists trying to attack us, we'd still have gone to war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan would have followed the same trajectory, and so on. Whether Rumsfeld and/or Bush did the right thing is certainly open to debate, but to obsess on one out of many issues---and one of the least significant, at that---is really dreadfully lame "analysis."

Chuckle, how do you really feel about him Ms. Noonan?

Bravo, Ms. Noonan!

Guys, I have no end of issues with the RINO, Ms Noonan, but the points she makes in this case, as they often are, are worth consideration.

I once was a Bush Rah-Rah, and still look back with no small measure of longing, given the current occupant of the White House. But we can not do what Ms Noonan accuses Mr Rumsfield of doing. Some degree of Tactical CYA may be excusable in terms of staying and playing an important role but Historical Strategeries must be formed through an unbiased and impartial look at what's gone on.

Getting rid of Donald Rumsfield was one of George Bush's better moves. But looking back, my support for both wars aside, I have to question whether the "W" was for wisdom or not...whether my support was altogether smart or just more like some stubborn reaction to the generally hideous, anti-American quality of his detractors...

What if we'd just beat the stew out of them and come on home, and let them rebuild their own countries while we paid attention to strengthening ours.

Sorry George. Sorry Don. Thank you for your service and your seeming Patriotism. But if we go down, and we ARE teetering at the brink, history will not be kind, in regards to where you left us, how you took us from united to divided, how you let the demons of ruin make a playground of our economy, and how poorly you prosecuted the war for Americas future.

Ms. Noonan,

I would haved liked to have read your entire article, but you BORED ME WITH TOO MANY WORDS! How about showing us in the U.S. Constitution where any foreign war is authorized. How about citing Federalist Papers pointing to the advisability of foreign entanglement. How about showing us why it matters not whether the President is a Republican or Democrat as it is controlled by the New World Order elitists who win regardless of who "wins" the "war".

I'm beginning to put Noonan in the same camp with that Muslim, Christiane Amanpour, who distorts news and photos to effect U.S. policy. BTW Peggy, how do you feel about Mansoor Ijaz offering to deliver bin Laden to Sandy Berger during the Clinton era? Peggy; you can fool me some of the time, but I'd bet a C-Note that you voted for that Keystone Cop in the Oval Office.

Whether you are a fan of W and Rumy or not, think for a minute about the "analysis" in this article. Ms. Noonan has two major gripes: 1) Rumsfeld uses his memos to back up his point of view, and 2) Rumsfeld didn't "get" Bin Laden.

As for 1), it's Rumsfeld's book, so obviously it's going to present his side of the story and put it in a positive light. Heck, even Jimmy Carter managed to make himself look semi-intelligent in his memoir. Other major players are free to give their side of the story, and someday historians (if any remain who are not radical nincompoops, that is) will sort it all out. Compared to most such books, Rumsfeld has at least attempted to put forth a fairly detailed account and backed it up with actual documents---rare for this type of writing. As for 2), I reiterate my comments above: Whether we had gotten Bin Laden or not, the Bush administration would have chosen to follow the same strategic path, the terrorists would have continued with their barbaric war, etc. At this late date, it's silly to pretend that everything would somehow have turned out differently if only we'd gotten Bin Laden.

GMButler - I could have said it any better. I am waiting for a Republican Leader (still an oxymoron) to say quit the UN, the ultimate foreign entanglement. When will CFR members be tried for treason. Isn't owing allegiance to a foreign entity that wants to overthrow the U.S. treason? Oops I forgot the the Republican elite are CFR members.

jeremy - you can't use Jimmy Carter and intelligent or even semi-intelligent in the same sentence.

I suggest that folks look at the website that Mr Rumsfeld has provided, and use it to access and review mush of the contemporaneous material that was generated during his most recent tenure as SECDEF.

I have found him to have been serious, thoughtful, and open to ideas from many sources. During his time as SECDEF I considered him to be open to questions from the press, intolerant of the ridiculous, and at least as effective as any other person in that job in my lifetime.

Need an example?--look up the October 15, 2002 memo regarding "Potential Problems to be Considered and Adressed".

My only question would be "Why did He and GW allow the UN to define "WMD" so narrowly (excluding ALL dual use materials - such as deadly Organo-phosphate poison/insecticide) that none of the thousands of materials found and detailed in the Kay and Duelfer Reports would meet the definition."

