Friday, March 10, 2006
The mystery of RummyArrogant? Deceptive? Delusional? Advancing dementia? Or maybe just clueless?
From U.S. Sets Plans to Aid Iraq in Civil War: Security Forces Would Bear Brunt by Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post 03/10/06:
The U.S. military will rely primarily on Iraq's security forces to put down a civil war in that country if one breaks out, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told lawmakers yesterday.This was so bizarre that even a few Democrats were moved to express their skepticism.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) repeatedly asked Rumsfeld whether 2006 will be a year of transition to Iraqi security forces, allowing the withdrawal of significant numbers of U.S. troops by the end of the year. Rumsfeld declined to discuss troop levels, saying it would be "ill-advised for me to make a prediction," but he said that Iraqi security forces are "doing a good job" and that Iraqi leaders are taking responsibility for conflict in the country.Give Durbin a little credit. Still, it's a sign of how jumpy the Democrats are about being criticized for not "supporting the troops" - which the Reps are going to accuse them of no matter what they say - that Durbin felt he had to use a flowery term like "our best and our bravest" instead of just saying we still have the same number of soldiers there we had a year ago.
Steve Gilliard's grim and succinct comment: "I am positive that the Iraqi Army will deal with the civil war. Only problem? The number of US advisors who will die when their units take sides."
| +Save/Share | |
No subject for immortal verse
That we who lived by honest dreams
Defend the bad against the worse."
-- Cecil Day-Lewis from Where Are The War Poets?
[Tip: Point cursor to any comment to see title of post being discussed.]
SEARCH THIS SITE
News & Media Links