rummywatch2

*
RUMMY SAYS THERE MAY BE CONSEQUENCES FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM -- BUT THAT'S HOW OUR SYSTEM WORKS
Q Paul Courson with CNN. The other defense ministers are probably watching the U.S. and its ability to recruit people to its military. We had arguments at the Supreme Court today and the conflict between the recruitment on college universities who disagree with the military's policy on gays. Is there some sort of built-in patriotism these schools should feel in their recruitment, Mr. Secretary?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Oh, you know, I think schools should make decisions for themselves. They're free institutions, and they can decide what they wish to do. And it's for them -- I mean, my view, in a free country like ours you can have some schools that think one way and some schools that think another way. And, of course, there are consequences to -- (laughs) -- to what they think. But that's fair enough, too. That's the way our system works."
RUMMY DOESN'T LIKE THE WORD 'BASE' AS IT APPLIES IN ROMANIA
SEC. RUMSFELD: "I'd like to say a word about bases. I think when people mention the word base, they think like Norfolk, Virginia or San Diego, a big base, or a big base in Germany where you had thousands of American soldiers and thousands of dependants and a whole lot of civilian employees.
"I think that's a mistake. That image is not what we're talking about. We're talking -- we've even tried to change the language, and we use phrases like "forward operating sites" and "forward operating locations." And they're not the kind of bases that one thinks about, that we've had in Germany. We need today to be agile. We need to be flexible. And the image that comes with the word "base," I think, is somewhat misleading for people."
*
RUMMY AT JOHN HOPKINS SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Q: Why has the United States not been able to say that yes, we will formally abide by the Geneva Convention in the war on terrorism?
RUMSFELD: "No, the decisions were made by the Department of Justice and by the President. In their minds they do believe that they are conforming to the Geneva Convention. As you know, the Geneva Conventions provided that people should be treated in one way if they were functioning under the laws of war, if they wore uniforms, if they carried their weapons publicly, if they adhered to certain things. The Geneva Conventions purposely rewarded people, if you will, who conducted themselves in that manner and distinguished them from people who did not. . . . The President obviously said that the situation in Iraq did lead to a situation. They wore uniforms, they carried their weapons properly. So the provisions of the Geneva Convention applied to them.
"The President also decided that the terrorists and the people that blow up children and women indiscriminately and don’t wear uniforms and don’t carry their weapons out, did not merit the treatment, the same treatment that people who did conduct themselves in that manner. However, he went on to say that notwithstanding that, they should be treated, they should receive humane treatment. That was his instruction. That was the instruction I put out throughout the Department of Defense, and that is, the policy of the department has been for those individuals who were the Taliban or the al-Qaida or other terrorist individuals as opposed to people who were part of an organized military."
BUT THE LAW OF LAND WARFARE, BASED ON THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS, INCLUDES THIS:
The conduct of armed hostilities on land is regulated by the law of land warfare which is both written and unwritten. It is inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war by:
a. Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering;
b. Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; and
c. Facilitating the restoration of peace.
The following excerpts apply to Civilian Persons.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention. In each case such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in ease of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be. (GENEVA CONVENTION, Art. 5)
RUMMY THINKS A GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED MEDIA IS A HOOT:
"Recent reports about, I think it was in Iraq, some people in the military signed a contract with a private contractor, and the private contractor is alleged to have written accurate stories but paid someone in the media in Iraq to carry the story. That’s an allegation. I don’t know if it’s true yet. That story has been pounded in the media, it’s very attractive for the media because it’s about the media and they like that."
WHEN THE US MILITARY ENCOUNTERS OUR PUPPET IRAQI POLICE ABUSING PRISONERS, IT'S VERY COMPLICATED, WHAT SHOULD THEY DO?:
" . . . well, how do you stop it? What they did was report it, which is right. The next step would have been to orally, if they saw it happening, to orally tell people they should not do that. And a third would be to use force to stop them, including lethal force to stop them. Now that’s complicated.
" You think of all these young men and women in the military. They travel around, they’ve got rules of engagement. Should they do that if they’re in uniform or out of uniform? Should they do it in Iraq only, or should they do it in every country they’re in? I’m told that people have been court martialed for doing it in countries because people don’t know what the laws are in every country. They don’t know what the culture is, what the procedures are. So reporting something that looks amiss is good; orally trying to stop something that looks amiss to me sounds very reasonable. Then the next question is, what level of force should they use to try to stop it if they see it happening in a country where they don’t know the laws, they don’t know the culture, and it could vary depending on whether it was being performed, the abusive act or the seemingly inhumane act, or possibly illegal act, whether it’s being performed by an official of that government - a policeman or a soldier - or just by someone else."
RUMMY, THE ENVIRONMENTALIST
Q: Has the war been according to what you foresaw at that time? And were you originally in favor of this invasion or not?
RUMSFELD: "Yes, I do support the President in the decision. Did then and do now. Did it go according to what people thought? No. I guess no war ever does. . . we talked about the possibility of major refugees and internally displaced persons. It just didn’t happen. We were concerned that the bridges could be blown. It didn’t happen. Our folks moving up from Kuwait put on chemical and biological suits every day as they went out, not because they thought they looked nice but because they were deeply concerned about the risk of the use of chemical weapons.
". . . you recall Saddam Hussein’s people when they went into Kuwait blew up all the oil wells, and we were concerned that there would be this enormous environmental disaster as a result of doing that. We found in some instances on bridges and oil wells, some munitions, our folks did, but for the most part there was very little damage done to oil wells and very little damage done to bridges because the people moved so fast. We were very concerned about fortress Baghdad, a last stand by the Saddam Hussein group in Baghdad, putting millions of people at risk and causing a siege of that city, and that didn’t happen. So there were a lot of bad, terrible things that could have happened that did not."
THE IRAQI INVASION RESISTANCE IS MOSTLY TURKEY'S FAULT:
"There was always an assumption that I think it was the 4th Infantry Division would be able to get in through Turkey. It turned out the Turkish Parliament voted, they favored it by one vote but they needed a larger margin, and as a result the 4th ID never got in from the north and never put the pressure on the Sunni Triangle that would have occurred had they been able to get in from the north. They had to come in from the south, it took much longer, and as a result the insurgency was much larger I think than people estimated. Those are the kinds of things that were considered."
JOKE OF THE WEEK: OUR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COVERS LAW ENFORCEMENT OF OUR MERCENARIES:
"There are a lot of contractors, a growing number. They come from our country but they come from all countries, and indeed sometimes the contracts are from our country or another country and they employ people from totally different countries including Iraqis and people from neighboring nations. And there are a lot of them. It’s a growing number.
"Of course we’ve got to begin with the fact that, as you point out, they’re not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We understand that. There are laws that govern the behavior of Americans in that country. The Department of Justice oversees that."
*
"AND IT'S TIME"
"Our problem is that any time something needs to be done, we have a feeling we should rush in and fill the vacuum and do it ourselves. You know what happens when you do that? First of all, you can't do it, because it's not our country, it's their country. And the second thing that happens is they don't develop the skills and the ability and the equipment and the orientation and the habit patterns of doing it for themselves. They have to do it for themselves. There isn't an Iraqi that comes into this country and visits with me that doesn't say that. They know that. They know that they're the ones that are going to have to grab that country. And it's time."
*
CONDI SAYS 'CLEAR, HOLD AND BUILD'
"In short, with the Iraqi Government, our political-military strategy has to be to clear, hold, and build: to clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them securely, and to build durable, national Iraqi institutions."
RUMMY SAYS 'LET THEM DO IT'
" Please, let me just -- stop right there. Anyone who takes those three words and thinks it means the United States should clear and the United States should hold and the United States should build doesn't understand the situation. It is the Iraqis' country. They've got 28 million people there. They are clearing, they are holding, they are building. They're going to be the ones doing the reconstruction in that country --"
*
RUMMY SAYS THE 'SOVEREIGN' IRAQI POLICE REPORT TO HIM
SEC. RUMSFELD: "I forget when the Department of Defense assumed responsibility for the police."
GEN. PACE: About six months ago or so.
*
Secretary Rumsfeld Radio Interview with the Neal Boortz Show (scripted, of course)
RUMMY TALKS TURKEY
BOORTZ: Have you ever, in your study of armed conflict, in your experience serving in the military, have you ever heard of a successful conclusion to any military conflict where the good guys had a date certain for withdrawal?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Well, only if you quit. If a country decides to quit they've got a date certain for withdrawal. And of course quitting is no exit strategy. Victory is the exit strategy you want, and we're winning this thing and we're going to win it and we're going to be able to transfer responsibility to the Iraqi people, and most important of all, think of what the world would be like if we pulled out precipitously. The dangers to the American men and women -- think of all the people who gathered around the table over Thanksgiving. . . The only way we can lose this is if we lack political will to see it through. The terrorists, the violent terrorists, the enemies of the Iraqi people and the legitimate Iraqi government and the new Iraqi constitution, they know that. They know precisely that their battle is not in Iraq. Their battle is here in the United States. They have media committees, they calculate how they can have the greatest impact on the media in the world, and they are very skillful at it and we're not.[OF, COME ON, RUMMY, DON'T BE SO MODEST -- THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A WELL-SCRIPTED "INTERVIEW," AND ACCORDING TO THE LA TIMES: "As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq. The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a . . . small Washington-based firm called Lincoln Group . . . The Lincoln Group's Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets."]
AND YOU CAN'T TRUST AMERICANS ... OR IRAQIS, FOR THAT MATTER
BOORTZ: In fact can it be said that their true military goal right now is not to defeat American forces, but to defeat the will of the American people?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Absolutely. There's no question about it. Imagine, picture the risk to the American people if we were to precipitously pull out of that country and the Iraqis turned it over, allowed it to be turned over to the terrorists and the people who behead people and the people who kill innocent men, women and children when the troops are passing out toys and candies and things. [TO SAY NOTHING OF WHITE PHOSPHOROUS AND 500 POUND BOMBS] It would -- The Middle East is an important part of the world for our safety, for the safety of the American people. [HORSE-PUCKY] The idea that we would turn it over to the Zarqawis of the world and back to the Saddamists of the world, it's just unthinkable." [GOTTA LOVE HAVING ZARQAWI AS A BOGEYMAN -- AS IF THE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS WHO NOW HAVE THE REAL POWER IN IRAQ WOUD GIVE HIM, A JORDANIAN, ANYTHING]
BOORTZ: Of course one of the keys here is the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces. Is there any way that we can ratchet up the pressure on them and move them along in quicker fashion to obtain those abilities?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Well, we've gone back and reassessed that every six months for two-plus years. Each time we have tried to find ways to increase the capabilities of those forces. . . They are making fabulous progress. They're now up to 212,000 of them."[THESE CLAIMS BY THE 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED' REGIME ARE SUBJECT TO AUDIT]
BOORTZ: Any surprise visits planned for the theater during the holidays?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Oh --"
BOORTZ: Of course if you told me it wouldn't be a surprise, would it?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "That's right. I think you've got it." [Laughter].
BOORTZ: Do you need a hitchhiker?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Oh, my goodness. There's an idea."
BOORTZ: No, I've tried to get over there but --
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Have you really?"
BOORTZ: Yeah, our security people here at the radio station say oh, no. [SMART PEOPLE] Some day. Sooner or later I'll get over there and see for myself what's going on. [AFTER WE GET THE HELL OUT AND IT'S SAFE TO GO]
*
RUMMY SAYS TORTURE IS FINE WITH HIM, BUT GENERAL PACE SAYS 'NOT'
GEN. PACE: It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member, if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene to stop it.
SEC. RUMSFELD: "But I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it."
GEN. PACE: If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it.
*
RUMMY'S NOT A QUITTER -- THE GOAL IS VICTORY, OR HELPING IRAQIS, OR . . .
"Let's be clear. U.S. forces are in Iraq to help the Iraqis fight the terrorists there [RUMMY DIDN'T GET THE WORD == ACCORDING TO BUSH, SPEAKING IN ANNAPOLIS, "The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group."], so we don't have to fight them here in the United States. [ACTUALLY, WE'RE CREATING TERRORISTS, AND REJECTIONISTS, WHERE NONE EXISTED BEFORE.] Indeed, amid all the questions being asked about the situation in Iraq today, consider these:
"Would America and the world be better off, would the American people be safer if the United States were to abandon the effort in Iraq prematurely, allowing the terrorists [REJECTIONISTS] to prevail, or will the American people be better (sic) if we continue to work with the Iraqi people so that they're able to gain the experience and capabilities that they need to fight and defeat terrorists [REJECTIONISTS] in their country? [YES -- WE'RE NOW PAYING AN EXTREMELY HIGH PRICE FOR OUR INVASION AND OCCUPATION.]
"The answer is clear. Quitting is not an exit strategy. [IT IS UNLESS YOU'RE COMMITTED TO PAY AN EXTREMELY HIGH PRICE TO OCCUPY A RESISTING MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY.] It would be a formula for putting the American people at still greater risk. It would be an invitation for more [ACTUALLY, LESS] terrorist [REJECTIONIST] violence. Indeed, the more the enemies make it sound as though the United States is going to quit, the more encouraged they will be and the more successful they will be in recruiting and in raising money and in trying to wait us out. [THEY WOULD THROW ROSE PETALS AS WE DEPARTED.]
"Rather than thinking in terms of an exit strategy, we should be focused on our strategy for victory. [WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF VICTORY?] That is the president's strategy, to succeed in passing responsibility to the Iraqi people and in helping [NO MORE VICTORY, NOW WE'RE HELPERS.] them to further develop the capabilities needed to assume that responsibility. The strategy is working and we should stick to it, and those who do will be proud of the accomplishment that we will see."

