IRAQ
Why Is Rumsfeld Still Around?

Prior to the war against Iraq, the Bush administration claimed that the
conflict would be short and inexpensive. Over two years later, U.S.
troops have sacrificed over 1,700 lives, U.S. taxpayers have spent over
$200 billion on the war, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
appearing on three Sunday morning talk shows this weekend, claims no
mistakes have been made. The lead architect of the failed Iraq policy
stubbornly refused to admit that a change of course was needed. Were
President Bush sincere about his renewed effort this week to offer a
"strategy for success" in Iraq, his first step should be to ask for and
accept Rumsfeld's resignation. RUMSFELD'S ROSY VISION REVISED: On Fox
News Sunday, host Chris Wallace noted that Rumsfeld, from before the
start of the Iraq war, has offered a rosy picture about how the
conflict would turn out, leaving most Americans unprepared for the
violence that has resulted. Rumsfeld responded to the criticism by
saying: "That's false ... I have been very balanced and measured."
Rumsfeld's revisionist history does a grave disservice to all Americans
who believed his and the Defense Department's assertions prior to the
war in Iraq. Fareed Zakaria, commenting on ABC's This Week, said, "On
Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld has been more Orwellian, not truthful."
Despite his best efforts to fashion himself into a "new Rumsfeld," the
"old Rumsfeld" cannot be forgotten. Conservative columnist Bill Kristol
stated the case against Rumsfeld most succinctly: "These soldiers
deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have." Let's review:
Rumsfeld said he knew where the WMD were, he said the conflict would
not last more than six months, he downplayed the initial security
vaccum in Iraq by saying "stuff happens," he asserted that we would be
greeted as liberators in Iraq, he failed to properly equip the troops
for the war, and then he famously said, "you go to war with the Army
you have, not the Army you want."

RUMSFELD'S DICTIONARY: Vice President Cheney, as you will recall,
recently said the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes." His
assertion has since run up against the facts, with recent violence
indicating a strengthening insurgency and the top military commander in
the Persian Gulf directly stating that he disagreed with Cheney. This
of course put Rumsfeld in the difficult position of possibly telling
the truth this Sunday. But he didn't. In a blatant act of dishonesty,
Rumsfeld went on each of the Sunday shows and repeated his talking
point of the day that Cheney's "last throes" comment may have been
accurate if you look up its definition in the dictionary (in essence,
parroting Cheney's own defense of his comments last week). On Fox,
Rumsfeld said, "Last throes could be a violent last throe, just as well
as a placid or calm last throe. Look it up in the dictionary." (After
defending Cheney's comments, Rumsfeld completely contradicted himself,
asserting that the insurgency could last 12 years.) On NBC, he said,
"The last throes could be violence, as you well know from a dictionary
standpoint." And on ABC, he told host George Stephanopoulos to "look it
up." Rumsfeld has frequently turned to the Oxford Dictionary to bail
himself out of difficult situations, such as when he tried to twist
General Abizaid's assertion that Iraq had become a guerrilla war
(Rumsfeld: "I have since gone to the dictionary") or when he defended
his characterization of the war on terror as a long, hard "slog"
(Rumsfeld: "It's not only the Oxford Dictionary's preferred definition,
it's mine"). Rumsfeld's quippy, semantic word-game misses the central
fact that "last throes" comment misleads the American public into
believing that we're on our way out of Iraq.

GITMO RATIONALE BREAKS DOWN IN THE FACE OF TALKS WITH IRAQI INSURGENTS:
Rumsfeld confirmed a report from The London Sunday Times that the U.S.
has been negotiating with Iraqi insurgents. To explain why the U.S. is
now negotiating with the enemy - a stance that President Bush has yet
to publicly confirm - Rumsfeld offered the following response: "If
you think about it, there aren't the good guys and the bad guys over
there. There are people all across the spectrum." This nuanced view of
the enemy is one that escaped Rumsfeld when he devised his scheme to
detain terrorists at the Guantanamo Bay facility. Rumsfeld sees these
detainees in pure black-and-white terms: "They're suicide bombers.
They're terrorists. They're murderers and these are bad people. These
are not good people." If the U.S. can now negotiate with insurgents in
Iraq, why can't we afford basic human rights and due process to
detainees in Guantanamo?

NEW SPIN, SAME AS THE OLD SPIN: The mainstream press continues to
repeat the canard that the White House is changing its message on Iraq.
Secretary Rumsfeld "road-tested" the purportedly new message this
weekend, and it was the rhetorical equivalent of a 1980 Austin
Princess: old, tired, and unreliable. Knight-Ridder laid out the three
major planks of the "new" message: "'Progress is being made politically
and economically' in Iraq; ...And we have never miscalculated, erred,
or misled you." Sound familiar? That's because each of those points -
one and two - have been repeated by the White House for months.

....AND JUST AS FALSE: Take point number one: though it may be true that
Iraq is slowly advancing politically, that progress has occurred
despite the security situation in Iraq for which Secretary Rumsfeld is
accountable, not because of it. Moreover, Iraq's economy is still
decidedly a mixed bag. While many Iraqis are wealthier today than they
were two years ago, "by other measures, like electricity availability
and the unemployment rate, Iraq's economy appears weaker than it was
during the Baathist reign," a Brookings analysis noted this month.

RUMSFELD DEFENDS ROVE'S FALSE SMEAR: Asked whether he was happy with
the way liberals reacted after September 11, Rumsfeld said, "I think
you're talking about Karl Rove, is that what that is? Yeah, it is. I
don't do politics. You know that, Tim." That is, until 10 seconds
later, when Rumsfeld proceeded to repeat Rove's remarks. "I think that
what [Rove] was saying was, look, the point I made earlier, do you want
to treat terrorists with indictments and trials here in the United
States, or do you want to treat terrorists like terrorists, get them
off the battlefield, keep them from killing people, find out everything
you can so you can stop future attacks?" But statements from President
Bush and House leader Tom DeLay, as well as polls taken shortly after
September 11, show this is patently false. Here's one survey, taken
9/13/01-9/14/01, demonstrating startling unanimity across the political
spectrum in the wake of the attacks: "Should the U.S. take military
action against those responsible? Yes: 93% of Republicans, 86% of
Democrats, 76% of independents."

IS RUMSFELD A ROVIAN LIBERAL?: Rumsfeld made a number of stark
observations this weekend that, if spoken from a different mouth, may
have become political fodder for Karl Rove. Rumsfeld said, "We're not
going to win against this insurgency." He later said, "Foreigners don't
defeat insurgencies." Rumsfeld also added the insurgency could go on
for 12 years, and he confirmed that there have been "many" talks with
insurgents. Seems like Rumsfeld is offering "therapy and understanding
for our attackers."

RUMSFELD FORGETS WHETHER HE PREDICTED THE INSURGENCY: Secretary
Rumsfeld yesterday demonstrated a near photographic memory of all the
bad things he told President Bush might happen, but didn't: "I
presented the president a list of about 15 things that could go
terribly, terribly wrong before the war started: the fact that the oil
fields could have been set aflame like they were in Kuwait, the fact
that we could have had mass refugees and dislocations and it didn't
happen, the bridges could have blown up, there could have been a
Fortress Baghdad with a moat around it with oil in it and people
fighting to the death.... So a great many of the bad things that could
have happened did not happen." Rumsfeld can't recall, however, if he
told President Bush that there might be an "robust insurgency": "I
don't remember if that was on there," Rumsfeld told Tim Russert