more lies from this administration?
Dec. 10th, 2004 11:05 amSo is *THIS* proof of another lie?
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53719-2004Dec9.html
yes, it may have been because mobilizing so many troops would leave far too few @ home (but that's almost happening anyways), but lets not f'in' lie about it. if you had your reasons for reduced troop counts, just say so. JUSTIFY your decisions and we'll likely forgive you for a mistake.
Fscking lie about it and we'll just hate you and everybody connected with your administration even more.
Even more remarkably, he shifted all blame for what many believe to have been a woefully inadequate troop commitment. "The big debate about the number of troops is one of those things that's really out of my control," he said. Out of the defense secretary's control? "I mean, everyone likes to assign responsibility to the top person and I guess that's fine," Mr. Rumsfeld explained. "But the number of troops we had for the invasion was the number of troops that General Franks and General Abizaid wanted." But reporting by Bob Woodward and others shows Mr. Rumsfeld ordering Gen. Tommy R. Franks to rewrite plans for Iraq to reduce the number of troops; the one general who said he thought more would be needed for postwar control, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, found himself unwanted in Mr. Rumsfeld's Pentagon.[emphasis mine]
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53719-2004Dec9.html
yes, it may have been because mobilizing so many troops would leave far too few @ home (but that's almost happening anyways), but lets not f'in' lie about it. if you had your reasons for reduced troop counts, just say so. JUSTIFY your decisions and we'll likely forgive you for a mistake.
Fscking lie about it and we'll just hate you and everybody connected with your administration even more.