AlterNet: Rumsfeld's Attempts to Rewrite Himself on the Right Side of History Are Laughable

[marmar]

Rumsfeld's Attempts to Rewrite Himself on the Right Side of History Are Laughable

By Gary Brecher, AlterNet. Posted November 26, 2008.

The failed defense secretary pens a historical cover-up on Iraq and reveals more wild stupidity with his advice on Afghanistan.



I've been following the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from Go to Oh-No, and by far the biggest surprise has been how many whopping lies you can get away with. The biggest whoppers I've seen lately were in a Nov. 23 op-ed piece by Donald Rumsfeld for the New York Times, "One surge Does Not Fit All."

Rumsfeld's main point is that the "surge" that supposedly worked so well in Iraq might not work in Afghanistan. But Rumsfeld spends most of the essay talking about what he did, or didn't do, in Iraq. He claims he's been "…occasionally -- and incorrectly -- portrayed as an opponent of the surge in Iraq." This is a classic example of Rumsfeld in full denial mode. For proof that he was in fact opposed to the surge, here's Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard saying outright that Rumsfeld opposed the surge:

"In September (2006), Rumsfeld had rejected the idea of a surge when retired Gen. Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army and a member of the advisory Defense Policy Review Board, met with him and (Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter) Pace. Keane insisted the "train-and-leave" strategy, as Bush referred to it, was failing. He proposed a counterinsurgency strategy, the addition of five to eight Army brigades, and a primary focus on taking back Baghdad. Rumsfeld was unconvinced."

You may not be surprised that Rumsfeld is changing his story to cover himself; after all, that's what ex-cabinet types generally do in these articles. They didn't oppose the surge because they grudged a few more troops, a few billion more taxpayer dollars. The Bush administration was never known for being either squeamish or penny-pinching. Their problem was pure denial: The people at the top, Rumsfeld among them, were too cowardly to admit that a big chunk of the Iraqi people we had "liberated" weren't grateful but were out for our blood. .......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/108755/rumsfeld%27s_attempts_to_rewrite_himself_on_the_right_side_of_history_are_laughable/

[theoldman]

1. If Rumsfeld were smart he would not have written this article.

How can a failure on one war give advice on another war except to admit his failure.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. You Answered Your Own Question In Your title

If he were smart. . .

See, you already knew the answer, didn't you?
The Professor

[opihimoimoi]

2. He at once confirms his DeLusional Mindset...shock and awe my ass

[Peace Patriot]

4. Why isn't this war criminal in jail?

And where was he, really, on the morning of 9/11, when NORAD was in confusion and, for the first time in U.S. history, failed to protect U.S. airspace? "In a meeting," he said.

We need this Dr. Strangelove's advice about as much as we need the Bubonic Plague.