Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly denied that US troops are involved in a guerillla war in Iraq but General John Abizaid, the new Head of Central Command for US forces in Iraq says differently.
So who’s telling the truth here, and who’s the liar?
Niether nor. It is useful, in interpreting these events, to keep in mind the psycho-pathology of testesterone poisoning as it affects anthropoid apes. Things would have gone better if they had spent some time grooming each other.
Abizaid is showing some red butt to Rummy, who, for all his pretensions, is still a civilian, for Chrissake! The power has shifted, under current situations, Rummy’s dilithium crystals have buckled and his shields are down. He needs Abizaid to succeed and right fucking NOW! And Abizaid needs to demonstrate to his fellow officers that he can put this bean-counting feather merchant in his place. He can eat out on this for the rest of his life, he will never need to buy his own drinks at the Officers Club.
Plus, Rummy can always scurry for cover behind the “rapidly fluidic threat matrix that’s an integral part of 21st century asymmetric warfare.”
Well, Rumsfeld is technically correct. Abizaid said that it was a guerrilla war in military terms. Rumsfeld was probably meaning guerrila war in some other way.
And what does this say about Shrub’s little self-aggrandizing “victory” stunt in the flight suit? If the war wasn’t over yet then what were we celebrating? Will we have to fire up another Viking Jet so the Iraqis know they’re supposed to stop fighting now?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s priceless!! Very good work.
In practical terms, it means that he’s not going to be able to pull off the political ads his staff had planned when they set up that taxpayer funded victory celebration.
This clash of definitions is too “inside” to make a difference to the public.
The public will still support GW which means that the craven Congress will vote whatever power he asks for to “fight terrorism.”
You dishonest bastards.
The entire quote from Secretary Rumsfeld was: “according to British Intelligence, the current situation is not anything like a guerrilla war”
Britain stills stands behind that assessment (made in March of 2000), therefore Rhumfeld’s statement was technically correct.
So put a sock in it. Damned revisionists.
However, this means that the SECRETARY of DEFENSE of this nation (SECDEF for you military types) is not listening to the reports coming in from OUR people on the ground. If you have people in a situation, you don’t listen to another nation’s intelligence and take it as gospel, you get your own freakin’ intelligence. That’s precisely WHY you have people on the ground.
So then, squeegee, the Commander of US forces in Iraq is saying that British Intel is either lying or wrong, yes?
[sub]Think you might have the year wrong, too. 2003[/sub]
Whoosh.
That is priceless! I don’t usually quote entire posts, but I couldn’t leave a word out.
Who’re you whooshing, squeegee?
Whooshed me enough for everyone in this thread to have a few goes at it.
Thankfully, my whoosh +/- is still even for this week because of one I faked in the Pit at someone. GMRuyijn or however he spells that (now there’s a guy who’ll have to do 15 vanity searches … one each for all the possible misspellings:D).
Wandering Agnostic, the “British intelligence” and “technically correct” catchphrases are the 2003 update of “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is”.
Let’s try another: “Today Bush administration officials insisted that they did not misspeak when they said that there was no deficit spending in this year’s budget. Secretary of the Treasury John Snow defended the earlier statement, 'British intelligence reported that there was no deficit, and they stand behind that. Therefore, the administration’s statement was technically correct. We all remain confident that surpluses will be found, or at least a program of surpluses.”
You confused me! Evil! And here I was trying to get my head around the post, too. Besides, Brit intel isn’t all that great. How about Mossad?
The Average American is probably otherwise unaware either way of Brit Intel superiority or inferiority, but assumes, based on the fact that they went Iraqi-kicking with us, that it has to be at least passably good. Thus for now it’s safe.
Good? Heck, its darn good! Better than bad, its good!
[Moderator Hat: ON]
squeegee said:
You have been here long enough to know that direct personal attacks belong only in the Pit. As this isn’t the Pit, that means you’re violating the rules.
You’ve also been here long enough to know that it’s not a good idea to do it again. So don’t.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Errmmm
Whoosh?