[BlackGriffen]

Rumsfeld memo paints grim picture (USA Today)

The opening paragraph:

The United States has no yardstick for measuring progress in the war on terrorism, has not "yet made truly bold moves" in fighting al-Qaeda and other terror groups, and is in for a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a memo that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent to top-ranking Defense officials last week.

My response: it's about freaking time! This sounds to me like the most honest thing to come from the Bush administration in a long time.

I have to wonder, though, if Rumsfeld isn't breaking ranks in retaliation for being taken out of the loop on Iraq? No matter. I'm just glad to see him break ranks from the PR driven message thus far.

The WH was, of course, supportive of what Rummy has said, ignoring the stark contrast it makes with the Official Word�.

The other interesting paragraph:

Despite upbeat statements by the Bush administration, the memo to Rumsfeld's top staff reveals significant doubts about progress in the struggle against terrorists. Rumsfeld says that "it is not possible" to transform the Pentagon quickly enough to effectively fight the anti-terror war and that a "new institution" might be necessary to do that.

Is Rummy looking at making a kind of Praetorian Guard? I'm a little bit leery of what sounds like the wish to make a new and fully independent branch of the military. I can't offer reasons, just a feeling in my gut.

BlackGriffen

[spacefreak]

When I read the same article earlier today, this is the statement that stood out to me...

Rumsfeld says that "it is not possible" to transform the Pentagon quickly enough to effectively fight the anti-terror war and that a "new institution" might be necessary to do that.

My impression was that the the notes in the memo discussing the poor cost-benefit ratio, difficulties fighting the war on terror, etc. were to justify furthering an exploration into creating a new defense institution specifically designed for fighting terrorist organizations.

the last wo paragraphs of the article further support this notion...

Rumsfeld asks whether the Defense Department is moving fast enough to adapt to fighting terrorists and whether the United States should create a private foundation to entice radical Islamic schools to a "more moderate course." Rumsfeld says the schools, known as madrassas, may be churning out new terrorists faster than the United States can kill or capture them.

The memo is not a policy statement, but a tool for shaping internal discussion. It highlights a Rumsfeld trait that supporters say is one of his greatest strengths: a willingness to challenge subordinates to constantly reassess problems. The memo prods Rumsfeld's most senior advisers to think in new ways about the war on terrorism at a time when many are preoccupied with the 7-month-old war in Iraq.

[Lerkfish]

oooh...this is a good thing. If successful, Rumsfeld will have a neocon directed "antiterrorist" organization with no chain of command.

Just warms the cockles of my heart. I trust him complicitly (/sarcasm)

[thunderous_funker]

Breaks ranks with himself, you mean.

This tone of this memo is entirely at odds with Rummy's rosy public pronouncements.

On the one hand I'm realived that his public statements were actually calculated PR spin rather than sincere ignorance of the very real problems and setback in the WoT.

On the other hand, I'm terrified that this might be the latest feint to trick the public into supporting the establishment of some expansive, new, unaccountable military/government authority.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Breaks ranks with himself, you mean.

This tone of this memo is entirely at odds with Rummy's rosy public pronouncements.

On the one hand I'm realived that his public statements were actually calculated PR spin rather than sincere ignorance of the very real problems and setback in the WoT.

On the other hand, I'm terrified that this might be the latest feint to trick the public into supporting the establishment of some expansive, new, unaccountable military/government authority.

yes, we are in agreement (see my post above).

I fear this is part of the neocon agenda.....nothing would suit them better than to be even FURTHER removed from checks and balances and purview from other agencies while ostensibly being put in charge of the WOT.

It makes me think they are getting impatient with the present arrangement. Bush is not reshaping the mideast fast enough to suit the neocon timetable.

[zigzag]

There's something darkly comical about this statement: "Rumsfeld says the schools, known as madrassas, may be churning out new terrorists faster than the United States can kill or capture them."

[BlackGriffen]

D'oh! looks like Rummy isn't too happy that his honest assessment is in the open.

Woopsy.

BlackGriffen

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
D'oh! looks like Rummy isn't too happy that his honest assessment is in the open.

Woopsy.

BlackGriffen

This just reinforced my fear that its all a planned feint to launch a campaign for a new agency that does what Rummy is presently not allowed to do.

"It is not possible to change [the Department of Defense] fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror, an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere � one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem."

How did a memo for 4 people end up on the front page of a national paper? Because they wanted it to.

Just like the "lack of intelligence" gave us the Patriot Act (despite the fact that they had everything they needed including opporutnity to seriously hinder the 9/11 attack), the "ineffeciency" of the DoD to kill 'em fast enough will give birth to the Ultimate Fighting Machine answerable only to the Righteous Leader.

