Stephen Colbert had Donald Rumsfeld — of all people — on as his lead guest. This was counter to every notion of what kind of guest attracts viewers but I suppose Colbert and his producers don't care on some level about that. Rumsfeld came on to promote a new app he's marketing. Colbert had him on to grill him a tiny bit (there wasn't enough time for more than a tiny bit) about the justification for the Iraq War. He got Rumsfeld to go farther than he ever has in admitting that the decision to go to war was based on faulty intelligence.
I am of two minds about this. I think the Iraq War was one of the greatest mistakes ever made in this country — greatest in terms of human destruction, financial waste and making the world a more dangerous place. I don't think Donald Rumsfeld should be treated like an okay guy who just has a few different ideas about things. On the other hand, Colbert did chip away a bit at a false version of What Really Happened and that has some value. And going back to the first hand, doesn't that kind of civility and joking about with Rumsfeld contribute to a false narrative itself? It suggests that causing all that death and devastation is something we can set aside and trivialize as if it was all an innocent error.
Not long ago, I spent some time with an Iraq War veteran who lost most of the use of his left arm while he was Over There. He considered himself fortunate because he hadn't suffered the same fate as several buddies who didn't come back at all. He expressed an even harsher condemnation of that war than I have — and of course, he has every right to and lot more street cred on that topic. I wonder what he thought if he saw Colbert having Rumsfeld on and treating him as he did.