Rumsfeld Can’t Remember If He Predicted Insurgency
Rumsfeld Can’t Remember If He Predicted Insurgency
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has a near photographic memory of all the bad things he told President Bush might happen, but didn’t:
I presented the president a list of about 15 things that could go terribly, terribly wrong before the war started: the fact that the oil fields could have been set aflame like they were in Kuwait, the fact that we could have had mass refugees and dislocations and it didn’t happen, the bridges could have blown up, there could have been a Fortress Baghdad with a moat around it with oil in it and people fighting to the death So a great many of the bad things that could have happened did not happen
Rumsfeld can’t recall, however, if he told President Bush that there might be an insurgency:
RUSSERT: Was a robust insurgency on your list that you gave the president?
RUMSFELD: I don’t remember if that was on there
That’s convenient.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
17 Responses to “Rumsfeld Can’t Remember If He Predicted Insurgency”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
DUH!
June 26th, 2005 at 4:08 pm“I told him that there could have been WMDs and connections to Al-Queda and millions greeting us with flowers and Nazgul on winged fell-beasts and…
June 26th, 2005 at 4:23 pm“Well, you see, an insurgency was one those unknown unkowns…”
June 26th, 2005 at 5:25 pm…or “unknowns,” even…
June 26th, 2005 at 5:26 pmsuzy, they should have just asked you, you knew all about the insurgency. you have great hindsight, im impressed. but you guys were claiming we would be “carpet bombing” iraqi cities. you guys should research ww2, you were claiming it as a perfect democrat victory earlier. no mistakes there, perfect. wrong. 2000 casulties the first hour on iwo jima, but at least the msm were on our side, that would be nice now. i love that you put korea on that list, 50 years later and we still have troops keeping s korea safe, but thats not a “quagmire” now is it. you know why we have troops in korea? there are not enough to repel a communist attack, so why then? to ensure our commitment to any war should one break out, we would take so many casulties, we would have no choice but to fight, simple as that. 60 years later and democrats dont want to bring home troops from europe, but hey who knows what could happen in europe right. we are killing terrorists daily in iraq, thats a good thing. we have troops and hardware in the middle east, thats a good thing. get used to it.
June 26th, 2005 at 5:29 pmhttp://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/06/26.html#a3644
June 26th, 2005 at 6:02 pmHere’s the video clip of the segment
So many claims, so off the topic…
June 27th, 2005 at 2:03 amAnd broad generalizations? Whew…
June 27th, 2005 at 2:05 amAnd yet, when Russert quoted the DSM as saying that the US had put little thought or planning for the war’s aftermath, Rummy claimed there was a lot of planning.
Face it, this guy is about as slippery as a greased pig.
June 27th, 2005 at 2:31 amThe Downing Street minutes pops to mind: In its introduction, the memo “Iraq: Conditions for Military Action” notes that U.S. “military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace,” but adds that “little thought” has been given to, among other things, “the aftermath and how to shape it.”
and remember this from 2004
Post-war planning non-existent
By WARREN P. STROBEL and JOHN WALCOTT
WASHINGTON - In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration’s plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.
Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon’s plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners’ parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason.
The slide said: “To Be Provided.”
Just a side note: Hitler declared war on America and the Japanses attacked us, postwar planning doesn’t really apply under those circumstances. Some may argue otherwise, but they were not, as in the case of Iraq, elective wars. A better anaolgy would be the British in Iraq around 1925. The British were far superior in conventional warfare, but despite thousands of casualties, the Iraqi insurgents kept fighting to get the British out. They eventally succeeded, as no sacrifice was too great. Bush got us into this unwinable mess based on a multitude of lies and sexed up exaggerations, now we have to be part of the solution. Leaving Iraq in a shambles could lead to a regional civil war and a real oil crisis. Bush/Rummy need a plan that avoids the mistakes that defeated the British, yet they have no plan except to continue down the same disastrous road and its costing us a life a day or more and a billion dollars a week. Where are the competent adults in this administration.
