So, what's the "Correction" for those problems? Listen to him: Rumsfeld

[seemslikeadream]

Another 9/11 attack


http://jfxgillis.newsvine.com/_news/2008/05/12/1482373-correctly-political-liquid-lunch-with-donald-rumsfeld

Champagne for al Sadr
In this penultimate clip (2:58), one of the questioners lightens the mood in the room considerably by speculating about the assassination of Iraqi militia and political figure Muqtada al-Sadr. Eventually, Rumsfeld's offer of a bottle of champagne to the killer leads to raucous hilarity on a couple of occasions, ending with a joke based on the "wink and a nod" Ariel Sharon once claimed to have received from Alexander Haig in approval of Israel's 1984 invasion of Lebanon.

But all "joking" aside, listening to Rumsfeld's serious analysis of al-Sadr helps answer one little question: Why the hel are we losing in Iraq? Rumsfeld completely and utterly misunderstood and underestimated al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. I mean, it's unbelievable. Rumsfeld thought that al-Sadr didn't have any real military capability at all. Rumsfeld thought that the most al-Sadr could do was spark demonstrations.

Again, it's amazing what the dirty hippies know about war that these doltish "independent" analysts don't, whatever their rank in the military before they decided to become media stars. The questioner seems boggled and baffled at the way al-Sadr's influence had grown. Duh. Al Sadr has been consistently opposed to the continuing presence of an occupying foreign army on his country's soil. You don't have to be a former general to figure that that's usually a popular position in countries with foreign armies garrisoned within them, at least for a significant segment of the occupied population.

And on top of that, they had just moments before been pining away for lack of a brutal, ruthless thug like Syngman Rhee to get Iraq going again. Seems like they’ve got the perfect candidate right under their noses.

The Correction
Finally, let's get to politics. Pure, unadulterated partisan politics. One of the questioners, I think probably Lt. General Michael DeLong (USMC, Ret)--you can hear Rumsfeld address "Mike" earlier in the question and there's only one Michael in the room--opens a "way, way off the record" question by trashing Senator Carl Levin, the incoming chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Representative Silvestre Reyes, the incoming Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, then tries to goad Rumsfeld into joining in by suggesting the "we have a really rough two years coming." Rumsfeld rambles on about European demographics, Chinese cyberwar and smallpox as a bio-weapon before the questioner prods him back on topic by asking, "Politically, what are the challenges because you're not going to have a lot of sympathetic ears up there ?" which is where I pick up the clip (1:17).

Rumsfeld's answer is nothing short of stunning. No, not the part where he claims Bush is a "Victim of his success." That's just stupid. And no, after hearing his previous insult to the American public, his condemnation of us because "we don't have the maturity" to recognize the threat of terrorism--the further we get from 9/11, the less and less . . . he trails off. But that's not shocking, nor is his doomsday scenario, all things considered.

So let's summarize. According to Rumsfeld and his media sycophants, America has real problems: We're weak-willed, we're immature, we're forgetting what happened, and oh my God, we've elected Democrats to Congress. So, what's the "Correction" for those problems? Listen to him:

Another 9/11 attack.