Major General John Batiste: "I Felt As Though I Had Been Used Politically" by Rumsfeld
Via the ever-vigilant Kevin Drum. Do check it out. Still more evidence that we're not crazy. We've been told that we've been imagining things and/or blowing things out of proportion for so long that, if you're like me, you've come to doubt your ability to make judgments about what's happening in Iraq. Depressing as this news is, it's at least comforting to know that things are, in fact, as they've seemed to be. Somebody's nuts here, but it's not us.
Via the ever-vigilant Kevin Drum. Do check it out. Still more evidence that we're not crazy. We've been told that we've been imagining things and/or blowing things out of proportion for so long that, if you're like me, you've come to doubt your ability to make judgments about what's happening in Iraq. Depressing as this news is, it's at least comforting to know that things are, in fact, as they've seemed to be. Somebody's nuts here, but it's not us.
posted by Winston Smith at
3:31 PM
20 Comments:
"Us." Hmmmm.
Since history doesn't reveal it's alternatives unless it's Korea ;-)
I cannot say that Rummy's concept of a) fewer troops, fewer targets and b) more troops, the more resentment builds toward the "occupation," is patently wrong.
To a), getting as few American troops killed as possible was at the heart of FDR's foreign policy, and to b), well, I can feature that. For all the difficulties, the US/UK did and don't use an iron hand in Iraq. I never thought the looting thing had much currency; what do you do, shoot civilians?
More troops = iron hand. More troops = a bigger profile. (I think they say something like each man in the field requires 2 or 3 more in logistical support.)
I see the merits of both arguments, but no clear victor emerges, to my mind. Of course generals want more troops. That's what they're taught. But in this day, wars ain't wars, they're politics, TV, and casualty reports.
Well, we could discuss those points, but they're different than the point at issue here...which is Rumsfeld using commanders as props to help sell us the lie that it was the commanders themselves who refused more troops.
I agree, Tom, that that's a discussion worth having.
Part of the problem for me is that Rumsfeld was not only not having that discussion, but was actively deceiving us in an effort to prevent that discussion from occurring.
In short: Rumsfeld lied repeatedly to the American public and made military commanders unwillingly complicit in these lies. Whatever troop levels are optimal, hopefully we can agree that this sort of cynical and underhanded manipulation is out of line.
Maybe you're right. But if the troop levels were already a settled issue (and as head civilian authority, Rumsfeld gets the final call), then he didn't lie. You make a decision, then you draw a happy face on it.
As you know, I'm not big on parsing political rhetoric, nor do I expect it ever to pass close inspection. It's by nature or definition bullshit, so I listen with a quint.
So I'm sure there's a huge fudge factor here, but it takes a lot for me to break out the word "lie."
I suppose, each by our own standards, we are all correct.
Unfortunately, Tom, you're still focusing on the tangential argument. It's not about whether troop levels were settled or not, and it's not about whether those troop levels (settled or not) were optimal or not.
If Rumsfeld was saying "My commanders in the field don't want any more troops, and if they did, they'd get them," while neither of those statements were true . . . that's a lie. Pretty much period.
OK, you may be right. I think I stipulated that.
I don't listen to these guys. I research on my own and have my own arguments. We are a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, and I thank God we are.
That's a whole Plato, etc. discussion of political philosophy. Demagoguery vs. truth. Or wisdom. Or reality. All that other stuff. What have you.
The question is whether or not it is proper for the leaders of a democratic republic such as ours to disregard the input of military leaders in order to test a theory with the invasion forces serving as guinea pigs in said test, and not being truthful with the American people about this 'experiment' to boot.
The legal principle that if a witness has been found to be unreliable in the past about the facts on the ground in Iraq("We know where they(the WMD) are"), then any statement subsequently made about Iraq is unrealible and deserving of extreme skepticism should be operative here, as it has the backing of common sense.
I've seen Rummy on TV deny that he made the above WMD statement, so the man is clearly not very reality-oriented lately, not an uncommon position for a member of the current Administration to find themselves in these days........
"Who are you going to believe, me or that lying videotape?"
I don't listen to these guys. I research on my own and have my own arguments.
It would be helpful to know what your research reveals to you that we don't get.
If you have other sources of information to back you up, a link would help clarify what you would bring here, it seems to me.
DA, what did your last slave die of?
Seriously, I pretty much stopped posting links because it's a hassle and there was little indication anyone followed them. But ask and ye shall receive:
Link. Link.
Tom, you question about slavery is funny, as is the fact that in two more posts you'll perhaps set a new record if you manage not to mention Clinton on this thread.
The little aside about the 'trucks' completely overlooks that fact that one would think that if there was in fact, photographic evidence of a 'dispersal' operation, why wouldn't the Administration release such pictures that would help them in their case, as well as the question of whether they attempted to monitor the routes and destinations of those trucks, and if not, why not.
So, based on your reasoning, this Administration is sitting on evidence that there might've been WMD in those places but it was dispersed because?........
DA, I swear I do better at discerning the Mind of God than that of the Bush Administration.
There's an Iraqi ex-general floating around who claims direct knowledge of Saddam shipping his WMDs off to Syria during the lengthy runup to the war. Why don't they prop him up?
All I can think of is they were so (apparently, mind you) let down by "intelligence" that they've simply stopped making claims. Further, in today's "Law & Order" environment, where every word is parsed looking for a flaw, it's just not worth it to say much of anything.
