Army general says Rumsfeld refused to plan for post-war Iraq

Daily Press ^ | September 08, 2006 | Stephanie Heinatz

[Jeff Chandler]

The left is coming out full force before the elections to cement anti-Bush sentiments in the minds of the electorate.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Come on. Face it, the first time someone comes out saying they 'planned' for post-war Iraq, then it was all about oil.
Instead, they say, we look for contingencies but don't have a 'plan' because this would send the already moonbats right over the bridge (not that they need help.)

Besides, thus far all of the criticism from Generals have come from folks who don't or didn't report to Rumsfeld.
Curious that.

[YOUGOTIT]

And who is this dumb nut Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid What was his rank when he said he heard the Secretary of Defense say that? Did he have a rank or was he just a democrat mole? I am sick and tired of these so called Generals talking through their hats and telling lies one after another. Do not let the nut retire and court martial him for disclosing lies and helping the enemy.

Scum Bag!

[Racehorse]

Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq.

Firing General Shineski, effective on the date Shinseki set for his retirement a year earlier, has to rank as the neatest trick Rumsfeld done done yet. Dontcha think?

Who does the fact checking for Stephanie Heinatz? Obviously, her editor doesn't care to do it.

[ElPatriota]

Who in the world could have predicted what those nuts over there would do? I don't remember having seen any faction so intent on killing innocent people... They seem to relish in blood. Never seen anyone making videos of killing people and on and on and on.

You mean the LEFT is pretending that they would have figured it out? No, the left will BEND OVER and let world s**** us and they will smile doing it. APPEASEMENT is what they know.

[NurdlyPeon]

Or maybe he just wanted them to concentrate on winning the war first, rather than thinking about what they were going to do after they won.

[rlmorel]

He is at Fort Eustis. Anyone ever been there?

I think it is an Army backwater, perhaps better known for its proximity to the Naval bases than anything else.

It sure ain't Fort Bragg.

[DTogo]

Yeah, and Eisenhower had the whole post-war reconstruction of Europe laid out on June 6th, 1944.

[balch3]

courtmartial him and bust him down to private.

[rocksblues]

the neatest trick Rumsfeld done done yet. Dontcha think?

Absolutely Rovian!

[FlingWingFlyer]

Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid. Let me see. Be My Little General.

A ONE STAR? Gimme a break. Shut up general.

[Txsleuth]

I certainly remember being told that they figured it would take a long time to take the country and especially Bahgdad...and that they thought they were going to have to go "door to door" in Baghdad, fighting the fedayeen...

I totally remember Franks saying they were shocked at how quickly they "won" and that that was one of the reason for the confusion...they hadn't planned to be there that quick...and didn't have the plans worked out...

I cannot believe Rummy said what this guy says he said...FOR THE REASON that he states....and we already know the article has one lie in it ...when it says that Rummy got rid of Shinseki...and Shinseki's leaving had nothing to do with his recommendation for the number of troops sent to Iraq.

[roses of sharon]

LOL, another BDS victim, maybe he developed the syndrome while skimming DU?

[reformedliberal]

It is going to cement Bush Derangement Syndrome only in those who already have it. You cannot argue with them. Moonbats are running around in my area muttering that the Republicans are bringing the price of gas down just to win the election.

We really have to hold the line in November. No teaching RINOs lessons, no teaching the GOP a lesson (although I understand the impulse). We need to crawl naked over broken glass, if necessary and GOTV. These people are frickin' dangerous.

As for Rumsfeld planning for the aftermath: that is and always has been the job of the Iraqi people and I have heard Rummy, Bush and Cheney, as well as Condi say that or things to that effect repeatedly.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRR! I am so angry!

[longtermmemmory]

another Weasley Clark looking to cry out because his 1970's style career was going to end.

[caisson71]

Ft. Eustis is the Army's Transportation center, located in the Tidewater area, known to many of us who have been there as "backwater country".

[Remole]

I've read quite a bit about the pre-war planning, and here's my conclusion: no matter what we would have done, and no matter what we would have found on the ground in Iraq, it was going to be wrong. NOt in the sense that it was wrong to take out SH, but the entire endeavor was going to contain problems such that the US/Allied presence was going to inherit a snake pit. Yes, what eventually did occur has led to problems. But there is nothing to suggest that the possible alternatives would have been fool-proof. For example, the General who said that we should have gone in with 450,000 troops (see Mark Helprin on the same suggestion): ok, fine, but if you thought 145,000 troops would have been condemned as an occupation force, how do you think 3X that number would have been seen? And another poster is right--as soon as any post-hostilities plan would have made it into the front page of the NYT, it would have been seen as a ploy to take over the oil.

[stuartcr]

Must be a GINO.

[Alia]

Rumsfeld was absolutely CORRECT to not allow "talk" about post-war Iraq Plan.

All it would do is have brought about another OIL FOR FOOD scam, which again, we wouldn't find out about until a lot of innocent people were being murdered under a shadow government regime spanning multi-nations.