[chris v]

It's a good sign that he's not blindly in love with the pure ideology that got them where they are. It's a not-so-good sign of what his solution might be, though. At least he's thinking at all, and sees that there's a problem. Maybe that notion will filter up.

CV

[RooneyX]

When he was being questioned by the Senators before the war he wore that black glove on his right hand. It cracked me up. Very Strangelove.

And the way he lied out of his teeth when questioned by Byrd about being Saddam's guest and selling chemicals to Saddam which were used against Kurds was a doozy.

[AKcrab]

You all are freaking me out, killing my buzz...

I don't know if all of this can be fixed by voters at the polls...

Lerk, since you seem to have the strategy of the neocons down, how about you work on a strategy to make sure it doesn't happen?

[MacGorilla]

Rummy is a loose cannon and a scary man who si very out of touch with reality.

[Lerkfish]

here's an interesting second day spin

According to his spokesman, Larry DiRita, the memo was Rumsfeld's way of lighting a fire under his top deputies to come up with better ideas for moving ahead.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
You all are freaking me out, killing my buzz...

I don't know if all of this can be fixed by voters at the polls...

Lerk, since you seem to have the strategy of the neocons down, how about you work on a strategy to make sure it doesn't happen?

well, you see the reception I get here...I doubt I can do much. I'm just trying to shake people awake, but most people prefer to go on sleeping.

Unfortunately, Unless the neocons blunder in a huge and irretreivable way, so that the present administration is embarrassed by their association with them to the point to repudiate and distance themselves, there's no way to stop them. And, its highly unlikely Bush will repudiate them since they are not just infiltrated into the administration, they ARE the administration...so, again, won't happen.

To further kill your buzz: beware that part of their agenda is to set themselves (or their proxies) up in ways that are immune to a change in will of the american voters. So, even if you unelect the current administration next year, the neocons have already ensconced themselves in the process that furthers their agenda. They only needed Bush to give them an opportunity. They've been trying for an opening since the Reagan administration, and it wasn't until 9/11 while the country was stupefied that they were finally able to act.

This is why Iraq was so important to them...it is the cornerstone of their powergrab. Once Halliburton, Bechtel, and other neocon connected agencies are awarded the exclusive contracts, they can continue their plan irrespective of who is president. You'll see that if and when we dislodge Bush, Those corporation entities will continue to be there, setting up the infrastructure in their control.
Rummy's plan here is to set up a separate untouchable agency, with the power and authority of the US government but without the checks and balances to further the WOT. As we've already seen with Ashcroft and Homeland Security office, protecting the country from terrorists is not the ONLY use for these agencies...from tracking errant state senators to other right wing political needs, they are already flexing their muscles, pushing the envelope of their powers.

The purpose is to empower themselves absolutely and then make themselves immune from oversight.

Look at the progress they've already made:

-- Homeland Security now is headed by one man, a close friend of the president and the neocons. ALL other agencies are supposed to be overseen by him, but who oversees him?
-- Rummy already started a small intel group separate from the CIA that answers to and is protected by him alone.
-- Rummy is now angling for a separate defense agency to further the WOT.
-- Exlusive not for bid or questionable bid contracts are being awarded to Halliburten, Bechtel, etc. in Iraq, for huge sums that keep increasing, with little to show for it. Once the oil infrastructure is rebuilt (notice what a huge priority it is), how they control it will not be addressable by voters. For example, they could control the flow of oil to force local governments to accede to their wishes and there'd not be a damn thing the voters can do about it, being a private company.


now, how do you stop them? you don't. It's going to happen. And the reason is simple. Look on these boards as an example. If you point out the agenda, you're a traitor or a nutcase or worse...but even as these things continue to happen, they just get glossed over. Rationales conveniently change to adjust for each milestone they achieve. The Patriot Act, oh hey, if you aren't for it your committing treason...etc.

hold on to your cajones, its going to be a hell of a ride. Soon, you won't even be hearing from people like me because we'll silently disappear, either outright removed or imprisoned or merely threatened into silence.

I realize this sounds like a conspiracy nutcase theory...but as it keeps happening, keep remembering what I have said and realize that some conspiracy theories are about real conspiracies.

the proof of the pudding will be to see where the neocons are after the next 5 years, AFTER Bush is definitely out of the picture. If they are still going strong and still protected from oversight, then you know what's happening.

[pooka]

[Joshua]

Originally posted by pooka:

Heh

[chris v]

Originally posted by AKcrab:


I don't know if all of this can be fixed by voters at the polls...