RUMMY JUST DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ASSASSINATIONS AND TORTURE -- AND IT'S SO FAR AWAY
[NEWS ITEM: Shiite Muslim militia members have infiltrated Iraq's police force and are carrying out sectarian killings under the color of law, according to documents and scores of interviews. The abuses raise the specter of organized retaliation to attacks by Sunni-led insurgents that have killed thousands of Shiites, who endured decades of subjugation under Saddam Hussein. And they undermine the U.S. effort to stabilize the nation, and train and equip Iraq's security forces -- the Bush administration's key prerequisites for the eventual withdrawal of American troops.
In recent months, hundreds of bodies have been discovered in rivers, garbage dumps, sewage treatment facilities and alongside roads and in desert ravines. Many of them are thought to be victims of Sunni insurgents, who are known to target Shiite civilians and Iraqi security forces, and even Sunni Arabs believed to be collaborating with U.S. forces or the Iraqi government. But increasingly, the Shiite militias operating within the national police force are also suspected of committing atrocities.]
Q Mr. Secretary, are you concerned over -- and in fact, is the United States looking into growing reports of uniformed death squads in Iraq perhaps assassinating and torturing hundreds of Sunnis? And if that's true, what would that say about stability in Iraq?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "I'm not going to comment on hypothetical questions. I've not seen reports that hundreds are being killed by roving death squads at all.
" We know for a fact that it's a violent country. We know for a fact that there have been various militias. We know that there have been some militias that have been Iran-oriented. We also know there's been some militias in the north that have been very helpful. The Peshmerga have been very constructive in what they've done. But I'm not going to get into speculation like that.
Q But, sir, that's not a hypothetical, I don't believe. The Sunnis themselves are charging that hundreds have been assassinated, people shot in the head, found in alleys.
SEC. RUMSFELD: "What you're talking about are unverified -- to my knowledge, at least -- unverified comments. I just don't have any data from the field that I could comment on in a specific way. Do you, General?"
GEN. PACE: No, I do not, sir, although I do know that the Iraqi government has said that they were going to investigate those kinds of allegations.
[Could these two be covering up a US operation? This, from the American Prospect: The Prospect has learned that part of a secret $3 billion in new funds--tucked away in the $87 billion Iraq appropriation that Congress approved in early November--will go toward the creation of a paramilitary unit manned by militiamen associated with former Iraqi exile groups. Experts say it could lead to a wave of extrajudicial killings, not only of armed rebels but of nationalists, other opponents of the U.S. occupation and thousands of civilian Baathists--up to 120,000 of the estimated 2.5 million former Baath Party members in Iraq.
"They're clearly cooking up joint teams to do Phoenix-like things, like they did in Vietnam," says Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA chief of counterterrorism. Ironically, he says, the U.S. forces in Iraq are working with key members of Saddam Hussein's now-defunct intelligence agency to set the program in motion. "They're setting up little teams of Seals and Special Forces with teams of Iraqis, working with people who were former senior Iraqi intelligence people, to do these things," Cannistraro says.]
Q So it's your sense that these abuses are not a widespread problem that threaten the --
SEC. RUMSFELD: "I -- my sense is I don't know. And it's obviously something that one has to be attentive to. It's obviously something that the -- General Casey and his troops are attentive to and have to be concerned about. It -- I'm not going to be judging it from 4,000 miles away -- how many miles away? -- "
GEN. PACE: It's a long ways.
SEC. RUMSFELD: "It's a long way -- 5,000, 6,000 maybe." [ACTUAL FLYING DISTANCE, WASHINGTON TO BAGHDAD -- 6211 MILES]
*
NO MORE "INSURGENCY" IN IRAQ, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE RESISTING OUR INVASION DON'T HAVE A LEGITIMATE GRIPE
Q. And actually, quite seriously, the other thing I wanted to ask is today the day that you two at the podium stop using the word insurgents? I'm kind of noticing that. We'd be interested in following your thoughts on that.
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Yeah. I think that you can have a legitimate insurgency in a country that has popular support and has a cohesiveness and has a legitimate gripe. These people don't have a legitimate gripe. They've got a peaceful way to change that government [THEY'RE FIGHTING OUR GOVERNMENT, NOT THEIRS] through the constitution, through the elections. These people aren't trying to promote something other than disorder and to take over that country and turn it into a caliphate [ISLAMIC DOMINION], and then spread it around the world. [CHINA! BRAZIL! FRANCE! --HORRORS!] This is a group of people who don't merit the word "insurgency," I think. But I'll look it up. You look it up for me, too. I'm sure you will." [INSURGENCY: A CONDITION OF REVOLT AGAINST A GOVERNMENT THAT IS LESS THAN AN ORGANIZED REVOLUTION AND THAT IS NOT RECOGNIZED AS BELLIGERENCY.]

[REALITY CHECK -- LATEST NEWS FROM RAMADI, IRAQ: But this is still a city the insurgents can claim they own. Although a U.S. Army brigade hunts them daily, the rebels move freely among a supportive populace. U.S. troops are despised here. The insurgents are embraced. "They are the people we see every day who give us a loaf of bread on a patrol, the people we will be fighting that night," says Lieut. Colonel Robert Roggeman, whose 2-69 Armored Regiment is battling to control the eastern part of this city of 400,000. Since July, 1 in 3 platoon members has been killed or hurt. "All of my squad leaders and section leaders have been wounded," says the platoon leader, 2nd Lieut. Joe Walker, a South Carolinian who volunteered to fight after 9/11.
"For a while, our unit was fighting at less than 70%, and we're still below 60% on our vehicles--so many Bradleys have been blown up." For weeks the 2-69, an entire armored battalion, was cut off from other American forces. The roads in and out of its base were saturated with improvised explosive devices, says Captain Chas Cannon. At one stage, there were 100 explosions a week.
"You expected to get hit ... possibly several times," says Cannon. The roads were closed; some food was rationed. But with aggressive combat operations, sniper assaults and the building of precarious outposts, the 2-69 has regained control of the city's main artery, "Route Michigan," the troops' lifeline.
The military has barely made a dent in the insurgency.]
***
RUMMY: DON'T ASK ME, I JUST WORK HERE
"I didn't advocate invasion," Rumsfeld told ABC television Sunday, when asked if he would have advocated an invasion of Iraq if he had known that no weapons of mass destruction would be found there.
*
RUMMY JUST DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ASSASSINATIONS AND TORTURE -- AND IT'S SO FAR AWAY
[NEWS ITEM: Shiite Muslim militia members have infiltrated Iraq's police force and are carrying out sectarian killings under the color of law, according to documents and scores of interviews. The abuses raise the specter of organized retaliation to attacks by Sunni-led insurgents that have killed thousands of Shiites, who endured decades of subjugation under Saddam Hussein. And they undermine the U.S. effort to stabilize the nation, and train and equip Iraq's security forces -- the Bush administration's key prerequisites for the eventual withdrawal of American troops.
In recent months, hundreds of bodies have been discovered in rivers, garbage dumps, sewage treatment facilities and alongside roads and in desert ravines. Many of them are thought to be victims of Sunni insurgents, who are known to target Shiite civilians and Iraqi security forces, and even Sunni Arabs believed to be collaborating with U.S. forces or the Iraqi government. But increasingly, the Shiite militias operating within the national police force are also suspected of committing atrocities.]
Q Mr. Secretary, are you concerned over -- and in fact, is the United States looking into growing reports of uniformed death squads in Iraq perhaps assassinating and torturing hundreds of Sunnis? And if that's true, what would that say about stability in Iraq?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "I'm not going to comment on hypothetical questions. I've not seen reports that hundreds are being killed by roving death squads at all.
" We know for a fact that it's a violent country. We know for a fact that there have been various militias. We know that there have been some militias that have been Iran-oriented. We also know there's been some militias in the north that have been very helpful. The Peshmerga have been very constructive in what they've done. But I'm not going to get into speculation like that.
Q But, sir, that's not a hypothetical, I don't believe. The Sunnis themselves are charging that hundreds have been assassinated, people shot in the head, found in alleys.
SEC. RUMSFELD: "What you're talking about are unverified -- to my knowledge, at least -- unverified comments. I just don't have any data from the field that I could comment on in a specific way. Do you, General?"
GEN. PACE: No, I do not, sir, although I do know that the Iraqi government has said that they were going to investigate those kinds of allegations.
[Could these two be covering up a US operation? This, from the American Prospect: The Prospect has learned that part of a secret $3 billion in new funds--tucked away in the $87 billion Iraq appropriation that Congress approved in early November--will go toward the creation of a paramilitary unit manned by militiamen associated with former Iraqi exile groups. Experts say it could lead to a wave of extrajudicial killings, not only of armed rebels but of nationalists, other opponents of the U.S. occupation and thousands of civilian Baathists--up to 120,000 of the estimated 2.5 million former Baath Party members in Iraq.
"They're clearly cooking up joint teams to do Phoenix-like things, like they did in Vietnam," says Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA chief of counterterrorism. Ironically, he says, the U.S. forces in Iraq are working with key members of Saddam Hussein's now-defunct intelligence agency to set the program in motion. "They're setting up little teams of Seals and Special Forces with teams of Iraqis, working with people who were former senior Iraqi intelligence people, to do these things," Cannistraro says.]
Q So it's your sense that these abuses are not a widespread problem that threaten the --
SEC. RUMSFELD: "I -- my sense is I don't know. And it's obviously something that one has to be attentive to. It's obviously something that the -- General Casey and his troops are attentive to and have to be concerned about. It -- I'm not going to be judging it from 4,000 miles away -- how many miles away? -- "
GEN. PACE: It's a long ways.
SEC. RUMSFELD: "It's a long way -- 5,000, 6,000 maybe." [ACTUAL FLYING DISTANCE, WASHINGTON TO BAGHDAD -- 6211 MILES]
***
NO MORE "INSURGENCY" IN IRAQ, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE RESISTING OUR INVASION DON'T HAVE A LEGITIMATE GRIPE
Q. And actually, quite seriously, the other thing I wanted to ask is today the day that you two at the podium stop using the word insurgents? I'm kind of noticing that. We'd be interested in following your thoughts on that.
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Yeah. I think that you can have a legitimate insurgency in a country that has popular support and has a cohesiveness and has a legitimate gripe. These people don't have a legitimate gripe. They've got a peaceful way to change that government [THEY'RE FIGHTING OUR GOVERNMENT, NOT THEIRS] through the constitution, through the elections. These people aren't trying to promote something other than disorder and to take over that country and turn it into a caliphate [ISLAMIC DOMINION], and then spread it around the world. [CHINA! BRAZIL! FRANCE! --HORRORS!] This is a group of people who don't merit the word "insurgency," I think. But I'll look it up. You look it up for me, too. I'm sure you will." [INSURGENCY: A CONDITION OF REVOLT AGAINST A GOVERNMENT THAT IS LESS THAN AN ORGANIZED REVOLUTION AND THAT IS NOT RECOGNIZED AS BELLIGERENCY.]

