The World vs Rummy

[Vyan]

On Tuesday, Donald Rumfelds opened his big fat yap again, and decided to claim that anyone who has criticized thie Bush Administrations "Strategery" in the Iraq War - which would include 63% of the American people - are all "morally and intellectually" confused. The Equivelent of "Nazi Appeasers".

But Rummy got something he probably didn't expect as he slammed the critics.

He got a torrent of additional criticism from Democrats and the Media - the likes of which this Administration has sorely needed, but rarely seen. And it's been a beautiful thing to behold.

First up we of course have Keith Olberman's Masterful Smackdown of The Rumster. From Crooks and Liars.

This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely. And as such, all voices count - not just his. Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience - about Osama Bin Laden's plans five years ago - about Saddam Hussein's weapons four years ago - about Hurricane Katrina's impact one year ago - we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their omniscience as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to flu vaccine shortages, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelope this

nation - he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies, have - inadvertently or intentionally - profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer's New Clothes.

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised?

As a child, of whose heroism did he read?

On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight?

With what country has he confused... the United States of America?

On that same episode of Countdown, Howard Dean also took Rumsfeld to task.

DEAN: This time, we`re not going to lay down and worry about what their supposed toughness on defense. The truth is, the defense issue works for us now. They have a war on terror, they have a war in Iraq, and they have a war on the middle class. They`ve attacked people`s--kids` ability to go to college, healthcare, wages have gone down. Katrina has been a mess. We`re in a middle of a civil war in Iraq.

They don`t know how to deal with anything. They can`t get anything right, including defending America. You can`t trust the Republicans with your money, you can`t trust them to fix really big natural disasters, you can`t trust them to defend America.

...

No amount of name-calling is going to save them. The majority of the American people do not believe the President Bush is telling the truth, the majority of the American people do not believe this administration is competent. We want a new direction in America, and the Democrats will provide one.

...

These guys got us into Iraq without asking the military for their opinion, and then when they got their opinion, they ignored it.

Rummy probably learned his tricks from his Boss. In his recent interview with Brian Wilsom in New Orleans, the President claimed that "Islamic Fundamentalists attacked us (at 9-11) long before he ever thougth of deposing Saddam Hussein" - but that is a lie.

In the book O'Neill reported the following:

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying `Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

Also remember that BushGov completely ignored the Warnings about Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda coming from Richard Clarke until August, who had written his first of many memos on the subject to the then incoming Bush Administration starting on Jan 25, 2001.

Even before he was President, Bush had Saddam on the Brain back in 1999 when speaking to author Mickey Heskowitz.

According to Herskowitz, Bush told him: "My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it."

Clearly he was thinking of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam long before 9-11.

And now as people legitimately question why we went Iraq when they not only had no connection to Al Qaeda or WMD's- they told us they had no WMD's and BushGov simply ignored them - the Bush Administration claim these people are essentially - traitors.

Rather than become cowed and afraid to speak up, Democrats are doing the opposite.

Paul Begala:

"He sounded like a batty old man. A more decent society would put him in one of those coats with no cuffs and take him off to one of those rooms with padding on the walls"

Nancy Pelosi:

"What the Secretary must be forgetting is what emboldens the enemy is sending our troop into the line of fire without the equipment they need to protect themselves and get the job done. What emboldens the enemy is sending them there without the military intelligence to get the job done."

Harry Reid:

Secretary Rumsfeld's reckless comments show why America is not as safe as it can or should be five years after 9/11. The Bush White House is more interested in lashing out at its political enemies and distracting from its failures than it is in winning the War on Terror and in bringing an end to the war in Iraq. If there's one person who has failed to learn the lessons of history it's Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld ignored military experts when he rushed to war without enough troops, without sufficient body armor, and without a plan to succeed.

The LA Times has Piled On, essentially saying Pipe Down Rummy

Maybe Rumsfeld never got the memo, or, if he did, he crumpled it up. His speech was vintage Rumsfeld. It was also unfair and, in places, inane.

