home

Text of Rumsfeld's Last Memo

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 09:48:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The New York Times has the full text of Donald Rumsfeld's last memo to the White House, written 2 days before he resigned.

Background here.

“In my view it is time for a major adjustment,” wrote Mr. Rumsfeld, who has been a symbol of a dogged stay-the-course policy. “Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.”

Nor did Mr. Rumsfeld seem confident that the administration would readily develop an effective alternative. To limit the political fallout from shifting course, he suggested the administration consider a campaign to lower public expectations.

< Jailing Journalists | Worst President Ever >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Text of Rumsfeld's Last Memo | 10 comments (10 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What We Are Doing Is Not Working (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by john horse on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 09:32:40 AM EST
    Two thoughts about Rumsfeld's memo.

    So now that Donald Rumsfeld has revealed that "what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough" will those of you who have supported Bush's war admit you were wrong.  There was a time when the Bush administration was saying that everything was just fine in Iraq.  As Pangloss said in Candide, it was the best of all possible worlds.  The media was not giving us a distorted picture of the situation.  We just had to stay the course because victory was just around the corner.  Rumsfeld's memo turns this world on its head.  It showed that it wasn't the media that was distorting the situation but the Bush administration.  This was already known by those of us who opposed the invasion and occupation.  Now the rest of you have no excuse.  

    Regarding Rumsfeld's suggestion that to limit the political fallout the Bush administration should consider a campaign to lower public expectations.  So what Rumsfeld is saying is that the American public should not hold the Bush administration accountable for its failure in Iraq but we should instead lower our expectations.  Being a member of the Bush administration means never holding yourself accountable for your actions.  

    What Rumsfeld is saying is... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 11:20:19 AM EST
    ...that the only problem they see is a PR problem for themselves........

    What we see in Iraq is exactly what was intended by Bush/Cheney all along.

    Parent

    Donald's war (none / 0) (#1)
    by aahpat on Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 10:03:00 PM EST
    Donald Rumsfeld in Oct. 2003 Associated Press report about soaring Afghan opium production:
    The fact that drug trafficking revenues have soared since the U.S. push into Afghanistan has put the Bush administration on the defensive.

    "You ask what we're going to do and the answer is, 'I don't really know,'" Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said recently. Associated Press, 04 Oct 2003, Afghanistan: The Deadliest Harvest

    This may well be the most honest, informed and candid statement that Donald Rumsfeld ever made as Defense Secretary of the United States of America.

    MORE: Afghanistan Opium Crop Sets Record Bush failure

    Did they think we wouldn't notice? (none / 0) (#2)
    by aw on Sat Dec 02, 2006 at 10:34:47 PM EST
    Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals


    my expectations.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 12:29:34 AM EST
    were already pretty low, where do you go from bottom?

    What to expect now (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 07:40:12 AM EST
    Steve Clemons at The Washington Note had a great post on Friday: Saudis Will Fill Vacuum Left by US in Iraq and Challenge Iran's Pretensions...

    ...commenting on

    Nawaf Obaid's WAPO article 'Stepping Into Iraq':

    In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.

    One hopes he won't make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited." If it does, one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis.


    Nawaf Obaid is a personal national security advisor to Saudi Ambassador to the US Prince Turki al-Faisal and what he is writing is no doubt the public version of what King Abdullah told Cheney when the VP was summoned to Riyadh.

    Maybe Armando can write a post discussing some of the ramifications and drawing some pictures of where potentially things might be headed afterwards?

    The Shia are not going... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 08:44:24 AM EST
    ...to take very kindly to Saudi surrogate intervention on behalf of the US.

    It's looking like Bush has not only instigated a civil war in Iraq but perhaps a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran and a region wide conflagration:

    Iran preparation for the occupation forces withdrawal. A Chilling Letter from the Badr Brigade
    By Mr. Sadr's Office
    Nov 16, 2006, 18:56

    The current stage Witness a sharp and dangerous turn in the political process at all the local levels, regional and global, After the overwhelming victories achieved in the political, military, social, economic and cultural Thanks to the efforts of our political leadership, our religious authorities and the struggle of our religious Shiite follower of Imam Ali (peace be upon him) and unlimited support from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    As a result of the disappointment of the public [Sunnis], the political, social isolation, their failure to achieve any gain through their participation in the political process.

    A desperate attempt to break the siege, they are planning to establish alliances and treaties with the Wahhabi and infidel Governments of in the neighboring countries, especially (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen) to change the character of the political map in Iraq and the region, in coordination with the Anglo-American occupation forces to agree on a draft resolution seriously threaten our existence, our identity and our future, not only in Iraq, but in the Middle East in general



    Parent
    $$ quote (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 11:13:33 AM EST
    "To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks -- it could spark a regional war. So be it:

    'W' stands for WWIII.

    Parent

    Bush is supporting the killers of American troops (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 11:40:27 AM EST
    If the Iraqi government can't stop sectarian killing today when it is able to call on the world's most powerful military, it can hardly be expected to do so once the Americans have left. The more likely outcome is an escalation of the civil war, with elements of the security forces taking sides. The Shi'ite militias will enjoy numerical superiority and the continued surreptitious backing of Shi'ite Iran. But what the Sunni insurgents lack in numbers, they make up for in greater killing experience. Their suicide bombers, fighters and improvised explosive devices are responsible for the overwhelming majority of the 2,800-plus U.S. deaths in Iraq.
    ...
    Nawaf Obaid, a security adviser to the government of Saudi Arabia, warned last week that if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, Riyadh will intervene to protect the Sunnis from the Shi'ites. In an Op-Ed in the Washington Post, he said the Saudis would probably supply the Sunni insurgency with money, arms and logistical support. Quiet intervention is always an option: Iraq's porous borders are ideal for smuggling cash, weapons and jihadis.

    More...

    Can there be any doubt left what kind of a criminal terrorist organization the Bush/Cheney Administration is?

    Parent

    Yeah, but this administration's idea... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 10:02:17 AM EST
    ...of changing courses to try something new means trying to get bush to memorize and learn to pronounce a new multi-word "slogan" to repeat to the press by rote daily.

    Text of Rumsfeld's Last Memo | 10 comments (10 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment