OT Rumsfield a JOKE
 

IRAQ
Why Is Rumsfeld Still Around?

Prior to the war against Iraq, the Bush administration claimed that the
conflict would be short and inexpensive. Over two years later, U.S.
troops have sacrificed over 1,700 lives, U.S. taxpayers have spent over
$200 billion on the war, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
appearing on three Sunday morning talk shows this weekend, claims no
mistakes have been made. The lead architect of the failed Iraq policy
stubbornly refused to admit that a change of course was needed. Were
President Bush sincere about his renewed effort this week to offer a
"strategy for success" in Iraq, his first step should be to ask for and
accept Rumsfeld's resignation. RUMSFELD'S ROSY VISION REVISED: On Fox
News Sunday, host Chris Wallace noted that Rumsfeld, from before the
start of the Iraq war, has offered a rosy picture about how the
conflict would turn out, leaving most Americans unprepared for the
violence that has resulted. Rumsfeld responded to the criticism by
saying: "That's false ... I have been very balanced and measured."
Rumsfeld's revisionist history does a grave disservice to all Americans
who believed his and the Defense Department's assertions prior to the
war in Iraq. Fareed Zakaria, commenting on ABC's This Week, said, "On
Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld has been more Orwellian, not truthful."
Despite his best efforts to fashion himself into a "new Rumsfeld," the
"old Rumsfeld" cannot be forgotten. Conservative columnist Bill Kristol
stated the case against Rumsfeld most succinctly: "These soldiers
deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have." Let's review:
Rumsfeld said he knew where the WMD were, he said the conflict would
not last more than six months, he downplayed the initial security
vaccum in Iraq by saying "stuff happens," he asserted that we would be
greeted as liberators in Iraq, he failed to properly equip the troops
for the war, and then he famously said, "you go to war with the Army
you have, not the Army you want."

RUMSFELD'S DICTIONARY: Vice President Cheney, as you will recall,
recently said the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes." His
assertion has since run up against the facts, with recent violence
indicating a strengthening insurgency and the top military commander in
the Persian Gulf directly stating that he disagreed with Cheney. This
of course put Rumsfeld in the difficult position of possibly telling
the truth this Sunday. But he didn't. In a blatant act of dishonesty,
Rumsfeld went on each of the Sunday shows and repeated his talking
point of the day that Cheney's "last throes" comment may have been
accurate if you look up its definition in the dictionary (in essence,
parroting Cheney's own defense of his comments last week). On Fox,
Rumsfeld said, "Last throes could be a violent last throe, just as well
as a placid or calm last throe. Look it up in the dictionary." (After
defending Cheney's comments, Rumsfeld completely contradicted himself,
asserting that the insurgency could last 12 years.) On NBC, he said,
"The last throes could be violence, as you well know from a dictionary
standpoint." And on ABC, he told host George Stephanopoulos to "look it
up." Rumsfeld has frequently turned to the Oxford Dictionary to bail
himself out of difficult situations, such as when he tried to twist
General Abizaid's assertion that Iraq had become a guerrilla war
(Rumsfeld: "I have since gone to the dictionary") or when he defended
his characterization of the war on terror as a long, hard "slog"
(Rumsfeld: "It's not only the Oxford Dictionary's preferred definition,
it's mine"). Rumsfeld's quippy, semantic word-game misses the central
fact that "last throes" comment misleads the American public into
believing that we're on our way out of Iraq.

GITMO RATIONALE BREAKS DOWN IN THE FACE OF TALKS WITH IRAQI INSURGENTS:
Rumsfeld confirmed a report from The London Sunday Times that the U.S.
has been negotiating with Iraqi insurgents. To explain why the U.S. is
now negotiating with the enemy - a stance that President Bush has yet
to publicly confirm - Rumsfeld offered the following response: "If
you think about it, there aren't the good guys and the bad guys over
there. There are people all across the spectrum." This nuanced view of
the enemy is one that escaped Rumsfeld when he devised his scheme to
detain terrorists at the Guantanamo Bay facility. Rumsfeld sees these
detainees in pure black-and-white terms: "They're suicide bombers.
They're terrorists. They're murderers and these are bad people. These
are not good people." If the U.S. can now negotiate with insurgents in
Iraq, why can't we afford basic human rights and due process to
detainees in Guantanamo?

