Originally Posted By ecdc The New York Times has obtained a classified memo written by Donald Rumsfeld before his resignation that says the U.S. strategy in Iraq is not working and needs to be rethought. It also discusses changing troop levels, which seems to contradict the public statements Rumsfeld made that troop levels were determined by the Generals. The memo also talks about something this administration has expertise in - recasting bad news. So just like WMDs morphed into freedom for Iraqis, stay the course was suggested to morph into we're trying other options. So even Rummy knew Iraq was falling apart. It looks like Bush might just get to test out that claim that he won't change his mind about Iraq even if only his wife and dog support him. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It also discusses changing troop levels, which seems to contradict the public statements Rumsfeld made that troop levels were determined by the Generals.> The administration sets the policy, and the Generals decide how many troops are necessary to carry out the policy. <So just like WMDs morphed into freedom for Iraqis, stay the course was suggested to morph into we're trying other options.> "Stay the course" meant not cut and run. It never meant don't change strategies to meet conditions on the ground. We saw this early on, when the General sent to oversee the occupation was replaced by Paul Bremer. <So even Rummy knew Iraq was falling apart.> Secretary Rumsfeld was not blind to the fact that popular opinion was turning against our presence in Iraq. This doesn't mean he thought we were failing. I think it's more accurate to say he was acknowledging that we aren't succeeding fast enough.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj What I want to know is how a classified memo between the SECDEF and POTUS gets leaked to the New York Times? If I, or anyone on my staff, were to mishandle classified information this way I would be fired from my position immediately. I guess if you are on the staff of the SECDEF or POTUS they don't enforce the same rules that they enforce on the uniformed soldiers that they lead.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << The administration sets the policy, and the Generals decide how many troops are necessary to carry out the policy. >> You obviously have never seen a deployment order before. Troops don't go anywhere without the approval of the SECDEF. All deployment orders get approved at the SECDEF level. While it would certainly seem reasonable that military leaders staff these deployment orders and provide the general recommendations, it has been a trend under this SECDEF to send deployment orders back to the military staffs for revision when they did not meet the goals of the administration.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What I want to know is how a classified memo between the SECDEF and POTUS gets leaked to the New York Times?> Where in the story does it say it was for the POTUS' eyes only? The AP version I read just says "White House". And then again, how do classified CIA documents get leaked to the New York Times, and why do Democrats only get upset about leaks when the leaked documents don't make Republicans look bad? <You obviously have never seen a deployment order before.> Well, no I haven't, but I don't see why that's so obvious. Nothing you said in post 4 contradicted anything I said in post 2.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj No surprise there since you never seem to acknowledge anything that contradicts your postings.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No surprise there since you never seem to acknowledge anything that contradicts your postings.> I acknowledge contradictory postings all the time. I acknowledge that they are wrong.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The administration sets the policy, and the Generals decide how many troops are necessary to carry out the policy." Incorrect. The generals don't decide a thing about troop levels in this war until the Secretary of Defense tell them what he wants. >"Stay the course" meant not cut and run. It never meant don't change strategies to meet conditions on the ground. We saw this early on, when the General sent to oversee the occupation was replaced by Paul Bremer.< Your statement is a non sequitur. First of all, Jay Garner was a retired general with no more authority than Rumsfeld allowed him to have. Second, this in no way, shape or form is a rebuttal of what "stay the course" might mean to you. Bremer was sent over there because the Administration didn't want to hear what Garner was telling them. If anything, sending Bremer was the personification of staying the course, i.e. being inflexible. "I think it's more accurate to say he was acknowledging that we aren't succeeding fast enough." I know you'll say you typed that with a straight face, but it's utterly laughable and absolute bull four letter word if you truly believe it. What a horrible spin job. "Not succeeding fast enough"? It's criminal at this stage to put forth such garbage.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Wow, you've totally changed my mind with your thought-provoking response to me. I especially like that you carefully explained how I was wrong, and backed up your explanations with links to the facts Oh wait, you didn't do any of that. Nevermind.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Be flippant all you want Doug. You're wrong as hell on this one. The Iraq game is OVER.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And BTW, you of course know you can't refute my statement on Garner so you didn't try.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Be flippant all you want Doug. You're wrong as hell on this one. The Iraq game is OVER.> Another well-argued, well-supported opinion. I especially like the courtesy and affability you display. Your debate skills astound me.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder It's funny. I've been gone for a week, and Doug's turned into this bitter guy.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I've been gone for a week, and Doug's turned into this bitter guy.> That's funny. From where I sit, you've been gone a week, and you're still the same thoughtful, respectful, considerate guy you've always been.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip All the conservatives are bitter these days. Losing the election was bad enough, but now they are having to admit we are losing in Iraq. It is really more than most of them can take. I suggest we put them all into halfway houses and re-educate them. ;-)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Oops. My mistake. That "always" in post 14 was a typo. I meant "never".
Originally Posted By ecdc >>"Stay the course" meant not cut and run. It never meant don't change strategies to meet conditions on the ground. We saw this early on, when the General sent to oversee the occupation was replaced by Paul Bremer.<< Can we just stop the conservative lie that says those who want to pull out of Iraq are "running." We never should have been there in the first place. I know it's a nice way to pacify the conservative base by saying the smart people who want to get us out of the gigantic mess the incompetent moron we have for a President got us into are just "cutting and running", but it's a disgraceful, disgusting, pathetic lie. It's not "cutting and running" - it's finally doing the right thing after enough of our young soldiers have been killed for a complete waste of a botched mission concocted by men too cowardly to serve themselves.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< <No surprise there since you never seem to acknowledge anything that contradicts your postings.> I acknowledge contradictory postings all the time. I acknowledge that they are wrong. >>> Even the President seems to accept these days that he might actually have been wrong about a few things.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder After reading through some of these threads, I can understand Doug's bitterness. He keeps futilely attempting to defend the Iraq policy and propaganda, and getting his head handed to him in the process.
