Full Version: Rumsfeld Speaks to American Legion
On Wednesday night’s Countdown, Keith Olbermann delivered a blistering commentary on Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld’s recent speech to the American Legion. The piece is provided in full on Olbermann’s blog.
It is difficult to edit Olbermann’s commentary down to six paragraphs, so please click the link and read the whole article.
Keith Olberman's Commentary
Questions for Debate:
1. In general, do you agree or disagree with Olbermann’s analysis?
2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
3. Are Rumsfeld, along with Bush and Cheney, profiting by creating fear in the American public?
4. Was Rumsfeld’s speech a blast, not just the Democratic Party, but the American people who disagree with the administration’s programs and tactics?
5. Has Rumsfeld crossed the line? Should he resign or be removed? Would it make any difference at this point?
QUOTE
The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.
Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.
<snip>
For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.
Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.
<snip>
History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.
<snip>
Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.
Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.
<snip>
For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.
Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.
<snip>
History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.
<snip>
Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.
It is difficult to edit Olbermann’s commentary down to six paragraphs, so please click the link and read the whole article.
Keith Olberman's Commentary
Questions for Debate:
1. In general, do you agree or disagree with Olbermann’s analysis?
2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
3. Are Rumsfeld, along with Bush and Cheney, profiting by creating fear in the American public?
4. Was Rumsfeld’s speech a blast, not just the Democratic Party, but the American people who disagree with the administration’s programs and tactics?
5. Has Rumsfeld crossed the line? Should he resign or be removed? Would it make any difference at this point?
1. In general, do you agree or disagree with Olbermann’s analysis?
I have been for years now.
2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
Elections.
3. Are Rumsfeld, along with Bush and Cheney, profiting by creating fear in the American public?
They have been for years now.
4. Was Rumsfeld’s speech a blast, not just the Democratic Party, but the American people who disagree with the administration’s programs and tactics?
Like my responses above, its just business as usual for our fair gang of thugs.
5. Has Rumsfeld crossed the line? Should he resign or be removed? Would it make any difference at this point?
He should be deported, it would make a ton of difference on many levels at home and abroad.
I have been for years now.
2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
Elections.
3. Are Rumsfeld, along with Bush and Cheney, profiting by creating fear in the American public?
They have been for years now.
4. Was Rumsfeld’s speech a blast, not just the Democratic Party, but the American people who disagree with the administration’s programs and tactics?
Like my responses above, its just business as usual for our fair gang of thugs.
5. Has Rumsfeld crossed the line? Should he resign or be removed? Would it make any difference at this point?
He should be deported, it would make a ton of difference on many levels at home and abroad.
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 1 2006, 08:08 AM) 
Questions for Debate:
1. In general, do you agree or disagree with Olbermann’s analysis?
2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
3. Are Rumsfeld, along with Bush and Cheney, profiting by creating fear in the American public?
4. Was Rumsfeld’s speech a blast, not just the Democratic Party, but the American people who disagree with the administration’s programs and tactics?
5. Has Rumsfeld crossed the line? Should he resign or be removed? Would it make any difference at this point?
Interesting blog on the part of Mr. Olbermann (in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a big fan of his, particularly TMQ). As to the questions:
1) Generally, I do see some of his points, if not with the same level of passion he does. I think it's clear that the Bush administration has not always made the most sound of decisions and does seem to have a created an internal culture of self-reinforcement rather than self critique. The analogy between Bush's government and Chamberlain's is one worth considering (although I admit I had never thought of it).
2) I'm not sure these are either-or considerations. I'm quite sure the speech is sincere and the beliefs in it sincerely held. Likewise, I'm sure it's timing and audience are politically motivated. But then again, Rumsfeld is a politician. In fact, given his belief in the correctness of his views and policies, the difference between concern and politics becomes even less meaningful; that is I'm sure Mr. Rumsfeld believes the best thing for the country is the victory of those who share is philosophy and policies. I'm sure most Dem's feel the same way about themselves. Unless you feel the Bush Administration is full of truly evil men (some may, I don't although I don't agree with much of their current policies), then I don't think the division can ever be so cut and dried.
3) Profit is an interesting word, so is fear. Again, I believe that the administration does benefit from the public being concerned about things that are seen (rightfully or wrongfully) as strengths of the Administration. War and national defence would seem (for now) to be two areas where this is the case. Having said that; again - I do think that Rumsfeld (and Bush, et. al.) believe these are legitimate concerns and that their approach is legitimately the most correct and effective. That is, the Bush administration may benefit from keeping terrorism on the front burner but I suspect they believe it belongs there anyway.
4) Yes. That was pretty clear. Rumsfeld states (and seems to believe) that those who favor a different approach are, at best, misguided and naive.
5) Umm..why should Rumsfeld resign? The speech was a pretty standard political speech, fairly expected (esp. given the audience). He stated his belief in the rightness of his administration's policies and painted their opponents as misguided and dangerous to the US. This is common strategy on all sides of the political divide. How is this different from Nattering Nabobs or of FDR's suggestion (after Pearl Harbor) that the Republican's in Congress do the "right thing during wartime" and focus on Civil Defence? If a reaction to this speech was needed, Olbermann (and others, Fred Kaplan wrote something similar in Slate about Bush's speech to the American Legion) made it.
It's just politics.
Edited to correct a typo
Olbermann must have seen (or read) a different speech than the one Rumsfeld gave.
Text of Rumsfeld's speech to the American Legion, 8/30/06
1. In general, do you agree or disagree with Olbermann’s analysis?
Let me start by saying that I can't watch Olbermann's show. He is simply off the deep end. I watch pretty much every other cable news commentary show out there, but not his. When I try to, I keep wondering where this guy is coming from. Which is sad because I thought he was a witty ESPN commentator. The problem is that his form of comedy centers on insulting whoever he is talking about without even the most cursory attempt to understand their actions or words.
In this case, I ask myself: "What the hell is Olbermann talking about?" Where in this speech did Rumsfeld demonize dissent? His point was that we are at war and some people are minimizing that fact. I read his speech as a critique of the media coverage of the war (he spent a few paragraphs pointing out such things as the focus on the small number of criminals in the armed forces as opposed to the heros.
