Rummy needs to resign.
My goodness indeed.
When referring to the number of troops that went into Iraq, Rummy said: “I guess history will make a judgment on that”.
How long do we have to wait before history kicks in? It’s well over three years since the invasion. Can we not at least start to speculate about whether the number of troops was too low? Does Rumsfeld believe history can look back in three, ten, twenty or fifty years from now, and then make a judgment?
I don’t think so.
I think three years is plenty of time to see that the number of troops was too low. By putting things on the long finger and saying ‘history’ will decide, he is simply saying ‘ask me when I am no longer Defence Secretary’.
Comments
3 responses to “Rumsfeld gets roasted by Clinton”
Absolutely, Rumsfeld is following the time honoured tradition of passing the buck.
I think we probably need to assess this question from two angles though – was the number of troops high enough to achieve the immediate aim of overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime, and was the number of troops high enough to secure the country during the chaotic aftermath of state (re)building that followed.
The answer to the first is relatively easy to answer – yes, there were enough troops to secure the first objective. (Although there is some kind of argument for saying that overpowering troop numbers would have nipped any insurgency in the bud, I don’t think it’s a convincing one).
The answer to the second is, I think, still too early to say with any certainty, as the situation is still ongoing – so any opinion is somewhat preliminary. Arguments could be made for saying that there are too few troops, and equally, arguments could be made for saying that there are too many troops.
But it is important to ask (and answer) the second question as well – because without understanding whether there are currently too few or too many troops on the ground, it is impossible to understand and plan where we should go from here.
Frankly I think its time for both of them to
bid farewell.
Rumsfeld for obvious reasons. {I have to admit,
at one time I actually liked this guy).
Clinton, she spent the last 5 years delivering
more promises than any meaningful performance.
She rode well on name and on the laurels of a
‘so-called’ liberal democrate [who supported
the war]and I think this act was nothing more than
to ensure she doesn’t end up like Joe Lieberman
in Connecticut.
In addition to NYC and the metro area, there is a New York State and that seems to have slipped Clinton’s mind.
Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic Primary in Ct.
Hillary … {now} an anti war senator and {now} a champion of the middle class wants to make sure the same doesn’t happen to her as the moderate Lieberman.
At least Lieberman consitently stated what he believed and didn’t change his mind as the election approached. Both Clinton and Rummy need to go up the block {to name a few}!