« The London March for Freedom of Expression | Home | The Ivy League Moral Wilderness »
March 24, 2006
Rumsfeld Love
Saying before the cameras what so many people think:
Gateway Pundit has the goods on a Rumsfeld-CNN reporter exchange:
Reporter: "Do you feel embattled at this point in your tenure? In a recent column, Maureen Dowd quoted an unidentified administration official who described you as an "eccentric old uncle who's ignored." She claims that you don't hold the same sway in meetings."Rumsfeld: "Did you get all that? You want to be on camera, right? That’s a sure way to get on the evening news. The answer to your question is no."
Reporter: "Well, I'm asking about the facts reported in the column. Do you feel you hold the same sway in meetings?"
Rumsfeld: "I'm not going to comment on that."
(Pause)- Rumsfeld looks away for a moment, then...
Rumsfeld: "If you believe everything you read in Maureen Dowd, you better get a life."
...
And, then there was Rumsfeld to Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon reporter:"I'm rather old fashioned, I like to engage my brain before
my mouth."
The video is at Expose The Left.
The amazing thing is that ostensibly the reporter actually does believe what he reads in a Maureen Dowd article, else why would he have quoted it. When appearing to believe it makes him seem like a naive and suckered fool.
[ Judith adds: The reporter did not remember the 1000 Fighting Styles of Rumsfeld. They never do. ]
Alcibiades | 03/24/06 at 03:03 PM | Categories: - The Fourth Estate
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.keshertalk.com/cgi-bin/mtb.cgi/4678
Comments
Well, so what? Does this refute the historical fact that Rumsfeld has screwed up policy on Iraq and has depleted military strength drastically?
Or more inferentially, that he is a demented old man on a testosterone patch whose callousness to members of the US military and Iraqi civilians has been well-displayed?
what me worry? | March 25, 2006 10:22 AM
First of all, in the matter of Secretary of Defense, if it is a question of a surfeit of testosterone or a deficit, I prefer a surfeit.
Not that I think he is suffering from a surfeit. Like the story of the Three Bears, I find him just right - on that score.
Secondly, as for historical facts, I think we'll have to leave them to history to judge. What we have now is a great deal of shouting from the media and people whose military philosophies were replaced, that Rumsfeld screwed everything up. Undoubtedly he made some mistakes - but then that is normative in an operation of this size, and in historical context, the number of his mistakes might even be fewer than those of others who have headed such operations.
So he made mistake, true. But that is also not to say that other decisions would have been error free. I doubt it. There is play and counterplay. And the other side is playing too. And with all the billions at his disposal before the invasion, Saddam's agents had the time to set up for themselves plenty of potential insurgents. Not to mention the help of Syria and Iran, both of which want Iraq to go awry.
Finally, you should read this article in the WSJ.
According to the new military analysis, the old notion, post-Vietnam, that the only way for the US to fight in wars was through the doctrine of overwhelming force was based on a mis-analysis of the war and what went wrong.
This critique, which was written up before the Iraq War, vitiates a great deal of the criticism of Rumsfeld now current, IMO.
BTW, I can't remember if that article is subscription only or not, so if you can't get it and are interested in reading the whole thing, email me.
alcibiades | March 25, 2006 01:03 PM
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keshertalk.com/nav-commenters.gif)
