Rumsfeld on Iran Today = Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2002
Rumsfeld on Iran Today = Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2002
Press Conference with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, today:
Q: What planning, if any, has the Pentagon been undertaken for the possibility of military action involving Iran? And has the nuclear strike option been ruled out?
RUMSFELD: You know, someone comes up with an idea, runs it in a magazine or a paper; other papers pick it up and reprint it; editorialists, then, say, Oh, Henny Penny, the sky is falling, and opine on this and opine that.
…But it is just simply not useful to get into fantasyland.
Press Conference with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/22/02:
Q: Sources say the President has a war plan on his desk about attacking Iraq? What types of options were provided to the President?
Rumsfeld: Of course I could and I won’t. I must say I find the people that are talking to the media about war plans are so far out of line and so disgracefully misbehaving that I find it stunning and a weak effort.
First of all I can tell you that anyone who knows anything isn’t talking and anyone with any sense isn’t talking therefore the people that are talking to the media by definition people who don’t know anything and people who don’t have a hell of a lot of sense.
According to Bob Woodward’s book, “Plan of Attack,” intense war planning for Iraq began in December 2001.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
72 Responses to “Rumsfeld on Iran Today = Rumsfeld on Iraq in 2002”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Can we get the Nationals fans to boo Rummy too?
April 11th, 2006 at 3:31 pm“Henny Penny”? What a maroon.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:34 pmcountering Bush/Cheney on their national security games is well argued in the progressive victory strategic plan being circulated and apparently dubbed the Dartmouth Plan…. some excellent ideas in there. if anyone wants a copy, it has a contact e-mail on it of publius.for.progress@gmail.com and is in pdf format. highly recommend. just 2 more years of this administration if they don’t start war with Iran first and suspend the Constitution.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:36 pmIt’s always that damn media. Does anyone really believe anything he says? These guys should know that we aren’t going to let them screw up another country, or worse, start WWIII and we will be the Axis.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:40 pmI’ve just been e-mailing back and forth with friends who are at the Nats game - two of them booed, and I can assure you they would boo Rummy too.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:42 pmI heard on Stephanie Miller that Iran’s top bozo ALSO seems itching to start “the end of the world”. Seems he feels there’s only a year or two left before we all die.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:45 pmI feel sick knowing these two idiots might actually pull it off.
Sec. Rumsfeld said “But it is just simply not useful to get into fantasyland.”
Aint that ironic in light of how badly the current administration and Republican party have screwed up our government, economy, deficit/debt, and military?
I guess they’re idea of “fantasyland” is “all is going well in America, the GOP isn’t splintering, and Abramoff was shot in the head before he could squeal about how corrupt the Republican party really is!â€
April 11th, 2006 at 3:46 pmThis is the same Rumsfeld who sold PLUTONIUM NUCLEAR REACTORS to Iran in 1976 over objections of Democrats - right? And the same Rumsfeld who argued that Iran needed a nuclear program?
Karma is a b!tch and she keeps slapping america for being stupid enough to elect these Nazis.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:46 pmA history forgotten (in the minds of the short attention spanners) is repeating itself.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:53 pmDid I read that correctly? Did he actually use the phrase “Henny Penny”?
April 11th, 2006 at 3:57 pmDespite Bush’s denials, the administration is clearly preparing for war with Iran, and we are supposed to read between the lines…
April 11th, 2006 at 3:57 pmThe White House response on this really scares me. If they were looking for a diplomatic solution, they would never say military options are off the table. The value of that threat is too great-it puts a lot of pressure on a country with bombable infrastructure. That is, IF they were looking for Iran to capitulate under pressure. It seems more like they are looking for another war.
I actually thought the lead-up to the Iraq war was brinksmanship. They got Saddam to capitulate to weapons inspection, full no-fly zones, etc. Then they demand he leaves the country, and bam-war starts right on their pre-determined schedule. This will be the same-low pressure on Iran till they are very close to having a functional nuke, get some vauge support for economic sanctions, and bam-war starts. m
April 11th, 2006 at 3:57 pmGreat NON-answer rumballs, now how about an answer TO THE QUESTION!
