Rumsfeld Kind Of, Sort Of Contradicts Cheney on Meet the Press

[JABBS]

The most interesting segment of Sunday's interview with Donald Rumsfeld regarded Vice President Cheney's constroversial statement last month that the Iraq insurgency was in the "last throes." It took some time, but ultimately, if you weed through a long question and answer, it would appear Rumsfeld contradicts Cheney:

RUSSERT: I think the concern that many people have is that if we were wrong or misjudged that, are we making some other misjudgments now? This is how The Washington Times reported in exchange before the hearings.

" Levin asked whether the general thought the insurgency was in its `last throes,' as Mr. Cheney said ... last month. `In terms of the overall strength of the insurgency, I'd say it was the same as it was' six months ago, Gen. Abizaid replied." For the sake of clarity for the American people, what about this insurgency?

Is it in its last throes or is it alive and well and vibrant and strong as it was six months ago?

RUMSFELD: Well, there are various ways to measure it. If you measure the number of incidents, it's gone up during the election period and now it's back down. If you look at lethality of those instances, it's up. Now, what does that mean? Does it mean that the insurgency's stronger? Is it in its last throes? The last throes could be violence, as you well know from a dictionary standpoint. ...

(Let me interrupt to point out that "throes" can be defined as violent. But Cheney said "last throes," which even his defenders took to mean a last thrust for the insurgency. Cheney, in a confusing effort to clarify his earlier comments, seemed to play bait-and-switch with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Thursday, describing "throes" even as he continued to say "last throes." Rumsfeld did the same when answering Russert's question.)

Rumsfeld continued to Russert:

... I think the way to think of it is that the insurgents are foreigners in some significant number. They are attacking Iraqis and killing them. They are opposing an elected Iraqi government. They know they have a great deal to lose. If they lose this and if Iraq becomes a constitutional representative system in the middle of the Middle East, the effect on the terrorists will be devastating. So they are going to fight very hard. And you saw that when the elections -- they wanted to disrupt those elections on January 30th and so the peak went way up in violence. They're going to feel the same way about the constitution and the elections coming up in December. So I would anticipate you're going to see an escalation of violence between now and the December elections.

(In other words, the insurgents want to win, too.)

RUSSERT: But you wouldn't say the insurgency is on its last legs?

RUMSFELD: Well, if you are successful in having a constitution and having another election under the new constitution, that will have an effect on the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people will see that the people opposing that don't have the interest of Iraq in mind. They have the interests of the violent extremists. And will that hurt the insurgency? I believe it will. I think there's no question but that if we get through this period we will see that the Iraqi security forces will be stronger. They're very well respected today by the population in Iraq, and we will have more and more of an Iraqi face on this, less of an occupation face, which is a good thing. And over time -- I mean, foreign troops are not going to beat the insurgency. It's going be the Iraqi people that are going to beat the insurgency and Iraqi security forces. That's just the nature of an insurgency and it may take time, but our task is to get the Iraqi security forces sufficiently capable that that process of defeating the insurgency by the Iraqi people can take place.

***

In other words, no, the insurgency is not on its "last legs," which, in every dictionary but the one being used by Cheney and Rumsfeld, means the insurgency is not in its "last throes." Although it will be, over time, if several other things go right first.

It was sadly, one of the few answers Russert couldn't have predicted from earlier Rumsfeld statements.

***

To read more on this topic, go to Journalists Against Bush's B.S. (JABBS)

[AllyCat]

1. He was in between a rock and hard place with this question

No matter how he answered it, he admitted Cheney was wrong/lied or he was wrong/lied. So he fiddled with the language until he made a case for himself that seemed to make sense, even though we sat in our living rooms wondering what the f*** he was talking about. Russert made one attempt to get him to actually answer the question, then seemed to choose his battle and go after the number of troops issue instead, making Rummy dance in his seat and break out in sweat.

[Erika]

2. Take a long look at the Republican Bush history in Iraq

There is nothing they told the American people that was correct and they've never apologized once.

[AllyCat]

4. And Rummy dodged every question Russert asked to that effect

I'm assuming you mean Rep-* history dating back to Poppy? What a bunch of liars! Rummy just sat there and lied, contorted, evaded, and misled for 15 minutes (seemed like hours). Russert kinda went after him on a few things.

But even he realized that if he admitted Cheney was wrong about the last throes meme, he said Cheney was lying. If he said Cheney was right, he contradicted everything he was trying to spin about the preceding questions.

I just liked seeing him fret for the last few minutes.

[indigonation]

3. kind of, sort of?

Let's see

May 1, 2003
President Chimpy Smirk: "Mission Accomplished" in his "commander-in-chief" action suit on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln.

**Random rose-colored statements from said administration**

May 31, 2005
VP Darth Cheney: The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes"


June 26, 2005
Ministry of Imperialism - Rummy Rumsfeld:
"That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years," Rumsfeld said

So which of these lies should we believe?

[AllyCat]

5. All of them! Or you are a traitor... n/t

[snowbear]

6. You're being far too nice saying "kinda sorta"... face it...

As even Wolf Blitzer said today, they don't seem to be reading the same sheet music... :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:

[JABBS]

7. Kind of, Sort Of

I hedged it in the headline almost as a joke, because Rumsfeld's comments were so long-winded.

One of the rules of the Bush Administration is to give long-winded answers -- or better yet, non-answers -- to tough questions, thus making sound bites next to impossible.