June 27th, 2005 at 3:34 amDear Fake but accurate,
Your posts are probably counterproductive to your own intents. You choose to write lengthy off-topic paragraphs instead of arguing against the main post. In other words, you actually help to reinforce the validity of the main post.
Unless you’re really a liberal hoping to achieve that effect … hmm…
June 27th, 2005 at 11:04 amUnfortunately for fake but accurate, his denial is showing. He has not yet come to grips with the fact that he’s living in a world of make believe facts that are fortified by the rightwing echo chamber. People like this need to be shaken from their delusions and I suppose he’s already taken the first step by coming here to debate with progressives, he’s recognized that he has a problem. This is good.
June 27th, 2005 at 11:23 amIt all depends on your definition of “insurgency”. Unfortunately, many of the so called dictionaries currently in use in the United States have been edited by discredited left wing organizations. Take for instance the Oxford Dictionary printed by the Oxford University Press. If you refer only to that dictionary you would think that an insurgency is a rebellion. And why would Rumsfeld have warned the President of the possibility of rebellion? Accepting such a simplistic definition is like saying that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
June 27th, 2005 at 12:03 pmBig Al, I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. Are you trying to imply that the Iraqi insurgents can’t possibly be rebelling simply because neither our ground troops nor the Iraqi bickerment, I mean government, has been able to establish a firm enough rule of law to make rebelling against said rule possible?
I also don’t quite understand how Oxford University’s been discredited. Maybe you’d like to share a link?
And I don’t think the definition matters. What matters is the perception. “Insurgency” is just a nicer phrase than “open combat” or “armed rebellion.” Just like the slow slide from “privitization” to “personal accounts,” this administration just wants to use the most … dare I say, politically correct? phrase available, the better to sway opinion or blunt criticism.
Unfortunately, the people in charge still see war as a purely political act, and are content to ignore the impact in terms of real human suffering.
Also, the only WMDs in Iraq were the ones that the UN knew about or that we had sold Saddam. Unless, again, you’ve seen a report we haven’t.
June 27th, 2005 at 12:33 pmIf the circumstances were reversed and Saddam Hussein attacked America on American soil would Bushie loyalists fight back?
June 27th, 2005 at 1:07 pmI know they refuse to fight in Iraq but would they do it here?
If so that would be called an insurgency.
I know if someone tried to take over this country I would join a rebellion, liking Bushie or not. I wouldn’t just sit there and allow another nazi take over.
In a perverse sense, you all seem to be missing some funny stuff in Rumsfeld’s reply:
What “could go terribly, terribly wrong�? The oil wells might be set on fire.
Or, alternatively, the same oil might be used/wasted as a moat around Baghdad. Or bridges might get blown up, slowing down not only troops but the transport of oil.
But this war was not, I repeat, not about oil.
Forget about the civilian deaths that resulted from the invasion and occupation–(over (over 100,000 as of October 2004). Or the reduction of 2/3s of Fallajuh to rubble. Or, etc.
Gawd forbid that something “terrribly terribly wrong” should happen to those oil wells.
And since we’re on the topic of Rumsfeld and strategic planning, let’s not forget Rumsfeld’s 16 October 2003 memo to General Myers, Paul Wolfowitz, General Peter Pace and Douglass Feith:
This, two years and two wars after 9-11. Yet these are the questions, as Peter W. Singer observes, “that should have shaped Pentagon strategy from the start.�
Furthermore, Singer points out:
That’s “a shocking absence of strategic thinking.”
So now Rumsfeld can’t recall whether or not he planned for an insurgency. Guess he had oil on the brain.
June 27th, 2005 at 7:34 pmfree ringtone verizon
free ringtone verizon In the fesso the inhabitiveness mustered fresh from the EMERSONIANA, with appeti
October 6th, 2005 at 2:07 am