[REALITY CHECK -- LATEST NEWS FROM RAMADI, IRAQ: But this is still a city the insurgents can claim they own. Although a U.S. Army brigade hunts them daily, the rebels move freely among a supportive populace. U.S. troops are despised here. The insurgents are embraced. "They are the people we see every day who give us a loaf of bread on a patrol, the people we will be fighting that night," says Lieut. Colonel Robert Roggeman, whose 2-69 Armored Regiment is battling to control the eastern part of this city of 400,000. Since July, 1 in 3 platoon members has been killed or hurt. "All of my squad leaders and section leaders have been wounded," says the platoon leader, 2nd Lieut. Joe Walker, a South Carolinian who volunteered to fight after 9/11.
"For a while, our unit was fighting at less than 70%, and we're still below 60% on our vehicles--so many Bradleys have been blown up." For weeks the 2-69, an entire armored battalion, was cut off from other American forces. The roads in and out of its base were saturated with improvised explosive devices, says Captain Chas Cannon. At one stage, there were 100 explosions a week.
"You expected to get hit ... possibly several times," says Cannon. The roads were closed; some food was rationed. But with aggressive combat operations, sniper assaults and the building of precarious outposts, the 2-69 has regained control of the city's main artery, "Route Michigan," the troops' lifeline.
The military has barely made a dent in the insurgency.]
*
RUMMY: DON'T ASK ME, I JUST WORK HERE
"I didn't advocate invasion," Rumsfeld told ABC television Sunday, when asked if he would have advocated an invasion of Iraq if he had known that no weapons of mass destruction would be found there.

WHAT'S THE PLAN, RUMMY
Q: Can you tell us again what your plan is? When are the U.S. forces pulling out of Iraq?
RUMSFELD: "The President has answered that repeatedly. He has said properly that it's condition based and the conditions are improving continuously. We're currently up around 160,000 troops. We expect to be down to 138,000 after the election which was our baseline, and then as conditions permit the Coalition forces will continue to pass over responsibility to the Iraqis in an appropriate way."
RUMMY SAYS 'THERE IS TENSION'
Q: Isn’t there a civil war already going on in Iraq? And the United States presence, isn’t that exacerbating that civil war?
PACE [General Peter Pace, new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs]: There is in fact some factional fighting between Sunnis and Shia and Kurds, but that is not what you describe it to be. What you do have is individuals in all three of those communities who want to terrorize the Iraqi people, do not want them to be able to vote, do not want them to be able to pick their own way ahead. We should be very proud of the Coalition forces there, especially the US forces who are providing A, tremendous success on the battlefield when they’re fighting; B, enormous support for the Iraqi armed forces who are getting stronger and stronger every day; and C, are able to assist in the stability of the country so the Iraqi government can do what it’s doing which is growing its capacity to take care of their own people.
RUMSFELD: "I would only add one thing. Clearly the General is correct, there is not a civil war as such. There is tension. There always have been. But the presence of foreign forces can be intrusive in a country and there’s no question but that the insurgents try to use that to argue to increase the size of the insurgency. So one of the tensions that exists is to have enough forces to see that we can contribute to security as the Iraqi Security Forces continue to be built up, but also not to have too many forces that you contribute to the arguments that the insurgents make that there’s some sort of an occupation taking place. So there is that tension that exists. General Abizaid and General Casey have to manage that very carefully as they do."
*
RUMMY SAYS THERE IS SUBTERRANEAN STRIFE
Q: Isn’t Iraq already in the middle of a civil war and is the U.S. presence simply exacerbating it and if not, please explain why.
Rumsfeld: "No, Iraq is not in the middle of a civil war. There is certainly subterranean strife and that there is no question that Zarqawi’s folks are trying to incite civil war. But the behavior by the leadership of the Sunni community, the Kurdish community and the Shia community has been very professional and very responsible."
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVIDE SECURITY
Q: Can you tell us why 150,000 of our troops and 200,000 Iraqi Security Forces can’t stop the road side bombings and the suicide bombings?
Rumsfeld: "The reality is that we have 159,000 at the present time and 212,000 Iraqi Security Forces and other coalition forces that are there. And the fact is that a terrorist can attack at any time, at any place, using any technique and it’s physically impossible to defend at every moment of the day or night, at every location, against every conceivable [inaudible] That’s why one has to be on the offense, why you have to put pressure on the terrorist networks."
WE'LL PULL OUT WHEN WE FEEL LIKE IT
Q: When are US forces pulling out of Iraq?
Rumsfeld: " Well, they are going to be drawing down over time as conditions permit and military commanders and the Embassy in Baghdad are working with the Iraqi government to determine what those conditions are and in what case that would be appropriate. . . My guess is we’ll continue to find that the conditions will permit reductions as Iraqi Security Forces continue to grow."
*
RUMMY BELIEVES IN FREE SPEECH
"There have always been debates over wars; it's understandable," Rumsfeld told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. "We live in a free country and it's proper for people to raise questions and to have views ... that's fair enough." "We had similar debates during World War II, during Korea, during Vietnam; it's always been so," he said on ABC News' This Week.
IN VERY SMALL DOSES
But "we also have to understand that our words have effects." These effects, he noted, could well mean demoralizing U.S. troops, discouraging the Iraqi people and emboldening the terrorists.
THEN HE GETS INTO SHOE-SWAPPING
"Put yourself in the shoes of a soldier ... . Put yourself in the shoes of the Iraqi people ... . Put yourself in the shoes of the enemy," Rumsfeld said.
HOW ABOUT: PUT YOURSELF IN THE SHOES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR WHOM YOU 'SERVE,' RUMMY
*
IN ADELAIDE RUMMY SAYS IRAQ IS WORSE THAN AFGHANISTAN:
Iraq has more ugly times ahead but would become a peaceful democracy, U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday.
Appearing frustrated, Mr Rumsfeld told reporters that, despite the violence tearing the country apart, "it will be a stable country, at peace with its neighbours".
"There will be times when it's ugly but, by golly ['my goodness gracious' is out], I think they're going to make it," he said in Adelaide.[ah, yes, another fearless prediction from the team that brought us 'mission accomplished' two-and-a-half years and 1800 US military deaths ago]
Facing growing domestic unpopularity over the war, Mr Rumsfeld said Iraq was "several years" behind Afghanistan but claimed progress was being made.
BUT THE KILL RATIO FOR US TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN IS HIGHER THAN IRAQ, AND US FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN SAY THINGS ARE GOING FROM BAD TO WORSE:
U.S. Special Forces soldiers hunting Taliban and foreign fighters in southern Afghanistan say they are encountering a fiercer and more organized adversary than last year, and one that is far from being near collapse as predicted by an American general in April.
*
RUMMY'S A LITTLE HAZY ON WHEN THE WAR STARTED, BUT HE KNEW IT WOULD BE A MESS, AND RIGHT NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO COVER HIS BUTT
"It would have been probably October of '02, and the war was March, I think," of the following year, Rumsfeld explains. "I sat down, and I said, 'What are all the things that one has to anticipate could be a problem?' And circulated it and read it to the president -- sent it to the president. Gave it to the people in the department, and they planned against those things. And all of the likely and unlikely things that one could imagine are listed there."
*
WAR, WHAT WAR? OH, THAT ONE. THERE'S LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL
Q Mr. Secretary, do you see this war winding down in the next two years?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: "Oh, sure. Let me -- No, let me rephrase it. First of all, I don't know what war you're talking about."
Q I'm talking about the war in Iraq.
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: "Okay, if you're talking about Iraq -- The Global War on Terror I regret to say is going to go on for some time because of the advantage that a terrorist has in being able to attack and the difficulty of defending against attacks at any location at any moment of the day or night.
"In terms of Iraq, the insurgency is going to diminish I think after these elections. It will be so clear that we will be passing off additional responsibility to the Iraqi Security Forces and the Iraqi people. And what the terrorists will be doing at that stage is attacking the Iraqi Constitution which was fashioned by the Iraqi people and an Iraqi government that was elected under the Iraqi Constitution, and they won't be against coalition people. [THE TERRORISTS WILL ATTACK THE IRAQI CONSTITUTION AND NOT US!!] My estimate [RUMMY'S ESTIMATES HAVE NEVER BEEN ACCURATE, AND THIS ONE IS WILDER THAN MOST] is that that won't sell very well in Iraq, and you'll find intelligence improving and the Iraqi people deciding that they're tired of the Zarkawis in there killing people.
"So I think we'll see the coalition forces being able to pare down and pass over responsibility to Iraqi Security Forces on an orderly basis in the period after the elections, over some period of time. [SAY, TEN YEARS OR SO] And over a longer period of time, the Iraqi Security Forces will eventually subdue the insurgency."[JUST LOOK AT OUR SUCCESS IN VIETNAM]
*
RUMMY STRAIGHTENS OUT HISTORY (by forgetting about UN inspections in Iraq which found no WMD):
Q Mr. Secretary, you've listed a list of facts here, and I don't think anyone would argue with most of them, including the fact that former President Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Al Gore and others warned that Iraq was a threat to possibly use weapons of mass destruction, in fact had done it. You don't mention that the Bush administration or President Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which it didn't. So how is this straightening out history?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Well, Charlie, it seems to me that what we're seeing is, we've got men and women serving in Iraq, risking their lives, and -- on the one hand, and on the other hand, we have people suggesting that the reason we're there was because this president decided to go in based on information that was unique to him. And it wasn't unique to him. The information that he based his decision on was the same information that President Clinton and the previous administration had. It's the same information members of the House and Senate had. It's the same information that the other intelligence services have."
[NOT TRUE -- The CIA sent many reports to the administration that the Congress never saw: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html?ei=5090&en=2e1cdcc5b66e0332&ex=1254456000&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=print&position= And, according to Ivan Eland: "The executive branch intelligence agencies dwarf the congressional staff and are responsible for collecting, analyzing, debating and disseminating the intelligence. Members of Congress and their staff do not see all of the intelligence, especially the raw inputs into the process. In addition, the imperial presidency has a much grander bully pulpit from which to twist and embellish facts about a war than do members of Congress."]
AND, GOSH, WE WERE MISLED ALL THOSE YEARS
Q Mr. Secretary, could I ask you, in retrospect, do you feel that you were let down by the intelligence community on the intelligence on Iraq, or were people making honest mistakes based on the best information available, or how do you look at it?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "There's no doubt in my mind that people made honest mistakes in that set of -- the pieces of that intelligence that were presented at the United Nations. They certainly were not intentional, and they were clearly honest mistakes."
[SPEAKING OF OTHER COUNTRIES -- THIS, FROM THE BBC, 13 FEB 2003: France, Germany and Russia have released an unprecedented joint declaration on the Iraq crisis, demanding more weapons inspectors and more technical assistance for them . . . "Nothing today justifies a war," Mr Chirac told a joint news conference with Mr Putin. "This region really does not need another war." He said France did not have "undisputed proof" that Iraq still held weapons of mass destruction.]
"And -- now, do you feel let down because something is inaccurate and imperfect? You'd be let down every day by intelligence, because by its nature, it's hard to do, it's tough. And we constantly need better intelligence. If there's one thing I hear every single day from the battlefield commanders, it's they need better intelligence. And it is a tough thing to do. They have tough jobs, and they're doing their best.
"And is it better or worse than in previous eras? My guess is it's better than in previous eras. Why do I say that? Well, we're spending a great deal of money. We've got a lot of awful fine people. We've probably got more people right now than we have in the last 10, 15 years, working this problem. But is it perfect? No. Will it ever be perfect? I doubt it."
BUT MAYBE WE WEREN'T -- I GET SO CONFUSED
Q Do you think that the WMD just wasn't there? Or what's happened?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Time will tell. We'll learn."
I DON'T WANT TO EVEN GO THERE
Q Mr. Secretary, given what you said in response to Rick's question about the erroneous intelligence, if you had known what the correct intelligence would have been, would you have made the same recommendations to go to war?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Oh, I'm not going to get in to that."
Q I mean, and this is absent everything that's happened in Iraq since --
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Yeah, I'm not going to get into that."
*
RUMMY SAYS WE NEED TO BE PERSUADED
Q And here's my question. Looking back as a former member of Congress, does this signal to you a growing impatience in the U.S. Senate similar to the early '70s debates on Vietnam?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Oh, I wouldn't go down that road myself. It's understandable that the American people and the Congress are interested in knowing as much as possible about a war. A war is an important thing. It's a serious thing. It's a dangerous thing. People die, and we know that, and it's heartbreaking. I was reading a book last night, Winston Churchill, and he said the problem is not winning the war but persuading people to let them -- let him win the war, he said. In a free system like we have -- these situations don't evolve in a dictatorship. It's only in free systems that we have these kind of open, public debates and discussions."
SO THE GOVERNMENT WON'T BOW TO PUBLIC PRESSURE AND END THE SLAUGHTER LIKE WE DID IN VIETNAM
"Well we know that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and Zarkawi and Zawahiri have all been known to quote events that the United States was involved in -- Somalia, and other events -- where we -- Vietnam -- where the United States made a decision to alter direction because of public pressure. So in a very real sense the center of gravity, to use the military term, of this war is less in Iraq or in other countries, and more with the publics of the coalition countries, that are determined to see that terrorists are not allowed to continue killing innocent men, women and children. And so the Zarkawis and the Osama bin Ladens have media committees and they consciously decide how they can play on the American public and the American media to advantage themselves. And we see that in the intelligence."
[SPEAKING OF PLAYING ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, THIS IS HOW WARANDPIECE.COM SEES THINGS: This administration has been uniquely inclined to treat everything as fair game, to spin a terrible terrorist attack against this country into a kind of marketing campaign for a Hollywood story about a president's leadership abilities and an administration's unparalleled right to evade normal Congressional oversight and to savage critics as traitors, to treat even national defense information as raw fungible material for propaganda purposes, for marketing the war and then spinning the post-war and then SwiftBoating critics.]
*
Rummy's happy that Senator Lieberman doesn't want to put any limitations on the war
SEC. RUMSFELD: ". . . I was struck by what someone told me about another amendment, where Senator Lieberman spoke and pointed out that he was concerned -- I think he said, quote, that it seems to be -- you don't want to -- he said one of these amendments would send "a message that I fear will discourage our troops because it seems to be heading to the door. It will encourage the terrorists and it will confuse the Iraqi people and affect their judgments as they go forward." And I mention that because another one that's pending involves deadlines, as I recall, or timetables of some sort."
Q That was shot down.
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Was it?"
Q Yes.
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Good."

