Saturday, February 05, 2005

Rumsfeld concedes violence in Iraq is likely to persist

??excuse me??
From the
Financial Times "Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, said on Thursday that the completion of successful elections in Iraq was unlikely to lead to a decrease in violence.
Mr Rumsfeld said he doubted that the election would change the minds of extremists who have been mounting the insurgency against the US-led coalition forces since last year.

'I expect that level of violence and insurgency to continue," Mr Rumsfeld, who last year described the insurgents as a few 'dead-enders', said at a press briefing."
soo, why is this statement being made in The Financial Times? could this be referencing the early 04 Bremer dinars frenzy?........can't cash them in yet, guys... could it also be that Halliburton hasn't yet maxed out enough of a profit to cover their costs over the recent suit payouts? Why exactly did the US push for these elections to be held? For the happy happy kittens coverage?

----"Mr Rumsfeld also told reporters he had not decided whether to attend an important security conference in Munich next week. One factor influencing his decision, he said, was a lawsuit filed in Germany by the US-based Center for Constitutional Rights accusing him of war crimes over Abu Ghraib.
I wouldn't go if I were you, DR

Earlier Thursday Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, rejected claims by some Democrats that the US occupation was encouraging Iraqis to join a “nationalist insurgency”.
“Our enemy in Iraq is not the Iraqi people . . . It is an unholy alliance of old terrorists and new terrorists,” Mr Wolfowitz told the Senate armed services committee.

--an unholy alliance of old and new terrorists---aren't you a member of PNAC, Mr. Wolfowitz? The kettle should quit calling the pot black.

support CODEPINK and Human Rights First--indict them, get them out of the seats of power


Post a Comment

<< Home