- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Damage Control, the Dance Begins . . .
- Thread starter CaptnKirk
- Start date
On top of that Rumsfeld is now saying we need more troops in Iraq.
What a complete mess Bush and Co. have created. Based on lies and their secret agenda. And we have people in our nation who are actually willing to believe their BS. :frown:
From today's NY Times
----------------------------------------------------
Rumsfeld Says Iraq May Need a Larger Force
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, July 13 ? Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that the United States might need to send additional troops to Iraq to quell an increasingly well-organized guerrilla resistance, and warned that more American soldiers would die in attacks this summer.
Mr. Rumsfeld also said for the first time that the attacks against American troops by remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces, fedayeen fighters and Iraqi prisoners released before the war, were being coordinated at least regionally and possibly nationally.
Mr. Rumsfeld and his top aides had expressed optimism in recent weeks that American troop levels in Iraq could begin to decline as additional allied ground forces arrived later this summer and more newly trained Iraqi police officers took up positions around the country.
But the increasing frequency and sophistication of the attacks against American forces and Iraqis helping them have stirred alarm among American officials and caused commanders and Mr. Rumsfeld to rethink force levels.
"It seems to me that the numbers of U.S. forces are unlikely to go up," he said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press." "Now, could they? You bet. If they're needed, they will be there."
There are 148,000 American and 13,000 non-American troops in Iraq now, with 17,000 more allied soldiers pledged to arrive over the summer. Mr. Rumsfeld said 28,000 of the 60,000 Iraqi police officers needed were now on the job. American occupation leaders also plan to train a new Iraqi army of 12,000 soldiers within one year, expanding it to 40,000 within three years.
As recently as Wednesday, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Rumsfeld had agreed with Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who recently stepped down as the commander of troops in the region, that the overall number of foreign troops in Iraq would stay about where it is for the foreseeable future. At the same time, he suggested that some troops from other nations would replace United States soldiers, reducing the American presence somewhat.
"It would be incorrect to say that we expect that international forces will replace all of U.S. forces," Mr. Rumsfeld said under intense questioning by senators. "We don't anticipate that."
In his testimony, he also said that if the strains of American deployments of ground troops around the world forced the Pentagon to seek to increase the size of the Army and the Marines, "clearly, we will come to Congress and ask for an increase," adding, "But at the moment, we do not see that that's the case."
Mr. Rumsfeld is to be briefed this week by military commanders on how long troops now in Iraq ought to be kept there, and on which units might leave. They would be replaced by other American forces as part of a rotation that changes the mixture of troops from those specialized in intense combat to those better suited for keeping the uneasy peace and sporadic hostilities.
Today, Mr. Rumsfeld confirmed that American officials were bracing for a possible new wave of attacks against United States forces during the next week to coincide with anniversaries tied to Mr. Hussein and the Baath Party.
The anniversaries include July 14, the date of the 1958 coup against the British-backed monarchy, which under Mr. Hussein was celebrated as Iraq's National Day; July 16, the date that Mr. Hussein took power in 1979; and July 17, the date of the Baath Party revolution in 1968.
"We expect that the summer is not going to be a peaceful summer," Mr. Rumsfeld said on the ABC News program "This Week," noting the increased resistance. "It's pretty clear that in a city or an area, there is coordination. We don't have any good evidence that it's nationwide or even a large region, but it's possible."
On "Meet the Press," Mr. Rumsfeld warned of more American casualties, saying: "Are people being shot at? Yes. Is it a difficult situation? You bet. Are more people going to be killed? I'm afraid that's true."
Speaking with more urgency than in the past, Mr. Rumsfeld said capturing or killing Mr. Hussein was paramount so as to deny guerrillas a rallying figure and to ease the fears of other Iraqis that the former president could somehow return to power.
"The fact that Saddam Hussein has not been found does cause a problem," he said on "This Week." "We do need to find him. We do need to get closure."
When asked about the cost of the Iraq mission, Mr. Rumsfeld said on "Meet the Press" that the $2 billion-a-month price tag in April was an estimate by The New York Times. But in fact, the Pentagon comptroller, Dov S. Zakheim, was quoted in The Times on Friday as the source of that figure. Appearing 30 minutes later on "This Week," Mr. Rumsfeld cited the April figure as the Pentagon's and acknowledged that the postwar costs had roughly doubled, to about $4 billion a month.
In discussing the attacks on American forces, Mr. Rumsfeld said on "Meet the Press" that many of them seemed directed at stalling efforts to establish a new Iraqi government and to rebuild the economy.
