Rumsfeld dismisses media report on Iraq troop levels

[lebkuchen]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday dismissed a media report that said the Army would not reduce troop numbers in Iraq at least through 2006.

Speaking after a House Armed Services Committee meeting, Rumsfeld said it would be “a misunderstanding to characterize” statements made by Army Lt. Gen. James Lovelace to mean the service had firm plans to keep the force at present levels.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=26834


I'm posting this because 1) it's new news in today's Stripes and 2) I need help deciphering Rumsfeld's double-speak. Are we reducing troop numbers, increasing them, or keeping them the same? There isn't a single military person who doesn't want to know the answer to that question.

[underpants]

1. Double negative-it means they ARE going to reduce the number

At least that is what I take out of it.

[gratuitous]

17. Rumsfeld didn't fail to state whether he wasn't doubtful

What could be clearer than that?

[underpants]

18. Thank you for that clarification

LOL

[Jim__]

2. I think the general was very clear.

The general said: We’re making the assumption that the level of effort is going to continue.

Rumsfeld is equivocating: It certainly was not an assessment of any kind, and he said that very explicitly, if I’m not mistaken,

So, see, if he's mistaken, his statement still isn't wrong.

[Hissyspit]

21. I Heard Once That Rumsfeld "doesn't know what the hell he's talking about"

...or something to that effect ...somewhere. Recently. Like at a confirmation hearing, or something. Somebody said that. Joe somebody, to some scary lady.

/facetiousness off (or is it sardonicism?)

[Jack Rabbit]

3. True, it can be interpreted many ways

However, even when Rumsfeld makes a flat, unambiguous statement, it usually turns out to be a willful lie.

What is interesting is how does this statement jive with Bush's "promise" to withdraw troops if the new Iraqi government makes such a request. Any free and fair election would result in such a government. The only question is whether the election is going to be free and fair (fat chance).

[lebkuchen]

Today Bush said that the new govt. won't want the US to leave

So, he already knows the answer to the question of US troop presence before the election has taken place.

Which begs the question: Why say you will leave if asked if you are already determined that you won't be asked?

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Two possibilities

1. Bush is guilty of wishful thinking.

2. The votes have already been counted and Allawi and his quisling puppets have won.

[lebkuchen]

8. I say, Bush "spilled the beans"

Choice #2

[grumpy old fart]

4. The numbers in Iraq will be reduced, as they move into Iran......

It's not like there's a shortage of work in bringing an end to Tyranny!

[No Exit]

5. Whatever they're really planning, they won't tell us

the real story. The Pentagon and military are masters of disinformation. The contradictory stories are put out there on purpose.

[No Exit]

6. PS--it was in that culture that Linda Tripp

gained her savvy about "information" and what to do with it. (Yeah, I know, she's ugly.) Notice that through the whole Lewinsky thing, she managed to keep her own sweet ass fairly protected.

[Jim__]

9. Linda Tripps "sweet ass"? :-)

[No Exit]

23. Okay, replace "sweet" with "flabby" n/t

[lebkuchen]

11. Tripp might have had a high security position at the Marshall Center

Stripes made public her application, she didn't get the job, and sued for discrimination. She was awarded over $100,000 taxpayer money in damages. At least I haven't heard her complain lately about being unable to pay the rent.

It's snowing like hell in Garmisch now. She wouldn't have lasted long there, and I doubt she skis, hikes or bikes.

[leftchick]

15. lebkuchen, it makes no logical sense to me either ....

but have you read this? Logic plays no part in the neo-cons plans. They are clearly insane....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2281&ncid=742&e=5&u=/thenation/20050118/cm_thenation/132132

A Permanent Presence

~snip~

Though the media ignored Kerry's statement and failed to do any substantive follow-up research, his comments were well-grounded in reality. On the day of the debate the Christian Science Monitor spotlighted the findings of defense specialist John Pike, whose website, GlobalSecurity.org, located twelve "enduring bases" in Iraq, including satellite photos and names. In March, the Chicago Tribune reported that US engineers were constructing fourteen such long-term encampments--the number Kerry referred to. The New York Times previously placed the number at four.