For instance, the Rumsfeld link indicates that his quote was taken out of context, ignoring what directly followed about his uncertainty: by his accuser, Ray McGovern (whose agenda is plain, yet unremarked upon), the leftosphere, and of course the major media. The parsers shall be the death of us all, I once wrote somewhere.
Which is why I do my own research, to figger on what the Bushies are thinking, and not on what they're saying, which is largely nonsense. Now, I do honestly believe there's an overemphasis on political rhetoric these days, which I suppose why I meself am pretty careful. Tony Snow will do a fine job, I think, but I'd have been better. ;-)
Still, it's the hand we're dealt, and you must play it. And let me interject here further that like his father, Dubya has an arrogance that forbids explaining himself. A family flaw. In meltdowns like Katrina (which was largely the fault of the locals), he failed to provide the esthetics, the dog-and-pony show of leadership.
It sounds like I'm denigrating the value of that, but it's a key part of the job, as in FDR's fireside chats. Except for the bullhorn moment after 9-11, Bush sucks donkeys at it; even Nixon was better.
I bring up Clinton often as a sort of baseline for my lie detector test: not so much as partisanship, but to reflect my view that the presidency of the US is an impossible job. I do believe that the rest of the world is a moral jungle and we are virtually alone outside the Anglosphere. (And Denmark. Cool folks.)
Aside from a major objection or two, I thought Clinton done A-OK. (And those objections are not named Lewinsky. I blame Clinton mebbe 30% for that, especially for his previous history of what I consider sexual harrassment, but the 70% is on the GOP.)
Missed your slavery reference, but I hope it was complimentary. Hope floats.
you question about slavery is funny
You should keep better track of what you post here, as you mentioned something about "my last slave", so I just bounced your unintelligble point back at you.
Dubya has an arrogance that forbids explaining himself. A family flaw. In meltdowns like Katrina (which was largely the fault of the locals), he failed to provide the esthetics, the dog-and-pony show of leadership.
Yes, pretending to play a guitar for the cameras while NO and the surrounding areas had just been hit by Katrina was demonstrating Bush's tin ear.
It sounds like I'm denigrating the value of that, but it's a key part of the job, as in FDR's fireside chats. Except for the bullhorn moment after 9-11, Bush sucks donkeys at it; even Nixon was better.
Thanks for bringing up the 'bullhorn' moment, it reminds us again of yet another broken promist by Bush about OBL.
I guess you never played any football. Fifteen yard penalty for piling on.
Although, you unwittingly prove my point about the implacability of Bush's foes, and I suppose the left in general: any admission of weakness or flaw is not respected, it is exploited.
As for what I "should" do, which you kindly and freely advise me about, I should stop responding until the other party at least partially concedes the point that I so painstakingly and courteously linked to. Only slaves expect no acknowledgement of their efforts.
Actually, no, I didn't play football, but I did do a 10K race in about an hour when I was younger, no doubt that's why I'm far behind in the irrelevant remark run today :>)
any admission of weakness or flaw is not respected, it is exploited.;
Well, I think if you take the first clause out of your sentence, you'd be a bit closer to the truth, as there hasn't been any admission of weakness from the Bush Administration, AFAIK. Any corrections in this area would be welcome.
As for what I "should" do, which you kindly and freely advise me about
All I asked for was a little more detail, for which I thank you very much.
I should stop responding until the other party at least partially concedes the point that I so painstakingly and courteously linked to.
Well, if you're saying that you don't like the fact that your Freeper selection raises more questions than it purports to answer, then perhaps you should keep Occams' razor as part of your painstaking efforts in the future.
Only slaves expect no acknowledgement of their efforts.
"The only person responsible for slavery is the slave."
John W. Campbell
SF writer and editor
You don't have to post here, unless it's one of the chains in your life of the sort that Rousseau was talking about :>)
All I asked for was a little more detail, for which I thank you very much.
I'll take that. I don't ask for much.
I dreaded posting the Freeper link, because I thought it might be vulnerable because of its provenance, but the original was actually from the Belmont Club, which is quite exacting in its arguments.
Yes, you're quite right---I blame my own foolishness in responding to your requests. The ancients spoke of "natural slaves," and I suppose I am one. Or an evangelist, which is almost the same thing.
And yes, I have to post here, because I like our host. Besides, any aspiring sage must stay in touch with the reality-based community, if he's worth his own reality.
Besides, any aspiring sage must stay in touch with the reality-based community
I didn't commenting was the same as staying in touch with the reality-based community.
The things you learn on the internet.
exacting in its arguments
I found this comment more to the point.
A leader is responsible for what his men do under his command, for their victories, and most importantly, for their crimes and defeats. This is a lesson that the civilian administration fails to comprehend.
I blame my own foolishness in responding to your requests.
Well, I think defending Bush is what my English ancestors called a 'sleevless errand', but an evangelist should be spreading good news, and you haven't quite got there yet.
I try. Likely it's a fool's errand. But let the one who has ears hear, a great man once said.
You are a fluke of the universe.
You have no right to be here.
Whether you can hear it or not,
The universe is laughing behind your back.
Deteriorata
Just to cheer you up, TVD
You are my sunshune, my only sunshine...
Glad to see you guys are playing nice in my absence...
Or what passes for it. Hey, I take what I can get.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home