RUMMY LOOKS AT THE NUMBERS
Q When John McCain has called for a "clear and hold" strategy in Iraq, in a briefing last week at the AEI, and he's saying 10,000 more soldiers are needed over there for this kind of strategy. Could you both comment on that?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "The -- we've been over this so many times. It's perfectly understandable that people differ as to what the number ought to be. The number at the present time is between 155,000 and 160,000. The base level had been about 138,000 for some preceding months. So it is 10,000 more, plus -- more than 10,000 more than it had been in an earlier period. The reason they're there, obviously, was for the referendum, the referendum on the constitution, and for the upcoming elections --"
ADM. GIAMBASTIANI: If I could, Mr. Secretary, to help out here -- I didn't understand the way you asked it initially, which is why I didn't answer. But what's important here is that the hold part is increasingly relying on Iraqi security forces. And will there be more forces behind? The answer is yes. And the Iraqi numbers keep growing every single day. We're at 212,000 today. And those numbers will continue to grow. And the hold strategy is that more and more of Iraq is being held by Iraqi security forces. It's substantial. [The numbers will grow, yes, but the Iraqis have only ONE BATTALION that's capable of independent operatios.]
Q The bottom line is, you're already adopting that current hold strategy. Is that right?
ADM. GIAMBASTIANI: Yes.
*
RUMMY STICKS WITH WHAT HE SAID (NOTHING)
Q Mr. Secretary, there are reports that two men who were detainees in Iraq, taken in July of 2003 -- they are now claiming that as part of their interrogation, they were thrown into a cage with lions. Can you tell us if any member of the U.S. military has ever threatened a detainee in that way -- coerced him, tortured him in any way, using lions?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "I read the same report. It seems quite far- fetched. People are -- obviously, everything that everyone alleges is looked into. But you got to keep in mind that the documents that were found, I believe in Manchester, train people -- terrorists -- to lie about their treatment, and they do it consistently, and it always works."
Q So you think this never happens?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "I didn't say that. You heard precisely what I said. I spoke very precisely, and you can get a transcript of it if you really want to know what I said. And I'll stick with what I said."
***************** *
RUMMY'S MOUTHPIECE, LAWRENCE DI RITA, TELLS THE NATIONAL GUARD TO BUZZ OFF:
Q Another budget question. General Blum was on the Hill yesterday --
MR. DIRITA: Blum?
Q Blum, National Guard --
[Lieutenant General H Steven Blum serves as Chief, National Guard Bureau, Arlington, Va. As Chief, he is the senior uniformed National Guard officer responsible for formulating, developing and coordinating all policies, programs and plans affecting more than half a million Army and Air National Guard personnel. Appointed by the President, he serves as the principal adviser to the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army, and the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force on all National Guard issues. As NGB Chief, he serves as the Army's and Air Force's official channel of communication with the Governors and Adjutants General. Prior to his current assignment, General Blum served as Chief of Staff, United States Northern Command.]
MR. DIRITA: Okay.
Q -- talking about the need for $1.3 billion in emergency funding to help a bunch of things with the Guard, specifically in the context of interoperability and responding to national disasters. Can you just talk a little bit to what's happening within the department about making sure the Guard gets what it needs?
MR. DIRITA: Listen, the Guard is a component of this department, and as we balance the requirements across the department and the capabilities that we want, the Guard will certainly have its opportunity to lay out -- as will the Army and the Air Force, who have responsibility for oversight of the Guard. So such resources as are determined to be needed as we balance across risk and capability requirements will be provided for the Guard, I think.
***************
THE IRAQIS ARE TAKING OVER, SO WE CAN REDUCE TROOP LEVELS
Q Sir, I just attended an event in which General Petraeus outlined the training of Iraqi security forces, and things seem to be going well, in his view. Can you characterize a little bit -- and I know you've mentioned the new announcements about rotations later. Can you characterize how that success will translate to reduction in U.S. forces?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Sure. I'll be happy to. We have done it before, but as everyone has said, from the president through the secretary down to General Abizaid and General Casey and the Iraqi government and our coalition partners, it's condition-based. And as conditions on the ground there permit and require, obviously the commanders on the ground will recommend that coalition forces and U.S. forces pare down as responsibility is transferred over to Iraqis.
And it's been being transferred over in recent months. We've seen large portions, for example, of Iraq that are -- correction -- of Baghdad that are being managed by Iraqi security forces. There are other parts of the country that are being managed by Iraqi security forces. And as that takes place, the -- it will be possible for coalition forces to be reduced.

BUT WE'RE NOT REDUCING TROOP LEVELS
We normally have about 138,000 troops in Iraq [TWO-AND-A-HALF YEARS AFTER 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,' 138,000 TROOPS AND DAILY CASUALTIES ARE 'NORMAL.'], and that's kind of the baseline. We're going to increase it up around, to 160,000 over the election period, around December 15th. Then it would go back down to 138,000, plus or minus, and at that point we would take a look at the results of the election, and the security situation, and the progress of the Iraqi security forces, and as President Bush has said, it will be a conditioned-based program where we will then make a judgment [WE WILL MAKE A JUDGMENT? I THOUGHT THE SELLING POINT WAS THAT THE IRAQIS, WITH ALL THEIR 'ELECTIONS,' WERE IN CHARGE OF THEIR COUNTRY? APPARENTLY NOT.] as to what the commanders on the ground feel is an appropriate level. And to the extent it needs to stay where it is, it will stay where it is. And to the extent they believe it can be reduced, it will be reduced. Our goal, obviously, is to reduce the coalition forces in Iraq and keep handing over responsibility to the Iraqi Security Forces that are now up over 210,000. [WE KEEP INCREASING OUR TROOP LEVELS WHILE WE 'HAND OVER RESPONSIBILITY.' LOOKS LIKE A ROAD TO NOWHERE.]
*
INVADING SYRIA SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA
"We have no plans to do that. [WHICH MEANS WE DO HAVE PLANS TO DO THAT.] My impression is that there's plenty of pressure on the Syrian government at the present time, and that they are not serving themselves well to be permitting the flow of insurgents and anti-Iraqi people across their border, and that they'd be well advised to stop permitting it.

RUMMY SAYS THAT RULE BY RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS IS UNDESIRABLE
"I think the Iranian people have a proud history. They're intelligent people. I suspect that over time the women and the young people in that country will find that living in a society that's ruled by a handful of clerics is probably not what they would like. I suspect that in my lifetime we'll find them expressing that." [IN HIS LIFETIME? RUMMY'S 73. DO WE HAVE ANOTHER CIA-LED REVOLUTION COOKING FOR IRAN? A NEW SHAH?]
*
THE RATIONALE FOR CORPORATE WELFARE IN A NUTSHELL:
"We invest many hundreds of billions of dollars a year to assure that the United States has the kinds of capabilities that we can in fact defend and deter other countries from attacking our nation. [WHAT COUNTRY THREATENS THE UNITED STATES?] We believe we're doing those things that are appropriate and necessary individually, and in cooperation with friends and allies around the world."

RUMMY'S ALMOST IN TEARS BECAUSE WE'RE LOSING OUR LOCK ON SELLING MILITARY STUFF
"I mean Russia has been selling things to a great many countries. It's selling China almost anything China will buy. It is selling things -- Of course Israel's been selling to China as well. But they're selling to Syria and they've been assisting Iran with their nuclear [power] program, the Bashir program, and they're selling to Venezuela [WHICH EXPORTS OIL TO US], Russia is. So obviously it's those kinds of things that people address and worry about and wonder what direction that suggests."

RUMMY DOESN'T LET AGGRESSION, ARAB PERSECUTION AND MULTIPLE UN SANCTIONS STAND BETWEEN HIM AND HIS LOVE OF ISRAEL: "The United States and Israel have a long and close relationship and that Israel has developed a highly competent and capable military and defense industry to their credit, which living in that part of the world as a democracy, it's perfectly appropriate for them to do, and we have had a very close, cooperative relationship with them, and that's a healthy thing from both of our standpoints."