Item #13 "US could fail to find WMD on the ground in Iraq and be unpersuasive to the world."

The failure to point out the restrictive, narrow definition of WMD led us to the "Bush Lied" chorus, and did limit or persuasiveness in dealing with other real threats such a the N. Korean Nuclear build-up.

At one time should could write a good speech, but all said, I would rather have Rumsfeld than Noonan advising the POTUS.

"At this late date, it's silly to pretend that everything would somehow have turned out differently if only we'd gotten Bin Laden."

Also silly to miss Noonan's point that what she calls - "the ruin of U.S. foreign policy circa 2001-08" is largely attributable to the administration taking its focus off Bin Laden and Afghanistan to invade Iraq. It's silly to pretend things wouldn't have been different if that monumental error hadn't occurred during Rumsfeld's watch. It'd be nice to see him acknowledge the error in print, as McNamara belatedly did after America's idiotic Vietnam invasion.

The administration in Washington, emboldened by what it called its victory over the Taliban, decided to move on Iraq. Its focus shifted, it took its eye off the ball, and Afghanistan is now what it is.

Mz Noonan has spent WAY too much time confusing with "success" her sycophant's certain skill at adroitly alternatively brown-nosing and Lewinskying the east-coast's self-styled elitists for invites to be ever again told apart from the likes of Cynthia Tucker.

Both make at least the east coast's b or c lists, although those come in at only around R S or T on the Real Measure of Americans.

The failure to get Bin Laden rest squarely on the Clinton administration, the liar then couldn't be roused from a poker game to ok the capture. It is all in Patterson's Book "Dereliction of Duty".

Ms Noonan, there you go again.In my mind W will go down as the greatest president of the 21st century if only because he kept that fat snake oil salesman Gore from ever being president.If Gore had been president on 9/11 this country would still be on it`s knees begging forgiveness from Muslims for what-ever we had done to upset them.Why don`t you give us all a break and just switch over to the Democrap ticket?I for one have a great admiration for Don Rumsfeld.He`s a true American patriot.

Richard Ryan

Lamar,Missouri (Birthplace of Harry S Truman)

Thank you wmccrindle for making this very important point. Clinton was offered Bin Laden's head on a platter three times and did nothing.

Richard Ryan, You apparently are a conservative sort of guy. If so, please do not brag about being from Harry Truman's hometown, unless you mean to villify him. Please read up on him (oh, his dealings described in Ann Coulter's "Treason" with unions, Whittaker Chambers, Joe McCarthy, and General MacArthur should give you a real good idea of how this guy thought and operated) and then I think you'll take that off your signature line. I am hoping anyway...

Ms. Noonan, I am inclined to be in agreement with almost all of your observations, save one:

You say - "America wanted -- needed -- to see U.S. troops pull Osama out of his cave by his beard and drag him in his urine-soaked robes into an American courtroom. Or, less good but still good, to find him, kill him, put his head in a Tiffany box with a bow, and hand-carry it to the president of the United States."

And then you add - "It wasn't lust for vengeance, it was lust for justice, and for more than justice."

Excuse me, but all that stuff about urine-soaked robes and his head in a Tiffany box .. sounds like lust for vengeance to me. No call for justice was ever so richly and vividly evocative of the gory details of how that justice should've been dispensed. Oh, of course that's what should've happened - the man ought to have been summarily terminated, but let's not get sanctimonious about why!

I must contend with "Jeremy". Had we captured or killed bin Laden it would have made ALL the difference in the whole story. It would have had a completely different effect on the perception of the American people and public opinion around the world. That would have been huge. Different decisions, different actions could have been the result. And I agree fully with Peggy on her points regarding the affect on terrorists and terrorism.

Our nation's greatest moments have always been when we have won even small victories in the name of a just cause. These have energized us as ONE PEOPLE, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD and helped us to overcome enemies bent on destroying all liberty in the world.

I agree ms noonan, but wasn't george bush book

just as bad, he was oblivious throughout his entire

administration. What he learned early on, wasthat he had nothing to fear from the press, whatever he was asked, he'd ignore the point and make a statement.

He knew learned quickly, no one would or could hold him to account, what a downward spiral we are on

bob

I have not for a few years now been a fan of Peggy Noonan. But she is dead on accurate about this. Not getting Osama has been a tragedy. A screw-up of cosmic proportions by Tommy Franks who should have had our BEST of the Best on the ground blocking the Pakistan Border. Nothing else mattered or still matters. Certainly not being in Afghanistan. Not if we care at all about our honor.