Take the suggestion that critics of Bush's Iraq policy are the moral equivalent of those who refused to stop Hitler. There's a reason why high school debaters are warned away from Nazi analogies: They're almost always disproportionate. Even Bush, who recently raised eyebrows by identifying "Islamic fascism" as America's enemy, stopped short of referring to critics of his policies as latter-day Neville Chamberlains.

Even more offensive is Rumsfeld's "blame America first" canard. Who exactly has been pushing what he called "the destructive view that America -- not the enemy -- is the real source of the world's troubles"? Certainly no one in mainstream American political discourse, not even those members of Congress who want to set a date for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. Their argument, right or wrong, is that Iraq is descending into civil war and that the U.S. presence there is unavailing and a drain on resources better expended elsewhere, including on counter-terrorism at home.

The Washington Post has also stepped up to the plate:

Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics "claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone." And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."

Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. (emphasis added)

So just who the hell are these "appeasers" who would snatch surrender from the jaws of our clearly glorious victory in Iraq?

They're the phantasms inside of Bush, Cheney and Rummy's mind that's what. They are the evil bogey-men Lib-ER-als that make it hard for them to sleep at night. Sweating through a horrid Barbara Streisand/Michael Moore-mare, that keeps Rummy well stocked in Depends. They don't care about Al Qaeda, they don't care about protecting America - Katrina proved that - they only care about destroying Democrats and Liberals, period.

But if this is the Republicans final desperation play to retain a hold on Congress, I have to say they are in dire straights indeed. This dog doesn't hunt anymore. Most of America has finally figured out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, or Osama Bin Laden. And just where is Bin Laden anyway?

Republicans are losing it as the hot moist breath of defeat - IN CONGRESS - is steaming their collar, and it's driving them off the deep end with this "Nazi Appeaser" bullcrap.

And I can't help but smile - the end is near - and it's coming for BushGov.

Vyan

[Jim__]

1. Thanks for posting that.

I hadn't seen the clip of KO before. Impressive!

[Wickerman]

2. K & R

In a more decent society the people would've demanded his resignation by the end of the day. This is, after all, the same society that forced the termination of Jocelyn Elders for daring to mention - gasp! - masturbation.

[notadmblnd]

3. Why people aren't calling for this asshat's resignation...

I don't know.

[Jacobin]

4. Excellent summary

Thanks for posting that.

:thumbsup:

[RethugAssKicker]

5. Thanks... Gopd info

[ninkasi]

6. I think Begala hit the nail on the head with his statement

"He sounded like a batty old man. A more decent society would put him in one of those coats with no cuffs and take him off to one of those rooms with padding on the walls"

That applies to several other Bushites. I don't think any other administration has had so many crazy people in positions of power as this one. They are all either completely corrupt, bat-shit crazy, or both.

Recommended, great post, thanks Vyan.

[Vyan]

7. Pardon my typos

I noticed a ton of them after the editing period had expired. My Bad.

[Harry Monroe]

8. I just fired off this letter to the editor...

...to my local "hometown" newspaper, the statewide newspaper (Clarion-Ledger of Jackson MS) and to USA Today. I don't claim to channel Keith Olbermann, but I raised his points of the other night:

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: fascism n. “A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of extreme nationalism.”

On August 29th, in a speech in Salt Lake City, Donald Rumsfeld compared the war on terrorism with “fascism” and accused those of us who are questioning the war in Iraq as being “morally or intellectually confused”. Furthermore, he compared those that are questioning this war with the “appeasers” of the British government of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938 in its acquiescence to Adolph Hitler.

We must remember that Rumsfeld and this Administration have always held that they had the “facts” and were correct in their “moral certitude” that we must invade Iraq in our continuing struggle in this “war on terrorism”. The “facts” have, one by one, been since discredited and all this Administration has left is to try and question the average American’s intelligence, patriotism and to play on their fears.

Mr. Rumsfeld sorely needs a history lesson. In 1938, it was Chamberlain’s government who was sure they had the “facts”, were “certain” that Hitler posed no real threat. So sure were they of the “certainty” of these “facts” that they went to Munich, positive and “certain” that Hitler could be appeased by granting him the region of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, in exchange for his demand for the whole country. History has since shown this to be an obviously false assumption.