Olbermann seems focused on one sentence:
If you look at the strategy being employed by our enemies, you will see the importance of this statement. Most recently, when Israel was attacked, it could not perservere for more than a month before the weight of world opinion forced them to stop attacking those that attacked it. Why? Because of the mouthpieces who blurred the line about which side was right and wrong in the conflict. The lines were blurred in the debates over this very subject here on
where the war crime of hiding behind civilians was ignored by those that decried Lebanese civilian deaths.
2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
I believe it was motivated by the fact that Rumsfeld was talking to the American Legion, which represents the veterans and has been generally supportive of this war. It's an important subject and it needs to be discussed, not shoved under the rug by those who are stung by the accuracy of the barbs.
3. Are Rumsfeld, along with Bush and Cheney, profiting by creating fear in the American public?
Olbermann's assertions here are pitiful. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld benefitted from Katrina?
Wow, that's a new one and one that isn't even on-topic to what Olbermann is discussing.
Bush and Rumsfeld are not creating fear. They are emphasizing the need for concern--the need to confront this problem that continues to grow even as some say that we have over-reacted to it and others say that we created the problem. We are at war, the country needs to realize this. An Opinion Journal piece today points out the need to emphasize the ideological nature of this conflict and the importance of Bush et al to make this case. (The parallels to Truman in a political sense are also interesting here.)
The funny part here is that many commentators have spoken out about the typical American's lack of sacrifice for this war. Ed Shultz on his show the other day (yes, I listen to Ed Shultz occasionally) was talking about this (and has many times in the past). "If we are at war, why hasn't Bush asked us to make sacrifices?" I agree that the typical American could easily go through their day and not realize that this country is at war. That is what makes Bush's job difficult: he must not only fight the war, but he must convince the American people that it even exists in the first place. I think we can all agree that it is better for the news to be spread via Bush and company rather than via another 9/11 type attack.
4. Was Rumsfeld’s speech a blast, not just the Democratic Party, but the American people who disagree with the administration’s programs and tactics?
I saw no reference to Democrats, liberals or those that merely disagree with the tactics and programs that the government is using. I saw an attempt to counter those that deny that there is a struggle at all. I also saw an attempt to counter the argument that if we just negotiated with these enemies -- Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Hezbollah, Al Qaida -- that we could convince them to put down their belt bombs and IEDs.
5. Has Rumsfeld crossed the line? Should he resign or be removed? Would it make any difference at this point?
Crossed what line? Expressing his opinion? Isn't this the U S of A?
This attempt to paint the administration's defense of its own policies as "over the top" is ridiculous. I guess Bush should preface all of his comments with : we're wrong, but we're going to keep going. Bush and people who think like him on this conflict (including myself) must absolutely point out the differences of opinion we have with (yes I am going to use that loaded term) appeasers.
Appeasers are those who think that if we just negotiate properly, if we give them a little something, that we can avoid the current, growing conflict. The problem is that those with whom we struggle are not interested in peaceful co-existence unless we join the House of Islam: Dar al-Islam. Infidels must subject themselves to the righteous rule of Islam and pay the appropriate tribute.
I don't want to join Dar al-Islam. The only other place in the Muslim ideology is Dar al-Harb: the House of War. It was the Muslims who brought Dar al-Harb to the United States, not the other way around.
Text of Rumsfeld's speech to the American Legion, 8/30/06
1. In general, do you agree or disagree with Olbermann’s analysis?
Let me start by saying that I can't watch Olbermann's show. He is simply off the deep end. I watch pretty much every other cable news commentary show out there, but not his. When I try to, I keep wondering where this guy is coming from. Which is sad because I thought he was a witty ESPN commentator. The problem is that his form of comedy centers on insulting whoever he is talking about without even the most cursory attempt to understand their actions or words.
In this case, I ask myself: "What the hell is Olbermann talking about?" Where in this speech did Rumsfeld demonize dissent? His point was that we are at war and some people are minimizing that fact. I read his speech as a critique of the media coverage of the war (he spent a few paragraphs pointing out such things as the focus on the small number of criminals in the armed forces as opposed to the heros.
Olbermann seems focused on one sentence:
QUOTE
And that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.
If you look at the strategy being employed by our enemies, you will see the importance of this statement. Most recently, when Israel was attacked, it could not perservere for more than a month before the weight of world opinion forced them to stop attacking those that attacked it. Why? Because of the mouthpieces who blurred the line about which side was right and wrong in the conflict. The lines were blurred in the debates over this very subject here on
where the war crime of hiding behind civilians was ignored by those that decried Lebanese civilian deaths. 2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
I believe it was motivated by the fact that Rumsfeld was talking to the American Legion, which represents the veterans and has been generally supportive of this war. It's an important subject and it needs to be discussed, not shoved under the rug by those who are stung by the accuracy of the barbs.
3. Are Rumsfeld, along with Bush and Cheney, profiting by creating fear in the American public?
Olbermann's assertions here are pitiful. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld benefitted from Katrina?
Wow, that's a new one and one that isn't even on-topic to what Olbermann is discussing.Bush and Rumsfeld are not creating fear. They are emphasizing the need for concern--the need to confront this problem that continues to grow even as some say that we have over-reacted to it and others say that we created the problem. We are at war, the country needs to realize this. An Opinion Journal piece today points out the need to emphasize the ideological nature of this conflict and the importance of Bush et al to make this case. (The parallels to Truman in a political sense are also interesting here.)
The funny part here is that many commentators have spoken out about the typical American's lack of sacrifice for this war. Ed Shultz on his show the other day (yes, I listen to Ed Shultz occasionally) was talking about this (and has many times in the past). "If we are at war, why hasn't Bush asked us to make sacrifices?" I agree that the typical American could easily go through their day and not realize that this country is at war. That is what makes Bush's job difficult: he must not only fight the war, but he must convince the American people that it even exists in the first place. I think we can all agree that it is better for the news to be spread via Bush and company rather than via another 9/11 type attack.
4. Was Rumsfeld’s speech a blast, not just the Democratic Party, but the American people who disagree with the administration’s programs and tactics?
I saw no reference to Democrats, liberals or those that merely disagree with the tactics and programs that the government is using. I saw an attempt to counter those that deny that there is a struggle at all. I also saw an attempt to counter the argument that if we just negotiated with these enemies -- Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Hezbollah, Al Qaida -- that we could convince them to put down their belt bombs and IEDs.
