Feigning hurt and surprise in response to the Senator's remarks, Rummy shot back with his typical homespun, "My goodness."
Yeah, that'll deflect any and all critics. How can they argue with the response their old grandpas would have given?
Then he went into his patented maneuver of asking overly simplistic questions, then answering them himself with the only possible replies:
"Is that going to continue to be the case? I think so. Is this problem going to get solved in the near term about this long struggle against violent extremism? No, I don't believe it is."
As often observed by the immortal pholosopher Homer, "D'oh!"
For the umpteenth time, the Defense Secretary indefensibly defended his position by trying to buffalo Sen. Clinton with jabberwocky about how a premature withdrawal would leave the fledgling democratic Iraqi government vulnerable to attack and overthrow by anarchists, blah, blah, blah.
What nation provided troops to protect our fledgling democratic United States Government when it was first learning to crawl?
Then it was Sen. John McCain's turn. He finally showed some impatience with the snail's pace of the war and occupation of Iraq. The Arizona Republican questioned both Gens. Pace and Abizaid as to whether either of them had anticipated the extreme level of sectarian strife a year ago.
Gen. Pace admitted that he had not expected such violence to erupt. An honest statement, yet a rather myopic view from the highest-ranking person in our military.
Gen. Abizaid recognized that the tensions were rising, but had not figured on such excessive violence. Despite having rarely seen a Middle East "so unsettled and so volatile," Abizaid is optimistic that the "slide can be prevented" and we will be successful in defeating al Qaeda, deterring Iran, and "developing a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Sen. McCain was not so sure of this rosy scenario. He referred to our troops as being engaged in a widespread "game of whack-a-mole": They go to Falluja to deal with a problem; a week or two later there's a situation in Ramadi, so the troops have to move there for a battle; then, the fight is on in Baghdad, and on and on it goes. Wherever the insurgents or terrorists pop up, the American troops are expected to show up.
I find these answers incredulous. At least one year ago various British news media were reporting that civil war in Iraq was inevitable.
How could it be that the English saw it clear as day, but the Americans didn't recognize the situation for the disaster that was looming?
Simple: Donald H. Rumsfeld and the agenda of the entire RoveBush Fascist Regime.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