Flash forward to 2002-2003. The Bush Administration is “certain” that Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda and had a hand in 9/11. The Administration is “certain” that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction. So, “certain” was this Administration in their “facts” that they chose to launch a pre-emptive war in Iraq, opening up a completely unnecessary front in their “war on terror” based on their “facts”, facts that have been completely and utterly since been proven false. This new “front” in Iraq has fermented the organization of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, where they did not previously exist. It has caused Iraq to be fragmented along ethnic lines and has caused the country to explode to the brink of civil war. None of these conditions existed before we invaded. We have removed a ruthless dictator who has “terrorized” his own citizens, but at what cost?? All the “facts” and the whole rationale for Bush’s war have collapsed like a house of cards, and we are left in Iraq holding the bag with no end in sight. The real architect and mastermind of 9/11, the one who so brazenly dared attack us, is in a cave somewhere on the Afghani-Pakistani border laughing at us in derision. He is laughing at the Bush Administration’s own ineptitude and incompetence. He is laughing at us now because he realizes that this “war on terrorism” is laughably easy for him; let this Administration do his bidding because of this Administration’s own stupidity and supreme arrogance in continuing to “stay the course” in Iraq; a course which is clearly not working, a course which recruits new fanatics to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda’s cause each and every day.

BTW, another little history for Mr. Rumsfeld. One of the most vocal opponents of the Chamberlain government’s “ moral certitude” of having all the “facts” on Hitler, one of the most visible of those who were “morally and intellectually confused” about these so called facts, was a man by the name of Winston Churchill. History has since proven Mr. Churchill correct in both his “morality” and “intellect”.

We who oppose this war do not suffer from some “moral and intellectual confusion” as Mr. Rumsfeld suggests. Quite the contrary, it is this Administration that is clearly suffering from this malady and is now grasping at straws by questioning our morality and intellect and has nothing to offer now but fear mongering and divisiveness. It prefers to live in a “reality” bubble of its own making, still stubbornly clinging to its “facts” and “moral certitude” and pathetically suggesting that we dwell in this bubble with them. As far as this war being compared to being a war on “fascism”, I’ll let the definition of “fascism” speak for itself and be the last word. It should certainly speak volumes to the American public that what we have now is “an extreme right wing Administration that has continually been merging state and business leadership, together with an ideology of extreme nationalism”

“We have met the enemy, and he is us” Walt Kelly, creator of “Pogo”

[Ecclesiastes]

19. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

My Second College Edition shows:

Fascism 1 - A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism. 2 -Oppressive or dictatorial control.

Which edition are you using?

[civildisoBDence]

9. They ain't seen nothin' yet

The closer the '06 elections get, the more those cautious fence-sitting journalists and commentators will unload on Dick, Don, DUHbya and the whole neocon cabal.

The Oinky Boinky Machine

[Amonester]

10. K&R for the Friday night crowd!

:dem:

[Maestro]

11. I just heard a loud pop!

Oh forget it. It was the local freeper's head exploding!

Nice summary!

[Ecclesiastes]

12. A new and different world ...

The internet has given amplified voice to millions, leveling
the field between those who "buy ink by the barrel"
and those who buy broadband by the month. This is a fantastic
thing, but the change goes much farther than that.

This thread is based on a MSNBC report by Olberman. Olberman
has presented his analysis, but he depends upon the difficulty
of obtaining the original Rumsfeld speech to make his job
relevant, and then to cover-up his distortions. Thanks to
Google, Rumsfeld's speech is not hard to find and isn't even
as long as the original post of this thread -
http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1033.

Vyan, the very thing that makes your post possible also
precludes your reliance upon a talking head's analysis rather
than the original. If Rumsfeld had said the things Olberman
accuses him of and in the tone Olberman describes, your post
would have merit. Rumsfeld didn't.

In the debate between left and right, the habit of relying on
testimony of partisan commentators stops the debate cold. The
two sides only argue about different things together. One may
sound brilliant to one's friends, and still be utterly wrong.

Telling me how you disagree with, hate, and distrust
Olberman's straw man doesn't accomplish anything. I disagree
with, hate, and distrust Olberman's straw man too. We are
agreed that this straw man is vile. So what?

