and my brain began leaking out of my ear. Seriously, this newspeak is getting to me.

Could Rumsfeld's quote also have gone like this and had the same meaning:

"Perhaps Iraq has fallen into civil war and perhaps it hasn't. If it hasn't, maybe it will. Or...maybe it wont. But if and when it ever does, or has already, I am not going to be the one who makes that assessment or declaration. And why should I? How do you think that would make me look? For Christ's sakes, I am the one of the major players who got us into this and said it would be a walk in the park. I even fired generals and others who dared to predict the exact shit storm I...errr WE...find ourselves in. Rummy out."

I think that is what he really said.

Cut and Run.

War on Terror

Stand down when they stand up.

9/11.

Never forget the lessons of 9/11.

9/11.

Oh gosh, oh golly, I really do have more important things to do than to speculate about the vague meanings of words like civil and war. As I've said before there are known knowns, in other words there are things we know we know. And there are known unknowns, in other words there are things we know we don't know. And of course, there are unknown unknowns and gosh darn it, golly gee whiz, those are the darnedest things for naysayers to focus on right now when there are so many other ... well, you know. And I've said from the begining that Iraq was going to be untidy. And by untidy, I mean things are not going to be very nice and ... well, tidy, if you get my meaning. There will be times when things look tidy, and times when things look untidy, but golly gee whiz, the negativity! Oh my! You know I thought about the words civil war last night for a few minutes. Who can really say it's a civil war or not? I mean, some people are going to say it is, and others will say it isn't. Golly gee, gosh darn, aw shucks.

Rumsfeld says "Oh, I don't know...You know, I thought about that last night, and, just musing over the words, the phrase, and what constitutes it ... It clearly is being stimulated by people who would like to have what could be characterized as a civil war and win it, but I'm not going to be the one to decide if, when or at all."

His answer has three parts: "Oh, I don't know." is the first, so I guess we can take it that he either doesn't know or can't decide. The second part is where he tells us that he was pondering what exactly the phrase "civil war" means. To most people, a civil war is a large scale conflict waged within the boundaries of a single country or nation, by factions or groups native to that nation; this is clearly not succint enough for Rumsfeld. The third part refers to "It", which is something that is not a civil war. This thing is being "stimulated" by people who clearly would like to transform it into a civil war, and subsequently win it. If this were to happen, Rumsfeld is "...not going to be the one to decide..." to what extent, if any, this thing that they do is or is not a civil war.

So I guess he's saying this: "I don't know if it's a civil war, the definition of a civil war is very complex, there is something in Iraq that some people would like to turn into a civil war, but if and when it does become a civil war, I won't be the one to name it as such."

Quite simple, really.

Rummie, is that one of those "unknown unknowns that we don't know about"?

No WONDER we're in such as mess over there. What a moron.

I don't know, I kind of like Rumsfeld. From a comedy standpoint he is precious, priceless even. Unlike his boss (Bush) he at least has a very firm grasp of the language and can think on his toes. And unlike his actual boss (Dick) he is avuncular and even smiles. Infuriating? you bet. I would definitely prefer a differnt defense secretary, but I'd like a lot of things to be different, so here I risk being a pseudo-apologist.

As to the NIE are we really to believe that the president has not been breifed on Iraq by intelligence officers since 2004? Please. Like everything else official in Washington the NIE -- or lack of it -- is nothing more than a politcal tool and statement. They know what's going on over there and we don't really need to know until it's politically expedient. Until then we are to cobble together what we can from news sources that are, truthfully, much more trustworthy than the government.

I wouldn't expect the NIE until after the elections, if at all. National Security like everything else in the Bush administration is a matter of political manipulation. The NIE, that is an thoroughly researched and objective NIE, would be extremely helpful to a government that based its decisions on facts and and electorate that based its decisions on a deep understanding of the issues and problems the country faces. Even if Negroponte were to publish an objective and well-researched NIE, the chances of Bush or the public actually reading and understanding it are small.

That comment by Rumsfeld is so appalling I can't find the words to describe it.

These are the leaders of the free world? While he's "musing" over a Civil War in Iraq, American soldiers are being killed and maimed by bombs in a war good ol' Don is just not sure exists.

You all realize don't you that we seem to have the same geniuses in power, as we did during Vietnam. Did they learn NOTHING? Well, I guess not, since their money, power, and status all depend on them NOT learning anything, as Upton Sinclair put it so well.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and Rice...they should ALL go to prison, for a nice long time, to think about their perfidy. But, of course, chickenshit dems will never go after them, assuming the dems can take congress in the Fall..an assumption far from assured.