Rumsfeld has been “in deep denial — deep, deep denial”
By on Nov 13th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Rumsfeld has been “in deep denial — deep, deep denial”
about the Iraq war, former Rumsfeld friend and Defense Policy Board member Ken Adelman tells The New Yorker.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
He’s a real nowhere man, living in his nowhere land, making all his nowwhere plans for nobody.
-The Beatles
Rumsfeld is creating his own reality.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:31 pmIs there a reason why you guys will link to the blogs that post this stuff, instead of to the articles the blogs link too?
November 13th, 2006 at 12:33 pmI wish he was in deep deep deep The-Nile
November 13th, 2006 at 12:40 pmHe made the statement that we can only lose the war in America, that we can’t lose it in Iraq.
That is some seriously f@#ked up logic.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:45 pm#4
November 13th, 2006 at 12:48 pmThat is some seriously f@#ked up logic.
Not at all Wayne, it’s the same lesson we learned from ‘Nam.
Because they are giving credit to the person who first wrote about the article. A hat tip if you will.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:50 pmOoooo, bi-i-i-i-g shocker there, Ken — NOT!!!!
November 13th, 2006 at 12:50 pmGood thing the guy is no longer Sec. of Defense. What a boob.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:50 pmExplian the logic then Squishy, by all means.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:51 pmDenial isn’t just a river in Egypt.
I’m glad Dumsfeld is gone. But will he stand trial for War Crimes? Stay tuned.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:56 pmActually, we didn’t learn crap from Vietnam or we wouldn’t bogged down in Iraq instead of capturing Osama bin Laden.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:57 pmNot at all Wayne, it’s the same lesson we learned from ‘Nam.
—– squegeeboo
Iraq is not vietnam. Iraq is a war for oil, for corporate interests. Bush has reciently admitted that, to my supprise.
Dumbsfeld, and the (illegal ) propaganda war that the administration has waged against the US population rather than doing the right things on the ground in Iraq is why I say his logic is f*cked up.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:58 pmI see it more like Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:02 pmTalk of denial: The NZZ, swiss newspaper from Zurich, had an article about Mr Rumsfeld today, which said more or less, that he was highly successful in restructuring the army and flexible modern warfare. Didn’t his lean and mean army oust Sadam within a couple of days and the Taliban equally fast?
I almost choked on my coffee.
This rag is the prime information source for swiss bankers and it doesn’t show the slightest hint of humour. They really mean it. For them, what is right for big companies, is right for the army as well and to hell with the consequences.
Others here are more sensible: As they have not much use for public spending, the swiss have tried to abolish their army via referendum several times and are getting closer every time to achieving this goal. For them the army is just costly and of not much use anyway. On the other hand they wouldn’t start a war and the try to win it on the cheap. They’d rather save the money and reduce everybody’s tax, .everybody’s!
November 13th, 2006 at 1:09 pmken ‘iraq will be a cakewalk’ adelman, is merely another in a long string of discredited, war-mongering, extremist, pnac imperialist pigs who would sell their mother for a pint of iraqi civilian blood. does he think he will not burn in the same level of hell as his old friend rummy if he tells the new yorker this?
November 13th, 2006 at 1:13 pmken adelman? — mr cakewalk?.
pot meet kettle.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:15 pmKen Adelman wonders about Rumsfeld: “How could this happen to someone so good, so competent?â€
Could it be because he wasn’t all that good and competent? Has it occurred to any of these people that Rumsfeld was underqualified for the job?
I don’t even know why Bush supporters keep bringing up the removing the Taliban from power and the ousting of Hussein as huge successes under Rumsfeld’s tenure.
Only in the minds of the die-hards can the Taliban and Hussein be made into formidable military opponents.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:21 pmWelcome to our world Rummy.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:27 pmOnly in the minds of the die-hards can the Taliban and Hussein be made into formidable military opponents.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — November 13, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
Someone said to me once:
“They [the taliban and Iraqis] just faded into the background, donned a different coloured headdress and started an insurgency.”
November 13th, 2006 at 1:29 pmOh man, Rummy thinks he is an Oracle!! LMAO!!
November 13th, 2006 at 1:29 pmThe wheel of Karma ran his ass over.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:33 pmRumsfeld? In denial? NO! NOOOOO!!!
November 13th, 2006 at 1:36 pmHe can explain to German ICC when they catch up with him … Ha
November 13th, 2006 at 1:47 pmOf course, Adelman is correct, but isn’t he the ass who advocated the neocon plan from the beginning?
November 13th, 2006 at 1:53 pmLike the Limbaughs and the Hewitts of broadcasting are stepping back, so the likes of Adelman and the neocons looking for their ten-foot-poles.
What a sickening display of self-interest and dishonesty.
Wayne
propaganda war that the administration has waged against the US population rather than doing the right things on the ground in Iraq is why I say his logic is f*cked up.
Fair enough, Point to you sir.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:58 pmActually, we didn’t learn crap from Vietnam or we wouldn’t bogged down in Iraq instead of capturing Osama bin Laden.
—– SpudgeBoy
We sure didn’t.
just one example
In vietnam we used incindiary (napalm ) on civillians
in iraq, we used wp on civillians
Both tactics melt the skin off children
melting the skin off children does not endear the local population towards US troops
People that hear about and see the melting of skin off such children usually get angry and join the current insurgency.
in short,we didn’t learn a dammed thing about Vietnam.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:05 pmForTruth
Explian the logic then Squishy, by all means.
The logic is that we have the resources and the man-power to wipe out the enemy in Iraq, but with out public support the decisions that would have to be made in regards to things such as civilian casulties and destruction of infrastructure to guarantee success can’t be made.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:59 pmSqueege,
In the beginning of the war, there was enough public support to put all the necessary man power and resources into it for a win, but the fabulous Rummy and many others were not competent enought to go for the win.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:07 pmForTruth
In the beginning of the war, there was enough public support to put all the necessary man power and resources into it for a win, but the fabulous Rummy and many others were not competent enought to go for the win.
Possibly, but part of the reason for it’s initial support was due to the claims for troops and resources being so low, if they had said they would need 1/2 a mil in troops and would activate large portions of the reserves right off the bat, it would have been a much harder sell.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:19 pmI wonder if the German high command will hire some of the crack Israeli nazi snatchers and “rendition” Rummy to the Hague??
November 13th, 2006 at 3:23 pmSqueege,
They knew it would have been a hard sell, so they sold everyone a pack of lies.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:30 pmRummy is more than deep, deep, deep in denial : he’ll be in Deep Shit Arkansas when He’s Investigated for being a War Criminal and Pathological Liar.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:31 pmRumsfeld has been “in deep denial — deep, deep denial
So I guess that “Denial” is Rummy’s pet name for his arse.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:32 pmWell it was a no brainer that America had been lied to all this time. Now a steady drip of truth will come out. Rumsfled isn’t the only one who should be thrown out, but its a good beginning. Others need to go also. If Bush and Cheney have any dignity left they would step down now. They are a disgrace to everything America stands for. Perhaps when they are gone or forced out then America can once again deal with world in serious, intellectual and sane posture. “Send away the clowns”!!!!!
November 13th, 2006 at 3:38 pmPossibly, but part of the reason for it’s initial support was due to the claims for troops and resources being so low, if they had said they would need 1/2 a mil in troops and would activate large portions of the reserves right off the bat, it would have been a much harder sell.
Comment by squegeeboo
So it is better to tell the public that it would be a cakewalk when they knew it would take more? Lie to the people that you represent to get your way. Then say that it could not have been forseen. That is just bad leadership. Thell the people the truth. If they think its good enoough to send 1/2 a mil to war and the cause is just then do it. If not they go back to the Risk board and think of another country to invade and ask again.
November 13th, 2006 at 4:43 pm#27 Squeegeeboo…
The logic is that we have the resources and the man-power to wipe out the enemy in Iraq, but with out public support the decisions that would have to be made in regards to things such as civilian casulties and destruction of infrastructure to guarantee success can’t be made.
Then please logic this out for me….
We currently cannot tell by visual methods alone who is an ordinary Iraqi civilian, who is an insurgent (and by that I mean an enemy to the U.S) and who is a Sunni/Shite militiaman that are fighting each other but not the U.S. Therefore if we cannot determine who is the enemy then would logic not dictate that to win we have to kill them all.
If we do not kill them all then how do we know we have won.
Do you really think that the rest of the world (especially the Arab countries) would allow this ?
Terrorism is an ideal.. like Communism is an ideal. Did we defeat Communism…hardly. What we did defeat was a Communist government and we did not do that with war but with negotiation and with economics.
