Rove appeared on Meet the Press and continued spewing the Administration's lies about Iraq. Here's just one example:
Karl Rove Q & A
In-depth discussion on Bolton, Iraq and Downing St. memo
Transcript
MSNBC
Updated: 9:31 a.m. ET June 22, 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8306049/
GREGORY: As you well know, critics of this war have seized on what’s being called now the Downing Street Memo, based on meetings that Britain’s Chief of Intelligence had with American officials about the war. One issue that comes up in that memo and subsequent memos is British concerns about the fact that the White House in their view wasn’t adequately thinking about what happens after the regime falls.
ROVE: I'm glad you brought that up because I want to put that in context. First of all that is the British — a Brit making a comment about what he perceived to be U.S. policy. But remember the time frame, it is months and months and months before the balloon goes up in Iraq. And in those intervening months there was plenty of time planning for post-war efforts, vast amounts of planning. You never know exactly how a war is going to plan out. Napoleon once said, 'vast numbers of refugees enormous problems with food aid'- did not happen. Vast uprising- didn't happen. That we would see a vast uprising by hundreds of thousands of Iraqis- didn’t happen. War is ugly, but a lot went very well with this effort and in part it was because the United States government and our coalition partners used the months to plan for any eventuality.
NOTE: The "Brit making the comment" was Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6 who was sent to DC to find out exactly what the Administration had in mind. The way Rove refers to him, you'd think he was some flunky. If Dearlove was mistaken, then why doesn't Bush release the minutes from our side of these meetings?
Now, here's a bit of the truth:
Major Calls Effort in Iraq 'Mediocre'
By Thomas E. Ricks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24891-2004Dec24.html
Washington Post Staff WriterSaturday, December 25, 2004; Page A01
"There was no Phase IV plan" for occupying Iraq after the combat phase, writes Maj. Isaiah Wilson III, who served as an official historian of the campaign and later as a war planner in Iraq. While a variety of government offices had considered the possible situations that would follow a U.S. victory, Wilson writes, no one produced an actual document laying out a strategy to consolidate the victory after major combat operations ended.
During the period in question, from April to June 2003, Wilson was a researcher for the Army's Operation Iraqi Freedom Study Group. Then, from July 2003 to March 2004, he was the chief war planner for the 101st Airborne Division, which was stationed in northern Iraq.
As a result of the failure to produce a plan, Wilson asserts, the U.S. military lost the dominant position in Iraq in the summer of 2003 and has been scrambling to recover ever since. "In the two to three months of ambiguous transition, U.S. forces slowly lost the momentum and the initiative . . . gained over an off-balanced enemy," he writes. "The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since."
Many in the Army have blamed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon civilians for the unexpectedly difficult occupation of Iraq, but Wilson reserves his toughest criticism for Army commanders who, he concludes, failed to grasp the strategic situation in Iraq and so not did not plan properly for victory. He concludes that those who planned the war suffered from "stunted learning and a reluctance to adapt."
Wilson contends that a lack of sufficient troops was a consequence of the earlier, larger problem of failing to understand that prevailing in Iraq involved more than just removing Hussein. "This overly simplistic conception of the 'war' led to a cascading undercutting of the war effort: too few troops, too little coordination with civilian and governmental/non-governmental agencies . . . and too little allotted time to achieve 'success,' " he writes.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
fucking machines fucking machines
girls fucking machine girls fucking machine
machine fucking machine fucking
machine fucking machine fucking
machine fucked machine fucked
machine fucked machine fucked
fucking machines fucking machines
fucking machines fucking machines
fucking machines fucking machines
fucking machines fucking machines
sexy girl fucking machines sexy girl fucking machines
fucking machines fucking machines
fucking machines fucking machines
sex machine sex machine
Post a Comment