5. Has Rumsfeld crossed the line? Should he resign or be removed? Would it make any difference at this point?
Crossed what line? Expressing his opinion? Isn't this the U S of A?
This attempt to paint the administration's defense of its own policies as "over the top" is ridiculous. I guess Bush should preface all of his comments with : we're wrong, but we're going to keep going. Bush and people who think like him on this conflict (including myself) must absolutely point out the differences of opinion we have with (yes I am going to use that loaded term) appeasers.
Appeasers are those who think that if we just negotiate properly, if we give them a little something, that we can avoid the current, growing conflict. The problem is that those with whom we struggle are not interested in peaceful co-existence unless we join the House of Islam: Dar al-Islam. Infidels must subject themselves to the righteous rule of Islam and pay the appropriate tribute.
I don't want to join Dar al-Islam. The only other place in the Muslim ideology is Dar al-Harb: the House of War. It was the Muslims who brought Dar al-Harb to the United States, not the other way around.
So AMlord I take it your afraid we are about to be overrun at any time by muslims?
Does this keep you up at night?
I find your lack of faith in America disturbing(sound of scuba breathing apparatus)
Oh the appeasers! Silly rabbits.
Rumsfeld attempts to spread hate among Americans will fail as surely as everything else that he has tried to do. I almost pity this administration that has failed so badly they have to resort to trying to fan the flames of division.
and Amlord if you can honestly not see it for what it was you must be blind? were it any more transparent Rumsfeld could be arrested for indecent exposure.
No one is saying that we shouldn't be concerned, but the constant whining that if we don't all be good and just play along with Bush and his continued failures, regardless of our beliefs(just do as we are told) is an old tired dog that just won't hunt. Most just believe we would be better served by using different means to combat the terrorists--not all muslims, that law enforcement works better than Bush's send in the troops ideas, and that if we are contributing to the hate that is directed towards us, lets see if we can fix it. not appease or give in.
The Administration's attempts at Security Theater here at home and the failing Iraq policy have pretty much lost the support of Americans -- what is it 40 something percent approval now?
and you were right Amlord there is a great peice today about whats going on Editorial: Loose talk / The Bush rhetoric on Iraq is sounding desperate
Neither America nor Western Civilization are going to be falling anytime soon to anyone,
I wouldn't worry so much about Dar al-Islam. I would worry more about people like rumsfeld and similiar losers who are so eager to create division at home. They can do more damage than the terrorists ever will be able to.
Does this keep you up at night?
I find your lack of faith in America disturbing(sound of scuba breathing apparatus)
Oh the appeasers! Silly rabbits.
Rumsfeld attempts to spread hate among Americans will fail as surely as everything else that he has tried to do. I almost pity this administration that has failed so badly they have to resort to trying to fan the flames of division.
and Amlord if you can honestly not see it for what it was you must be blind? were it any more transparent Rumsfeld could be arrested for indecent exposure.
No one is saying that we shouldn't be concerned, but the constant whining that if we don't all be good and just play along with Bush and his continued failures, regardless of our beliefs(just do as we are told) is an old tired dog that just won't hunt. Most just believe we would be better served by using different means to combat the terrorists--not all muslims, that law enforcement works better than Bush's send in the troops ideas, and that if we are contributing to the hate that is directed towards us, lets see if we can fix it. not appease or give in.
The Administration's attempts at Security Theater here at home and the failing Iraq policy have pretty much lost the support of Americans -- what is it 40 something percent approval now?
and you were right Amlord there is a great peice today about whats going on Editorial: Loose talk / The Bush rhetoric on Iraq is sounding desperate
Neither America nor Western Civilization are going to be falling anytime soon to anyone,
I wouldn't worry so much about Dar al-Islam. I would worry more about people like rumsfeld and similiar losers who are so eager to create division at home. They can do more damage than the terrorists ever will be able to.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 1 2006, 08:49 AM)
2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
I believe it was motivated by the fact that Rumsfeld was talking to the American Legion, which represents the veterans and has been generally supportive of this war. It's an important subject and it needs to be discussed, not shoved under the rug by those who are stung by the accuracy of the barbs.
I believe it was motivated by the fact that Rumsfeld was talking to the American Legion, which represents the veterans and has been generally supportive of this war. It's an important subject and it needs to be discussed, not shoved under the rug by those who are stung by the accuracy of the barbs.
C'mon Amlord. This might have been an accurate observation 50 years ago. Today, because of the electronic media, a speech to the American Legion is a speech to the American people. He was aiming at a much larger audience. The Legion backdrop was chosen, rather cynically, to provide an enthusiastic audienced for all to see--just short of a high school pep rally with chearleders and pom poms.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 1 2006, 08:49 AM)
Crossed what line? Expressing his opinion? Isn't this the U S of A?
There are a lot of speechs that are over the line, but thy are still protected by the 1st Amendment. I'm referring more to the wisdom of Rummy's remark than their protection under the 1st Amendment.
Here's an article from the L.A. Times, called "Pipe Down, Rummy," on the Legion speech.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/o...la-news-comment
1. In general, do you agree or disagree with Olbermann’s analysis?
Very much agree.
2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
Elections, no doubt. This adminstration is in serious trouble if they lose control of the House and they know it. If that happens someone will finally be held accountable for all the bad decisions that have been made. It continually infuriates me to hear conservatives complain about Katrina victims as "not taking responsibility for their own actions" while giving the Bush Bunch a free ride for the bad decisions in Iraq, Katrina, Medicare Part D, etc. So instead of coming up with a better plan for Iraq, they're going on the road to "sell" it to the American public.
3. Are Rumsfeld, along with Bush and Cheney, profiting by creating fear in the American public?
They're doing their best. Thankfully, though, it seems the public has managed to separate Iraq from terrorism.
4. Was Rumsfeld’s speech a blast, not just the Democratic Party, but the American people who disagree with the administration’s programs and tactics?
I think it was a blast at the Democrats, but since most Americans now think going into Iraq was a mistake and several prominent Republicans have called for some sort of withdrawal, he hit more than just Democrats.
