Author Topic: washington post on rummy (Read 832 times)

Hangtime · « **Reply #15 on:** March 30, 2003, 09:52:11 PM »

heretics!

burn them!!

Ozark · « **Reply #16 on:** March 30, 2003, 10:00:41 PM »

Err..Nash? Did you say something?

bounce.. jiggle.. bounce.. jiggle.. bounce.. jiggle…

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #17 on:** March 30, 2003, 10:10:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
The post is the 5th largest paper in the US... Rummy and the boys in the Whitehouse ALL have subscriptions to it as it is THE Washington "rag".... no matter how much anyone tries to marginalize so called leftist liberal media.

I've posted it in another thread about the Washington Post article, but I'll post it here again since it goes to the heart of what you're saying -- that Washington elites read the Washington Post.

Here it is:

Politicians and bureaucrats routinely take potshots at one another through newspapers. It's not unusual to see entire dialogues develop through background interviews and front page trashings of a person or a policy.

Remember the whole Crusader thing? Lots and lots of background interviews given by military personnel that painted Rumsfeld as dictatorial and incompetent... and lots and lots of Defense department background interviews painting the military as inefficient, defiant of proper authorities, and out of touch with modern military realities.

In other words, this article looks like someone who was routinely smacked down by Rumsfeld crying to the press on background. I expect we'll have a retort on background from the Defense department soon trashing those who just did the trashing. And so it goes. As always, the truth is probably somewhere inbetween, but it's important to realize that no matter how unbiased the journalist or fair the reporting, sources often have agendas all their own.

-- Todd/Leviathn

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #18 on:** March 30, 2003, 10:25:48 PM »

occam's razor says mayby its just news. not a giant conspiracy like watergate for instance.

DrDea · « **Reply #19 on:** March 30, 2003, 10:26:53 PM »

Dunno.We started this with half the men,no month long bombing effort first and now were invading an entire country.Tommy Franks is no idiot.He lost his leg below the Knee in 'Nam and swore he would keep the faith with his troops if he ever had the chance to do so.I think Dumbsfield is shineing on Bush and the rest of us by thinking that we were just gonna waltz in there with half the ability we had in the first incident we had with Iraq.They obviously werent ready for what they are getting into.

Nash · « **Reply #20 on:** March 30, 2003, 10:30:18 PM »

Yup - saw yer post in another thread DMF and thought it was great.

I think in this case there are several key players (including Rumsfeld) about which there's been a lot of print generated wrt their stances on bigger/smaller military and of what type. Also their speculation as to what would be needed to get the job done in Iraq. The story towd posted is pretty much parallel to what we've been hearing for months, so...

You may be right that it's driven by personal agendas, but the gist of the story can't simply be dismissed because of the source or the political infighting that preceded it.

Hangtime · « **Reply #21 on:** March 30, 2003, 10:34:13 PM »

seems like we've had more than enough force to handle the opposition.

where, outside of the media, do you see a problem with performance of the military on the road to their objectives?

Nash · « **Reply #22 on:** March 30, 2003, 11:08:04 PM »

I haven't seen anything myself... but then again I know squat about military strat. If there's been enough troops, why are they bringing in more? The behind the scenes doubt and bickering that's starting to emerge is a clue that something isn't going as hoped.

From my unlearned perspective the war is going just fine, the casualties have been super low... so... I don't know.

Hangtime · « **Reply #23 on:** March 30, 2003, 11:14:10 PM »

so, essentialy, the rumor mill should be allowed to affect war planning.

sit back; relax, and watch the talking heads sir up a shiite storm in their toilet bowls.

Nash · « **Reply #24 on:** March 30, 2003, 11:32:55 PM »

The rumour mill isn't affecting the war planning... the rumour mill is discussing the war planning.

When you have a bunch of civilians interfering in war strat (like that other war), and there are military professionals starting to rant a bit... voila! ya've got an interesting story.

Some of these wannabe strategists were estimating 40 thousand troops would be enough.

Hangtime · « **Reply #25 on:** March 30, 2003, 11:51:59 PM »

Quote

military professionals starting to rant a bit...

LOL.. thats what i find so dubious.. what professional military senior officer would rant to the media?

now, senior officer to senior officer debates would be intresting to listen to.

Nash · « **Reply #26 on:** March 31, 2003, 12:19:31 AM »

Why not?

Maybe "rant" was a poor choice of words.. but the guy quoted is a senior Pentagon planner and he's obviously pissed. He said Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon planners. And he said it to the media.

You think Pentagon folks don't talk to the press? You think Hersh (who won a Pulitzer Prize and has been a writer for the Post and New York Times since before breaking the My Lai massacre in South Vietnam) sat down at his computer over the weekend and was inspired to dream up this story at the instistance of his imaginary friend?

Geeze....

Rasker · « **Reply #27 on:** March 31, 2003, 12:50:14 AM »

be nice to start organizing some reliable Shiites in the south to help with some of the grunt work down there (as soon as they can sneak out of Basra without getting shot by Saddams people that is)

Rasker · « **Reply #28 on:** March 31, 2003, 12:51:31 AM »

say Nash, is the girl in the background the little sister of the bigger girl in the foreground

Rasker · « **Reply #29 on:** March 31, 2003, 12:54:11 AM »

come to think of it, the 40,000 armed Kurds are pretty tough, wonder how much bad political fallout if some brought down to help on the southern front?