Shut up, he explained

WaPo (what is up with them, anyway?) has published an editorial questioning the motives of those retired generals who have called for Rumsfeld's ouster.

The best part? One of the authors is Melvin "I heart secret bombings in Cambodia and Laos" Laird. Yes, the Melvin Laird who tried to excuse the fact that Nixon kept the bombings secret from Congress by characterizing it as an "oversight."

Laird: Shit, dude, did we just totally forget to tell Congress about bombing Cambodia and Laos??

Nixon: Dude! I was so going to tell them! But then the doorbell rang, and Checkers wouldn't stop barking...

Laird: I know dude, I spaced it too.

Laird also famously defended Nixon's lie that the neutrality of Cambodia and Laos had been respected by helpfully explaining that Nixon meant that no ground troops had been sent in.

See, bombs respect neutrality. Ground troops do not respect neutrality.

Any questions? No? Good.

So this guy is really an excellent choice to co-author an article that proposes that it is the generals still in the military, and not those who no longer report to their civilian bosses, who are more credible in their public opinions of those bosses.

Yes, one would think that a simple consideration of the relative motivations of those still employed and those not still employed might come to the conclusion that those military leaders no longer concerned about their jobs or their pensions might be just a tad more inclined to speak the truth. But apparently that kind of simple, non-twisted variety of logic is not Laird logic.

For an example of Laird logic, see the bombing vs. ground troops argument above.

Or for an more recent example of Laird logic, see this bit from his WaPo piece:

We do not advocate a silencing of debate on the war in Iraq. But care must be taken by those experienced officers who had their chance to speak up while on active duty. In speaking out now, they may think they are doing a service by adding to the reasoned debate. But the enemy does not understand or appreciate reasoned public debate. It is perceived as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve.

Hmm. Let's see if we can distill that down a bit:

We do not advocate a silencing of debate on the war in Iraq. So shut up.

See, it's not the fact that our president is pursuing war in Iraq that is killing our troops. It's those damn people who won't stop resisting the rightness and justness of our war! They're the ones that are killing our troops!

You can see that now, can't you? Good.