5. Has Rumsfeld crossed the line? Should he resign or be removed? Would it make any difference at this point?
What line? While I think he should have been replaced several years ago, it doesn't make a lot of difference at this point. Bush has drawn his line in the sand: we're not coming out while he's president. Maybe changing Sec of Def would give him some breathing room, but won't make any real difference to the soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Nor will it make a difference to our enemies who are watching us squander our blood, money and prestige in the sands of Iraq.
Very much agree.
2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
Elections, no doubt. This adminstration is in serious trouble if they lose control of the House and they know it. If that happens someone will finally be held accountable for all the bad decisions that have been made. It continually infuriates me to hear conservatives complain about Katrina victims as "not taking responsibility for their own actions" while giving the Bush Bunch a free ride for the bad decisions in Iraq, Katrina, Medicare Part D, etc. So instead of coming up with a better plan for Iraq, they're going on the road to "sell" it to the American public.
3. Are Rumsfeld, along with Bush and Cheney, profiting by creating fear in the American public?
They're doing their best. Thankfully, though, it seems the public has managed to separate Iraq from terrorism.
4. Was Rumsfeld’s speech a blast, not just the Democratic Party, but the American people who disagree with the administration’s programs and tactics?
I think it was a blast at the Democrats, but since most Americans now think going into Iraq was a mistake and several prominent Republicans have called for some sort of withdrawal, he hit more than just Democrats.
5. Has Rumsfeld crossed the line? Should he resign or be removed? Would it make any difference at this point?
What line? While I think he should have been replaced several years ago, it doesn't make a lot of difference at this point. Bush has drawn his line in the sand: we're not coming out while he's president. Maybe changing Sec of Def would give him some breathing room, but won't make any real difference to the soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Nor will it make a difference to our enemies who are watching us squander our blood, money and prestige in the sands of Iraq.
Disclaimer: Those of you who don't get sarcasm, please stop reading.
So AMlord I take it your afraid we are about to be overrun at any time by muslims?
Does this keep you up at night?
I find your lack of faith in America disturbing(sound of scuba breathing apparatus)
Oh the appeasers! Silly rabbits.
Rumsfeld attempts to spread hate among Americans will fail as surely as everything else that he has tried to do.Right. Just the other day, Mullah Omar of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein of Iraq were sipping sweet tea and laughing their butts off at how Rumsfeld "failed" in deposing their governments. I didn't believe it, but it was on Al Jazeera so it must be true.
Bush Regime - damn your failure in preventing terrorist attacks!!!
Yup. Here it is.
Yup. That's why I'm writing this from a cave here in bombed-out Chicago, while all the terrorists have plasma TVs and cell phones. "People like Rumsfeld" have ruined my life. How 'bout yours?
QUOTE(christopher @ Sep 1 2006, 11:10 AM)
So AMlord I take it your afraid we are about to be overrun at any time by muslims?
Does this keep you up at night?
I find your lack of faith in America disturbing(sound of scuba breathing apparatus)
Oh the appeasers! Silly rabbits.
Rumsfeld attempts to spread hate among Americans will fail as surely as everything else that he has tried to do.
QUOTE(christopher)
I almost pity this administration that has failed so badly they have to resort to trying to fan the flames of division.
Indeed. I mean, the World Trade Center was bad enough, but when they knocked down the Sears Tower and exploded 10 jets on route from London, we really should have impeached this guy. Not to mention the Brooklyn Bridge and the Canadian Parliament. Bush Regime - damn your failure in preventing terrorist attacks!!!
QUOTE(christopher)
The Administration's attempts at Security Theater here at home and the failing Iraq policy have pretty much lost the support of Americans -- what is it 40 something percent approval now?
Yup. Here it is.
QUOTE(usa today)
Now 42% of Americans say they approve of the job Bush is doing as president, up 5 points since early this month. His approval rating on handling terrorism is 55%, the highest in more than a year.
QUOTE(christopher)
Neither America nor Western Civilization are going to be falling anytime soon to anyone,
I wouldn't worry so much about Dar al-Islam. I would worry more about people like rumsfeld and similiar losers who are so eager to create division at home. They can do more damage than the terrorists ever will be able to.
I wouldn't worry so much about Dar al-Islam. I would worry more about people like rumsfeld and similiar losers who are so eager to create division at home. They can do more damage than the terrorists ever will be able to.
Yup. That's why I'm writing this from a cave here in bombed-out Chicago, while all the terrorists have plasma TVs and cell phones. "People like Rumsfeld" have ruined my life. How 'bout yours?
I would respond carlito but the call to worship is wailing from overhead and its time for prayer.
One minute I was watchin the daily Show the next minute up to my eyeballs in mullahs
Oh my 55%..
I'l see your 55% and raise a CBS poll that says
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/01/...in1567675.shtml
MR. BUSH’S HANDLING OF IRAQ
Approve
30%
Disapprove
64%
Polls polls everywhere the polls
gimme a sec Homeland Security wants to see my papers -- mental note avoid tanning booth, must be getting swarthy.
Saddam? who gives a damn about saddam, anybody seen bin laden?
One minute I was watchin the daily Show the next minute up to my eyeballs in mullahs
Oh my 55%..
I'l see your 55% and raise a CBS poll that says
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/01/...in1567675.shtml
MR. BUSH’S HANDLING OF IRAQ
Approve
30%
Disapprove
64%
Polls polls everywhere the polls
gimme a sec Homeland Security wants to see my papers -- mental note avoid tanning booth, must be getting swarthy.
Saddam? who gives a damn about saddam, anybody seen bin laden?
The pertinent question here is : Are we really at war?
You and I and two posters with 10 or less posts were the only ones to answer Doc's question on that thread. I congratulate you for at least answering there what you have echoed here: we are not at war with certain factions of Islam. In fact, you felt it necessary to insult the Congress that believes that we are indeed at war in your response.
I disagree. The 2,800+ dead on 9/11 might disagree. The victims of the London and Spain train bombings might disagree. The people who foiled the plot to bring down British airliners might disagree.
I think Bush is partially a victim of his own success (the unsarcastic translation of carlitoswhey's post). People don't feel threatened because the Sears Tower is still standing, the Brooklyn bridge still spans the East River and the British plot was foiled. The worst the American public has endured is not being able to bring Gatorade onto flights.
