April 18th, 2004



From Iraq war based on 'flawed' logic, says US military scholar:

""I certainly would not have estimated that we would have had the number of individuals lost in -- that we have had lost in the last week," [Rumsfeld] told reporters."

Lost in what? The _war_ perhaps? It would really suck to admit that we're still at war, wouldn't it? Among other things, that might mean that we might have to deal with militia groups that capture US soldiers, seem to be treating them in accord with the Geneva Convention, and wish to exchange POWs, as something other than terrorists, huh?

Of course they're quite happy to bring up the term war when it suits their purposes: "Cheney and Rumsfeld argued that in time of war, there are few limits on what a president can do to protect the country." (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040418/nysu009a_1.html)

And towards the end of the first article: "He said Rumsfeld's office had dismissed all arguments in favor of a larger contingent as "old-think""

"Old-think"? Is that supposed to be as opposed to "new-think," or to "goodthink"?