I saw the news broadcast of the hearings and saw exactly the scene you are referring to. You completely left out this comment by Gen. John Abizaid:
"I believe there are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six months ago." Of course, it needs to be put in context: "We see good progress in both Iraq and Afghanistan... But we are realistic. And we know that great change is often accompanied with violence. We are not trying to paint a rosy picture," But the fact remains that he is describing an event completely different than Dick Cheney's version of Iraq: "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." Matthew Small Web Developer American City Business Journals 704-973-1045 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 7:03 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: speaking of Do you mean the Weinberger doctrine? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/26/04646.shtml Kennedy's 'Rummy' Attack Backfired Sen. Ted Kennedy's attempt during Thursday's Armed Services Committee hearings to embarrass Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by calling on him to resign over the "Iraq quagmire" got major TV and radio coverage. But what happened next wound up on the cutting room floor of most news broadcasts. At the hearing, Rumsfeld was flanked by three four-star generals. And each one of them blew Kennedy's criticism out of the water. According to quotes picked up by the Washington Times, Army Gen. George Casey told the Massachusetts Democrat: "As the commander in Iraq, I would like to put myself on the record, Senator Kennedy, as saying that I also agree with the secretary that to represent the situation in Iraq as a quagmire is a misrepresentation of the facts. Senator, that is not a quagmire." Next up was Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, Joint Chiefs chairman. He told Kennedy: "It's clearly not a quagmire. ... The term has been used loosely, and it's not accurate in my estimation." Then the top commander in the region, Army Gen. John Abizaid, weighed in, saying the last thing he wanted to see was a Rumsfeld resignation. "When it comes to toughness and stick-to-itiveness and fighting the enemy the way they need to be fought, I'm standing by the secretary," he pledged. On 6/29/05, SStewart wrote: > Regardless, if we had followed the Powell doctrine, and hit Iraq with an overwhelming *international* force, this would all be over and our troops would be home. > > Instead we follow the doctrine of a man (Rumsfeld)with no practical military experience, who's been at odds with the Joint Chiefs, the very people he should be taking his cues and advice from since day one.. Who has cost thousands of lives unecessisarily, and put the US Armed Forces in a Vietnam sized quagmire without any sensible plan for progression or completion. > > Whether or not we should be there, IMO is irrelevant at this point. Define the mission, finish the mission expeditiously, and bring the fighting men and women home. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:162438 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
