Earlier today, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press briefing which included his usual talking points, obfuscations and impatience…but he did say one thing that really stood out:

You know, there’s a saying for people who miss the mark consistently, and they say that person has an instinct for the capillaries, as opposed to the more important arteries…It should be a bit embarrassing for people to see what’s going on.

One wonders if Mr. Rumsfeld is a bit embarrassed about this claim about WMD in Iraq:

We know where the weapons are. They’re in the area about Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, north and south, somewhat.

In fact, it seems that Donald Rumsfeld has an incredibly well developed instinct for the capillaries…

Perhaps that instinct explains this pre-war claim by Rumsfeld:

His regime has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons — including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox — and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.

And it must have been a gut-capillary-instinct that led to this decision:

What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark.

Yes, that’s worked out well for us…it’s a good thing Rumsfeld didn’t take the advice of General Shinseki.  Besides, how long could the war last?

It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

“Missing the mark consistently” has been the hallmark of Donald Rumsfeld and this administration…one wonders if Rumsfeld recognized the irony of his asinine statement about who should be “a bit” embarrassed…somehow I doubt it.

Update: I really should have said that Rumsfeld said two things that really stood out…the capillaries remark and this:

Q: So where do we stand as far as Osama bin Laden or this connection of terrorism and the nuclear?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I suppose the answer would be roughly this, that where we stand is that we’ve not caught Osama bin Laden.

Roughly? Roughly?

Crossposted at ePluribus Media and Daily Kos

0 0 votes
Article Rating