i (i) wrote,
i
i

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?
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 3 comments