April 11th, 2006 at 3:58 pmThere is, however, a critical difference between their plans then and their plans now, I think.
April 11th, 2006 at 4:03 pm.
Non denial denials will get you into a war
April 11th, 2006 at 4:04 pmquicker than anything else.
One can only conclude that attacking Iran is insane, extremely dangerous and a rational person under normal circumstances would consider it to be highly unlikely. However, we have a madman in the White House and a madman as Secretary of Defense, therefore an attack on Iran becomes completely believable and maybe even inevitable. The end is near.
April 11th, 2006 at 4:06 pmSo far not one person associated with this crook infested mis-administration has said “NO” - we are not planning nor do we intent to attack Iran. Guess “all options” are still on the table.
April 11th, 2006 at 4:11 pmOne question that needs to be asked of Bushco… Do we have a first strike policy? Please. Stop these mofos before they make another decision of mass destruction.
April 11th, 2006 at 4:27 pmMy goodness, is I bein’ drafted?
April 11th, 2006 at 4:38 pmKeep in mind that in September of 2002, the date of the Iraq comments, American special ops were already operating in Iraq and the Air Force was conducting flights intended to provoke Saddam.
This is a pack of lying weasels.
April 11th, 2006 at 4:40 pmYou know
someone comes up with an idea
runs it in a magazine or a paper
other papers pick it up and reprint it
editorialists, then, say, Oh, Henny Penny, the sky is falling, and opine on this and opine that.
…But it is just simply not useful to get into fantasyland.
April 11th, 2006 at 4:47 pmEditorialists?
Is that something like jihadists or Islamists?
April 11th, 2006 at 5:05 pmSchoolchildren will soon visit Rummy in the home for those afflicted with dementia, and they will read to him the story of Henny Penny, among other poetry and prose, perhaps My Pet Goat and the Boy Who Cried Wolf and the Emperor Has no Clothes, and the Wizard of Oz.
April 11th, 2006 at 5:07 pmI agree with Secretary Rumsfeld, the media is always blowing things out of proportion except Fox News. Don’t these stupid journalist realize that if they want the scoop they have to watch Fox News. If you get your news from any other source, it’s not true. I get sick and tired of these henny penny reporters asking dumb questions. Who in their right mind would think we are planning an attack on Iran. When Sec. Rumsfeld denys they are planning, he’s right. It’s because they don’t really plan, they just react and hope that things go the way they think they should.
April 11th, 2006 at 5:10 pmWhy would anyone with a functioning brain who has been around for the last six years, and is aware of the repeated lies, upon lies from the “brains” of the so-called Bush adminstration believe one word of anything they say? The lied us into Iraq. Only a true idiot or neocon (one and the same thing) would believe this clowns when they say that all the this talk about planning to attack Iran is just so much media hype. I put nothing, including inciting a nuclear war, beyond these jerkwads. These are very dangerous, mentally defective individuals who will stop at nothing to hang on to power, and the American people be damned. Wake up America before it is too late to wake up because Bush and company have blasted the whole world into oblivion.
April 11th, 2006 at 5:23 pmKeep in mind that in September of 2002, the date of the Iraq comments, American special ops were already operating in Iraq and the Air Force was conducting flights intended to provoke Saddam.
This is a pack of lying weasels.
Comment by dan robinson
You keep in mind that we never left after the Gulf War and even with thousands of troops in the country Saddam still thumbed his nose at the UN every chance he got. Why not, as we now know he was paying them off. If there are any lying weasels around here it’s those of you who conveniently rearrange history to suit your idiot rhetoric. By the way fuckwits, the USA was preparing for war in the Middle East in the mid-80s. We are always preparing for war. That’s why we win. That’s why Iran is toast.
April 11th, 2006 at 5:44 pmUSA! USA! USA!
The only way that I could see for Rumsfeld not to be lying is if he wasn’t involved with the planning of the war effort. But he clearly was, wasn’t he? Makes sense. He was responsible for the post-invasion re-building, and we all know how well that’s been going (so bad that reporters can’t safely get to the areas where “good things” are supposed to be happening unless they’re escorted by military forces). So he must have been involved with the pre-war planning. So why would he try to imply that there were no plans at the time he made the first staement when there clearly were? If he was telling the truth, that is? (He must not have been.)
April 11th, 2006 at 5:56 pmRummy is the third part of our “Axis of Evil” (Bush/Cheney/Rummy)! He is an iincredibly stupid man and should be sitting in a retirement home, drooling on his bib! The man doesn’t make sense. I guess that’s one way to not be accountable, when you can’t even express a thought.
April 11th, 2006 at 6:01 pmApril 11th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
#26 you mean like we are winning in Iraq?
and you think that if we nuke Iran, that China and Russia are going to sit
idlely by while nuclear fallout poisons there atmosphere and land?
you mutherFvckers are insane, I wish to Gawd you all just stfu and get raptured,
April 11th, 2006 at 6:19 pmI would settle for a vien in your idiot brain to rupture. Moron.
Can this adminstration do anything honestly? What haven’t they fucked up?
April 11th, 2006 at 6:23 pmBullwinkle:Hey Rockie! Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat!
Rockie: What, again? That trick never works!
Bullwinkle: This time for sure! (reaches in hat, pulls out lions head. Lion roars and Bullwinkle quickly stuffs it back in the hat) Must’ve got the wrong hat!
Repeat over and over every saturday and the trick never works.
–
April 11th, 2006 at 6:32 pmhttp://griperblade.blogspot.com - grumblings from the heartland
Great article. And I Wrote this 15 months ago….
http://www.imran.com/ media/ blog/ 2005/ 01/ forget-generals-rumsfeld-knows-best.html
If link is too long and does not appear correctly, please use:
http://imran.com/media/blog/ Thanks.
Imran
April 11th, 2006 at 6:53 pmhttp://imran.TV
RUMSFELD: You know, someone comes up with an idea, runs it in a magazine or a paper; other papers pick it up and reprint it; editorialists, then, say, Oh, Henny Penny, the sky is falling, and opine on this and opine that.
…But it is just simply not useful to get into fantasyland
Kinda reminds me of “smoking gun could be a mushoom cloud”
April 11th, 2006 at 7:23 pmironic that this administration is now “downplaying” Iran threat.
If they were looking for a diplomatic solution, they would never say military options are off the table. The value of that threat is too great-it puts a lot of pressure on a country with bombable infrastructure.
All differences aside, Robert is quite correct with the above statement … attempts to skewer the administration for statements and actions in keeping with game theory is moronic.
1) Planning for a war or the contingency of a war is EXACTLY what the President must do and what he’s elected to do. To state that Bush wanted a war is extremely simplistic and to say it’s over oil is accurate in the smallest of senses. Of course it’s about oil … but it’s also about security and it’s also about Israel and it’s also about regional stability and it’s also about … the list goes on. ANY president must consider the effect that oil (and the changes in its supply) would have to our economy … so many here are correct … it WAS/IS about oil, but don’t leave out the other geopolitical considerations. To say that Bush was planning to invade is not unlike saying he had an invasion plan if we chose to invade (for those to definitively say one or the other would mean they were privvy to top secret meetings … unfortunately, these statements often come from those who surmise) … the difference could very much be spin or perspective, but that’s really neither here nor there.
