I'm watching Rumsfeld's briefing on C-SPAN before bed, because I like heartburn. The lies, denials, and sidesteps are fun enough, but then there's just the plain dumbness. A reporter noticed that he has eschewed the term “insurgents” and asked him why he no longer dignifies the enemy with that label. He said he decided over the weekend that such a term would bestow undeserved legitimacy on their violence, because they are attacking a “legitimate government of Iraq, with its own constitution.” This rhetorical move seems to concede the point that it would be an insurgency of we, as an occupying force, were the target, rather than the Iraqi population and/or government (since his parry is based on the target rather than the tactic). “But you look it up for me,” Rummy concluded, in deference to the fact that he didn't really know what the hell he was talking about; so I did.

in·sur·gen·cy (n): an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict

Yeah, that doesn't sound anything like what's going on in Iraq according to Rumsfeld.



Read more filed under Uncategorized