I for one fail to understand how killing Iraqis will defeat terrorism when civilian casualties will be involved. If you killed my (innocent civilian) brother in your efforts to kill a bad guy and I just going to say …that’s ok I know you didn’t mean it. Hell no..I am going to do everything in my power to get revenge….especially if I didn’t want you there “helping” in the first place.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:09 pmRummy hasn’t had a coherent thought since 1972. Why am I not surprised that his “friends” are divulging their own knowledge of that now? Only a matter of time til we find out that he, like Turkey Neck once was, is suffering the early symptoms of Alzheimer’s? Gimme a smooch, Donny, somewhere east, south, west, and north of my rectum.
November 13th, 2006 at 7:41 pm“They [the taliban and Iraqis] just faded into the background, donned a different coloured headdress and started an insurgency.â€
—- doro
As do most any nation when they have been taken and occupation occurs by an invading force.
November 14th, 2006 at 3:26 amWe can look at WWII History to find many examples of that.
#27 Sqeegq-Bo . So your argument is what? That we could win Iraq if only we could kill as many civilians and destroy as much civilian infrastructure as we are able? Gosh, yes, if we could just destroy everyone and everything in iraq, that everthing and everyone would include all the bad guys. Nevermind, of course, that if we commited the kind of atrocities in iraq we did in vietnam, in this internet age, it would be all over the world within hours, and we would become an international perriah. But then again I suppose that the same people who think anything good could come from us invading iraq think we could survive as a superpower even if the entire world boycotted us.
I honestly hate that the chest thumping flag humpers have pumped this country up so much that anyone who even insinuates that gosh there ARE some things that are simply impossible for the USA to do is branded some sort of traitor or defeatist.
Its very, very simple.
There was no possible way that the world could be a better place because of our invasion of iraq.
Period.
Establishing a peaceful, moderate, democracy in a country plauged by generations of tribalism, religious fervor, and hate is a fairy tale. You give the religious nuts a vote, and 51 percent of them are going to turn it into a medeival islamic theocracy the first chance they get.
Under no realistic scenario will anything good come of this mess.
At best, everything is divided, Shia Islam gains an enourmous foothold in the region, and the civil war dies down in 5-10 years.
Worse case, everything is divided, the choas and separatism spreads outwards to Iraq’s neighbors, and the seeds of armadeddon is sown.
It will probably take years, but I predict one of the end results of this mess will be a very, very ugly showdown between Israel and several of its newly empowered neighbors. They were better off having more enemies, but having those enemies too busy vying for power between themselves to trouble them much. Like I said, my main hope is that the collateral damage doesnt spread to the rest of the world. To be honest, I dont give a rats ass about anyone who thinks god handed them property.
November 14th, 2006 at 5:45 amThe facts, let’s be honest, we’ll never know. We DO know that the military asked to send FAR more troops than the ones that were finally approved and sent. We DO know that while we are killing insurgents, we are not confronting where they are coming from, Iran and Syria. In the end, you can expect a country that is close to, or is absorbed by Iran, and we will have to deal with an emerging radical Islamic government that holds a huge amount of the world’s oil and will soon have nukes. Did anyone here actually see the New York Times article concerning that papers published mistakenly by the government (they were too lazy to translate) reveal nuclear secrets of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and that the IAEA said that they were a year away from a low-yield nuke?
November 14th, 2006 at 12:44 pmThe sad fact is that terrorism is the perfect mode of warfare by poor countries taht couldn’t possibly hope to stand against a conventional army. It IS very much a war of hearts and minds, and in the present atmosphere, the UN, and indeed the world (those that are doers and not spectators) don’t have the cojones to do what it takes. Am I in support of extermination? No, of course not. Do I support the war in Iraq? I understand the point, just not what they were thinking in the way that this war was carried out. A military operation should be just that, military. Soldiers are called in when the politicians fail. But mix the two, and you have politicians binding the hands of soldiers who just want to do their jobs and return home to their families. That’s what happened in Korea, and look what we have now. That’s what happened in Vietnam, and what did we get? We learned a HUGE number of military lessons in Vietnam, but it seems that we haven’t learned any politically.
#14: The NZZ is a widely known and perceived right wing, some say fascist publication. They have a history of support for the neocons.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:46 pm