You, I'm sure, have good reasons to disagree with Rumsfeld.
You may have good reasons to hate and distrust Rumsfeld.
Please proceed.

[Sparkly]

13. LOL!!!

CLASSIC!!!

"If Rumsfeld had said the things Olberman accuses him of and in the tone Olberman describes, your post would have merit. Rumsfeld didn't."

Which things did Olbermann accuse Rumsfeld of saying, that Rumsfeld did NOT say?

:rofl:

[Sparkly]

14. Let me guess -- you're busy looking up all the examples

and there are SO many, it's going to take you a while.... :hi:

[Ecclesiastes]

18. Rumsfeld speech Vs Olbermann's report

First, if the DOD website lied about what Rumsfeld said, I
have high confidence that Olbermann, and a hundred others in
scores of regular news media providers, would tell us. As a
matter of fact, I accept what is there until someone can
provide the audio to show that it isn't accurate. If someone
has a problem with that, it's time to either fish or cut bait:
show me.

Olbermann's report characterizes Rumsfeld's speech as serving
" 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
..."

Reading the speech I see only two references to those people.

"But this is still not well recognized or fully
understood. It seems that in some quarters there's more of a
focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against
the gathering threats. "

"The struggle we are in -- the consequences are too
severe -- the struggle too important to have the luxury of
returning to that old mentality of “Blame America First.”
"

I don't see anything in these two sentences that even
references anyone's morality or loyalty. One could take the
first as a challenge to one's ignorance, but it is overly
sensitive to hear it as an insult to one's intelligence.

Olbermann goes on: "Worse, still, it credits those same
transient occupants - our employees - with a total omniscience
...".

I can't find any such claim at all. Rumsfeld cites history and
current publicly available information. I don't see him
referencing anything I haven't seen independantly and from
international sources beyond the control of the US.

The rest of Olbermann's report builds upon this shoddy
foundation with other mischaracterizations as trim.

If someone has a different transcript of his address at the
88th Annual American Legion National Convention, and can quote
Rumsfeld to say any of the things that Olbermann accuses, then
do so and cite the reference. I don't respond to trolls and if
someone changes the subject, I assume that they concede my
point.

[Sparkly]

20. I'll explain it to you.

Loyalty, is addressed in the quotes you cited, among others.

Intelligence, in words like these:

"But some seem not to have learned history's lessons."
"But this is still not well recognized or fully understood."
"The good news is that most Americans, though understandably influenced by what they see and read, have good inner gyroscopes. They have good center of gravity. So, I'm confident that over time they will evaluate and reflect on what is happening in this struggle and come to wise conclusions about it."

Morality, in words like these:

"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."

Total omniscience:

Of course, he didn't use the words, "We are omniscient." But he credits himself and the rest of the administration with knowing the "lessons" and "recognizing" and "understanding" and being "unconfused" and knowing "right and wrong," while building STRAWMEN to falsely represent criticism against them.

As Olbermann pointed out, they obviously do NOT know what they claim to know, because they've screwed it up and gotten it wrong at EVERY TURN!!

DoD site was down; transcript is also here: http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=10071

[Ecclesiastes]

22. Re: I'll explain it to you

A cogent response! Sparkly, you're a step up from the crowd. Your profile shows you are female, and I will assume that is true.

I will take your points out of order, entirely for my benefit. Is that obvious, honest, and transparent enough? I have a rant at the end that you can make fun of.

Olbermann's accusation of "total omniscience" shows that Rumsfeld is not building straw men. Reading widely on DU will show that Olbermann is thoughtful, tame, and common. He doesn't address the substance of Rumsfeld's argument. He is offended and looks for further offense. Vyan stands upon Olbermann's shoulders. They are not straw men. They exist.

No one takes a contrary position thinking they have *less* information or have applied *less* thought than his opponent. I don't. You don't. Rumsfeld doesn't. I consider the "total omniscience" point to be ceded.

By the way, I further consider my original point to be conceded as well. Are we, you and I, not going back to the original source to resolve a disagreement? "LOL!!!" and "Classic!!!" indeed.

