home

Revisiting Rumsfeld

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 07:41:59 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Revisiting Rumsfeld | 2 comments (2 topical)
    Re: Revisiting Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#1)
    by soccerdad on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 09:55:10 AM EST
    "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,"
    Thank you for that glimpse into the obvious. Now WTF are you going to do to stop the war on Iran? BTW no new troops will be needed. The administraion are relying on the neocon concept of fear and intimidation. They are planning on using tactical nukes with the idea that this will "shock and awe" them into dutiful submission.

    Re: Revisiting Rumsfeld (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    The other key point not being mentioned is that this is all off of the "official" budget and does not count on the deficits that are reported. "Emergency" spending isn't supposed to continue for 4 years but that's the WH "reality". Bush can't replace Rummy now without severe political damage to every GOP race [as the replacement gets grilled with nasty details coming out], so it simply won't happen until after November 7. My bet is it will be Lieberman at that time.

    Revisiting Rumsfeld | 2 comments (2 topical)