"The leftovers, the dead-enders from that regime, are targeting our successes," he said. "I'm afraid we are going to have to expect this to go on."
------------------------------------------
What the hell is Rumsfeld "afraid" of? He isn't in danger of being sent home in a body bag. Only the troops he put in harm's way are. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle - all pitiful lying cowards who wont hesitate to send you or me or our children off to die to suit their own purposes. Disgraceful.
What a complete mess Bush and Co. have created. Based on lies and their secret agenda. And we have people in our nation who are actually willing to believe their BS. :frown:
From today's NY Times
----------------------------------------------------
Rumsfeld Says Iraq May Need a Larger Force
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, July 13 ? Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that the United States might need to send additional troops to Iraq to quell an increasingly well-organized guerrilla resistance, and warned that more American soldiers would die in attacks this summer.
Mr. Rumsfeld also said for the first time that the attacks against American troops by remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces, fedayeen fighters and Iraqi prisoners released before the war, were being coordinated at least regionally and possibly nationally.
Mr. Rumsfeld and his top aides had expressed optimism in recent weeks that American troop levels in Iraq could begin to decline as additional allied ground forces arrived later this summer and more newly trained Iraqi police officers took up positions around the country.
But the increasing frequency and sophistication of the attacks against American forces and Iraqis helping them have stirred alarm among American officials and caused commanders and Mr. Rumsfeld to rethink force levels.
"It seems to me that the numbers of U.S. forces are unlikely to go up," he said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press." "Now, could they? You bet. If they're needed, they will be there."
There are 148,000 American and 13,000 non-American troops in Iraq now, with 17,000 more allied soldiers pledged to arrive over the summer. Mr. Rumsfeld said 28,000 of the 60,000 Iraqi police officers needed were now on the job. American occupation leaders also plan to train a new Iraqi army of 12,000 soldiers within one year, expanding it to 40,000 within three years.
As recently as Wednesday, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Rumsfeld had agreed with Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who recently stepped down as the commander of troops in the region, that the overall number of foreign troops in Iraq would stay about where it is for the foreseeable future. At the same time, he suggested that some troops from other nations would replace United States soldiers, reducing the American presence somewhat.
"It would be incorrect to say that we expect that international forces will replace all of U.S. forces," Mr. Rumsfeld said under intense questioning by senators. "We don't anticipate that."
In his testimony, he also said that if the strains of American deployments of ground troops around the world forced the Pentagon to seek to increase the size of the Army and the Marines, "clearly, we will come to Congress and ask for an increase," adding, "But at the moment, we do not see that that's the case."
Mr. Rumsfeld is to be briefed this week by military commanders on how long troops now in Iraq ought to be kept there, and on which units might leave. They would be replaced by other American forces as part of a rotation that changes the mixture of troops from those specialized in intense combat to those better suited for keeping the uneasy peace and sporadic hostilities.
Today, Mr. Rumsfeld confirmed that American officials were bracing for a possible new wave of attacks against United States forces during the next week to coincide with anniversaries tied to Mr. Hussein and the Baath Party.
The anniversaries include July 14, the date of the 1958 coup against the British-backed monarchy, which under Mr. Hussein was celebrated as Iraq's National Day; July 16, the date that Mr. Hussein took power in 1979; and July 17, the date of the Baath Party revolution in 1968.
"We expect that the summer is not going to be a peaceful summer," Mr. Rumsfeld said on the ABC News program "This Week," noting the increased resistance. "It's pretty clear that in a city or an area, there is coordination. We don't have any good evidence that it's nationwide or even a large region, but it's possible."
On "Meet the Press," Mr. Rumsfeld warned of more American casualties, saying: "Are people being shot at? Yes. Is it a difficult situation? You bet. Are more people going to be killed? I'm afraid that's true."
Speaking with more urgency than in the past, Mr. Rumsfeld said capturing or killing Mr. Hussein was paramount so as to deny guerrillas a rallying figure and to ease the fears of other Iraqis that the former president could somehow return to power.
"The fact that Saddam Hussein has not been found does cause a problem," he said on "This Week." "We do need to find him. We do need to get closure."
When asked about the cost of the Iraq mission, Mr. Rumsfeld said on "Meet the Press" that the $2 billion-a-month price tag in April was an estimate by The New York Times. But in fact, the Pentagon comptroller, Dov S. Zakheim, was quoted in The Times on Friday as the source of that figure. Appearing 30 minutes later on "This Week," Mr. Rumsfeld cited the April figure as the Pentagon's and acknowledged that the postwar costs had roughly doubled, to about $4 billion a month.
