[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by Jimbo
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz have resisted calling the fighting in Iraq a guerrilla war or an insurgency. During a June 30, 2003, press briefing, roughly one month after the U.S. military ceased major combat operations, Rumsfeld said he wasn't using the term "guerrilla war" because "there isn't one." He cited former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, foreign fighters and common
criminals as responsible for attacking U.S. and coalition troops.
"They're all slightly different in why they're there and what they're doing," Rumsfeld said. "That doesn't make it anything like a guerrilla war or an organized resistance. It makes it like five different things going on that are functioning much more like terrorists."

As recently as this June, Wolfowitz told the Senate Armed Services Committee and a television interviewer that what the U.S. faced in Iraq was not "an insurgency." He argued that the fighting is a continuation of what the U.S. military faced when it invaded Iraq last year.

Aren't these guys completely wrong?