It's comments like these which really make me wonder:
"The goal is not to reduce the number of U.S. forces in Iraq. It's not to develop an exit strategy. Our exit strategy in Iraq is success. It's that simple."
That's Rumsfeld regarding the decision to reduce U.S. troop presence in Iraq to 105,000 by May of 2004.
Let's look at this critically.
The goal is to reduce the number of U.S. forces in Iraq.
By reducing the number of U.S. forces in Iraq while increasing the number of Iraqi soldiers to fillin the gaps, we can gradually withdraw.
The Administration will claim that it's doing what it always said it was going to do: turn Iraqi over to the Iraqis. This will be touted as the mark of success.
The media will, of course, latch onto this idea, and, by hearing it repeated enough, the public will come to believe it's true
The pundits will be able to latch onto the idea that a gradual withdrawl is "for the troops". They'll be able to say something like, "Now that our job is done, and Iraq has been turned over to the Iraqis, the liberals want our troops to stay over there. What's the deal, libs? Don't you support our troops, who just want to come home to their families?"
I seriously think Rummy's on crack...or maybe LSD. He seems psycho enough.