Reply #5: 'Fungible' snip and link to briefing transcript

[soup]

Q Mr. Secretary, can I ask you about your opening statement? You said that the challenge in Fallujah is being contained and that the situation in the south has largely stabilized. And I wonder, if that's the case, why then is it necessary to keep extra troops in Iraq for 90 days?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, the reason it's contained is because we have the extra troops there. That's self-evident.

Q (Off mike.)

SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, come on. People are fungible. You can have them here or there. The fact of the matter is, we've made a judgment and we've announced the judgment. It's very clear. You understand it -- everyone in the room understands it -- that we needed additional -- the commander decided he would like to retain in-country an additional plus or minus 20,000 people, and that's what we're doing.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040415-secdef0622.html
-----

He grew increasingly testy and nasty throughout the question portion of the briefing. His 'must be a problem with your hearing aids' bit later on was demeaning and dismissive. One reporter came back with:

Q -- in the last week. Yet we have heard from February and before that that the military, for the reasons you have articulated again today, General Pace, anticipated a rise of dead-enders, et cetera, to thwart the June 30th handover. What I'm failing to understand -- and my hearing aid has a new battery, sir -- is that, if you anticipated this upsurge in violence, why would it be that you did not anticipate U.S. and coalition troops coming under heavier attack if you expect more violence? And two, why would you have to wait until now to start to temporarily delay the exodus of troops rotating out?