You and I and two posters with 10 or less posts were the only ones to answer Doc's question on that thread. I congratulate you for at least answering there what you have echoed here: we are not at war with certain factions of Islam. In fact, you felt it necessary to insult the Congress that believes that we are indeed at war in your response.
I disagree. The 2,800+ dead on 9/11 might disagree. The victims of the London and Spain train bombings might disagree. The people who foiled the plot to bring down British airliners might disagree.
I think Bush is partially a victim of his own success (the unsarcastic translation of carlitoswhey's post). People don't feel threatened because the Sears Tower is still standing, the Brooklyn bridge still spans the East River and the British plot was foiled. The worst the American public has endured is not being able to bring Gatorade onto flights.
How did this turn into a debate on bush and his actions. It was on the speech Rumsfeld gave. They are trying to push on there faulty logic for the war in Iraq, the actual thing this administration is seeing heat over. Rumsfeld basically came out and told America that everyone that does not agree with the reasons for the war in Iraq is wrong morally and intellectually, wow, that’s a real way to debate the facts on that one, but like most things the facts are kind of not present overall. I remember back at the U.N when the U.S was trying to gain support for the war we would not share our conclusive Intel that knew Iraq had wmds and all that jazz. Not to mention sometime after that Collin Powell came out on national television and when asked said that bush should not have used that Intel, I really wonder why he quit you know. This admin like Rumsfeld will fail to own up to any accountability, they will not talk about Iraq save that they will stay the course, and then they toss mud at everyone.
So where are the WMDs and connection to terror that were present as so claimed by rumsfeld and related goons. Its not, and what do we have now, some Vietnam with no real exit plan, or plan period, just usually speeches like this, goes along with the entire strategy run by this administration. Why no fear mongering over Iran? I mean that’s the whole seat coming from these people, that we will be attacked if they are not in office, like they have supernatural powers or something, its not only that but 9-11 occurred under that watch, and watch that did not react to terrorism in any different tone then the non patriotic Clinton admin until 9-11.
This administration pushed for the war in Iraq, disregarded fact and pushed for the war, its something they wanted and now its something America and the world has to deal with. In response to criticism over it, all they can do is say we are wrong morally and intellectually, I tell you that gets me nothing but respect for them.
If Rumsfeld was so superior as he is stating reality would not reflect or express as it currently is, but the sad fact that will not get enough light which I will push for is everything right now is far from perfect in relation to what actions and reactions have come from this admin. Needing to combat terrorism does not mean we need to have the war in Iraq, if anything those forces should have been in Afghanistan.
About being at war with certain factions of Islam, wow, that really sounds like a policy that would lead to invading an entire Arab nation on false information, then when they ask you to leave nicely you tell them no.
So where are the WMDs and connection to terror that were present as so claimed by rumsfeld and related goons. Its not, and what do we have now, some Vietnam with no real exit plan, or plan period, just usually speeches like this, goes along with the entire strategy run by this administration. Why no fear mongering over Iran? I mean that’s the whole seat coming from these people, that we will be attacked if they are not in office, like they have supernatural powers or something, its not only that but 9-11 occurred under that watch, and watch that did not react to terrorism in any different tone then the non patriotic Clinton admin until 9-11.
This administration pushed for the war in Iraq, disregarded fact and pushed for the war, its something they wanted and now its something America and the world has to deal with. In response to criticism over it, all they can do is say we are wrong morally and intellectually, I tell you that gets me nothing but respect for them.
If Rumsfeld was so superior as he is stating reality would not reflect or express as it currently is, but the sad fact that will not get enough light which I will push for is everything right now is far from perfect in relation to what actions and reactions have come from this admin. Needing to combat terrorism does not mean we need to have the war in Iraq, if anything those forces should have been in Afghanistan.
About being at war with certain factions of Islam, wow, that really sounds like a policy that would lead to invading an entire Arab nation on false information, then when they ask you to leave nicely you tell them no.
QUOTE(BoF's Questions for Debate)
1. In general, do you agree or disagree with Olbermann’s analysis?
2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
3. Are Rumsfeld, along with Bush and Cheney, profiting by creating fear in the American public?
4. Was Rumsfeld’s speech a blast, not just the Democratic Party, but the American people who disagree with the administration’s programs and tactics?
5. Has Rumsfeld crossed the line? Should he resign or be removed? Would it make any difference at this point?
1. I had the opportunity to watch Keith Olberman when he gave the analysis, and I agree with him.
2. Of course it has everything to do with the upcoming midterm Congressional elections. Why else would he be preaching to the choir (the American Legion)--he wouldn't have gotten a good reception from many, many other audiences.
3. It cannot be denied that the Presidency has accrued more power thanks to the PATRIOT Act and measures (one in particular ruled illegal recently by a federal judge) that President Bush has taken that are on the fringes of Constitutional law if not downright illegal, while such corporations as Halliburton and other big Republican supporters have been awarded no-bid contracts for cleaning up messes both stateside and in Iraq while the death toll (both American and Iraqi) continues to mount, even as the Administration denies that Iraq is in a state of civil war.
I remember Bush raising the specter of "a mushroom cloud" if America and the "coalition" didn't invade Iraq. If that wasn't a scare tactic, I don't know what it was. Bush had to scare the American people in order to intimidate many in Congress to support him.
And let it be remembered that the British and NOT AMERICANS foiled the terrorist plot over in England, while Canadians and NOT AMERICANS foiled the plot in Canada. George Walker Bush & Company do not deserve to take the credit for what POLICE WORK AND NOT TROOPS ON THE GROUND managed to accomplish.
And didn't Democrats and other dissenters claim that it was more appropriate to use police work, not war, to root out and apprehend terrorists in the first place?
(Are we still really oh soooo glad that it was George W. Bush and not Al Gore who was president on 9/11? If so, why, pray tell?)
4. Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of War (which was later renamed Secretary of Defense--how PC!) was most certainly blasting all vocal dissenters. He really doesn't mind those who disagree as long as they keep their mouths shut. Good luck with that, Rummy!
5. Rumsfeld crossed the line some time ago. If Bushie hasn't fired him by now, he's not going to get rid of him. Nothing short of impeachment or proof that he has been getting Clintonesque attention from some chubby intern is going to uproot him from his position. He's as embedded as a blood-engorged tick, and nobody is going to touch a lighted match to his hindquarters.
