Revisiting Rumsfeld
by TChris
Remember when we were told that the war in Iraq would be an in-and-out job, over before we knew it ("It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months"), and that post-war reconstruction would be largely funded by the newly liberated country's oil revenues? It hasn't worked out that way.
In the latest sign of pressure on troop strength from violence in Iraq, the Pentagon said Monday that it has extended the combat tour of 4,000 U.S. soldiers, the second time in as many months that an Army brigade has seen its yearlong deployment lengthened.
Many share responsibility for the lies. Yesterday, the spotlight focused on the Secretary of Deceit, Donald Rumsfeld.
"I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq," retired Army Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste told a forum conducted by Senate Democrats.
Even if Rumsfeld had been honest, his incompetent conduct of the war should have caused his ouster long ago.
Retired Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton assessed Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically."
The truth about the brief and inexpensive war that Rumsfeld promised:
The conflict, now in its fourth year, has claimed the lives of more than 2,600 American troops and cost more than $300 billion.
And about the future cost:
The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.
| < New Trial Ordered For Judith Clark | White House to Declassify NIE Judgments > |
