This is unbelievable.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=615&e=3&u=/nm/20030329/pl_nm/iraq_usa_report_dc_3
I’m speechless. If the man were in the military he’d be court-martialed for dereliction of duty.
Why is it unbelievable? This fucking idiot has an agenda, and doesn’t want reality or practicality to interfere. What does he care who dies? US soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi civilians, US civilians - all serve to further the cause.
It’s not unbelievable, it’s disgusting.
It sure is unbelievable. In fact, I don’t believe it.
What I do believe is that some military planners disagreed with Rumsfeld’s strategy and others agreed with it. It stands to reason that many different ideas would exist about how best to prosecute the war. Any chosen strategy will differ from what some recommended.
Actually, it sounds more like Rumsfeld has been designated to take the blame for problems with the war in Iraq thus protecting Bush and the military. Look for him to fall on his own sword if things get much worse, and the president’s political future is threatened.
I’m willing to believe that Powell was set up to take the fall for the UN fiasco. But I don’t think anyone but Rumsfeld set up Rumsfeld.
You can either believe this story from Rueters, or you can believe Gen. Franks.
I don’t know whether you actually read that story you linked to Brutus. But the thing is, even though the headline is:
“The commander of the U.S. war in Iraq denied Sunday that he had asked the Pentagon for more troops before invading the country but sidestepped a question about whether the war might last into the summer.”
nowhere in the story does he actually say anything of the fucking kind.
How many times does a point need to be made in a linked article before you accept it?
Once would be enough. Like an actual quote where he said something.
Er, something that supported the headline.
So… if the regime collapses within a week without sizable coalition reinforcements, will the OP admit he/she was wrong?
I just want to know if the claim (Rumsfeld is a “Fucking monomaniac!”) is falsifiable.
Hmm. Everything in the first article, is an ‘unidentified source’
As for General Franks, I would not expect him to admit that Rumsfeld had denied more troops EVEN IF it were true. And I would expect him to deny it regardless.
So in truth you have read an article and you believe it, or you want to believe it, as it’s existence sounds right to you. Now you want the rest of us to share your belief, even though there is no evidence. Those who have been asked about it have denied it.
What else would you like to say ? I think nothing is served by this thread. You saw an article, you are angry and there is no facts anyone has pointed at to prove it’s correct or not.
I think everyone wants the war over and done with. The sooner the better.
Logic.
True, but the sense I got reading another article (and I don’t have a link) is that Rumsfeld was making decisions that should have been left to the military guys, in other words that he was micromanaging the war.
I don’t think that the actual track of the war is relevant.
If Rumsfeld made military decisions based on his personal analysis ‘to prove his point’, ignoring the opinions of those better-informed than he, he’s a monomaniac, even if he turned out to be correct.
So, to answer your question, it is falsifiable, in theory: we just need an honest statement of facts from all the people he supposedly ignored in making his decision.
[I belive Rumsfeld is a parent, so the other part is proven, more or less.]
Your second, very reasonable statement (no spin, even! Stop the presses!) is at odds with your first.
Do you believe he disagreed with Gen. Franks?
Ah, but if he turned out to be correct, is he a Fucking monomaniac?
Or, as I suspect, would the OP jump on any opportunity to describe Rumsfeld as a fucker because of some personal dislike?
Anyhoo, the strategy proposed by some senior members of the military (i.e. bringing in many more troops) may simply have been over-ruled by Rumsfeld because he anticipated that more troops would add more complexity to the theatre, increasing the risk of friendly-fire accidents. He might also have reasoned (using information unfortunately not shared with us plebian-types) that Iraq was gearing up for something major and striking sooner rather than later was in order. He could have had any number of reasons, and I’m disinclined to just label him a “Fucking monomaniac”.
Why are the military guys “better-informed” than the Secretary of Defense, anyway? It’s their duty to give him all relevant information.
Did you forget a :)? Who the fuck cares what my opinion of Rumsfeld is or how I came to it? We’re talking about his behavior, not my opinions.
I find your rationalizations of his behavior amusing. Perhaps they will come up at his trial. You do recognize that they all depend on his knowing better than the people who he’s supposed to listen to?
You’re right, though. “Better informed” was a poor choice of words.
I should have said “better-educated, more experienced, less political, with superior judgement at least with respect to the actual waging of war.”
Rummy, as has been noted by myself and others, it seems, fell for the oldest argument in the DoD: to wit, “air power can get the job done.” It helps, no doubt about that. You still cannot capture a city block from 20,000 feet. Turn it to rubble? Yes. Capture? No.
Rummy sent enough force to destroy the Iraqi regular military, let’s be fair. It’s taking Iraq they forgot about. This is not a small undertaking, like invading Austria or something. I bust their chops, because I love.
You’re right; it was silly of me to bother responding to this dumbass masturbatory thread.
I mean, if you don’t even care about your own opinion…
Check out the author of the article. It is a red white and blue shit covered herring.