RUMMY JUSTIFIES THE IRAQ INVASION WITH OLD LIES "The United States made a conscious decision to go to the United Nations [AND LIE], and to express the concern that was felt by most of the Western nations about the fact that Iraq was a terrorist state [THE CIA SAID THERE WERE NO TIES TO EL QAEDA. IN FACT, IRAQ AND EL QAEDA WERE ENEMIES], Iraq was a state that was shooting at our aircraft [COMBAT BOMB-DROPPING AIRCRAFT] that were enforcing the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones [ARBITRARY ZONES ESTABLISHED BY THE US] on a regular basis. It was providing $25,000 for families of suicide bombers [OUR BOMBERS DO IT FOR LESS]. It's a country that had used chemical weapons [WHICH WE PROVIDED] against its own people and its neighbors [NEIGHBORS -- THAT'S A NEW ONE]. The President went to the United Nations [AND LIED] and to the Congress [AND LIED] and made a conscious [UNCONSTITUTIONAL] decision to do what was done."
*
IN IRAQ OUR TROOP INCREASES AND CASUALTIES ARE A RESULT OF SUCCESS. AND BLACK IS WHITE.
"The success that's being achieved there, if one thinks about it, there were elections in January, then there was, October 15th in Iraq, there was a referendum on the [ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST] constitution that had been drafted by the people elected by the Iraqi people, and now we're looking towards a third election in a single year on December 15th, where the people will be electing people under their new constitution. That is an enormous step forward for the people of Iraq."[A TORTURED DESCRIPTION]
**
SPEAKING OF TORTURE, IT JUST CAN'T HAPPEN --
"We have no secret prisons at all. They're all public and people go down there. The International Committee of the Red Cross goes there. It's all very, very much open.
UNLESS IT'S AUTHORIZED BY RUMMY OR HIS ASSISTANT, OR IF THE PRISONER IS PUT UNDER CIA CONTROL.
recent Defense Department directive: "Intelligence interrogations will be conducted in accordance with applicable law, this directive and implementing plans, policies, orders, directives, and doctrine developed by DoD components and approved by USD (I), unless otherwise authorized, in writing, by the secretary of defense or deputy secretary of defense." The new policy governs the interrogation of any detainee under Defense Department control. It leaves open the possibility that prisoners in department facilities, such as Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib, could at times be considered under the control of another agency -- such as the Central Intelligence Agency -- and therefore would not be subject to the directive's policies.

RUMMY, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, MUSES ON POLITICAL SCIENCE:
"If Iraq, an important country with oil [WHICH WE NOW OWN], with water [THERE'S THAT 'WATER' AGAIN -- FOR ISRAEL?], with an important history, with industrious people, intelligent people [IF THEY HAVEN'T FLED TO JORDAN], well educated people -- If Iraq becomes a successful democracy [LIKE US?], it unquestionably will have an effect on its neighbors and on the region in a way that will be favorable to peace-loving people [LIKE US?] and to other democracies."
*
"We hope to see other countries step away from the development and the trading in weapons of mass destruction."
THEY SHOULD JUST ACCEPT OUR INVASIONS AND OCCUPATIONS WITHOUT RESISTANCE

THIS IS A NEW LIE -- COLLEGIALITY. BEFORE, IT WAS THE PRESIDENT MAKING DIFFICULT DECISIONS ON HIS OWN
"We go out and talk to the press, and we go on your program, and we tell people what we believe is right, and have a national debate or dialogue or discussion on important subjects and let the chips fall where they may."
*
Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Lee Rodgers, Hot Talk KSFO San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
RODGERS: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld joins us for a few minutes this morning. Mr. Secretary, I know you won't, you can't, give anything like an exact date about when our troops will be leaving Iraq, but can you give us some sort of progress report on the Iraqis developing the capability to deal with their own problems?
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Well, I can. The Iraqi Security Forces have now, have deployed 210,000 Iraqis that are trained and equipped to perform specific functions. The Army, the Border Patrol, the police, the special police commandos and the like. They are each day increasingly capable and effective. The overwhelming majority of them are out functioning, providing security in the country, and I must say putting their lives at risk, and God bless them for it, because it is their country.
WITH ALL THESE FINE IRAQI FORCES, CAN'T WE GET OUT? UM, NO.
"We have had a pattern of increasing the number of coalition forces during periods when there was an expectation that the insurgents and terrorists would like to try to disrupt the political process. We'll decide what we're going to do about December as we go along, but it would not be a surprise to me that the commanders would want to have some sort of an overlap there" between arriving and departing units, Rumsfeld said.
LET'S SEE, THERE ARE NOW 161,000 US TROOPS, WHICH WILL PROBABLY BE INCREASED IN DECEMBER, PLUS 23,000 COALITION TROOPS, PLUS AN UNKNOWN NUMBER OF US CIVILIAN RENT-A-COPS, PLUS 210,000 IRAQI SECURITY -- THAT'S A FORCE OF OVER 400,000 TO RESTRAIN, HOW MANY, 20,000 IRAQI 'TERRORISTS.' AND YOU STILL CAN'T DRIVE FROM BAGHDAD TO THE AIRPORT WITHOUT A TANK.
AND THEN RUMMY TELLS THE CHINESE 'DON'T BURN THE EGGROLLS'
On the one hand, they're engaging economically with the rest of the world which is a good thing, and on the other hand from time to time they do things that are notably unhelpful or unfriendly, and they ought to be aware that those mixed signals are seen and that it raises questions. [Well, aren't we the special ones, like when we conducted a ten year massive military campaign on a poor country on China's border.]
*
THE PRESIDENT WAS MISLED, BUT IT ALL WORKED OUT OKAY (100,000 LIVES AND 200 BILLION DOLLARS LATER)
Q One of the implications of all of these questions right now is that there was somehow -- there are aspersions being cast on the integrity with which this administration went to the war in Iraq. And I wonder if that's anything you'd like to respond to. That's one of things that Colonel Wilkerson was talking about. It's one of the questions that seems to be spiralling out of this whole indictment of Lewis Libby. Is that anything you'd like to talk about --
SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, what you've got is you've got an indictment pending, and then you have people who are going to have to work their way through those things. And it seems to me that opining on it from the side is not a useful thing to do or a particularly thoughtful thing to do. We know -- anyone who looks at this process knows what it was. The president of the United States made some judgments based on the best advice he received, and he went to the Congress, and the Congress received the same information. He went to the United Nations, and the United Nations had the same information. And he made a decision, [the Constitution states thet the Congress has the power to declare war] and the process, I think, was transparent [the visibility is improving with Libby's indictment] . And it is what it is, [one of Rummy's favorite sayings, like: "my goodness gracious"] so --
Q But with integrity in the process, was it really the best advice that the president received?
SEC. RUMSFELD: I have just answered your question. I said the president received the best advice that was available in his [his??] government and went to the Congress and went to the United Nations. And they all had the same information, and he made a decision. And the people of Iraq are a whale of a lot better off today. [If Rummy were an Iraqi, one of those still alive, he might have a different view concerning the death, mutilation, destruction, kidnapping and torture conducted by Rummy's legions, and Iraqi women in particular might resent the woman-hating Muslim fundamantalist government resulting from our invasion.]
*
NO TURNIPS FOR RUMMY
Q -- was this department involved in, aware of, in any way, in the alleged efforts by the Vice President's Office to learn about Mr. Wilson's trip to Africa?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Not to my knowledge, but how could one answer that? I mean, you've got a department of hundreds and thousands of people, millions of people, and you say, "Was this department in any way involved in some allegation?" My goodness gracious. Only a --
Q You never spoke about it with the vice president?
SEC. RUMSFELD: I -- how would I know if I ever spoke about it with the vice president over five years? I don't recall speaking it -- with him about it, and I don't recall the department being involved. Is it possible? I mean, my goodness, that's -- that question is such a -- it's -- what is that game? Fish. Give me all your sevens or something. I mean, that's not for me.
Q Mr. Secretary, one of the implications of the --
SEC. RUMSFELD: I think he thinks I just fell off a turnip truck.
*
WHAT'S THE FUTURE IN IRAQ -- TOTAL VICTORY?
"So the answer to your question is that over time it will have to be the Iraqi people that will secure their country and finally defeat that insurgency. Insurgencies last historically anywhere from five, six, eight, ten years. Ultimately they are put down not by foreign forces."
BUT WE'VE BEEN IN KOREA, WHICH HAS THE TENTH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD, FOR FIFTY YEARS:
"A number of troops are moving out of Korea as the Korean forces increase their capability. A number of bases and locations that we've had are being reduced by I guess 105. We've turned back the number now and hope to have I think 40 turned back by the end of this year[?]. What will happen is that you'll see the alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea evolve. It's 50 years old. They now are not a country that's on its knees brutalized and [inaudible], they are a country that has the tenth largest economy, gross domestic product on the face of the earth. They have an increasingly capable military."
ACCORDING TO RUMMY, WE'RE IN IRAQ BECAUSE THEY [OUR PUPPETS] WANT US THERE
"Iraq has indicated that during this period they want the Coalition forces in their country doing what it is we're doing because the government of Iraq knows that they're not yet in a position to provide for the security of their country by themselves. So there's not an infringement on their sovereignty in the correct meaning of the word that we're there. It is an argument that's used against us while we're there that it is an infringement of their sovereignty but it is in fact not because it is at their request and it also happens to be under a UN Resolution."
WE'RE ONLY IN IRAQ BECAUSE . . .
"You know our country. You know our desire is not to have our forces anywhere they're not wanted, not to have them in places they're not welcome, and certainly not to have them in places they're not needed. Most of our folks would rather be home."
NO MORE TALK OF TOTAL, UNAPOLOGETIC VICTORY:
"I think that what you'll see is as the Iraqi security forces continue to grow and become more qualified as they are every single day, the U.S. and coalition forces will pare down over time based on conditions in the country, partly dependent upon the behavior of their neighbors in Syria and Iran, partly dependent upon the extent to which the Iraqi people accept the fact that it is their country and because of that constitution and because of their opportunity to vote and to put the people they want in office, that they have an interest in its success. I think all of those things will determine the pace at which that's happening. But I think the number of military bases and locations that we'd be involved in in Iraq would come down substantially. And from our standpoint the sooner the better."
RUMMY SAYS MORE TROOPS (WE NOW HAVE INCREASED TO 161,000) WILL CAUSE MORE INSURGENCY: "You see a lot of observers and people sitting in arm chairs somewhere else saying oh you should have more troops, you should do this, you should do that. The fact of the matter is, the people on the ground recognize that tension between having just enough to do the job, but not so many that in fact it causes a bigger insurgency and a reaction against the intrusiveness of the "occupation force".
RUMMY'S GOT A PROBLEM WITH THE MEDIA, BUT WHAT TO DO? "I [think] it's against the law for us to do much because, for example, you have multiple audiences. Any time anyone says anything, not only are you saying it to the people you're targeting, the enemy, or the people the enemy are trying to persuade for example, to be enlisted and recruited, to be trained as suicide bombers or whatever, to give money to the terrorists. When you're talking to them, you're also talking simultaneously to everybody else, to our people. And that's where you have the problem. So we have to be very careful in what we do [he means "say"] and we are."
*
SOME RED MEAT FOR THE TROOPS (TO BE MODIFIED LATER)
"To those that may ask you what's your mission, what is it that you're about? You can tell them it's not to cower behind illusory defenses, that defenses don't work. We need to defend, but the only way to put pressure on the attackers is to go after them where they are, let there be no doubt. Nor is it to wait for danger to return to our shores as it did on September 11th.
"Your mission is to be on the offense, it's to go on the attack. That's what our forces are doing. They're engaging the enemies where they live so that they do not attack us where we live.
"Some may ask, well what's the goal of this Global War on Terror? What's the goal of the effort in Iraq or Afghanistan? Well, tell them it's victory. Unconditional, unapologetic, and unyielding. And you can tell them one more thing. That we know and we appreciate the cost of war, and it is costly. It's costly in time away from families; it's costly when one visits the wounded in the hospitals in Washington at Bethesda and Walter Reed and elsewhere around the country; it's costly in its pain and the tragedies that war involves; and every loss of life and every injury weighs on our hearts and on the hearts of America.
"You confront a deadly enemy today far from America's shores and it's the only means to secure our freedom and peace.
"You fight today so that our children and their children might not have to experience the heartbreak of something like September 11th."
[Smedley Butler said: "Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end wars." This was the 'war to make the world safe for democracy.' No one told them that dollars and cents were the real reason. No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. . . They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."]
*
RECENTLY:
America has one goal in the war on global terrorism: "It's victory -- unconditional, unapologetic and unyielding," Rumsfeld said.
FROM THE FILES:
"Oh, I think it certainly is reasonable to say that the coalition is not going to defeat the insurgency."
*
9/11, NOT CONNECTED TO IRAQ, CAN STILL WORK ON THE TROOPS
"You fight today so that our children and their children might not have to experience the heartbreak of something like Sept. 11"
*
WHY DOES THE MEDIA FOCUS ON DEATH, DESTRUCTION AND DESPAIR WHEN THERE'S SO MUCH MONEY TO BE MADE?
In a question-and-answer session, an Air Force captain suggested part of the military's perception problem stems from the tone of civilian media reports. The man's question elicited loud applause from the crowd. Rumsfeld agreed, but said it's servicemembers' responsibility to speak up about what they believe. Rumsfeld said today's servicemembers will look back on their achievements with enormous pride. Yet, he said, "one asks why is it that the public impression is so different from the reality."
*
Rummy's Noble Cause: sexual perversion
*
RUMMY AND THE RABBIT
Q: The reason I ask is much was made of this on the Hill yesterday -- [the reported fact that the number of Iraqi combat-ready battalions has slipped from three to one, despite the figure of 170,000 trained Iraqi military that Rummy has used for a year]
SEC. RUMSFELD: I understand. And I -- that's my point. I think folks are chasing the wrong rabbit. If you look here -- and I suppose I'm partly at fault here, because I was asked: Well, how are you doing with the Iraqi security forces? So I said to these people in the region, why don't you give us some numbers of what you have? And if you think about it, back there in January of '03, we started trying to gather the information as to what they had -- actually before that; it was down in here. And we got up there in April of '04 and we looked at some of the things that were in that number, and we said, you know, there's about 50[000]or 70,000 site-protection people in there that aren't part of the Ministry of Interior or Defense; we don't have good visibility into them. They kind of operate separately. Let's take them out. So that's why we dropped them out.
Then we said, you know what's important, it's not just how many you have out there, setting aside the 70,000 site protection people. So the number comes down to there. All the time we're sending out assessment teams. Eikenberry went out. Who else went out? Somebody else?
Q: Luck, Gary Luck.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Gary Luck went out.
Then we said let's see how many of them are trained up to the standard that's appropriate for their function -- police, army, special police commando, border patrol -- whatever it is. So then we got a number and we started tracking that.
And then we said well, what's really important is training and equipping. So let's knock that number down. And so people, well the numbers have moved around, and it looks like we're getting worse. We're not getting worse, we're getting better. Every single day the Iraqi security forces are getting bigger and better, and better trained, and better equipped, and more experienced.
If I wanted to, today I could go up there and say, you know, what's important -- this number doesn't say how long they've been out there. Some of them are green as grass; they just arrived out from boot camp and they're out there, they're in the number. They're trained and equipped, but they just arrived. Why don't we say trained, equipped and six months experience? We could drop that number down some more, if we wanted to.
We could keep doing this. What's important is -- the central fact is that the one and three are irrelevant. What's important is that every day the number of Iraqi security forces are getting bigger, and they're getting better, and they're getting more experienced. And General Casey can tell you they are doing more. They are literally out there -- I don't know if the number's still right, but at one point we thought that they were doing about -- that U.S. was doing about 80 percent of the patrols and the activity, and the Iraqi security forces about 20 [percent]. And today it's probably roughly reversed, that the Iraqi -- independent and Iraqi combined are probably 80 percent, and maybe 20 percent are U.S.-coalition only. [You believe that, and I've got this bridge . . . ]
So those -- the idea that the country could get fixated on one and three battalions out of a hundred is really unfortunate, because it totally misses what's important and the big picture.
*
VIETNAM REDUX (we didn't lose in the field, we lost in the newspapers)
Q: A question for General Casey. You opened up and said the enemy is attacking the will of the Iraqi people and attacking the will of the American people. They are failing in Iraq. Are you suggesting that the enemy, with these spectacular attacks, is somehow successfully chipping away at the will of the American people?
GEN. CASEY: What do you think?
Q: It's not my question to answer (laughter)
GEN. CASEY: It is your question. But look, you guys read the polls just like I do. And this is a terror campaign, and they are trying to create the impression that we and the Iraqis cannot succeed in Iraq. And what do you think? Is it having an impression back here at home, the levels of violence? I think it is.
SEC. RUMSFELD: There's no question but what the general says is correct, that they have a media committee, multiple media committees, the terrorists do. They know what they're doing. They're focusing on public opinion in the United States. They're trying to do things that are dramatic and affect that. And they're looking for allies and ways that they can get the echo chamber going. They work closely with Middle East networks and arrange to have cooperative arrangements with them.
No, I mean, they can't win a battle, they can't win a war out in the field. The only place they can win is in a test of wills, if people say the cost is too high and the time is too long.
*
''Today, history records the brilliance of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address," Rumsfeld said. ''The Marshall Plan helped Europe recover. And Ronald Reagan's tough line at Reykjavik -- according to the Soviets, anyway -- was the beginning of the end of the Cold War. In thinking about Afghanistan and Iraq, we should ask what history will say. . . . it will show . . . that America was on freedom's side, and it will remember the millions of people who have been freed and the hundreds of thousands of coalition forces who helped achieve that freedom."
*
Recent interview on the Laura Ingraham Show
Rummy's high on (and dumb-founded about the lack of media coverage about) the recent elections in Afghanistan (never mind that the government only controls the capital):
"It's just amazing. It is such an enormous story in history, what's been accomplished in four years. And the courage of the Afghan people and the Afghan women, and the candidates, thousands of candidates for provincial office and for the parliament. For them to have the courage to go to do that when they know they're being threatened by the Taliban or al-Qaida people around, it just is so admirable. And you're right, I'm just dumb-founded at the lack of attention being paid by the American media. I just think it is something that people ought to register in their minds."
Laura says the Iraq war is fine with her, but most Americans don't agree. Rummy says we're not just killing people for oil, but also for water [Water? For whom? Oh, yeah -- Israel]:
" Well, I think that one of the things that people are not looking at is the alternative. Imagine Iraq turned over to the Zarkawis of the world, the people who behead people, the people who go out and kill 20, 30, 40, 50 innocent men, women and children, Iraqi children on a daily basis, and handing over the billions of dollars in oil revenue and the water resources of that country so that they can operate terrorist networks around the world."
Laura then says that support for the war is tanking, and that maybe the Pentagon PR machine should release three positive news items per day to turn things around:
" You're right. The military's not going to lose any battles or any wars over in Iraq. The real war is the test of wills that's taking place and that's being fought here in the United States. I don't know if that would work. I know there are almost daily briefings out of Iraq by military personnel, and maybe it's once a week or twice a week, and then there are briefings out of the Pentagon, and then other -- The President and others are also involved."
Laura thinks that Iran may be a bad influence on Iraq, and Rummy's in denial that Iranian clerics were elected to run Iraq:
" Well, clearly the outside forces include Iran and the activities they're engaged in in Iraq which are unhelpful. Clearly they do not want a democratic Iraq. They want a handful of clerics to do in Iraq what they're doing in Iran, telling everybody what to do every day when they get up in the morning.
And how does the future of Iraq look to Rummy? It's the 'white man's burden' -- we have to stay to keep Iraq out of terrorist control.
" Yes, I do think they're going to make it, and I think the alternative is so unacceptable to contemplate, to turn that country over to terrorists and put our country at still greater and greater risk I think is just unthinkable."
Finally, Laura mentions the Pentagon website (as scripted) and removes all doubt as to where the mainstream media stands:
"Fantastic. If you need someone to be that military spokesperson over in Iraq, I'm happy to give up my microphone any time, Mr. Secretary. Any time you call I'll be happy to jump over there."
And Rummy is impressed: "You're terrific, Laura. Thanks so much."

