Rumsfeld: Britain Attacks Not Tied To U.S. Alliance (CNN)

[WillyT]

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld rejects suggested links between London bombings and U.S. ties.

<snip>

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sharply rejected suggestions that Britain's alliance with the United States was to blame for the two recent transit bombing attacks in London.

His comments Thursday at the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles coincided with a videotaped broadcast of Osama bin Laden's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who threatened more attacks for London.

Rumsfeld defended the progress of the war on terrorism and said that terrorists did not have wars in Iraq or Afghanistan to justify previous attacks.

"The United States and its allies did not provoke the terrorists; the terrorists attacked America," he said. "There was no war in Iraq or Afghanistan when America was attacked on September 11th. And there was no war in Iraq or Afghanistan when terrorists attacked the Beirut barracks in 1983, in the Khobar Towers in 1996 or the African embassies in 1998, or when they attacked the USS Cole in the year 2000."

<snip>

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/04/rumsfeld.iraq/

Interesting logic there for the Secretary of War!!!

Are ALL the rePukes losin it these days??? (Santorum, Novak, Rumsfeld...)

We can only hope.

:shrug:

[Democrats_win]

1. Well that assumes the terrorists considered the first war in Iraq over

Isn't it ironic, in fact a Greek Tragedy, that we spend so much on defense and its the "defense" that got us into this mess.

[abbeyco]

2. So then, the remarks made today by Ayman al-Zawahiri

are lies? Isn't he in charge, by proxy for Bin Ladin, of the war on terra?

So, follow my logic, since Bin Ladin was the chief of 9/11 because of OUR invasion in Gulf War 1, isn't this a follow-along of Bin Ladin's thinking?

Maybe I'm just saying this out loud to clarify for myself and if I'm wrong, please edjumacate me - I'm new and may not know all of the facts or 'truths'.

:think:

[ladjf]

3. Shut up Rummy. Everyone knows that you are a liar.

[CJCRANE]

4. Reductio ad absurdem.

The RWers are using the reductio ad absurdem argument:

If the London attacks were due to anger over the Iraq War then ALL terrorist attacks ever in history were due to the Iraq War. As all terrorist attacks ever in history were not in fact due to the Iraq War then the attacks on London were not due to the Iraq War.

[WillyT]

5. LOL !!! - That's About The Size Of It !!!

:hi:

[bridgit]

6. the bush admin is trying to gather leads...

on just where to find cover for the disaster they've created from wherever they can. rumsfeld's comments imo are the latest bush admin 'take' on the recitation of terrorist activities that was offered by the australian prime minister, very reasoned, measured & long unfolding, during his visit to london the day the tubes were under siege. i think it scurrilous to watch these guys tap dancing away from their utter lack of battlefield planning. irag is a universal failure. they have broke it...it is time for them to buy it!!