-------------------------
As to the question, is it really a war, I've got to say that it looks like a war, people are dying as in a war, and we're being taken to the cleaners as a cost of this exercise. The question isn't whether it is a war or not but whether this country should continue in this misadventure with such an incompetent and power-happy group of leaders, especially since it was largely Presidential prerogative with some dubious 'evidence' that prompted the invasion of Iraq. I say NO.
1. In general, do you agree or disagree with Olbermann’s analysis?
How can I make this judgement? I'm warped beyond recognition and can't assess reality for what it is.
2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
Um, maybe. Do you think? Naw, it can't be. I'm too warped to make this value judgement.
3. Are Rumsfeld, along with Bush and Cheney, profiting by creating fear in the American public?
Can personal profit be a major motivating factor in these elected and appointed officials? Oh my. It must be my misguided and weak abilities to detect reality that's driving this suspicion.
4. Was Rumsfeld’s speech a blast, not just the Democratic Party, but the American people who disagree with the administration’s programs and tactics?
How can I possibly disagree with the voice of authority?
5. Has Rumsfeld crossed the line? Should he resign or be removed? Would it make any difference at this point?
It'll make no difference whatever I do. I'm a poor little lamb who has lost his way. Bah, Bah, Bah humbug.
Vote the bums out. Take Congress away from them.
Oh there I go again. My poor little emotionally challenged noggin.
How can I make this judgement? I'm warped beyond recognition and can't assess reality for what it is.
2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
Um, maybe. Do you think? Naw, it can't be. I'm too warped to make this value judgement.
3. Are Rumsfeld, along with Bush and Cheney, profiting by creating fear in the American public?
Can personal profit be a major motivating factor in these elected and appointed officials? Oh my. It must be my misguided and weak abilities to detect reality that's driving this suspicion.
4. Was Rumsfeld’s speech a blast, not just the Democratic Party, but the American people who disagree with the administration’s programs and tactics?
How can I possibly disagree with the voice of authority?
5. Has Rumsfeld crossed the line? Should he resign or be removed? Would it make any difference at this point?
It'll make no difference whatever I do. I'm a poor little lamb who has lost his way. Bah, Bah, Bah humbug.
Vote the bums out. Take Congress away from them.
Oh there I go again. My poor little emotionally challenged noggin.
Questions for Debate:
1. In general, do you agree or disagree with Olbermann’s analysis?
No. he speaks as if Rumsfeld was all powerful. He is Secdef and nothing more. Blaming him for Iraq is ridiculous. This is the season for the political blame game.
2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
Both just as every word from the moth of a democrat.
3. Are Rumsfeld, along with Bush and Cheney, profiting by creating fear in the American public?
We need to fear our enemy. They will gladly murder us all and the Geneve Convention will not be part of their thinking – never has.
4. Was Rumsfeld’s speech a blast, not just the Democratic Party, but the American people who disagree with the administration’s programs and tactics?
no
5. Has Rumsfeld crossed the line? Should he resign or be removed? Would it make any difference at this point?
He has no more crossed a line than idiots like Dean and Kennedy.
You say this as if Rumsfeld made it up. Do I have to re post the statements of morons like Teddy K and Kerry to convince you it was a widely held idea? If he made a mistake it was believing the CIA when they told him they knew where the WMD were. They didn’t and they let them get away.
Ya Bill C really “rooted them out” didn’t he. We had all our cops looking for Osama and guess what PE he never showed up or got caught – he just killed 3,000 Americans. You go right on dreaming “police work” will save us. LOL
1. In general, do you agree or disagree with Olbermann’s analysis?
No. he speaks as if Rumsfeld was all powerful. He is Secdef and nothing more. Blaming him for Iraq is ridiculous. This is the season for the political blame game.
2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
Both just as every word from the moth of a democrat.
3. Are Rumsfeld, along with Bush and Cheney, profiting by creating fear in the American public?
We need to fear our enemy. They will gladly murder us all and the Geneve Convention will not be part of their thinking – never has.
4. Was Rumsfeld’s speech a blast, not just the Democratic Party, but the American people who disagree with the administration’s programs and tactics?
no
5. Has Rumsfeld crossed the line? Should he resign or be removed? Would it make any difference at this point?
He has no more crossed a line than idiots like Dean and Kennedy.
QUOTE
Gordo
So where are the WMDs and connection to terror that were present as so claimed by rumsfeld and related goons
So where are the WMDs and connection to terror that were present as so claimed by rumsfeld and related goons
You say this as if Rumsfeld made it up. Do I have to re post the statements of morons like Teddy K and Kerry to convince you it was a widely held idea? If he made a mistake it was believing the CIA when they told him they knew where the WMD were. They didn’t and they let them get away.
QUOTE
PE
And didn't Democrats and other dissenters claim that it was more appropriate to use police work, not war, to root out and apprehend terrorists in the first place?
And didn't Democrats and other dissenters claim that it was more appropriate to use police work, not war, to root out and apprehend terrorists in the first place?
Ya Bill C really “rooted them out” didn’t he. We had all our cops looking for Osama and guess what PE he never showed up or got caught – he just killed 3,000 Americans. You go right on dreaming “police work” will save us. LOL
QUOTE(Ted)
Ya Bill C really “rooted them out” didn’t he. We had all our cops looking for Osama and guess what PE he never showed up or got caught – he just killed 3,000 Americans. You go right on dreaming “police work” will save us. LOL
LOL as much as you want, Ted, but it wasn't any army that caught those aforesaid terrorists in London or plotters in Canada, but good, old-fashioned police work.
Go ahead and slam Clinton for what you perceived he didn't do during his eight-year term. But then, the WTC bombing didn't happen on his watch, and your boy Dubya still hasn't found Osama bin Laden with one of the largest and best-trained armies in the world and the big bucks to support them (OUR bucks).
Still wanna rag on Clinton or diss police work since your boy is doing "so much better"?
Look again at what you said:
QUOTE
We had all our cops looking for Osama and guess what PE he never showed up or got caught – he just killed 3,000 Americans.