NOTE: According to The Nation: "The number of insurgents has steadily grown, as has the number and sophistication of their attacks on US and Iraqi forces. Today, Iraq produces less electricity and less oil than it did before the US invasion; Iraqi unemployment has increased to more than 50 per cent; and crime and corruption are rampant. Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis say they opose America's military presence." HELLO, RUMMY! ANYBODY HOME?
*
From a recent radio interview on KMOX:
KMOX: Richard Clarke, the former terrorism official pointed out to the Washington Post a couple of weeks ago that there seems to have been twice as many terrorist attacks outside Iraq in the three years after September 11th than in the three years before. He seems to indicate that terrorism hasn't abated, or in fact that it's gotten worse since we went into Iraq.
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: I think that's probably not correct that it's gotten worse. I suppose you can, depending on what day you start counting.
*
From a press conference which included the president of Iraq:
Q: Mr. President, I believe in an earlier appearance today you said there would be no need for U.S. troops in Iraq within two years from now. Is that correct? And if so --
PRESIDENT TALABANI: Yes, I say is no need for huge number of American forces. But I say we need some, there will be a need for two or three small bases for frightening others -- not to interfere in our internal affairs. Not to fight.
Q: So you're not saying that within two years all U.S. forces --
PRESIDENT TALABANI: I say that within two years all American forces can leave, but we won't ask them. We'll ask some of them to stay in small bases for reason which I expressed for you.
Q: Mr. Secretary, what do you think of that plan?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Well, what we've said all along is that our goal is to assist the Iraqi people in taking hold of their country and assisting them in developing security forces so that they can provide for their own security. And that we wouldn't want to discuss anything that might be discussable until after there's a new constitution and a new government in place, and that type of thing would be discussed, as the President indicates, in an orderly way thereafter.
Q: Mr. President, you said you anticipate only two or three bases in Iraq in the next two years. Can you estimate how many troops that is and if troops could start leaving before then?
PRESIDENT TALABANI: Small groups of Americans. We want American presence not with a big number, only the presence of America is enough to prevent others to interfere with our internal affairs. Not to fight, but to tell others we are here, don't interfere in internal Iraqi affairs.
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Lest my silence indicate anything at all, which it should not -- [Laughter] -- let me simply say that the President of Iraq is free to say whatever he wishes and he has done so. And I am not President of anything and I am not free to say anything and therefore, I have not. [Laughter].
*
From a recent radio interview with Sean Hannity:
R: So when people talk about security and law enforcement and those types of things, you properly point out that that's something that has to be done under the state authority by the National Guard under the state authority, as opposed to by active-duty forces under the control of the president of the United States.
[BUT: Forty per cent of the Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard, including many first responders, were in Iraq.]
. . . we do not have a shortage of capability. Today there are, you know, hundreds of thousands of Guard and Reserve people who are still available and aren't being used in this. . . we were leaning so far forward that we were actually moving things and prepositioning things well before we were ever asked for them. . . .
[BECAUSE: The military units that were needed weren't where they could be used.]

Smedley Butler said: " . . . each state had its own militia. We still have them. We call them National Guards now. But the militia, the only armed force in the United States at that time, was not to be used beyond the territorial limits of the United States."
*
ON HURRICANE KATRINA
Q Mr. Secretary, one of the strains of thought and complaints we've been hearing in the last few days is that people are wondering, if this was a WMD attack, would the response be both perceived as slow as a lot of the public thinks it was, and in some cases actually as slow? Is that a valid concern right now that you need to allay the public's concern on or review on your own?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, as you know, being a Pentagon reporter, the department -- one of the things this department does very well is lessons learned. And from the first day, I asked Admiral Giambastiani to see that we put in place a lessons learned process. So this has been going on, and we will know a good deal more after we have time to complete that work and get briefed on it and make judgments.
But I think your question's a fair one. The Department of Defense -- just as the Department of Defense does not have lead responsibility with respect to natural disasters, so too, we do not have lead responsibility with respect to attacks within the United States from within the United States, and that would characterize what you posed as a question. And I'm sure that the government will be addressing that question in a serious way, as we all should.
*
And from our San Diego social calendar: Winfield and Rumsfeld -- Baseball Hall of Famer Dave Winfield wasn't the only VIP who joined Padres President John Moores in the owner's box last night [August 29th, the day Katrina arrived] at Petco Park. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, here to join President Bush at the North Island Naval Air Station today, took in the game, too.