In discussing the attacks on American forces, Mr. Rumsfeld said on "Meet the Press" that many of them seemed directed at stalling efforts to establish a new Iraqi government and to rebuild the economy.
"The leftovers, the dead-enders from that regime, are targeting our successes," he said. "I'm afraid we are going to have to expect this to go on."
------------------------------------------
What the hell is Rumsfeld "afraid" of? He isn't in danger of being sent home in a body bag. Only the troops he put in harm's way are. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle - all pitiful lying cowards who wont hesitate to send you or me or our children off to die to suit their own purposes. Disgraceful.
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Yep - can't handle the truth so you seek to taint it. No spin here - best be finding something else.
Need we start more an more threads about something that has been put to rest? The Niger info was not specifally a part of the "British intel" that Bush pointed to, as admitted by the Brits. Why must you proliferate lies?
CkG
Need we start more an more threads about something that has been put to rest? The Niger info was not specifally a part of the "British intel" that Bush pointed to, as admitted by the Brits. Why must you proliferate lies?
CkG
Fleischer and Rummy sound like some of the Nixon people at the beginning of Watergate. Declaring it was all over before it began. Have they got a surprise in store.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA - we'll believe the liars while they're lying about their lies. Credibility. Where is theirs now?
Oh, I get it. End of story, right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This is my favorite part of the BS:
Still, "The British stand by their statement," Rice said on "Fox News Sunday." "They have told us that despite the fact that we had apparently some concerns about that report, that they had other sources, and that they stand by the statement." U.S. officials have been denied access to the additional evidence, she said.
---
Can you imagine such dedication to protecting sources, British Intelligence will risk the fall of the British and American government rather than divulge the source of the Uranium claim. Now that's something I can believe. The evidence undoubtedly bears the watermark of the PNAC Press.
Who did the forgeries, who stuck the lie in the speech?
Still, "The British stand by their statement," Rice said on "Fox News Sunday." "They have told us that despite the fact that we had apparently some concerns about that report, that they had other sources, and that they stand by the statement." U.S. officials have been denied access to the additional evidence, she said.
---
Can you imagine such dedication to protecting sources, British Intelligence will risk the fall of the British and American government rather than divulge the source of the Uranium claim. Now that's something I can believe. The evidence undoubtedly bears the watermark of the PNAC Press.
Who did the forgeries, who stuck the lie in the speech?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Nope - Britain can't/couldn't share the intel because they had agreements with whom they got the intel from. Dog still doesn't hunt - give it up already.
CkG
Nope - Britain can't/couldn't share the intel because they had agreements with whom they got the intel from. Dog still doesn't hunt - give it up already.
----------------------------
Right, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, Caddy, you're right. It's just an innocent little agreement not to tell that must be honored even if two governments fall. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE it is. But it's exactly why you maintain such credibility. Never have I seen such incredible credibility.
The reason they won't tell us is because it's just more lies. But you got one thing right, all right. They are definitely out to protect the source. See the plan was that whoever got caught first would say it was secret intelligence from the other. Blair's toast anyway so he can be sacrificed. Secret intel, right. Surely they can share it with an impeachment closed door hearing.
----------------------------
Right, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, Caddy, you're right. It's just an innocent little agreement not to tell that must be honored even if two governments fall. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE it is. But it's exactly why you maintain such credibility. Never have I seen such incredible credibility.
The reason they won't tell us is because it's just more lies. But you got one thing right, all right. They are definitely out to protect the source. See the plan was that whoever got caught first would say it was secret intelligence from the other. Blair's toast anyway so he can be sacrificed. Secret intel, right. Surely they can share it with an impeachment closed door hearing. Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nope - Britain can't/couldn't share the intel because they had agreements with whom they got the intel from. Dog still doesn't hunt - give it up already.
----------------------------
Right, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, Caddy, you're right. It's just an innocent little agreement not to tell that must be honored even if two governments fall. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE it is. But it's exactly why you maintain such credibility. Never have I seen such incredible credibility.