If that statement were anywhere near true, we just might have had Osama in custody or dead shortly after the terrorist attacks. As it was, important information was not shared or paid attention to, in this country. That doesn't mean that police work itself is ineffective in countries or areas where turf wars have been left behind in favor of investigative teamwork.
Now tell me, which police officer or Democrat was responsible for the screw-up at Tora Bora?
But this thread is about Rumsfeld and the brillant way he is or isn't running the war, isn't it? Funny how some RepubliCons can't come up with a defense without trying to drag Bush's predecessor into it. Are you guys that short on excuses?
QUOTE
Ya Bill C really “rooted them out” didn’t he. We had all our cops looking for Osama and guess what PE he never showed up or got caught – he just killed 3,000 Americans. You go right on dreaming “police work” will save us. LOL
Guess Ted has forgotten about this guy:
QUOTE
In October 1995, the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who preached at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the [1993] bombing. Rahman, whose Islamic Group organization is believed to have had links to Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, was later convicted with a number of others of conspiracy charges to bomb several New York City landmarks (see New York City landmark bomb plot). In 1998, Ramzi Yousef, said by some to have been the real mastermind, was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" to bomb the towers. When Ramzi Yousef was brought back to America, he was flown over the still intact twin towers, making a statement to the FBI that he regretted not having enough explosives to bring down the WTC towers and adding that his fellow terrorists would try again to destroy them. One of the other men tried alongside Yousef for the bombing was Eyad Ismail. In all, ten militant Islamist conspirators – including Ramzi Yousef – were convicted for their part in the bombing and were given prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years each.
Source
That's just a reminder, not an attempt to get this thread off track. Allow me to return to my usual vegetative stasis.
QUOTE
PE
LOL as much as you want, Ted, but it wasn't any army that caught those aforesaid terrorists in London or plotters in Canada, but good, old-fashioned police work.
Go ahead and slam Clinton for what you perceived he didn't do during his eight-year term. But then, the WTC bombing didn't happen on his watch, and your boy Dubya still hasn't found Osama bin Laden with one of the largest and best-trained armies in the world and the big bucks to support them (OUR bucks).
LOL as much as you want, Ted, but it wasn't any army that caught those aforesaid terrorists in London or plotters in Canada, but good, old-fashioned police work.
Go ahead and slam Clinton for what you perceived he didn't do during his eight-year term. But then, the WTC bombing didn't happen on his watch, and your boy Dubya still hasn't found Osama bin Laden with one of the largest and best-trained armies in the world and the big bucks to support them (OUR bucks).
Ya sure the “police” caught the folks IN Brittan but the info that started the search came from military sources outside the country. NOT cops, not police work.
And the WTC bombing DID happen on Bill’s watch. In fact WTC I was the warm-up for the second attack by the SAME organization that Bill could not apprehend from 1993 to 2000. So please do not tell me how bad Bush is because he couldn’t do in a few months what Bill failed to do in 7 years.
QUOTE
AM
In October 1995, the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who preached at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the [1993] bombing. Rahman
In October 1995, the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who preached at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the [1993] bombing. Rahman
These were the underlings. We KNEW OBL was behind this group. O’Neil at FBI knew he was involved but no one wanted to do what was necessary to kill OBL outside the US. As others have posted Bill was offered Bin Laden several times and passed. IMO if Regan was president at this time OBL would have been VERY dead by 2000.
QUOTE(Ted @ Sep 5 2006, 12:02 PM)
QUOTE
PE
LOL as much as you want, Ted, but it wasn't any army that caught those aforesaid terrorists in London or plotters in Canada, but good, old-fashioned police work.
Go ahead and slam Clinton for what you perceived he didn't do during his eight-year term. But then, the WTC bombing didn't happen on his watch, and your boy Dubya still hasn't found Osama bin Laden with one of the largest and best-trained armies in the world and the big bucks to support them (OUR bucks).
LOL as much as you want, Ted, but it wasn't any army that caught those aforesaid terrorists in London or plotters in Canada, but good, old-fashioned police work.
Go ahead and slam Clinton for what you perceived he didn't do during his eight-year term. But then, the WTC bombing didn't happen on his watch, and your boy Dubya still hasn't found Osama bin Laden with one of the largest and best-trained armies in the world and the big bucks to support them (OUR bucks).
Ya sure the “police” caught the folks IN Brittan but the info that started the search came from military sources outside the country. NOT cops, not police work.
And the WTC bombing DID happen on Bill’s watch. In fact WTC I was the warm-up for the second attack by the SAME organization that Bill could not apprehend from 1993 to 2000. So please do not tell me how bad Bush is because he couldn’t do in a few months what Bill failed to do in 7 years.
QUOTE
AM
In October 1995, the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who preached at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the [1993] bombing. Rahman
In October 1995, the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who preached at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the [1993] bombing. Rahman
These were the underlings. We KNEW OBL was behind this group. O’Neil at FBI knew he was involved but no one wanted to do what was necessary to kill OBL outside the US. As others have posted Bill was offered Bin Laden several times and passed. IMO if Regan was president at this time OBL would have been VERY dead by 2000.
Ted,
The old blame Bill Clinton dog doesn't hunt anymore. Bush has been in office for six years now. Whether Bin Laden would have been dead if Reagan, or for that matter Al Gore, were president is an unknown. If you have a crystal ball, I'd like to borrow it.
Hello, this thread is about Rummy.
Questions for Debate:
1. In general, do you agree or disagree with Olbermann’s analysis?
2. Do you think Rumsfeld's speech was motivated by concern for the country or the fast approaching 2006 elections?
3. Are Rumsfeld, along with Bush and Cheney, profiting by creating fear in the American public?
4. Was Rumsfeld’s speech a blast, not just the Democratic Party, but the American people who disagree with the administration’s programs and tactics?
5. Has Rumsfeld crossed the line? Should he resign or be removed? Would it make any difference at this point?
I'm particularly interested in seeing your answer to question 4. I personally think Rummy insulted the American people. Father may know best, but not Donald H. Rumsfeld.
In response to Ted's latest post, I'd like to just ask this: If money and military troops were what were needed to root out Osama bin Laden and not police work, then WHY IN THE BLOODY HELL IS HE STILL AT LARGE??? 
A whole bunch of the responsibility for this debacle lies at the feet of Donald Rumsfeld, and by extension, at the feet of his boss, our "beloved" President.