History exists to be our teacher. The "blame" for who let Bin Laden escape or who let him survive to perpetrate 9/11 was not the more important point Ms. Noonan made. While blame may be, and apparently is of great interest to folks who want to get in one more shot at Bill Clinton or George W. Bush, allocation of fault is not a discussion that informs the country or it's people going forward. It does not inform us for what we face today. Or what we face tomorrow.

What if you read an argument that "catching or killing Bin Laden was not a significant US objective" ? What if that argument further contended that bringing him to justice or bringing justice to him "wouldn't eliminate Islamist extremists anyway, so why risk the inevitable blood or money in his pursuit?"

Now imagine that argument being advanced by a 2008

candidate, Barack Obama. What would the GOP have said of him then ? Cowardly and treasonous would be the least of the name calling. Now imagine it wasn't Barack Obama making that argument; it was Donald Rumsfeld in the Oval Office. And Paul Wolfowitz or Dick Cheney. Same argument. What would the junior Democratic Senator from NY have said.

What the nation requires, what the responsibility of government demands is that we get it right today. That we wake up safe tomorrow. That our enemies don't go unattended and our People go unprotected. To that end, the only echo from history worth listening to is that which helps us be effective. The

enduring common interest, since our founders and forever more is that we must be effective to survive. What is the most effective reaction or proaction ? in our foreign policy decisions, and our

national defense, what works? What is less likely to work ?The issue the Rumsfeld era and the decisions made then are still with us . Hundreds of thousands of Americans, in the battlefields or across the globe await the next decision. If you could take out bin Laden today , would you pass on it because Tunisia or Yemen are already where they are ? Do you stay in the FATA tomorrow because it has no effect on Quaddafi anyway ? Is that a reason to stay ? What makes us safer ? What is the road ahead? How do we bend the curve in a direction in favor with US interests or US security?

To that issue, as Peggy Noonan points out, the secretary of defense's memoir spent little time. What did the US seek to accomplish for the next generation, with the decisions that were made after 2001? In 2011 should we continue in that path? Should we change path ? Is the vision we had as policy makers still on course 10 years later ? Do we ramp up or slow down. "It wasn't my fault", whether the historical addition of Bill Clinton George W. Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld, is not the book we need to buy or read. General Washington would have found neither the time nor the interest in publishing a book in 1783 about how unpredictably cold Valley Forge turned out for him; when the nation still needed tending. The Rumsfeld memoir, President Bush's Decision Points, Al gore's or President Clinton's books fall under the same lens of a worthy but worried people. We're still here. So is the enemy. So are you. What we once electively called our leaders. These memoirs have their place in history but bin laden and al Audra aren't history yet.

In 2011, the Rumsfeld book came out when more Americans know the name of Mubarek, Quaddafi, and Saleh than ever before. He has a seat at the nations table. All of them do. All were patriots for their service and all still are. This book didn't disappoint Peggy Noonan as much for what it said, as for what it didn't say or even attempt to say. What will be more effective to safeguard the American people? Focus on bin laden as a national priority? Or, declare he is not worth the effort in life

and treasure likely to be expended in getting him. Debating fault while the nation is edging toward the brink of a third world war does nothing to inform the next decision unless we review the past through the singular test that matters : are we being effective against our enemies today ?

I winced when I read Peggy's opening: "I like Donald Rumsfeld." His name brings back so many furious moments I spent watching the Bush Administration sneeringly disrespect and condescend to the rest of us as if we were too stupid to realize what they were engineering as it unfolded. The unabashed arrogance of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld (among others) in those days, to me, was a crime against the people of our country.

But I have recently adopted Bill Clinton's advice to listen to all sides of a story, not just to those who agree with you, so I read on. My reward was Peggy's specific analysis of a book even she hoped would tell the real story. We all absolutely understand the calls that need to be made in the heat of any moment--they can't all be correct; but at least have the grace, maturity, and humility in hindsight to own up to how you just might've lost your heads at the time and betrayed millions of people who trusted your leadership, not only here in America but among our allies as well.

I will never be able to forgive any of these greedy, self-important boys-clubbers who continue to ruin our country--from top to bottom line--until they stop asserting themselves as infallible gods and admit their faults.

Thanks for some much-needed "truthiness" on this subject, Peggy!