Dude - you're blowing out my margins! Knock that off
Seriously though, I guess the British have inherited the same operating procedure as here in the U.S.: 1.) Maintain secrecy, 2.) Stay on message, 3.) Act like it's no big deal and keep plowing your agenda right on through. If we haven't seen the British intel, how do we know it's any good? I think, at best, it's an interesting development, but I don't think you can really point to it and say, "See, we were right."I hate to do it . . . but Michael actually has a point. I do not necessarily agree with his one paragraph rule; but most articles (short of Yahoo or FoxNews blurbs) should be excerpted not copied. If you find the NY Times intrusive don't go . . . but Reuters deserves the traffic for the intermittently decent work they do.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nope - Britain can't/couldn't share the intel because they had agreements with whom they got the intel from. Dog still doesn't hunt - give it up already.
----------------------------
Right, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, Caddy, you're right. It's just an innocent little agreement not to tell that must be honored even if two governments fall. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE it is. But it's exactly why you maintain such credibility. Never have I seen such incredible credibility.
Talk to the Brits - it's their claim. I was just telling you their explaination. Care to ask the question as to whom some of this intel(good or bad) came from? I'll give you a hint...nah, I'll let you come up with that answer so I don't have to be accused of saying it
The truth is out there - find it.CkG
The interesting question in all of this is why are we focusing on the intel? Is Bush not the commander in chief? No matter how you look at it, he is in charge and therefore responsible. As Truman(?) said "The buck stops here!"
Right or wrong...Bush should at least have the balls to stand up and take responsibility for this. It's his damn administration and no one elses.
Right or wrong...Bush should at least have the balls to stand up and take responsibility for this. It's his damn administration and no one elses.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nope - Britain can't/couldn't share the intel because they had agreements with whom they got the intel from. Dog still doesn't hunt - give it up already.
----------------------------
Right, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, Caddy, you're right. It's just an innocent little agreement not to tell that must be honored even if two governments fall. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE it is. But it's exactly why you maintain such credibility. Never have I seen such incredible credibility.
Talk to the Brits - it's their claim. I was just telling you their explaination. Care to ask the question as to whom some of this intel(good or bad) came from? I'll give you a hint...nah, I'll let you come up with that answer so I don't have to be accused of saying it
CkG
But CAD, how can anyone say anything either way about the British Intel if no one's seen it? I mean, you act like it's some holy grail of explanations - yet nobody except the Brits even knows what it is...
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nope - Britain can't/couldn't share the intel because they had agreements with whom they got the intel from. Dog still doesn't hunt - give it up already.
----------------------------
Right, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, Caddy, you're right. It's just an innocent little agreement not to tell that must be honored even if two governments fall. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEE it is. But it's exactly why you maintain such credibility. Never have I seen such incredible credibility.
Talk to the Brits - it's their claim. I was just telling you their explaination. Care to ask the question as to whom some of this intel(good or bad) came from? I'll give you a hint...nah, I'll let you come up with that answer so I don't have to be accused of saying it
CkG
But CAD, how can anyone say anything either way about the British Intel if no one's seen it? I mean, you act like it's some holy grail of explanations - yet nobody except the Brits even knows what it is...
It's because it makes his statement technically true. Hooray for technicalities!
French secret service 'kept CIA in the dark over Iraq and uranium'
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 14/07/2003)
"The French secret service is believed to have refused to allow MI6 to give the Americans "credible" intelligence showing that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger, US intelligence sources said yesterday...............They dismissed a report from a former US diplomat who was sent to Niger to investigate the claims and rejected them. "He seems to have asked a few people if it was true and when they said 'no' he accepted it all," one official said. "We see no reason at all to change our assessment.""
Straw defends UK uranium evidence
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 14/07/2003)
"The French secret service is believed to have refused to allow MI6 to give the Americans "credible" intelligence showing that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger, US intelligence sources said yesterday...............They dismissed a report from a former US diplomat who was sent to Niger to investigate the claims and rejected them. "He seems to have asked a few people if it was true and when they said 'no' he accepted it all," one official said. "We see no reason at all to change our assessment.""
Straw defends UK uranium evidence
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Shhh!! You can't say that "F" word around here
But thanks for saying it so I didn't have to. DM and Gonad - care to read burnedout's link?
Nah, on second thought please don't - it's amusing to watch you guys CkG
First of all, you guys are believing the FRENCH? Wow. Secondly, this whole thing is rather convoluted, but the point still remains that our own CIA has said that the statement should not have been included in the president's speech. Are you suggesting that the CIA's only reason for not allowing it is because they had not been allowed to see the British Intel? If the CIA isn't discrediting the intel the statement was based on, why didn't they just say something like, "Well, we don't have any direct evidence of this, however the British do." I don't know, this is starting to sound like the plot of some spy movie or something...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter