Can anyone even tell me what the hell this means, because it sounds like some unintelligible crap that my deadbeat brother in law, would slur on the phone after a three day drinking binge:
We have people in the country who have been attempting, ever since shortly after the war with Iraq commenced, that are trying to gin up as many anti-war support amongst the American population as possible. Yet here you are as a member of this administration with a stated goal where Iraq and the war on terror is concerned. You have to be aware of it anti-war opinion of those in the country who have it and you're aware of the people who are trying to foment it and make it larger. How do you as a public servant square the attitude of the anti-war people if you think it's a large group of people with what are your stated goals and what the president stated goals are? How do you put those two together and end up formulating a policy and sticking to it?
And how the hell did rummy get this as an answer out to it?
That's a very important question, and I guess only someone who's rooted in the history of our country, I think, could accept the kinds of comments that are being made -- and if we recognize that the same kinds of criticism that occurred in the Revolutionary War and World War I and World War II and the Korean War, Vietnam War, it's not new. There have always been people who have opposed wars. Wars are terrible things. On the other hand, if every time there were critics and opponents to war, we wouldn't have won the Revolutionary War and we wouldn't have been involved in World War I or II, and if we had we would have failed, and our country would be a totally different place if it existed at all, if every time there were some critics that we tossed in the towel. I think we just have to accept it, that people have a right to say what they want to say, and to have an acceptance of that and recognize that the terrorists, Zarqawi and bin Laden and Zawahiri, those people have media committees.
They are actively out there trying to manipulate the press in the United States. They are very good at it. They're much better at (laughing) managing those kinds of things than we are, and we have to recognize that we're not going to lose any battles out in the global war on terror out in Iraq or Afghanistan. The center of gravity of that war is right here, and in the capital of the United States of America and other Western capitals, in London, they're trying. It's a test of wills, and what's at stake for our country is our way of life. They want to strike at the very essence what we are. We're free people, and our task in government, by golly, is to help protect the American people from people who killed 3,000 people here on September 11th and killed people in London and Madrid and Bali, and country after country around the world who have no problems beheading people and murdering innocent men, women and children.
And did that son of a bitch just say a bunch of Generals who served in the Gulf Wars are now taking orders from Zarqawi and bin Laden and Zawahiri? The same worthless individual the spent the Korean war in the dangerous theater of Princeton, wearing nothing but an unarmored ROTC uniform?
:argh:
Can the mother-ship please come by and pick these people up finally?