NEW SPIN, SAME AS THE OLD SPIN: The mainstream press continues to
repeat the canard that the White House is changing its message on Iraq.
Secretary Rumsfeld "road-tested" the purportedly new message this
weekend, and it was the rhetorical equivalent of a 1980 Austin
Princess: old, tired, and unreliable. Knight-Ridder laid out the three
major planks of the "new" message: "'Progress is being made politically
and economically' in Iraq; ...And we have never miscalculated, erred,
or misled you." Sound familiar? That's because each of those points -
one and two - have been repeated by the White House for months.

....AND JUST AS FALSE: Take point number one: though it may be true that
Iraq is slowly advancing politically, that progress has occurred
despite the security situation in Iraq for which Secretary Rumsfeld is
accountable, not because of it. Moreover, Iraq's economy is still
decidedly a mixed bag. While many Iraqis are wealthier today than they
were two years ago, "by other measures, like electricity availability
and the unemployment rate, Iraq's economy appears weaker than it was
during the Baathist reign," a Brookings analysis noted this month.

RUMSFELD DEFENDS ROVE'S FALSE SMEAR: Asked whether he was happy with
the way liberals reacted after September 11, Rumsfeld said, "I think
you're talking about Karl Rove, is that what that is? Yeah, it is. I
don't do politics. You know that, Tim." That is, until 10 seconds
later, when Rumsfeld proceeded to repeat Rove's remarks. "I think that
what [Rove] was saying was, look, the point I made earlier, do you want
to treat terrorists with indictments and trials here in the United
States, or do you want to treat terrorists like terrorists, get them
off the battlefield, keep them from killing people, find out everything
you can so you can stop future attacks?" But statements from President
Bush and House leader Tom DeLay, as well as polls taken shortly after
September 11, show this is patently false. Here's one survey, taken
9/13/01-9/14/01, demonstrating startling unanimity across the political
spectrum in the wake of the attacks: "Should the U.S. take military
action against those responsible? Yes: 93% of Republicans, 86% of
Democrats, 76% of independents."

IS RUMSFELD A ROVIAN LIBERAL?: Rumsfeld made a number of stark
observations this weekend that, if spoken from a different mouth, may
have become political fodder for Karl Rove. Rumsfeld said, "We're not
going to win against this insurgency." He later said, "Foreigners don't
defeat insurgencies." Rumsfeld also added the insurgency could go on
for 12 years, and he confirmed that there have been "many" talks with
insurgents. Seems like Rumsfeld is offering "therapy and understanding
for our attackers."

RUMSFELD FORGETS WHETHER HE PREDICTED THE INSURGENCY: Secretary
Rumsfeld yesterday demonstrated a near photographic memory of all the
bad things he told President Bush might happen, but didn't: "I
presented the president a list of about 15 things that could go
terribly, terribly wrong before the war started: the fact that the oil
fields could have been set aflame like they were in Kuwait, the fact
that we could have had mass refugees and dislocations and it didn't
happen, the bridges could have blown up, there could have been a
Fortress Baghdad with a moat around it with oil in it and people
fighting to the death.... So a great many of the bad things that could
have happened did not happen." Rumsfeld can't recall, however, if he
told President Bush that there might be an "robust insurgency": "I
don't remember if that was on there," Rumsfeld told Tim Russert

"Ignoramus20427" wrote in message
...
I would like to ask the conservatives on this board to publicly
apologize for supporting this war.

Go **** yourself.

BTW--I would like to ask the liberals on this board to publicly thank the
President for having the insight to institute a plan that would draw the
terrorists into a central location in the Middle East...so that our properly
armed soldiers can fight them there, instead of civilians getting blown up
over here.

I would like to ask the conservatives on this board to publicly
apologize for supporting this war.


NOYB wrote:
Go **** yourself.


What an intelligent, well reasoned response.

BTW--I would like to ask the liberals on this board to publicly thank the
President for having the insight to institute a plan that would draw the
terrorists into a central location in the Middle East...so that our properly
armed soldiers can fight them there, instead of civilians getting blown up
over here.


Actually, that's not what's happening at all.

Ask any clued-in person at the CIA, DIA, State Dept, or military intel
about the 'Class of 2005' effect.

DSK

NOYB wrote:
"Ignoramus20427" wrote in message
...
I would like to ask the conservatives on this board to publicly
apologize for supporting this war.