Rumsfeld was the one who thought that the DoD's intelligence was inadequate/inefficient, so he and Paul Wolfowitz created the Office of Special Plans. So just what DID that accomplish?
I'll answer Question Number Four for you if you'd like, Ted: Rummy was blasting every American who has the stones to assert that never before has so much been spent and so many lives been lost, and with so little to show for it.
Rumsfeld's policies are failed policies, because the military is ill-equipped to fight the kind of warfare produced from invading a country and then leaving its borders wide-open for anybody with a grudge against the occupiers to enter and raise hell. And the Bush administration, not the Clinton, or the Bush Sr. (he recommended AGAINST what his son went ahead and did), nor the Reagan administration, nor any other, is responsible for this quagmire with no end in sight.
And for your personal edification, I wish to produce three quotations from our President regarding Osama bin Laden:
What ever would Bush, Jr. do without his boogey man, Osama bin Laden? Who else would stir up the fear and keep Republicans in office this election year?
The whole reason Rummy is being defended by anyone in this thread is that he is about as effective as his boss is. And to concede that Rummy should go constitutes an implicit admission that his boss should be fired, too.
A whole bunch of the responsibility for this debacle lies at the feet of Donald Rumsfeld, and by extension, at the feet of his boss, our "beloved" President.
Rumsfeld was the one who thought that the DoD's intelligence was inadequate/inefficient, so he and Paul Wolfowitz created the Office of Special Plans. So just what DID that accomplish?
I'll answer Question Number Four for you if you'd like, Ted: Rummy was blasting every American who has the stones to assert that never before has so much been spent and so many lives been lost, and with so little to show for it.
Rumsfeld's policies are failed policies, because the military is ill-equipped to fight the kind of warfare produced from invading a country and then leaving its borders wide-open for anybody with a grudge against the occupiers to enter and raise hell. And the Bush administration, not the Clinton, or the Bush Sr. (he recommended AGAINST what his son went ahead and did), nor the Reagan administration, nor any other, is responsible for this quagmire with no end in sight.
And for your personal edification, I wish to produce three quotations from our President regarding Osama bin Laden:
QUOTE
September 13, 2001: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
QUOTE
March 13, 2002: "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
QUOTE
January 25, 2006: "You know, I understand there's some in America who say, well, this can't be true, there aren't still people willing to attack. All I would ask them to do is listen to the words of Osama bin Laden and take them seriously. When he says he's going to hurt the American people again or try to, he means it. I take it seriously."
What ever would Bush, Jr. do without his boogey man, Osama bin Laden? Who else would stir up the fear and keep Republicans in office this election year?
The whole reason Rummy is being defended by anyone in this thread is that he is about as effective as his boss is. And to concede that Rummy should go constitutes an implicit admission that his boss should be fired, too.
QUOTE(christopher @ Sep 1 2006, 12:10 PM)
So AMlord I take it your afraid we are about to be overrun at any time by muslims?
Does this keep you up at night?
I find your lack of faith in America disturbing(sound of scuba breathing apparatus)
Oh the appeasers! Silly rabbits.
Rumsfeld attempts to spread hate among Americans will fail as surely as everything else that he has tried to do. I almost pity this administration that has failed so badly they have to resort to trying to fan the flames of division.
and Amlord if you can honestly not see it for what it was you must be blind? were it any more transparent Rumsfeld could be arrested for indecent exposure.
No one is saying that we shouldn't be concerned, but the constant whining that if we don't all be good and just play along with Bush and his continued failures, regardless of our beliefs(just do as we are told) is an old tired dog that just won't hunt. Most just believe we would be better served by using different means to combat the terrorists--not all muslims, that law enforcement works better than Bush's send in the troops ideas, and that if we are contributing to the hate that is directed towards us, lets see if we can fix it. not appease or give in.
The Administration's attempts at Security Theater here at home and the failing Iraq policy have pretty much lost the support of Americans -- what is it 40 something percent approval now?
and you were right Amlord there is a great peice today about whats going on Editorial: Loose talk / The Bush rhetoric on Iraq is sounding desperate
Neither America nor Western Civilization are going to be falling anytime soon to anyone,
I wouldn't worry so much about Dar al-Islam. I would worry more about people like rumsfeld and similiar losers who are so eager to create division at home. They can do more damage than the terrorists ever will be able to.
Does this keep you up at night?
I find your lack of faith in America disturbing(sound of scuba breathing apparatus)
Oh the appeasers! Silly rabbits.
Rumsfeld attempts to spread hate among Americans will fail as surely as everything else that he has tried to do. I almost pity this administration that has failed so badly they have to resort to trying to fan the flames of division.
and Amlord if you can honestly not see it for what it was you must be blind? were it any more transparent Rumsfeld could be arrested for indecent exposure.
No one is saying that we shouldn't be concerned, but the constant whining that if we don't all be good and just play along with Bush and his continued failures, regardless of our beliefs(just do as we are told) is an old tired dog that just won't hunt. Most just believe we would be better served by using different means to combat the terrorists--not all muslims, that law enforcement works better than Bush's send in the troops ideas, and that if we are contributing to the hate that is directed towards us, lets see if we can fix it. not appease or give in.
The Administration's attempts at Security Theater here at home and the failing Iraq policy have pretty much lost the support of Americans -- what is it 40 something percent approval now?
and you were right Amlord there is a great peice today about whats going on Editorial: Loose talk / The Bush rhetoric on Iraq is sounding desperate
Neither America nor Western Civilization are going to be falling anytime soon to anyone,
I wouldn't worry so much about Dar al-Islam. I would worry more about people like rumsfeld and similiar losers who are so eager to create division at home. They can do more damage than the terrorists ever will be able to.
Why did you attack Amlord? Did he hurt you? I don't see anything in his response that justifies what's at the beginning of your post. Why aren't you discussing the Olberman blog?
I agree with Amlord and think that his response was well stated. Do you not know that Iran has considered Iraq the primary front in establishing an Islamic empire in the Middle East, and eventually much farther? This is not just wild guessing, but discover in written documents captured in Iraq. Most on the liberal side don't want to hear that this is a religious war, but it is. It is a religious war even if you don't want it to be. Actually it's probably a continuation of an old war.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.