Rumsfeld's statement that you claim challenges your "morality" would comfortably fit in any textbook analysis of politics and policy. It's as applicable to India's struggle for Independence from Great Britain as it is here. It is a cold truth accusing everyone and no one. That you take offense says more about you than about Rumsfeld.

I read the statements you cite regarding intelligence to be ambiguous, referring equally to either either ignorance, or poor judgment in selecting information to be included and considered, until the last one. Your list of statements regarding "intelligence" includes, at the last:

"The good news is that most Americans, though understandably influenced by what they see and read, have good inner gyroscopes. They have good center of gravity. So, I'm confident that over time they will evaluate and reflect on what is happening in this struggle and come to wise conclusions about it.",

which is, as *I* read it, a trust *in* your intelligence rather than a dismissal of it. Do you really mean to argue that his confidence is unfounded?

Finally, your strongest point: a challenge to loyalty, which I will concede.

Being in agreement with Rumsfeld on the foundation of his argument, I didn't see any challenge to loyalty, at first.

I see a "gathering threat". I read what Imams and Muftis say to their congregations. I read their reasoning. I read what their congregations are doing and what their leaders are saying on the news. I look at the numbers, the demographics, and I see a threat.

If the argument is about the existence of that threat, fine. There's no question of loyalty in such a debate.

When I see the kinds of things that Rumsfeld lists in his paragraph which begins "It's a strange time ...", yes, I see those things as disloyal.

We have the common experience of high school and high school sports. From that I will draw an analogy.

Consider:

your high school newspaper that spends 10 times as much space on the player who committed a foul as it does on who scored;
or its editor who disparages the team as hired thugs rather than high school students who volunteered;
or your town's sports editor that accuses team players of vandalizing his car and willfully printing the lies and slander of the opposing town's coach regarding the purity of his sports program and the moral corruption of yours.

Now consider the nature of the students who abide such things. Are they "loyal"?

My mistake, I asked what I thought was a rhetorical question. I can't depend on your understanding. I'll just have to tell you: I don't think such students are loyal.

It doesn't matter if it's the tennis team or the the marines. None of this is about debating the substance of the issues. It's just morale crushing crap.

The media that Rumsfeld describes doesn't just spring into existence and continue without support. It takes money, and lots of it, for them to do this. MSNBC depends upon viewers existence and attention to keep this up and those people who eagerly tune in are supporting morale crushing crap.

So, yeah, Rumsfeld questioned some people's loyalty.

So, let's spend just a moment on whether there is a gathering threat. You may consider it a rant and ignore it if you like.

I think supporting and amplifying morale crushing crap is disloyal. Vietnam tells me that the US can lose if that crap succeeds in crushing its morale. Islam's highest Imams are saying to over a billion muslims that they will eventually conquer the US. Islam believes that its Sharia law is God's will and intend to rule the earth with it. They have been working on this for over a thousand years. Really!

That law says a man may take up to 4 wives, he can discipline thing corporally, he can divorce them at his will and they have to find a cleric to force him to divorce them if they want out. That law says jews and christians must wear distinctive clothes, pay special taxes, and can never have any position of authority over any muslim. That law says atheists and pagans are to be killed outright. That law says homosexuals are to be stoned, alcohol and musical instruments are to be banned, and you, Sparkly, will get under a sack and stay there or they will kill you.

I try to be and stay aware of the news around the globe. I try to avoid being the kind of American who is ignorant. What I read from foreign news is that they actually mean everything I have just said, because they actually *do* all those things to each other in their countries.

Did I happen to mention that there are over a billion muslims?

So, I see a gathering threat. I don't give a damn whether Bush is smart as long as he is stubborn. I'm not going to get fussed if our team - and I mean the US, not the Republican party - blows a shot or commits a couple of fouls.

If the only way to make sure that your daughter's daughter's daughter wouldn't be forced to live under a sack was to kill them all, I'd do it.

[Sparkly]

25. I'll explain further -- for whatever good it may do...

You wrote, Olbermann's accusation of "total omniscience" shows that Rumsfeld is not building straw men. Reading widely on DU will show that Olbermann is thoughtful, tame, and common. He doesn't address the substance of Rumsfeld's argument. He is offended and looks for further offense. Vyan stands upon Olbermann's shoulders. They are not straw men. They exist.

A "strawman" is a false representation of an opponent's point of view. Rumsfeld (and you, apparently) erects a fake opponent who "hasn't learned history's lessons," who "blames America first," who needs to be "educated" about our country and the military, who suffers "moral or intellectual confusion," who need to be told there are "serious, lethal, and relentless" threats, because supposedly, they are not "well recognized or fully understood."

THAT is the strawman. It is NOT that the administration has no opponents, and are making up an idea of opposition -- they have plenty of opposition (the majority of the country now). It is that they mischaracterize this opposition, making up a FAKE counter-position, in order to knock it down.

Are we clear on "strawman?"

"I further consider my original point to be conceded as well." I assume you mean you are ceding it, whatever it was. My original point stands: Despite the classic rightwing spin and denials, Rummy did say what it's now claimed he didn't say, and Olbermann was right on point.

Are we clear on why your first post was laughably "classic" to me?

The rest of your argument on this comes from the same OMNISCIENT point of view as Rummy's. If you believe he and the rest of the cabal have been RIGHT on everything (or anything), then it's just a matter of everyone else becoming "moral" about it, "unconfused" about it, and having confidence that eventually, they'll all come to "understand" the TRUTH that you know and they don't. In other words, you're right, and they're wrong, period.

That's unmitigated BULLSHIT!! And I dare say Rummy and the entire machine (save Chimpy, perhaps) KNOWS it.

Now for the nonsense about "loyalty."

Rummy: When a database search of America's leading newspapers turns up literally 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers who has been punished for misconduct -- 10 times more -- than the mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror;
There is no controversy or ongoing developments around Paul Ray Smith; there's plenty of controversy, issues worth discussion, and ongoing news when soldiers are accused of misconduct. (Would you like to compare mentions of Cynthia McKinney's incident with House security, or perhaps the girl missing in Aruba, with either of these?)

Rummy: Or when a senior editor at Newsweek disparagingly refers to the brave volunteers in our armed forces -- the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard -- as a "mercenary army;"
Did you read the entire quote, and do you know who said it? It was Eleanor Clift, commenting on McLaughlin Group:

I think if the policymakers and the elites who decide these issues about going to war -- if their sons and daughters were on the line and faced the risk of being drafted, they would think a little longer and a little harder before they committed us to a war of choice. So I agree with him to that extent.

But I think what we're coming to grips with is the fact that we actually have a mercenary Army. And it doesn't have a nice ring to it. We call it "volunteers," but we're basically paying people to serve their country. And if you're going to pay people and have a mercenary Army, you're going to have to pay the market rate. And so the bounties are going up -- more money for tuition, higher enlistment bonuses -- and I think it's appropriate.

http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=481
This quote was selected because when taken out of context, the word "mercenary" can have negative connotations.

Rummy: When the former head of CNN accuses the American military of deliberately targeting journalists;
Full story here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/022405A.shtml

Rummy: and the once CNN Baghdad bureau chief finally admits that as bureau chief in Baghdad, he concealed reports of Saddam Hussein's crimes when he was in charge there so that CNN could keep on reporting selective news;
It’s not as if the administration didn’t have this much info and more. Full story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A26857-2003Apr14¬Found=true

Rummy: And it's a time when Amnesty International refers to the military facility at Guantanamo Bay -- which holds terrorists who have vowed to kill Americans and which is arguably the best run and most scrutinized detention facility in the history of warfare -- "the gulag of our times."
It may hold such terrorists, but they are not the only people it holds. Guantanamo is a legal black hole, with enough “grey” area to enables this administration to get away with skirting international law. AI has every right to say what they did.

“Morale crushing crap,” you say – I say what’s “morale crushing” is sending the troops into an endless, ill-conceived battle, misusing them, expecting them to solve problems that can’t be solved militarily, using them for political purposes, and then pretending that LYING about it all is better than telling the truth. Some may feel better hearing lies at this point – that’s understandable. But as citizens, we need to hold to account those who got them into this mess, and insist on a solution to it.