It's looking like we had our last free and fair presidential election back in 1996. I don't kow any more whether voting can do any good. The system is currently being gamed so that their cronies are in control of the new electronic voting machines, and there are no paper trails or real safeguards in place to detect or deter tampering by said cronies. (the CEO of the company providing Ohio with it new devices is on record promising to "deliver the voters of Ohio to the Republicans.")

It won't be like Kenya where Mobutu was re-elected by 99.999967745% of elligible voters, but a few thosand here and there in key states will be all it takes.

Next up, prong three.

CV

[eklipse]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090250/

....Have you ever read a more pathetic federal document in your life? What is being stated here can be summed up as follows: We'll probably win the battle for Afghanistan and Iraq (or, more precisely, it's "pretty clear" we "can win" it, "in one way or another" after "a long, hard slog"), but we're losing the struggle for hearts and minds in the broader war against terrorism. Not only that, we don't know how to measure winning or losing, we don't have a plan for winning it, we don't know how to fashion a plan, and the bureaucratic agencies put in charge of waging this war and drawing up these plans may be inherently incapable of doing so.

A fair synopsis I think.

[finboy]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:

My response: it's about freaking time! This sounds to me like the most honest thing to come from the Bush administration in a long time.

No, this kind of stuff has been coming out ALL ALONG. Careful, professional introspection and analysis. You just never hear about it unless the media warthogs are sowing FUD.

[finboy]

Originally posted by RooneyX:

And the way he lied out of his teeth when questioned by Byrd about being Saddam's guest and selling chemicals to Saddam which were used against Kurds was a doozy.

I can't believe that lazy-ass Byrd for not jumping on the chance to prosecute old Rummy for lying to Congress.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by finboy:
No, this kind of stuff has been coming out ALL ALONG. Careful, professional introspection and analysis. You just never hear about it unless the media warthogs are sowing FUD.

They always said it would be long and hard, but they were never this candid about not having a plan or how badly it was going.

BG

[BlackGriffen]

MSNBC has yet more on this topic. Of particular note (IMHO):

A well-placed Republican source said Rumsfeld was not currently in danger of being replaced, but doubted he would return as defense secretary if voters give Bush another term.
_ _ _ _''I think Rumsfeld has had it. He's put in place some (Defense Department) reforms, and now it's up to others to implement it,'' the source said.
_ _ _ _The Republican thought Rumsfeld himself leaked the memo. In it, Rumsfeld said America had not made ''truly bold moves'' in fighting terrorism, had garnered ''mixed results'' against al Qaeda, and asked, ''Are we winning or losing the global war on terror?''


'CLASSIC RUMMY'
_ _ _ _''It's classic Rummy,'' this Republican said. ''It sends a shot across the bow of the White House that (says), 'Don't mess with the other side of the Potomac.''' The Pentagon sits across the Potomac River from Washington.

Some have suggested that the whole Plame affair was born out of infighting amongst branches of the administration. Is this yet another symptom/fight?

Abraham Lincoln once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Is the infighting going to kill Bush's reelection chances? What, if anything, could Bush do to improve his odds of winning term two?

BlackGriffen

[thunderous_funker]

Well, Ashcroft and Rummy are being set up as ballast for the next election--if the numbers dip dangerously low, you simply drop them and ride the upsurge through November.

Its clear to me that Americans are quite disgruntled and dissatisfied. They are also very tired of politics as usual. That is why the "outsiders" have been enjoying such unprecedented political support.

If voters think they have a real viable alternative in 2004, Bush will lose. Now if the Democratic party can't resist the urge to play politics as usual and put forward their most loyal plutocrat-feaux-populist, they'll loose and loose big.

Both parties seem to display almost a stunning inability to recognize that dissatisfaction with dirty politics of the opposition isn't a popular endorsement for your own dirty politics. Gingrich made that error in the 90's and looks like the Democratic party leadership is determined to make the same fatal mistake in 2004.

"The voters seem really pissed about the corruption, mismanagement and policy-for-sale of the Bush administration. That's why we're offering the corruption, mismanagement and policy-for-sale of Lieberman, Gephart or Kerry....."

Bush didn't win because Americans wanted a radical shift to the Right. Nor did they win because more and more Americans are becoming Conservative. Bush won because he was perceived as different--an outsider, a level-headed moderate who wouldn't play Partisan games and would actually work to get stuff done--a "consensus builder". Dean is leading polls for exactly the same reason.

[mr. natural]

Posted by Lerkfish:

Homeland Security now is headed by one man, a close friend of the president and the neocons. ALL other agencies are supposed to be overseen by him, but who oversees him?

Is it just me, or does anyone else not find it creepy this ad running below this thread?