John McCain drastically mis-told a story about Dwight Eisenhower
during last night's debate. Referring to the famous note Ike wrote
as the D-Day invasion was starting in which he took responsibility
for failure if it did not succeed, McCain said that Ike had offered
to resign if it failed. Wrong. Dead wrong. Yes, Ike took
responsibility. But no, he did not offer to resign. Here is the
text of the note: "Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have
failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the
troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on
the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy
did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or
fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."
McCain used his story about Ike's (nonexistent) offer to resign
to defend his asinine call last week for SEC Chairman Chris Cox to
be fired. His point was that whomever is in charge of a terrible
failure should be man enough to take the fall for it. It is a good
point -- but a point badly applied. Chris Cox was no more "in
charge" of the credit markets (especially Fannie and Feddie) than
Ike was in charge of, say, the Iwo Jima landing (if Iwo Jima had
gone badly instead of well). But Ike WAS in charge, directly in
charge, and clearly the man ultimately responsible for, the D-Day
landing in France. Yet even Ike, in his admirable note taking the
blame for a potential failure that (thank goodness) did not happen,
did not go so far as to resign or offer to do so. How, then, should
Cox, whose oversight powers for the credit markets are purely
voluntary (voluntary not by him but by the institutions to be
overseen) and circumscribed, and whose oversight on Fannie and
Freddie was nil, be fired? The parallel would not even have worked
even if Ike HAD offered to resign. But the fact that Ike did NOT
make such an offer actuallya rgues against McCain's intended point
-- and shows McCain to have been reckless in desperately searching
for a scapegoat.
topics:
John McCain