Go **** yourself.

BTW--I would like to ask the liberals on this board to publicly thank the
President for having the insight to institute a plan that would draw the
terrorists into a central location in the Middle East...so that our properly
armed soldiers can fight them there, instead of civilians getting blown up
over here.

Go **** yourself.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:19:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"Ignoramus20427" wrote in message
...
I would like to ask the conservatives on this board to publicly
apologize for supporting this war.

Go **** yourself.

BTW--I would like to ask the liberals on this board to publicly thank the
President for having the insight to institute a plan that would draw the
terrorists into a central location in the Middle East...so that our
properly armed soldiers can fight them there, instead of civilians getting
blown up over here.

When our next President, most likely a Democrat thanks to GWB, is still
killing terrorists in Iraq, I wonder if you will still be so thankful.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:19:47 +0000, NOYB wrote:


"Ignoramus20427" wrote in message
...
I would like to ask the conservatives on this board to publicly
apologize for supporting this war.

Go **** yourself.

BTW--I would like to ask the liberals on this board to publicly thank the
President for having the insight to institute a plan that would draw the
terrorists into a central location in the Middle East...so that our
properly armed soldiers can fight them there, instead of civilians
getting
blown up over here.

When our next President, most likely a Democrat thanks to GWB, is still
killing terrorists in Iraq, I wonder if you will still be so thankful.

Whoever the next President is, I just hope he doesn't pull out of Iraq,
further emboldening the terrorists.


From bin Laden's Fatwa in 1996:

" Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took
place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces
at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this
courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than
twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous
propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of
the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force,
including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However,
when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American
Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying
disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared
in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these
threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by
Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became
very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy
to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three
Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu. "


---------------------------------------------------------------------
For all those who say that we're losing in Iraq, I say this: as long as we
stay there in the face of adversity, the terrorists have lost. Only when we
leave, will they have won.

We will never lose as long as a Bush is President.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

We will never lose as long as a Bush is President.

You cannot possibly be that simple-minded.

You missed what I said. I said that withdrawal equals losing. We will
never lose as long as a Bush is President.


Bush 2008. Eight more years.

"Ignoramus20427" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:59:56 GMT, NOYB wrote:
From bin Laden's Fatwa in 1996:

" Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took
place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and
pieces
at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this
courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than
twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous
propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of
the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force,
including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However,
when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American
Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying
disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton
appeared
in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these
threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced
by
Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses
became
very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a
remedy
to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three
Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu. "

That was quite lucid. "They" have a lot more at stake in Iraq than we
do.


If by "they", you mean the terrorists, than my response is : "Yes, they do".
If the terrorists are unsuccessful in ousting us from Iraq, then they will
have failed in their ultimate goal...which is ousting US troops from the
entire Middle East so that they can establish an Islamic state funded by
control of the region's oil.






For all those who say that we're losing in Iraq, I say this: as long as
we
stay there in the face of adversity, the terrorists have lost. Only when
we
leave, will they have won.

Wars can be lost even with a lot of resolve. A country can lose due to
lack of money, or lack of soldiers. With a all volunteer military and
declining enlistment, that is not very far fetched.

We'll always have a military presence in Iraq. Always.



We will never lose as long as a Bush is President.

That's not going to last beyond the next few years, for sure.

Notice I said *a* Bush...not necessarily George W. Bush.

Bush in 2008. Eight more years.

NOYB wrote:
We'll always have a military presence in Iraq. Always.


So, the pronouncements that we went into Iraq to spread democracy &
freedom, then leave, all that was also a lie?

DSK

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:59:56 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Whoever the next President is, I just hope he doesn't pull out of Iraq,
further emboldening the terrorists.

Well, I agree with that. Thanks to GWB, we have broken Iraq. It is now
our duty to fix it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------- For
all those who say that we're losing in Iraq, I say this: as long as we
stay there in the face of adversity, the terrorists have lost. Only when
we leave, will they have won.

We will never lose as long as a Bush is President.

The guy is an incompetent boob. If you haven't noticed, his "political
capital" has been ****ed away. The status quo in Iraq is not enough.
The President's rosy statements are not enough. There are real problems
in Iraq and Civil War is still a serious possibility. This cowboy's idea
of leadership is to prance around in a flight suit. It's not enough.

An interesting take on Iraq:

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Dail...005062822.html