Paul Bremer was on Hannity and Colmes last night. Specifically, he was interviewed by Sean Hannity.
After the usual tripe about "How could you say anything against the Bush administration? You hurt our troops if you don't worship Dubya!" (brought up in relation to Bremer bringing out that he had requested more troops and was rejected), Sean Hannity actually asked Bremer a good question.
I don't have a transcript, but Sean Hannity essentially asked him why the administration did not anticipate an insurgency.
His response was that all of the intelligence was dedicated to the WMD issue.
I say, so what? Can't you tell that fire is hot and water is wet without intelligence data? The real question, of course, is, "why didn't you consider the possibility of an insurgency and dedicate intelligence to it?" I mean, a reasonably intelligent (no pun intended) five-year-old should be able to tell that when you invade a foreign country, they will fight you. They should have prepared even without intelligence data, just on the basis of common sense, and they should have been smart enough to know to gather intelligence.
The real answer, of course, is either one of two possibilities:
(a) That the administration was so blinded by its own propaganda that it thought that we would be welcomed as liberators and then we could just get around to rebuilding the country with the support of all of the Iraqis.
(b) It decided to lie about the insurgency it knew would happen, figuring that it needed to lie in order to get support for the Iraq Attaq. Perhaps Rumsfeld or Bush thought that if they could get us into the war, then they could figure out how to quash the insurgency later. Or perhaps, they plan a brutal, brutal, put-down, as suggested by Michael Schwartz, but realized that they need to get us good and desperate first.
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment