Who is lying Bush or Rumsfeld?

[HomerJS]

When the administration is asked about the global war on terrorism they say we are winning. However a quote from the Rumsfeld memo says something different...

"Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"

Is somebody lying here or it is like the WMDs, if there is a 1% chance we will state it is a certainty?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

*yawn* more out of context spin.

CkG

 

[Czar]

definetly not out of context

how can you say you are accomplishing something when you realy cant see if things are different

 

[Drensch]

"or"?

 

[Red Dawn]

Seems to me that old Rummy has fallen out of favor with Dubya.

 

[smashp]

personally i think Dr Strangefeld is angered and pissed off at Bush. I think he is getting a little of revenge with this letter. This letter comes out right during the administrations push to sell the "sunnier side of things"


Then BAM, blindsided from the inside and raising Eyebrows on the Hill.


Guess rumsfeld didnt get the memo from the white house to repeat the story of "Why the sky isnt Falling, Talking points by George W. Bush."

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
*yawn* more out of context spin.

CkG

*yawn* more denial

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
*yawn* more out of context spin.

CkG

*yawn* more denial

*yawn* more spin

CkG

 

[smashp]

Hey Cad did you ever read the memo? Or are any possible negatives of the administration or viable questions about its policies/procedures/ or Fighting within automatically reguarded as spin.


Please tell me your spin on this matter.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
*yawn* more out of context spin.

CkG

*yawn* more denial

*yawn* more spin

CkG

To quote the most famous Californian and the Icon of the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan "Well..there you go again!"

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: smashp
Hey Cad did you ever read the memo? Or are any possible negatives of the administration or viable questions about its policies/procedures/ or Fighting within automatically reguarded as spin.


Please tell me your spin on this matter.

Yes I read the memo. Others clearly have not read and UNDERSTOOD it, otherwise they wouldn't be making comments or asking questions like "who is lying Bush or Rumsfeld".

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
*yawn* more out of context spin.

CkG

*yawn* more denial

*yawn* more spin

CkG

To quote the most famous Californian and the Icon of the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan "Well..there you go again!"

See my sig. - 'nuff said on the Reagan front

CkG

 

[Gaard]

memo

"October 16, 2003



TO: Gen. Dick Myers

Paul Wolfowitz

Gen. Pete Pace

Doug Feith



FROM: Donald Rumsfeld



SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism



The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough?

Is the USG changing fast enough?

DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere - one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.

With respect to global terrorism, the record since September 11th seems to be:

- We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them - nonetheless, a great many remain at large.

- USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.

- USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban - Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.

- With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.

Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection, and confidence in the US?

Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?

Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?

Today we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror . Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.



Do we need a new organization?

How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?

Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?

It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.

Does CIA need a new finding?

Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madrassas to a more moderate course?

What else should we be considering?

Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.

Thanks. "

There's the full context.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: smashp
Hey Cad did you ever read the memo? Or are any possible negatives of the administration or viable questions about its policies/procedures/ or Fighting within automatically reguarded as spin.


Please tell me your spin on this matter.

Yes I read the memo. Others clearly have not read and UNDERSTOOD it, otherwise they wouldn't be making comments or asking questions like "who is lying Bush or Rumsfeld".

CkG

The problem is as i see it ( and many others see it) is that Top officials in the admin rarely acknowledge that things arent as rosy as they could be or thta things should be better.

The rumsfeld memo is him probing for results and ideas.

I find it ironic that his memo to his closest co workers in the DoD shows much more objectivity and a whole lot less arrogance than rummy himself usually shows.

 

[DealMonkey]

I don't think there's any way to be absolutely sure the war on terrorism is actually working. In the timespace between attacks you can assume it is, however as soon as there's another attack you're back to square one.

 

[Horsep0wer]

they're all lying.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: smashp
Hey Cad did you ever read the memo? Or are any possible negatives of the administration or viable questions about its policies/procedures/ or Fighting within automatically reguarded as spin.


Please tell me your spin on this matter.

Yes I read the memo. Others clearly have not read and UNDERSTOOD it, otherwise they wouldn't be making comments or asking questions like "who is lying Bush or Rumsfeld".

CkG

Well if you know something that no one else does, why not get off your pedestal and be a little less cavalier? Please share with us your infinite wisdom...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: smashp
Hey Cad did you ever read the memo? Or are any possible negatives of the administration or viable questions about its policies/procedures/ or Fighting within automatically reguarded as spin.


Please tell me your spin on this matter.

Yes I read the memo. Others clearly have not read and UNDERSTOOD it, otherwise they wouldn't be making comments or asking questions like "who is lying Bush or Rumsfeld".

CkG

I guess Reagan was just ignorant enough to mispell "friends?" Hmmm. Anyway, I take it to mean that in public, the administration puts on a convincing face "We ARE making progress," while in private they (or at least Rummy), have their doubts.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: smashp
Hey Cad did you ever read the memo? Or are any possible negatives of the administration or viable questions about its policies/procedures/ or Fighting within automatically reguarded as spin.


Please tell me your spin on this matter.

Yes I read the memo. Others clearly have not read and UNDERSTOOD it, otherwise they wouldn't be making comments or asking questions like "who is lying Bush or Rumsfeld".

CkG

I guess Reagan was just ignorant enough to mispell "friends?" Hmmm. Anyway, I take it to mean that in public, the administration puts on a convincing face "We ARE making progress," while in private they (or at least Rummy), have their doubts.

Close, but you need to understand how he was saying it. It was a kind of rhetorical challenging - not an neccessarily an assessment statement. His memo drips with thought provoking questions and challenging statements - which fosters greater development of ideas and plans.

You guys can take it how you wish, you've tried to take everything else and blow it out of proportion - why should I expect any different now. Meh - rant and theorize away, after all - it is only the intarweb

CkG

 

[her209]

This leak is obvious to make the CIA leak less embarrassing.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Close, but you need to understand how he was saying it. It was a kind of rhetorical challenging - not an neccessarily an assessment statement. His memo drips with thought provoking questions and challenging statements - which fosters greater development of ideas and plans.

Isn't that what you do before you embark on a course of action?! I remember a lot of people asking a lot of though provoking questions and boldly challenging the administration. The retorts:

1) We have evidence but we cannot show it to you for reasons A, B, or C ya later.
2) That's just the kind of question a Saddamite would ask.
3) Remember 9/11
4) You are either with us or with the turrurists.
5) There's no reason to believe anything other than what we are telling you . . . Saddam tells lies . . . we have nothing to gain by misleading you.

IMHO, the Bushies spent so much time trying to sell and plan their attack on Saddam, they scarcely questioned the merits or methodology.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Close, but you need to understand how he was saying it. It was a kind of rhetorical challenging - not an neccessarily an assessment statement. His memo drips with thought provoking questions and challenging statements - which fosters greater development of ideas and plans.

Isn't that what you do before you embark on a course of action?! I remember a lot of people asking a lot of though provoking questions and boldly challenging the administration. The retorts:

1) We have evidence but we cannot show it to you for reasons A, B, or C ya later.
2) That's just the kind of question a Saddamite would ask.
3) Remember 9/11
4) You are either with us or with the turrurists.
5) There's no reason to believe anything other than what we are telling you . . . Saddam tells lies . . . we have nothing to gain by misleading you.

IMHO, the Bushies spent so much time trying to sell and plan their attack on Saddam, they scarcely questioned the merits or methodology.

You do NOT know that these sorts of questions weren't asked before the war.(bold added because I can)
Also, you also can't seriously believe that didn't question the merit or methodology Those parts were quite public in many ways. You may look back and claim they didn't plan for this or that, but that doesn't make it so.(read my sig)

This memo was about the war on terror - not neccessarily about Iraq. Like I said though - rant and theorize away

CkG

 

[glugglug]

The answer isn't Bush OR Rumsfield. It's Bush AND rumsfeld. They are both full of crap. We are in fact losing the "war" and they both know this. Well at least Rumsfield does, it's hard to gauge just how stupid Bush really is.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
When the administration is asked about the global war on terrorism they say we are winning. However a quote from the Rumsfeld memo says something different...

"Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"

Is somebody lying here or it is like the WMDs, if there is a 1% chance we will state it is a certainty?

I don't understand the logic. They are politicians, and we all know politicians lie, twist the facts, and tell us what we want to hear regardless of whether they're liberal left or extreme right. On a personal standpoint, I think it's pretty simple logic - piss of a population, you increase the rate at which they recruit suicide bombers because they hate your guts even more.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Dude, you didn't you get the memo . . . the war in Iraq is the core element of the war on terror . . . Ground Zero. If you doubt it you better ask somebody like President Bush last year.