Is there a connection to this news item? Published on Thursday, September 8, 2005 by Reuters -- Canadians Beat U.S. Army to New Orleans Suburb -- A Canadian search-and-rescue team reached a flooded New Orleans suburb to help save trapped residents five days before the U.S. military, a Louisiana state senator said on Wednesday. The Canadians beat both the Army and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. disaster response department, to St. Bernard Parish east of New Orleans, where flood waters are still 8 feet deep in places, Sen. Walter Boasso said. "Fabulous, fabulous guys," Boasso said. "They started rolling with us and got in boats to save people." "We've got Canadian flags flying everywhere."
*
"Yes, people are ransacking hospitals, burning down buildings and fighting each other in the streets, but it’s not that bad. Stuff happens." (Pentagon briefing, April 11, 2003)
*
The flypaper concept is still alive (with our troops as bait):
"Well, it is true that there are terrorists that are moving across borders -- Iran and Syria and other borders -- into Iraq. And it's -- that is a bad thing for Iraq. It is a -- certainly a lot better off for other countries that they're not going into other countries and committing terrorist acts. And it gives coalition an opportunity and the Iraqi security forces an opportunity to go after them there. Certainly it's better off fighting terrorists there than it is in the United States."
" I would say that the goal is to reduce -- to get more moderate Muslim leadership into the fight against the radical extremist Muslims, the ones that are training terrorists, and to have people dry up their funding and make life difficult for them. It's to find them where they are, put them in jail and reduce the number of recruits coming into it. Over time, that has to be the goal in this global war on terror."
*
Iran on the table? Rummy's quite comfortable with that.
[excerpt from a recent radio interview]
Q: Mr. Secretary, this weekend President Bush, addressing the Israelis, was asked if indeed we would get involved militarily with Iran if they continued developing their nuclear arsenal, and he said all options are on the table. And they tried to corner him, saying, "You mean military action?" He goes, "All options are on the table." Are we capable right now as a fighting force of being in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Iran, if necessary?
Sec. Rumsfeld: "Let me answer that in a couple of ways."
"First of all, every president has consistently preserved options by using that phraseology, that options -- all options -- are on the table. There's nothing new in President Bush saying that, and there's also nothing new in other presidents in previous times using that phraseology. It's kind of mindless to systematically take options off the table when there's no reason to take options off the table. I think of it as a fairly standard comment.
"Second, with respect to the Department of Defense and our military capabilities, we have the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the chairman and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on a periodic basis, every period of months, review our military capabilities, anticipate the kinds of things that conceivably could occur. And they consistently tell me that we, in this country's military department, have the ability to fulfill the likely missions that might occur. So I'm -- we're quite tight -- quite comfortable with that."
*
The Noble Cause is a test of wills that "they" control.
" What we're really in is in a battle of ideas and a test of wills, and the way you lose a test of wills -- and they know that -- is to try to undermine support for what it is you're doing in the population. And they use the media. They have media committees, and they systematically manage the news in a way that is attractive to the media to carry it. And it creates a drumbeat of negative impressions, and that is where the battle is taking place."
*
Die for your country? Same as a traffic accident or a school opening.
"And I look at the situation and I -- in my mind, I think of the number of people who are lost to traffic accidents in the United States in a given year. I think of any one of our major cities, where two or three hundred people are killed by homicides. And you ask how long will we tolerate it? Now, if there were a daily report about the number of traffic deaths and if the television and the press were reporting these things and photographing them and the homicides, I don't know if -- Washington, D.C. had something like 230 homicides last year -- and if that were reported daily every single day, one would think that the effect might be that it would reduce the number of homicides or reduce the number of traffic deaths. But what's being reported is the fact -- not the fact that the schools are open, not the fact that the hospitals and clinics are open, not the fact that Iraq's got a stock exchange and that their oil and energy circumstances are proceeding apace, not the fact that tens of thousands of people are lined up to join the Iraqi security forces, not the fact that there's hundreds and hundreds of people running for public office and that there were something like 8 million people who voted in the last election on January 30th. Those kinds of things get relatively modest attention, and what gets the attention is the death of Iraqis and the death of coalition forces."
*
Secretary Rumsfeld Remarks to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council
Thursday, August 4, 2005
Let there be no doubt, no mistake, we are a nation at war; a war against terrorist enemies that are seeking our surrender or retreat.
but . . .
The principle threat from al-Qaida is not against the West. The principle threat is against moderate Muslim nations and that is their goal. The al-Qaida's goal is to reestablish a caliphate, to throw out the moderate leaders in every Muslim country,
which is it, Rummy?
*
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things we know we don't know. But, there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don't know we don't know."
*
from the archives . . .
"Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war."
*
It's been decided (by Bush) -- it's a war:
"First, there has been comment in the press of late about whether or not we're even engaged in a war on terror, or whether our purpose might be better explained in a different manner. Let there be no mistake, we are a nation at war, against terrorist enemies who are seeking our surrender or our retreat. It is a war."
And Rummy agrees, sort of:
"The war of ideas is at the heart of the war against terrorism, a conflict between the totalitarian ideology of extremists and the vision of liberal societies," he said. It requires military, diplomatic, and economic responses. "But don't fool yourself: it's a war."
*
Rummy can't quite define the enemy, except as a 'movement.'
"Some also ask how do we define the enemy? Well, al-Qaida is one face of the terrorists but it's not the only one. The enemy's not any one nation or any one organization. Instead, it's a shifting network of violent and fanatical adherents to extremist ideologies, a movement that uses terrorism as their weapon of choice.
Then Rummy clears everything up -- we're defending moderate Muslims from radical Muslims -- a worthy cause -- "A STRUGGLE ESSENTIALLY WITHIN THE MUSLIM FAITH" -- so send your child, and lots of money.
"This is not a war between the United States and the Muslim faith or between the West and the Muslim faith. It's a struggle essentially within the Muslim faith, between extremists and moderates, and the extremists represent a very small minority. Free nations are best able to counter the lines terrorists use to attract recruits and suicide bombers if we're in partnership with moderate Muslim leaders."
*****************************
Writing in Britain's Financial Times newspaper, Rumsfeld said:
"extremists" had been killing people in attacks around the world for at least 20 years before the arrival of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
[Let's look at the last twenty years of American military interventions:

LIBYA l986 Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't. BOLIVIA 1986 --Army assists raids on cocaine region. IRAN l987-88 -- US intervenes on side of Iraq in war. LIBYA 1989 --Two Libyan jets shot down. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 St. Croix --Black unrest after storm. PHILIPPINES 1989 -- Air cover provided for government against coup. PANAMA 1989 (-?) --Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed. LIBERIA 1990 --Foreigners evacuated during civil war. SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel. IRAQ 1990-? Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military. KUWAIT 1991 --Kuwait royal family returned to throne. SOMALIA 1992-94 U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction. YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro. BOSNIA 1993-? No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs. HAITI 1994 Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup. ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Marines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins. LIBERIA 1997 Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. ALBANIA 1997 Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. SUDAN 1998 Missile attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant. AFGHANISTAN 1998Missile attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies. IRAQ 1998-? Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions. YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo. MACEDONIA 2001 NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels. AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime. Forces also engaged in neighboring Pakistan. YEMEN 2002 Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen. PHILIPPINES 2002-? Training mission for Philippine military fighting Muslim Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao. COLOMBIA 2003-? US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline. IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. US, joined by UK and Australia, attacks and occupies country. Incidents on border with Syria. LIBERIA 2003 Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader. HAITI 2004 Marines land after rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was put on a plane to Africa by the U.S. Coast Guard blocks refugees off coast.]

"The extremists do not seek a negotiated settlement with the west," he wrote. "They want America and Britain and other coalition allies to surrender our principles. "Some seem to believe that accommodating extremist demands, including retreating from Afghanistan and Iraq, might put an end to their grievances, and, with them, future attacks," he added.-[Study: Suicide terrorist campaigns are directed at gaining control of what the terrorists see as their national homeland territory, specifically at ejecting foreign forces from that territory.]-[Think Nathan Hale: I regret that I have but one life to give for my country]
"But consider that when terrorists struck America on September 11 2001, a radical Islamist government ruled Afghanistan-[that we installed to fight the Russians and that Rummy visited and gave aid to]- ... and Saddam Hussein tightly clung to power in Iraq -[thanks to our support for twenty years]."
Rumsfeld said those behind such attacks would always offer "empty justifications" -[like us? -- WMD's, poison gas, links to Al Qaeda, bringing freedom, building democracy, . . .]-to try to explain their actions.-[New investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank -- both of which painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States -- have found that the vast majority of these foreign fighters are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself.]
"They seek to destroy things they could never build in 1,000 years and kill people they could never persuade," he wrote. -[From a University of New Hampshire Study: When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar (Afghanistan) on October 22-23rd, 2001, killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban. When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village."]
***************************
From Rumsfeld's Rules: --First law of holes: If you get in one, stop digging.
*
Some have said that "Global War on Terror" is out of fashion now -- stay tuned -- here're Rummy's recent quotes on his rushed trip to far-off Central Asia to save US bases:
" . . . in the global war on terror."
" . . . as our country wages the global struggle against the enemies of freedom, the enemies of civilization."
" . . . Our two countries are solid partners in the global struggle against extremism and in promoting peace and stability in Afghanistan."
*
Tajikistan is still in our corner (you'll sleep tonight) . . .
Rummy: "I thank the president and the people of Tajikistan for their solid support."
*
Rummy says that no one should be upset about a war that kills tens of thousands . . .
Press: And do you believe as some have claimed that these attacks [London and Egypt] are in retaliation, so to speak, for the war in Iraq?
Rumsfeld: Oh, that's ridiculous.
Press: Why do you say that?
Rumsfeld: There was no war in Iraq in 9/11. Terrorist attacks had been happening well before the war in Iraq. It's just utter nonsense.
But, as Jacob Hornberger writes (fff.org): U.S. foreign policy, especially federal meddling in the Middle East, produced terrorism and 9/11, which led to the "war on terrorism," which led to the PATRIOT Act, to the TSA, to Gitmo, to the invasion of Iraq, to kidnappings and "renditions" to foreign countries, to torture, sex abuse, rape, and murder of suspected terrorists, to the Padilla doctrine of military power to punish suspected American terrorists without due process of law, to the killing of suspected terrorists, to searches and seizures of people riding on trains.
And former British prime minister John Major sees a connection: "I think what has happened is not that the Iraq war and other policies created that threat, I think it was there and growing, though it was not in full bloom. I think it is possibly true that it has made it more potent and more immediate, but having said that, there is absolutely no doubt that we were going to have to confront terrorism at some time. And what I suppose you might say about the events of the Middle East is that they have brought it forward and brought it into focus."
*
Rummy's really, really concerned about politics and investment promotion -- IN CHINA
"The way I look at the Peoples Republic of China is this. I think that it is possible to have a growing economy if you are willing to open up your society somewhat to computers and to business people who come in and out, and you have to engage with the rest of the world. The rest of the world has to look at you and say that you're a suitable place for investment and that you're an economic trade partner that a country would like to be engaged with.
"Now, they have a political system that is not a free political system, so that to me is a contradiction to having a relatively free economic system. And I think they're going to be facing a choice at some place down the road in the years ahead. There's going to be a tension between their restrictive, unfree political system and they're increasingly free economic system. They're going to have to make a choice. Do they want to inhibit the economic growth which they need for that population, or do they want to maintain their restrictive political system and crimp their economic growth? I think that's what's going to happen. They're going to face that and they're going to have to make a choice."