While the exact figure may change, suspicions of undisclosed US imperial plans--exemplified by permanent military bases--rightfully linger. Before the war, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz suggested moving US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia into Iraq. In October, a survey by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes found that two-thirds of respondents disapproved of a permanent military presence, even though more than half thought the US would build the bases anyway.


Now comes a report in the New York Sun by Eli Lake revealing that the Pentagon (news - web sites) is building a permanent military communications system in Iraq, a necessary foundation for any lasting troop presence. The new network will comprise twelve communications towers throughout Iraq, linking Camp Victory in Baghdad to other existing (and future) bases across the country, eventually connecting with US bases in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Afghanistan (news - web sites).


"People need to get realistic and think in terms of our presence being in Iraq for a generation or until democratic stability in the region is reached," Dewey Clarridge, the CIA (news - web sites)'s former chief of Arab operations (and Iran-contra point man), told the Sun.

[lebkuchen]

19. That article is in line w/the CATO Institute

"generational commitment to democratizing the entire Middle East," which will be Rice's job.

Another chopper down, five more dead, and yet those deaths register as even less than statistics to the Bushies. Whatever it takes to get what they want, whatever the sacrifice. They'll sleep well regardless, full speed ahead.

What will end the madness?

[Just Me]

12. They have a NO EXIT plan e.g. permanent military presence.

I am sure in the neoCONimperialists' minds, EVENTUALLY troop reduction will be possible. However, they plan a permanent military presence,...NOT A TROOP WITHDRAWAL, EVER!

[lebkuchen]

13. How can Halliburton et al function under these conditions?

There's an ever expanding "Triange of Death" just south of Baghdad, the ten mile stretch between Baghdad International and the Green Zone still isn't secured, and attacks against US troops have nearly tripled from the "seems like yesterday when there were only 35 attacks per day" estimate. The corporations are losing money. They will bail.

Aside from the agony of having to tolerate more and more killings of US and Iraqis with each passing day, it will be fascinating to listen to future Bush press conferences as he continues to blow rose scented smoke up everybody's ass with his "I look forward to this" and "I look forward to that" prognostications. Eventually, even the most naive doe-eyed American will come to the conclusion that maybe a president with an Ivy League MBA isn't everything that it's cracked up to be after all.

[cliss]

14. This is in fact true.

I've seen photos of US permanent bases being built in Iraq. There are 14 of them. They look very permanent to me. It's buildings, fences, driveways, very secure looking places to me.

I've read that this is the REAL reason why we invaded Iraq: to spy on the rest of the Middle East and get our asses out of Saudi Arabia because the situation was becoming too volatile.

Bush is so coy. He loves fooling the public, like we're all engaged in a fun game of Gin Rummy. Pretend you don't have 3 Kings, and then act coy and suddenly lay them down on the table.

He's fooling very few people.

[No Exit]

24. How appropriate...

...considering that my handle is taken from the title of the Sartre play about HELL. My handle was the best short phrase I could think of to describe how I felt when I realized that the criminal Bush was going to go back into the White House for another term.

[Just Me]

25. Yup. Sartre and HELL encompasses this regime's limited capacity,...

,...of envisioning human possibility.

These blood-sucking neos are dragging the best of humanity down to a UNEVOLVING even devolving place. Instead of being the strength of this earth, this diseased lot are proving to be a consumption of this earth.

While "they" push choice and responsibility,..."they" OWN NEITHER.

Pretty obvious, to me, "they" place "ownership" in everything OTHER than themselves.h

[Acryliccalico]

10. Rummy is a dummy and you can't believe anything he says.

:kick:

[jdj]

20. If I read something that said "Rumsfeld eats children for breakfast"

I wouldn't even be surprised. That is how diabolical he is. he cannot be human.

[MadisonProgressive]

16. They have no plan - no clue what the hell they're doing

[pinniped]

22. Anyone ever notice how these assclowns like to 'dismiss' reports?

Jerks.