Not quite right in the headline
The headline of today's New York Times article is Iraqi Forces Would Handle Any Civil War, Rumsfeld Says. Only he didn't say that exactly. Here's the full story:
[Robert Byrd] pressed Mr. Rumsfeld for assurances that any emergency money approved "won't be used to put our troops right in the middle of a full-blown Iraqi civil war.""Senator, I can say that certainly it is not the intention of the military commanders to allow that to happen," Mr. Rumsfeld replied. "The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the — from a security standpoint — have the Iraqi security forces deal with it to the extent they're able to." Emphasis added.
Since the extent that they're able to is not at all, the only possible continuation of that thought is that US troops will indeed step in. Of course, the whole premise of Rumsfeld's answer is ridiculous. He makes it sound like the Iraqi security forces would be trying to stop a civil war, rather than, you know, win it.
Update: Fred Kaplan doesn't fall for it: "It's a tossup which is more galling: that Donald Rumsfeld digs himself a few feet deeper with each remark he makes before a congressional committee, or that his interrogators don't seem to notice."
Comments
rumsfeld is amazing.
Posted by: a | March 10, 2006 10:11 AM
Well said.
A, too.
Posted by: TG Gibbon | March 10, 2006 11:09 AM
Good catch. I had exactly the same reaction when I read that line: "to the extent they're able to, which is not at all."
Posted by: Vance | March 10, 2006 12:05 PM
"Our plan is to have a plan. And we have some of the best planners in the country working on this. And they all agree that the plan we have, which is to come up with a plan, is a good plan. So that's what we intend to do."
Posted by: Francis | March 10, 2006 1:15 PM