Today on the Hill, Hillary Clinton accused Donald Rumsfeld of giving optimistic assessments of the War on Terrorism in the past.  She then asked why anybody should believe him now.

Rumsfeld responded:

"I don’t think that’s true. I have never painted a rosy picture. I have been very measured in my words, and you’d have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I have been excessively optimistic."

Dickens of a time?  Hardly:

Dec. 18, 2002: KING: What’s the current situation in Afghanistan? RUMSFELD: It is encouraging. They have elected a government through the Loya Jirga process. The Taliban are gone. The al Qaeda are gone.

Feb. 7, 2003: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Feb. 20 2003: "’Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?’ Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS’ The News Hour. ‘There is no question but that they would be welcomed,’ Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces."

Mar. 30, 2003: "It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

BONUS RUMSFELD QUOTE OF THE DAY:

"Are there still Taliban around? You bet. Are they occupying safe havens in Afghanistan and other places — correction, in Pakistan and other places? Certainly they are. Is the violence up? Yes. Does the violence tend to be up during the summer, in the spring, summer and fall months? Yes it does. And it tends to decline during the winter period. Does that represent failed policy? I don’t know. I would say not."

So violence in Afghanistan is up, except it is less "up" 3 months out of the year.  This is why, in Rumsfeld’s view, the policy is working.

WTF?