In an effort to stem the rising tide of military opposition to Rumsfeld, the Pentagon has taken the unprecedented move of issuing
talking points to former military commanders and civilian analysts who regularly appear on news programs.
The memorandum begins by stating, "U.S. senior military leaders are involved to an unprecedented degree in every decision-making process in the Department of Defense." It says Mr. Rumsfeld has had 139 meetings with the Joint Chiefs of Staff since the start of 2005 and 208 meetings with the senior field commanders....
It is not uncommon for the Pentagon to send such memorandums to this group of officers, whom they consider to be influential in shaping public opinion. But it is unusual for the Pentagon to issue guidance that can be used by retired generals to rebut the arguments of other retired generals....
A Defense Department spokesman, Eric Ruff, called the memorandum a "fact sheet" that was developed to provide detailed information to an influential group of analysts. In no way was it meant to enlist retired officers to speak out on behalf of Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Ruff said.
"The fact sheet was sent out to provide people with the facts," he said. "We would be doing a disservice to the analysts and the American public if we didn't provide exactly what the facts are."
Here are some facts that probably didn't make it into the memo: nearly 50 American service members have been killed this month, in just two weeks; the Iraqi parliament is still in deadlock; four more executed Iraqis were found this weekend, and dozens of civilians killed; and in the war that the Pentagon has forgotten, the Taliban has reemerged and is strengthening.
Heckuva job, Rummy.
Update [2006-4-16 14:59:43 by mcjoan]:
Speaking of facts, here is an example of Rummy's "facts":
Yesterday on PBS' Newshour, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said no administration official made any predictions about the length or cost of the war in Iraq:
I was very careful. I never predicted any number of deaths or the cost or the length because I've looked at a lot of wars, and anyone who tries to do that is going to find themselves wrong, flat wrong…I don't know anybody who had any reasonable expectations about the number or the length of the war or the cost of the war. I just don't — no one I know went out and said these are how those three metrics ought to be considered. And you can take it to the bank.
The truth is, Rumsfeld and other top administration officials made predictions on all three metrics. You can take that to the bank –
Length:
Rumsfeld, 2/7/03: "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
Cheney, 3/16/03: "I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months"
Cost:
Daniels, 12/30/02: "The administration's top budget [Mitch Daniels] official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion … Mr. Daniels declined to explain how budget officials had reached the $50 billion to $60 billion range for war costs…" [New York Times, 12/31/02]
Casualties:
Q: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. [Meet the Press, 3/16/03]
An angrier leftie might call Rummy a liar.