Hey, Rummy, how about US? According to a recent article by Molly Ivins, the U.S. is over $7 trillion in debt; China buys $1 billion worth of U.S. treasury bills a day; Americans love the prices at Wal-Mart (made in China); the Chinese save 50 percent of their domestic product; the average American has $9,000 on his credit cards; our economy is fueled by a fragile housing bubble; the minimum wage is $5.15 per hour; taxpayers who earn over $1 million saved $30K under Bush tax cuts; the war in Iraq costs $9 billion a month; by 2040, our kids will be unable to do more than pay the interest on the national debt; and bankruptcy reform makes it impossible to escape your debts.
*
Rummy says detainees will be 'judged' and then imprisoned forever with the goal of gathering information from them (which leads to, well, you know . . . )
"In this case you've got terrorists who were scooped up in a battlefield, no one read them their Miranda Rights, obviously, we've had a bunch of soldiers who were getting shot at who captured these folks. And so none of the rules that would apply fit this wartime situation. These people, military commission rules are rooted in major part in some aspects of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. They're rooted in some respects in prior military commissions, and the design is, that you have an opportunity to bring a person before a tribunal, see that they're tried and judged, but to do it in a manner that can protect information that may need to be kept classified, if you will, and they're just rules that are more suited to wartime and terrorists than they're suited to the private citizen who steals a car. The goal here is to gather information from these people rather than to punish the car thief and then let them out. We don't want these people back out on the streets because they're organized and trained to kill people."
*
Q : Let me just ask you, earlier today (20 July) the Army issued a report that is an assessment of mental health among soldiers in Iraq. And among the things it found was that a little over half of the soldiers said morale was low. The thing that bothered them the most was the length of deployment. I'm wondering if you have anything to offer on that subject of changing that?
Rummy: Well, I'll have General Pace answer this. But the deployments vary from service to service. In the case of the Air Force, sometimes it's three months; in the case of the Marines it's been seven months; in the case of the Army it's been 12 months -- I've tried to get the Army to look at the length of the tours, and I think at some point down the road they will. At the present time, the combination of attempting to reset their force from the deployments and reorganize down to the brigade level is sufficiently complex that they do not want to interrupt it by changing the length of time. [Translation: FTA]
*
Rummy, although he's not a genius, explains why there continue to be attacks against US forces and bases in Iraq: "You have to defend, you have to try to defend, but you have to know the only way you can successfully defend is to go after the terrorists where they are, and to see that they don't have safe havens where they can plan, train, organize and then attack innocent men, women and children. It doesn't take a genius to kill innocent men, women and children. Now -- so you have to go after them where they are."
NOTE: From "A Dossier of United States' Aerial Bombing in Afghanistan, University of New Hampshire: When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd, 2001, killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban. When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village."
*
Rummy explains the US counter-recruitment campaigns: "The piece of the puzzle that you mentioned is that struggle that's taking place to see that there are not large numbers of people being brought in to the intake of this terrorist apparatus and network that exists in the world."

Rummy's a tiger in his Tank
Kelley: Well pick a country. Syria. If we had to go into another country, are you confident we could pull it off?
Rumsfeld: Oh, absolutely. The military leadership of this country goes into the Tank, so to speak, about every period of months and analyzes our capabilities and our flexibility and the conclusion they have consistently is, that we clearly have the ability to defend our interests and undertake the kinds of tasks that conceivably could be necessary.
****************************
Rummy's quotes are rather boring lately. He's fallen into a pattern, usually with sympathetic, adulatory radio hosts (six so far), who follow a prescribed series of questions which allows Rummy to say essentially the same thing in every interview. No more NPR for him -- that was a disaster because he didn't control it.
Here's the usual pattern of subjects covered in these "interviews", with excepts of his responses during the last couple:
1. The statement that Rummy made that the Iraqi War could last twelve years. RUMMY SAYS: The reality is that insurgencies can last two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve years if one looks in history. That is a fact. It is not a prediction at all with respect to Iraq. So the contention that people have made that there was some difference because of those words, they didn't use two, four, six, eight or ten, they said something like oh, it could last twelve years and that isn't what other people are saying. Of course that's just mischief-making.
2. Having said that, he sets up for a long stay by saying that we don't control events, the Iraqis do. RUMMY SAYS: In the last analysis it will be the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government that will effectively deal with that insurgency over some period of time which can't be predicted by anybody.[Rummy said on TV:
3. He makes sure that everyone knows that endless war is the same thing as "in the last throes" stated by Cheney. RUMMY SAYS: I think what the Vice President was saying is very true, namely that we know that we've seen terrorists who have looked towards the successful development of a constitution in Iraq and the successful elections under that new constitution later this year, and recognized how much they have to lose.
4. Critics are being unhelpful. RUMMY SAYS: Any objective person who looks at this situation has to know that we're not losing. The fact that the level of violence is about level and static as one of the generals suggested, has been seized upon by people to say we're in a quagmire which is just utter nonsense. We're not. [We should discount unhelpful stories like this: "I've been back one day, and the airport road was the worst I've ever seen it. We had to go around a fire-fight between mujahideen and Americans while Iraqi forces sat in the shade of date palms on the side of the road, their rifles resting across their laps. My driver pointed to a group of men in a white pickup next to me. 'They are mujahideen,' he said. 'They are watching the Americans.' Indeed, they were, and so intently that they paid no attention to me in the car next to them. We detoured around two possible car bombs that had been cordoned off while Iraqis cautiously approached."]
5.The "test of wills" argument that Bush uses. RUMMY SAYS: To the extent people say things that give encouragement, and if you're engaged in a test of wills as we are here, this is partly a battle on the ground using kinetics, and partly it's a test of will as to whether or not we'll be willing to continue to aggressively help the Iraqi people defeat this insurgency, depends on support from the American people. So to the extent that someone says well, we're in a quagmire, we're losing, when that's inaccurate -- If it were accurate that would be one thing. When it's inaccurate it does give encouragement to people who then say to themselves well, if we just hold out we may win this thing in Iraq. Our goal is not to give encouragement to them.
6. The nasty things that peole say about our torture facilities. RUMMY SAYS: I think to have compared the wonderful work being done by the young men and women in uniform down in Guantanamo Bay . . .I think to compare it with Pot Pol and the Soviet Gulag was just terribly unfortunate.
7. The media only provides bad news, possibly because that's all there is, with a comparison of George Bush to George Washington. RUMMY SAYS: It is interesting to note that George Washington was almost fired and lost most of his early battles, never won very much, and was under great criticism.
8. The Pentagon propaganda feel-good web site America Supports You always gets mentioned by the "interviewer" at the end of the session. RUMMY SAYS: The AmericaSupportsYou.mil web site and the help that the American people have been giving to these wonderful young women in uniform, young men and women in uniform who are doing such a superb job in Afghanistan, in Iraq, here in the United States and elsewhere around the world, I think the support has been so encouraging to them, and I must say I am deeply grateful to the President for mentioning it, for you for mentioning it,

*******************************************************

other recent rummyquotes (most recent first, by subject, more or less)

******
Rummy says we need less TV coverage of state-sanctioned homicide (war), which goes unpunished, and more coverage of auto accidents and domestic homocides (punishable): "Everyone I talk to who goes to Iraq and comes back, say they are just amazed at the difference between their impressions from what they've heard in the media and see on television, and what they actually saw first hand in Iraq," Rumsfeld said. "I suppose part of that is because the news media seem to want to carry the negative, and the news media doesn't present on television every day the large number of people who are killed in car accidents, or the large number of people who are homicide victims in the United States every day. Maybe if they did, there would be fewer car accidents and less homicides." SO, RUMMY, MAYBE IF WE PUBLICIZE WAR VIOLENCE MORE THERE WILL BE LESS WAR.

AS MUCH AS TWELVE YEARS TO CONTROL IRAQ-- AP News (6/26/05): Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday (6/26) he anticipates even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency could go on for any number of years. Defeating the insurgency may take as long as 12 years, he said, with Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, taking the lead and finishing the job. The insurgency, Rumsfeld said, might "go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years."

BUT BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IT WAS THREE MONTHS-- Washington Post (9/21/04): So much progress is being made in training and equipping Iraqi security forces that U.S. commanders believe that the majority of the country will be under local control by the end of this year, a senior Pentagon official said yesterday. Army Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, also disputed the accuracy of some of Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry's new criticisms of the pace of training for Iraqi police. Sharp, the head of strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Pentagon officials are closely monitoring the training and equipping of Iraqi police and military forces, with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld being briefed weekly on the subject. Sharp said that Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has reviewed the training schedule for Iraqi forces, and also the planned delivery of equipment for them. "He believes that based upon that . . . he will be able to be at . . . 'local control' for the majority of the country . . . by the end of December," Sharp said.

GOSH, MAYBE KERRY WAS RIGHT, AND CASEY STRUCK OUT (INTENTIONALLY, THIS TIME, UNDER ORDERS FROM THE COACH)

OOPS -- THAT'S NOT THE INSURGENCY I MEANT -- Another pre-scripted interview with a radio host: Jerry Agar, (6/27) "Well, the statement is not a statement that I made. I was asked about insurgencies generically and I said insurgencies around the world through history have lasted varying times -- two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve years sometimes. I did not predict a 12 year insurgency in Iraq, and anyone who carried it that way was misinformed."

Rummy is starting to get it: "Well, you know, I don’t think there’s ever been a war that was popular. I think that if you think about it, in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I and II, the Korean War, Vietnam War -- they’re tough, they’re hard, and people die."

Rummy's optimistic: "The wonderful men and women serving in uniform over there know they’re doing noble work; they know that they’re making progress. And there’s not a doubt in mind that they’re going to look back in 5, 10, 15 years and be proud of having been a part of a truly historic accomplishment."

Excerpt from GI Story 6/25 (militaryproject.org): 2nd Lt. Says War Is Lost, Morale Is Terrible, Senior Officers Are Convinced Its Vietnam Redux June 23, 2005 Juan Cole, Informed Comment "Yesterday I talked with a 2nd Lt and West Point grad who has just come back from Iraq. He says flat out that the war is lost, that "we" only control territory when the troops are there in massive numbers and that "they" take over as soon as the troops leave, that the army is over-extended and morale is terrible -- drug use is escalating -- that there still isn't enough armor, that the Iraqi army and police are worse than useless, and that senior officers are convinced that it is Vietnam redux. One of his classmates a 23-year old was killed last week -- for nothing. There are signs that this story is belatedly beginning to sink in across the country, but he, and I, fear that it is too late." We saw this sort of thing in Vietnam, too. The Generals are the last to know, and they always think victory is around the corner if only they can convince the US public to commit "blood and treasure" for a few decades.
*
Rummy makes it perfectly clear:

Q: Are Americans talking to the -- trying to talk to the insurgents in Iraq?

SEC. RUMSFELD: No, it’s the Iraqi people’s country, and the Iraqis are doing that and we work with the Iraqis, so there’s no question that we talk to -- I don’t know if you’d call them insurgents [well in this country we'd call them patriots] -- they’re people all across the spectrum, insurgents and opponents, people kind of leaning that way, people in the middle, people leaning towards to the government, and then the government. . . . There are meetings all the time. People talk. First of all it’s Iraqi -- the Iraqi people’s country, and they’re going to have meetings -- as many meetings as they want, anytime they want. The same thing is going in Afghanistan. President Karzai is reaching out to the Taliban. He’s not reaching out to the people with blood on their hands, but he’s reaching out to other Taliban and trying to encourage them to come back into the society, be a participant, and support the government. In Iraq, the same thing is taking place. The Shi’a are reaching out to the Sunnis. They’re trying to get them to be involved in the constitutional drafting process. They’re achieving that goal, and meetings are going to take place by Iraqis and other Iraqis as we go forward probably every week month into months ahead. And that’s a good thing, and the message to the world is that they’re trying to bring people in to support the government.

The Sunday Times - World - June 26, 2005 US 'in talks with Iraq with Iraq rebels' Hala Jaber: Insurgents reveal secret face-to-face meetings

At a summer villa near Balad in the hills 40 miles north of Baghdad, a group of Iraqis and their American visitors recently sat down to tea. It looked like a pleasant social encounter far removed from the stresses of war, but the heavy US military presence around the isolated property signalled that an unusual meeting was taking place. After weeks of delicate negotiation involving a former Iraqi minister and senior tribal leaders, a small group of insurgent commanders apparently came face to face with four American officials seeking to establish a dialogue with the men they regard as their enemies. The talks on June 3 were followed by a second encounter 10 days later, according to an Iraqi who said that he had attended both meetings. Details provided to The Sunday Times by two Iraqi sources whose groups were involved indicate that further talks are planned in the hope of negotiating an eventual breakthrough that might reduce the violence in Iraq.

Later, with Fox News, Rummy responds to a report that U.S. military representatives had meetings with several Sunni Iraqi insurgents twice in June, Rumsfeld told Fox News that "there have probably been many more than that" and described the contacts as an effort to "split people off and get some people to be supportive" of the political process in Iraq.

And on on Meet t