The rest of your post is more ranting a la Rummy as if nobody else knew there’s a threat, and then exaggerating it to ridiculous proportions. The fact is, these reckless, irresponsible, ill-conceived and just plain STUPID policies have made the threats worse, but you've swallowed a heaping helping of FEAR.

Here’s an analogy for how I see your rant:

“There are cockroaches. They need to be exterminated. Therefore we must blow up the houses in the neighborhood to rid ourselves of the cockroaches. What? You think that’s a bad idea? So you obviously LIKE cockroaches! Don’t you realize how MANY cockroaches there are? You must have no idea what it’s like to turn on the lights and see them scatter – it’s disgusting! And they spread filth! It’s a threat! They even poop! They could take over your household and evict you!! Next thing you know, your great-grandchildren will be their slaves, serving them crumbs of bread on little tiny platters!! I’d sure hate to see that happen to you!!!"

Fine, there are cockroaches; there are threats. Acknowledging they need to be dealt with EFFECTIVELY, and acknowledging the truth that this administration has done the OPPOSITE of that -- making them far, far, far WORSE -- is not being unaware that there is any threat at all.

Finally, however, I am really NOT scared that Muslims are going to take over the United States and force generations of women to live under sacks, etc. I am absolutely AMAZED that anyone is THAT scared!!!!

I feel sorry for you. I truly do.

[Ecclesiastes]

26. I just checked the rules ..

Sparkly, everything you have written has confirmed for me that Rumsfeld is right. I'm serious. There isn't a single sentence you have written that doesn't support Rumsfeld's characterizations. I had heard rumors of this but it's still amazing.

I'd like to argue all those points but I just re-read the rules for this forum and I can't. That sort of thing isn't permitted. It would violate rule 4 and by extension rule 2. You're an accomplished progressive and anything I would say to you would be disruptive and would undermine promoting progressive ideals.

So, you are victorious! You have triumphed! You're a genius here!

Thank you for your time. I have been acceptably enlightened.

[Sparkly]

28. Let's just sum it up then.

Rummy and the rest of the administration have been WRONG on everything from the start -- in their basic philosophy (leftover from the last time they were in power), to their cherry-picked "intel," to their "proof" of WMD and knowledge of where they were, to their "strategy" of "shock and awe," to their troop numbers despite what military brass said, to not securing munitions, to not establishing a political base from the START, to not securing borders, on and on and on and on...

And now THEY (you?) want to say WE don't understand something?

WE have moral or intellectual "confusion?"

WE just need to come around to see it all realistically?

WE are unpatriotic?

WE are disrespectful of our troops?

WE are unconcerned about the real threats of terrorism?

WE are undermining morale?

WE are undermining national security?

Do you know what Socratic Wisdom is? Basically, it's knowing what you do not know. Get some of that.

If you don't want it, I can't force it on you. The rules here permit you to stay and debate and read the REAL "other side," instead of the one you prefer to imagine. You are free to argue the points from an objective, rational, honest point of view. But if you're intent on reciting rightwing lies, sorry -- we hear enough of that.

We hear it ALL THE TIME.

So if that's all you've got, which these evil rules prevent you from posting, there's nothing new for you to say that might enlighten me -- it's been heard, read, and refuted a thousand times over as it is.

That's the fundamental difference between you and me. I read all points of view, and as a DUer, I'm among a community that accepts -- even welcomes -- disagreement and debate. As long as it's rooted in advancing truth, justice, equal rights, honesty (freedom, liberty, and all), we're all at home and at peace with disagreement.

I sense that you, however, have a more rigid, hemmed-in view of right/wrong, true/false, threatening/safe -- all based on fear. I say that for several reasons.

First, and most obviously, somebody has convinced you that our country is SO weak that we're vulnerable to an onslaught of Muslims who may impose any laws they wish upon us. Anyone who actually believes that has to be A) unaware of basic realities, and B) VERY scared as a result.

