Liquid Lunching With Rummie

By Cernig

Audio segments from the Pentagon's document dump reveal that fun and games were had by all at a Christmastime 2006 luncheon hosted by Donald Rumsfield for the Pentagon's pet military analysts:

As documented by Newsvine, it all went down at a valedictory luncheon Rumsfeld hosted for those analysts on December 12, 2006. Many of the "message force multipliers" named in the original New York Times piece were in attendance, including David L. Grange, Donald W. Sheppard, James Marks, Rick Francona, Wayne Downing, and Robert H. Scales, Jr. They were treated to an extraordinary conversation (Newsvine has highlights, the hour-long clip of which can be found here) with Rumsfeld, that included many jaw-dropping moments, such as Rumsfeld admitting that in Iraq, the U.S. "can't lose militarily, but...can't win by military means alone," an agreement that Iraq could use a Syngman Rhee-type dictator (because that's what democracy smells like!), and a lengthy passage where Rumsfeld jokingly offers a bottle of champagne to anyone who could kill Moqtada al Sadr. You sure don't see too many people joking on al Sadr these days!

But by far the most extraordinary part of this luncheon is the antipathy the gathered members exhibit toward the American people for having the temerity to vote the Democrats back into power. When Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong bemoans the lack of "sympathetic ears" on Capitol Hill, Rumsfeld offers that the American people lack "the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats." What's to be done? According to Rumsfeld, "The correction for that, I suppose, is [another] attack."

The horrible lack of honesty and competence displayed by the Worst SecDef Ever when he talks about "winning" only by political means in Iraq or that Sadr isn't a military threat who can only raise protest crowds can be directly tied to the lost lives of US troops. But that almost pales into insignificance compared to the stunning admission of what we DFH's have suspected all this time - that the Bush administration love terrorists and the war on terror for their Republican get-out-the-vote qualities. There's simply no way anyone connected with or supportive of this administration's policies in the War on Terror can be trusted to keep the nation safe if they're actively wishing for disaster to bolster their party's election hopes.

Bush, for instance, yesterday warned that the Democratic presidential candidates' plans to withdraw abruptly from Iraq could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States" and would "embolden" terrorists. How else are we to see that now, after hearing such words from his own first-pick SecDef, but as simple fearmongering for political ends?

Oh, and just for future reference, the shunnable shills who happily sat there and listened to Rummie wish for a new 9/11 because it would boost Republican fortunes among the immature American public were: