October 4th, 2004

eye

i watch fox news

on the o'reilly factor just now a woman interviewed rumsfeld, asking why nobody had been fired for the intelligence failures before the iraq war. after his non answer, o'reilly said to his guest that he would instead have asked why our intelligence didn't predict the chaos after the war. his guest (british) gave a novel explanation. the reason we had so much difficulty after the war was that turkey didn't allow us to use them as a staging base for a second flank, coming down through bathist territory. because of that, most of the fighting took place in the sunni triangle and most of the bathists were able to disperse and become insurgents. good arguement.

but...

what does that say about the people who should have negotiated more effectively with the turks, from bush on down the line, and what does it say about rumsfeld, going ahead with the war before we were able to do it effectively?