Donald Rumsfeld has arrived in Iraq on a surprise visit.

[dartworth]

Breaking news on CNN.

This should be interesting...

 

[Shelly21]

Wow, that man doesn't get any sleep does he?

 

[Zebo]

"gimme all cameras now"

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Shelly21
Wow, that man doesn't get any sleep does he?

he needs no sleep
he runs on politics!

however, he is getting beat to hell these last couple weeks.

 

[conjur]

This wouldn't be a big P.R. stunt now, would it???

Too bad Rumsfeld wasn't able to land on any aircraft carriers.

 

[tec699]

Rummy wants to have sexual affairs with the prisoners!! I know it guys!!

:shocked:

 

[Shelly21]

I kinda like the way he tells it like it is. However, I wouldn't be suprised if he is removed as the Sec of D.

 

[colonel]

Breaking news on CNN.

Who cares?:thumbsdown:

 

[conjur]

The big PR stunt at Baghdad is now on live.

Wow...how much more political can this be?!?!

 

[NightCrawler]

To Little To Late

 

[imported_Aelius]

I duno what he can do about it at this point.

Not that I suggest his hands aren't dirty. You guys should know by now that we will never ever know whom was truly behind the prisoner torture.

Keep in mind that this sort of thing is standard operating procedure, unofficially, in just about any country. Military Inteligence is not just an oximoron, they also conduct various levels of torture (be it physical or mind games) to break prisoners so that they will talk. This is done only in the gravest circumstances. I consider the death of dozens of US and other soldiers each week grave enough to think that someone decided to let MI loose on all prisoners to find out who is doing it and try to put a stop to the killings.

It may seem shocking to some but its true. Unoffically of course.

Who is actually behind the loosening of the colar around Military Intel? Your guess is as good as mine.

However don't, not for one second, think that some Private or one star General is behind it. That is laughable at best and highly unlikely at worst.

You have to aim a little higher on the food chain before MI starts wiring electrical wires to some poor prisoner's family jewls.

The fact that many of them were arrested originally by accident just makes it all worse, hence it will be that much more unlikely that we will ever know whom gave the order.

 

[CaptnKirk]

To flaunt more arrogance while in the face of desparity ?

 

[conjur]

Troops Get a Chance to Question Rumsfeld

By Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 13, 2004; 1:10 PM


Moments after Donald H. Rumsfeld said how much more "fun" it was be questioned by the troops in Baghdad than the critics in Washington, the troops in the Iraqi capital hit the defense secretary with a barrage of serious, probing and sometimes personal inquiries, some of which, he confessed, he just could not answer.

One soldier asked when they were going to get improved vests and better armor for the Humvees. It's those roadside bombs, he said. "We lost some soldiers due to them."

Another asked whether it was true that the military would not pay their full air fare back home.

Yet another wanted to know why his military medical coverage wouldn't handle physical therapy for his handicapped child.

When, if ever, would the United Nations send some troops and where would they come from?

Would Defense Department employees who are civilians working with the military be permitted to carry guns, asked a civilian working with the military?

The entire town hall meeting was televised live on CNN.

And sometimes it did indeed sound to Rumsfeld like a televised news conference full of journalists back home.

"Mr. Secretary," said a member of the audience. "You have said you would like to reduce the number of troops in Iraq. Instead, more troops are being sent."

"You should be a journalist," Rumsfeld told her, smiling.

"Well, you're right," he said. "Our goal is to not have troops in Iraq, It's to have the Iraqi people take charge of their country and take charge of their security. And that's why you folks are working so hard to help recruit and train and equip and deploy and mentor the Iraqi security forces. So our goal is to pass that responsibility to them as soon as they're capable of taking it."

That was his longest answer, unique for a secretary who enjoys long answers.

Most of his responses were referrals, to Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , who was standing beside him, or to Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, who was behind him.

Sometimes they could not answer either, and referred the questions onward, as they did with the soldier concerned about his handicapped child, who was told to see the officer in charge of health insurance.

Sometimes they answered.

"Good points. Excellent points," Myers said in response to the question about the armor.

"You can imagine we spend a lot of time on force protection, and our responsibility, I think, is to ensure we have the resources and protection lines and all that cranked up to get the equipment we need . . . We're producing them and sending them over here as fast as we can. . . . Production is ramping up this month," Myers said.

Rumsfeld, who came to Baghdad after being grilled before two congressional committees about prisoner abuse, was good natured throughout, even when he was, by his own admission, clueless, as he was on the question of arming Defense Department civilians.

The exchange on that subject went like this:

Questioner: "Sir, there are many DOD civilians who are here in the theater, and many of us are unarmed. And many times we're placed in harm's way in convoys and we have no means to protect ourselves. And I know there's been many memos and letters I've seen floating around saying it's the policy to arm civilians if they need to be armed, if they're in harm's way. But there seems to be a resistance . . . to actually provide arms to us. I was wondering what the current policy is on that."

Rumsfeld: "Well, I could do several things at this point. I could admit I don't know what the current policy is here, or I could turn around and ask General Rick Sanchez to come over here. Then he'll say he doesn't know."

Rumsfeld then called on Sanchez for an answer. He didn't know.

"We'll be able to get the definitive answer," said Sanchez. "But right now, we have been working to try to get the authorities to arm the civilians here. That has been an issue for some time. And you're right, we're working that and we have been for some time. And we'll get -- I'll get a specific status for you. Okay?"

It was okay.

The final question was equally serious, "about stability when we return home," said the questioner.

"I, like a bunch of people here and including my brothers, who are in Afghanistan right now, are on our second tours already within two years. I volunteered to come back over here because it's my duty to serve, but a lot of people don't get a chance to say hey, I'm ready to come back. Is there a plan for stability?"

"We have 20th-century industrial-age planning tools in terms of force management," said Rumsfeld. "They're making major efforts to improve them and they're getting better, but they're far from perfect."

When it was over, Rumsfeld got one thing he never gets from the press in Washington: a standing ovation.

"Thank you for your service," he said. "May God bless you and your wonderful families."

So...well over a year after initial deployments and there are still serious questions that cannot be answered.

Fvck this administration!! :| :|



http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000228.html

A White House divided against itself cannot stand - Part II

Posted April 1, 2003 11:11 AM

Yesterday I mentioned the Hatfield-McCoy like relations between the State and Defense Departments in the Bush administration. Today's papers have ample evidence that the infighting and bickering among Republicans, inside the White House and out, is getting worse, not better.

One conservative Republican political strategist told the New York Times yesterday, "I don't understand what is floating [Bush's] ship except patriotism and terrorism concerns. If the tide turns, there's nothing else that keeps his boat afloat. There's a sort of feeling out there of, 'Where is this thing going?' We were all happy to follow President Bush into this, but we're now starting to look up at the hillside and wondering who's up there."

A veteran Washington Republican strategist said it was "obvious that the Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz battle plans are not panning out." The strategist also noted that administration promises of Iraqis greeting our forces as "liberators" and welcoming our forced removal of Hussein are also not coming to fruition, adding, "Where are the flowers being thrown at our forces? Where are the peace signs?"

Criticisms of the president from Democrats are expected, and as such, are widely dismissed by the media. But these interviews reflect that the GOP is hardly united behind Bush, or at a minimum, behind the men Bush chose to orchestrate the war in Iraq.

While these quotes reflect concerns among Republicans in Washington over the political aspects of the war, there is also increasing apprehension from military leaders about Bush's approach.

One retired general who served in the first war against Iraq explained that our initial difficulties in Iraq undermine a central goal of the mission: deterring others in the Middle East by flexing our military muscle.

"What's troublesome is the loss of deterrent value," the retired general said. "A month ago everybody in the world looked at the U.S. military as being 10 feet tall. We're not 10 feet tall."

That's mild compared to some of the other remarks reported today from former and current officials in the U.S. military, some of whom believe Rumsfeld intentionally limited the size of the troop deployment to prove some broader ideological point about how the military can win with a leaner fighting force.

An active colonel criticized Rumsfeld for limiting initial deployments. "He wanted to fight this war on the cheap," the colonel said. "He got what he wanted."

The feud between Defense and State, meanwhile, also continued yesterday. The State Department had crafted a proposal to govern post-war Iraq with U.S. civilian leaders, several ambassadors to Arab states, and ultimately shifting power to the United Nations to build international support and offer legitimacy to the new power structure.

Rumsfeld, of course, decided he didn't like the proposal and rejected the State Department's outline. Several sources told the Washington Post the move was part of an effort to "ensure the Pentagon controls every aspect of reconstructing" Iraq.

The article explains that Rumsfeld (backed by Cheney and Wolfowitz) has a plan of his own and it doesn't fit in with Powell's plan at State. As Rumsfeld sees it, "the military would maintain control of Iraq for an indefinite period," until new Iraqi institutions were prepared to govern. The plan would allow the U.N. to participate in offering humanitarian aid -- under U.S. supervision -- but have no role in shaping the new government.

One official told the Post, "We've been told there is a big disagreement between State and Defense over who controls the personnel" in terms of reconstructing Iraq. That sounds like the understatement of the day. The Post then noted the obvious: "Divisions between the State and Defense departments have marked virtually every phase of Iraq policy."

If only we had a leader who could guide his own administration and direct these factions within his own camp toward coherent government policies, these fissures would not be so serious. But under the circumstances, they are very serious. I keep hoping Bush will exercise his authority, right this ship, and end the divisions that are undermining his administration. So far, for whatever reason, he hasn't.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
The big PR stunt at Baghdad is now on live.

Wow...how much more political can this be?!?!

No more political than this issue has already become.

CkG