Donald Rumsfeld

Is this really true?
http://donald.rumsfeld.swellserver.c...orldrecord.php

No, but this is:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/971168.asp?0cv=CB20

"erto" wrote

Is this really true?
http://donald.rumsfeld.swellserver.c...orldrecord.php

"Gene Storey" wrote in message . ..
No, but this is:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/971168.asp?0cv=CB20

"erto" wrote

Is this really true?
http://donald.rumsfeld.swellserver.c...orldrecord.php

Really? Not the way I recall the comments from ol' Barry and Wesley at
the time. ISTR they were bemoaning the operational pause that occured
immediately prior to the final push on Baghdad, and claiming that we
lacked suffcient force to carry through without sustaining heavy
casualties, etc....None of which was true, as we ended up seeing on
the evening news a couple of weeks later (and did you notice how
quickly those two fellows disappeared from the news channels when we
got to Baghdad in spite of their diatribes?). To try and turn their
gripes then into a claim that they were *really* addressing the
post-combat phase is a bit disingenious. As if Clark should have been
braying in the first place--he was the guy who told Clinton's crew
that the bombing of Kosovo would only take a matter of *days* to
accomplish NATO's goals, and who completely knuckled under to the
then-administration's stupid "no ground troops from the start and by
golly we'll *announce* that" crap.

Brooks

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

"tscottme" wrote in message
...
--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

From Ann Coulter, that figures. If she is constitutionally unable to blame her
beloved right wing can-do-no-wrong administration for those depressing ongoing
casualties, she blames the press for doing what they're supposed to be doing,
i.e.-reporting the news, even when it's bad. Somehow or other, it's the press'
fault.

Poor Ann.....denial and delusion are cousins, and she couldn't find either with
a road map in her hands.

George Z.

"tscottme" wrote in message ...
--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

Not just the media. I listened this morning to that imminent expert on
military affairs and morale, Carl Levin (and just where di he get his
military experience...?), assert how the morale is breaking down due
to lack of foreign support, etc, yadda-yadda, and so on; some of the
dems seem almost giddy at the prospect of demoralizing folks as much
as they can... But hey, always remember that they will also be the
first ones to tell you that their gripes are not against those
wonderful troops, who they *of course* support in *every* way...yeah,
sure they do...

Brooks

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

"tscottme" wrote in message
...
--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

From Ann Coulter, that figures. If she is constitutionally unable to blame her
beloved right wing can-do-no-wrong administration for those depressing ongoing
casualties, she blames the press for doing what they're supposed to be doing,
i.e.-reporting the news, even when it's bad. Somehow or other, it's the press'
fault.

The Press ought to report both good and bad news from Iraq. Instead, we hear
only the bad. Looking through a *range* of news sources, I get the impression
the pace of progress had increased the last couple months, and there is some
cautious optimism starting to peek through amongst Iraqis over longer term
prospects for their country.

The "main stream" press gives the impression the US has caused the common Iraqi
to run out and join the jihad against the US and the country is unravaling.

This enterprise can still end up being something Americans look back on in 25-30
years with a great deal of pride, marking the introduction of democratic values
to a region sorely in need of them.

Great endeavors usually involve great risk and hardship. Seems current thinking
is that if you can't get a favorable result in 3 months, then it was never worth
doing to begin with!


SMH

The casualty count to win the war was about equal to one year's worth of
peacetime accidents. The casualty count after the war is equal to about
one year's worth of peacetime accidents. When weighed against toppling
Saddam and attracting the Wahhabi death cult members to one convenient
location it seems like a good deal. Don't worry, nobody will blame the
Democrats for a free Iraq or closing Saddam's rape rooms or children's
prison.

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

Stephen Harding wrote:

: The "main stream" press gives the impression the US has caused the
: common Iraqi to run out and join the jihad against the US and the
: country is unravaling.

That Iraqi resentment against the occupation is growing is
hardly an observation limited to the "mainstream press":
It has also been made, for example, by the US State
Department. Worse, hostility is growing not only among
the Sunni muslim tribes who ran the country under Saddam,
but also among the Shiite muslims who were oppressed by
Saddam's regime.

: This enterprise can still end up being something
: Americans look back on in 25-30 years with a great
: deal of pride, marking the introduction of democratic
: values to a region sorely in need of them.

Yes, but only if there is a drastic change of course.
Right now the USA is arrogantly presuming that it can
build a new Iraq and that the Iraqis will do well if
they do as they are told. This nanny-state approach
can never work. The only people who can build a better
Iraq are the Iraqis themselves. The USA has to accept
the short term risk, because it is the only approach
which will work in the long term, of relinquishing
the authority of an occupying power ASAP. How would
Americans have reacted if Rochambeau and Lafayette
had decided that they might as well stay and run the
country?

That is not to say, of course, that US forces cannnot
execute the necessary security operations in Iraq,
but they should do so with the authorisation of the
Iraqi government and possibly with Iraqi liaison
officers to help them in showing respect for local
sensitivities.

Emmanuel Gustin