Second, it seems you're afraid to accept the truth, even when it's right up in your face. What is happening in Iraq -- and how we got to this point -- are indisputable facts. Only FEAR could cause someone to deny the obvious -- fear of being wrong, fear of losing self-respect, fear of losing others' respect, fear of letting go of something, etc...

Third, you fear contemplation of the truth. While you project onto DU a muzzle that prevents you from engaging in a debate, it's you who doesn't want to take this further. I haven't "alerted" on you, and the mods haven't yet tombstoned you -- and still, you didn't take the opportunity with your last post to state your views. You KNOW you can't last long here anyway, as an obvious rightwinger, so the notion that you're holding back due to DU rules is as silly as somebody in fear of breaking a rule on their last day of work ("What are they going to do, fire me?").

"So, you are victorious! You have triumphed! You're a genius here!"

That is YOUR cop-out.

You chose not to confront the obvious truth before your eyes. So we didn't dismiss you; you've dismissed us -- cataloguing it all neatly into "I had heard rumors of this but it's still amazing." Yes -- file it under "Must Dismiss Lest I Question Myself."

Have a nice life. :hi:

[Ecclesiastes]

29. Yes. Let's just sum it up.

" You KNOW you can't last long here anyway, as an obvious rightwinger, so the notion that you're holding back due to DU rules is as silly as somebody in fear of breaking a rule on their last day of work ("What are they going to do, fire me?"). "

I'll last a lot longer and know a lot more about the positions and best arguments for those positions of people like you at DU by abiding by the rules. I get along just fine on certain Jordanian, Iraqi, and Lebanese blogs. I do OK on TalkLeft.

You're funny. On the one hand you denigrate me, saying it's a cop-out, for refusing to engage you in a debate and two sentences later you tell me that I have every reason to expect to be banned for doing so. If I didn't know you were sincere in that oxymoron, I'd think you had just called me stupid.

Face it, you argue in a protected arena. The rules are here : http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html
and as you know, they are enforced. I got to read your best and you got to write it. Everybody is happy.

I understand that you're dissatisfied with your victory, but I swear to you it beats getting your head handed to you in an open arena.

[Vickers]

15. What sort of douchebaggery is this?

:shrug:

[sutz12]

16. Is that the actual speech?

Or is it the redacted and partly sanitized one he "wrote" as an op-ed in the LA Times two days later?

Or is it the cleaned up one that came out a day later than that. Olbermann had the original tape of the speech. I wouldn't trust the one stored on the DOD website for a minute.

Your supposed grasp of how the internets work is a bit out of touch with reality.

[Johnny Noshoes]

17. This explains so much about why we are in the mess we're in

"According to Herskowitz, Bush told him: 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it.'"

So much of the mess we are in is because * can't seem to work out his feelings towards his father. We're all suffering because this idiot can't get passed this Oedipal thing with Daddy.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, no matter how satisfying and reassuring."
- Carl Sagan

[MAX 1]

21. Appese WHO???????????????????

It could be said, that this Administration's tyrannical abuse of their critics, opposition, and dissenters is being fomented to appease this Administration itself. For if they can silence the critic, cancel out their opposition, and discredit the dissenter, then what voice will be heard over all others but that of the Administration’s and their minions.

Will the Administration then be appeased? Will the Administration then stop ridiculing, chastising and demonetizing the American people for having a difference of opinion then that OF the Leader’s?

What this Administration asks from Americans, is to become silent in opinion, invisible, and cooperative to the Administration's activities and war. To appease them as was done to the German’s and the rise of Hitler, the Communist's and the rise of the Cold War. To appease the BushCo. They ask for patriotic treason from the American people. We should not give it to them.

[Marrak]

23. Bush War Chief charges:

<>

[Imagevision]

24. Rumsfeld will learn from his own generated history that sometimes one

should keep his own mouth more securely shut...! Bush will offer Rumsfeld's resignation as GOP continues to tank, all they currently are using is allowing the gas prices down-down-down...

[gefilte]

27. Rumsfeld Stands Up Against Fascism

Yes, only Rummy stand up against fascism, as he did during the
Reagaon Administration. I give you Dec. 20, 1983:
[link:www.hoolinet.com/default.aspx?tabid=314|Rummy and
Saddam]