About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CNN's Blitzer uncritically reported Rumsfeld's assertion that "there was not an anticipation" of Iraqi insurgency

September 29, 2006 8:44 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: CNN's Wolf Blitzer uncritically aired Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's false assertion that "there was not an anticipation that the level of the insurgency" in Iraq "would be approximating what it is." But some people -- including military and foreign policy experts -- did anticipate a violent insurgency if the United States invaded Iraq.

10 Comments

On the September 28 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer uncritically aired Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's false assertion that "there was not an anticipation that the level of the insurgency" in Iraq "would be approximating what it is." A September 28 CNN.com article described Rumsfeld's comment as "admit[ting] that no one was well-prepared for what would happen after major combat ended." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, some people did anticipate a violent insurgency if the United States invaded Iraq, including the Army War College and former members of the George H.W. Bush administration.

USA Today reported on October 24, 2004, that "[m]ilitary and civilian intelligence agencies repeatedly warned prior to the invasion that Iraqi insurgent forces were preparing to fight and that their ranks would grow as other Iraqis came to resent the U.S. occupation and organize guerrilla attacks." The same USA Today article also noted an Army War College report published in February 2003 suggesting that military planners should expect a lengthy insurgency. Although the report did not offer a time frame for the length of the insurgency, it stated that "[t]he longer U.S. presence is maintained, the more likely violent resistance will develop." One part of the Army War College report stated that the United States could eventually become trapped between an "impatient" Iraqi population, which would resort to "violent measures to hasten the departure of U.S. forces," and the fact that "a premature withdrawal from Iraq could lead to instability and perhaps even civil war."

Warnings about a prolonged and violent insurgency were not limited to official intelligence and military documents. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 31, 2002, Morton H. Halperin, then a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, warned that the United States should be prepared "to fight the war in the streets of Baghdad ... and to accept the risk of very substantial casualties." In his statement, Halperin predicted that U.S. troops could be forced to occupy Iraq "for a very long time at very great expense in treasure but also in risk to lives." New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wondered, in a September 27, 2002, column, if "America [is] really prepared for hundreds of casualties, even thousands, in an invasion and subsequent occupation that could last many years," because "an invasion of Iraq may not be the cakewalk that the White House expects."

Media Matters has also noted that projections of post-invasion instability in Iraq had surfaced in 1991 following the first Gulf War.

From the September 28 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: Donald Rumsfeld is one of the men responsible for conducting the war in Iraq. Recently, he talked about the raging insurgency in Iraq in a special CNN documentary. Take a listen to this.

RUMSFELD [video clip]: Well, I think that anyone who looks at it with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight has to say that there -- there was not an anticipation that the level of the insurgency would be anything approximating what it is.

BLITZER: In a new CNN poll, 35 percent of Americans say they have a favorable opinion of Donald Rumsfeld. That's down from a 58-percent favorable rating back in 2003.

But what do Americans really know about the defense secretary? That new CNN documentary we just mentioned profiles Donald Rumsfeld. It's called Man of War and is narrated, reported by our own CNN special contributor Frank Sesno. Frank's joining us now live from the CNN Center.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by njguy93 (September 29, 2006 9:11 pm ET)
         

      After Bush made the 'comma' remark to Bush, the whore Leslie (Wolf) Blitzer didn't even follow up on it with Bush. This guy is a blatant charlatan.

      THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (September 29, 2006 10:35 pm ET)
         

      Every time something blows up in the face of the Bush Administration showing just how incompetent they are, we always get the same old sleazy "no one anticipated it" BS, despite the existence of plenty of expert analysis and prediction in all cases.

      They did it with 9/11:

      [link to www.crooksandliars.com]

      They did it did it with the levee breaches brought on by Hurricane Katriana:

      [link to mediamatters.org]

      And Rummy's doing it with the Iraq insurgency.

      Why does this failed excuse of a presidency have such a huge problem with admitting fault or admitting error? It just sickens me that there are still people who believe this administration still gets a passing grade.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by solon (September 30, 2006 12:42 am ET)
         

      The left was saying all along that we would face an urban guerilla warfare campaign. I was saying it. This administration just lies all the time. They dont even bother to attempt credible lies they just toss off anything thats serviceable no matter how insanely contrary to reality it is.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by west1 (September 30, 2006 9:15 am ET)
         

      Besides the fact that there were plenty of people warning of a quagmire once we got into Iraq, and that it is natural that a population is going to resist occupation by a foreign power, didn't Bush #1 stop before getting to Baghdad because he didn't want to get into a quagmire?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (September 30, 2006 2:34 pm ET)
         

      That an all Republican government would be incompetent and act callous toward the plight of anybody but the rich. Predictably elitist and corporation centric. With them it's all about turning a dishonest dollar, preferably with a litter of corpses left in the wake of their ravening desire for wealth.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (September 30, 2006 9:14 pm ET)
         

      Now you can test your ability to post something relevant to the discussion, LOL.

      J/K

      Report Abuse
    • Author by walter66 (October 01, 2006 1:53 pm ET)
         

      ....axiom in the military that goes you hope for the best but plan for the worst?

      rove's October surpise........getting rid of Rumsfeld

      Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (October 01, 2006 1:58 pm ET)
         

      He has no business sending Americans into harms way. And if he was wrong in not anticipating an insurgency, he should have been removed the minute it became clear that there was one. His remaining in power is criminal.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by roundhouse (October 01, 2006 3:22 pm ET)
         

      Rummie most definitely had no idea an insurgency was inevitable. Governance in a bubble never yields insight or anticipation. Next huge oversight: 'How could anyone have anticipated this country would fall into a dictatorship.'

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.