2) When dealing with a negotiation … especially one with an opponent who behaves irrationally and appears indifferent to their own safety … one must never take ANY option off the table. This concept of game theory doesn’t speak to what one’s WILLING to do … on the contrary, more important is that the opponent believe that the possibility is real. Given that, it’s possible that military action IS off the table (although, given what we know about Bush, it likely isn’t) … publicly this would never be acknowledged and the sword rattling would likely be deafening. Iran knows our capabilities … they also know that the American people have a nasty Iraq aftertaste in their mouths … the mullahs must believe that GWB wouldn’t think twice about unleashing all manner of hell … because if they do not, we will be left without bargaining options. Plenty of mistakes were made in Iraq … similar mistakes cannot be made with Iran …
April 11th, 2006 at 7:33 pm” Plenty of mistakes were made in Iraq … similar mistakes cannot be made with Iran … Comment by Giacomo/Geometro”
They were MANY OF THE SAME mistakes we made in Vietnam - so your theory that we won’t make the same mistakes twice is just retarded.
And you need a brush up on game theory. The non-cooperative game theory is laden with peril. If you can’t create a cooperative game theory which focuses on the WINS of both sides as the primary and only negotiating tool, you’re like to lose.
For someone who tries to be smart, you come off exceedingly shallow and ignorant of the subjects you talk about. I’m certainly not surprised, you were built for price, not for speed after all.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:51 pmAnd you need a brush up on game theory. The non-cooperative game theory is laden with peril. If you can’t create a cooperative game theory which focuses on the WINS of both sides as the primary and only negotiating tool, you’re like to lose.
Ryan, my friend … my game theory skills aside, I’m sure we could both agree that Iran does not appear willing to engage in a cooperative game, so let’s just cut the intellectual tripe. I’ll submit that while cooperation is indeed the best possible course, it is one predicated on trust … the absence of which is glaring between Iran and the world, let alone Iran and the USA. Given imperfect information, the US must engage as if nothing is off the table … since you didn’t take issue with this, I’ll assume that your response was more to disagree with me than what I said.
Also notice that I never postulated that we “wouldn’t” make the same mistakes, but, quite simply, we couldn’t … rhetorical really … again, I’m sure you’d agree with this appalingly simplistic statement. Your Vietnam reference seems to imply that by merely stating something (in a vague way, at that) breathes validity into itself … assertion = proof, if you will. Perhaps, there are similarities worth exploration, but your statement hangs limp and impotent as is. The presence of similarities within any two conditions can’t speak to causation or even correlation … again, especially as stated. The cheap shot at the end, something of a Ryan Neat signature (have you thought of “Neat … out” a la Seacrest), is, as always, in poor form.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:12 pm“Ryan, my friend … my game theory skills aside, I’m sure we could both agree that Iran does not appear willing to engage in a cooperative game, so let’s just cut the intellectual tripe. Giacomo”
I’m not sure I fully agree. They asked for our security assurances, and they asked Russia to guarantee their security. Since no one will guarantee their security - then they feel this is a deal breaker. It’s just as easy to argue that we don’t appear to be in a cooperative game. Considering that our prime goal is regime change and not negotiating with the current regime, it’s easy to see why.
“I’ll submit that while cooperation is indeed the best possible course, it is one predicated on trust … the absence of which is glaring between Iran and the world, let alone Iran and the USA. Giacomo”
And we’re MORE trustworthy? Puhlease, you need to get out more. Most of the world finds our government is highly untrustworthy, as do the MAJORITY of america’s citizenry.
” Given imperfect information, the US must engage as if nothing is off the table … since you didn’t take issue with this, I’ll assume that your response was more to disagree with me than what I said. Giacomo”
We don’t intend to negotiate - and anyone with half a brain can see that, which is why you’re excluded. This government wants regime change, period.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:38 pmRumsfeld is dependable for contemptuously lying to and slandering the American people he is supposed to serve. How dare anyone question his war plans! Idiots! Don’t they know he knows exactly what he’s doing, and he doesn’t have to tell anyone what it is? He’s not an elected official, for chrissake.
April 11th, 2006 at 8:46 pmI’m not sure I fully agree. They asked for our security assurances, and they asked Russia to guarantee their security. Since no one will guarantee their security - then they feel this is a deal breaker.
In my opinion, Iran has acted extremely duplicitous. The recent statements of an Iranian statesmen discussing Iran’s manipulation of the UN (in regard to their nuclear research) is one of many instances that substantiates my opinion … right now, their biggest threat is the USA … does it seem logical to you that a country with “security concerns” acts in a manner to put them on a collision course with their chief threat … does it make sense that a nation with limitless energy sources claims need of nuclear powerplant … these are a few small examples.
I agree that we don’t appear to want a cooperative game … what’s not appearant is if we want a military confrontation … my money’s on no … as always, I could be wrong.
And we’re MORE trustworthy? Puhlease, you need to get out more. Most of the world finds our government is highly untrustworthy, as do the MAJORITY of america’s citizenry.
The semantics of who trusts whom are irrelevant … the cooperative process is based upon mutual trust. As things stand, no trust equals no cooperation … we don’t need to agree on who the more trustworthy party is to agree that neither side trusts the other … which is key.
We don’t intend to negotiate - and anyone with half a brain can see that, which is why you’re excluded. This government wants regime change, period.
You may be correct … there are more ways to initiate change (and better ones) than loosing all manner of technological hell on another …
April 11th, 2006 at 8:52 pmAs a military professional, I can almost assure you that this administration is in NO hurry for a mass invasion of any middle east country anytime in the near future. The liberation of Iraq has caused our country a lot more pain than originally envisioned. Also, on the political front, an invasion of Iran would cripple the Republicans in the the 2008 election. The viable military option for the Iranian problem is a massive airforce bombing campaign, and the mere threat of a ground invasion from Iraq and Kuwait. If you people are actually waiting for the SecDef or anyone else in the administration to acutally come out and say this, or any other military scenario, sorry, but you will never hear it.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:07 pm“In my opinion, Iran has acted extremely duplicitous. The recent statements of an Iranian statesmen discussing Iran’s manipulation of the UN (in regard to their nuclear research) is one of many instances that substantiates my opinion … right now, their biggest threat is the USA … does it seem logical to you that a country with “security concerns†acts in a manner to put them on a collision course with their chief threat … Giacomo”
And we didn’t manipulate thew UN on Iraq? Puhlease.
“does it make sense that a nation with limitless energy sources claims need of nuclear powerplant … these are a few small examples. ”
Ask Rumsfeld and Cheney. They sold Iran a Plutonium reactor in 1976 to enrich nuclear fuels. And they seemed to be able to justify it easily, even though Iran pumps only 2/3 the oil today they did in 1976.
“I agree that we don’t appear to want a cooperative game … Giacomo”
Ah, that rare bit of accuracy from you - it’s nice to see, too bad it so rarely happens.
“what’s not appearant is if we want a military confrontation … my money’s on no … as always, I could be wrong. Giacomo”
And you’d be wrong. Go look at the PNAC manifesto sometime. The NeoCons see the military as a tool to take Oil interests in the middle east, and to destroy the enemies of israel. These guys (of which Cheney and Rumsfeld are principles) don’t play with a full deck of cards.
It takes two to tango, and BOTH COUNTRIES have interests that the leaders aren’t willing to set aside. But ours is willing to attack for it. Something we haven’t seen for Iran, but we have seen from the US. I’m not saying they won’t, but it should be easy to see why they’d be reluctant to do any negotiating that didn’t include security guarantees.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:05 pmRumsfeld is a notorious liar, so anything he says in public is phony! Hersh exposed Rummy’s plan to nuke Iran, but now Rum-drinker claims the press is foolish > lol.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:40 pmBush cannot and will not negotiate. When people offer to shake hands before sitting down to talk and work out differences, Bush meets them only part way - with the middle finger of his hand.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:40 pmIran is trouble, no doubt, but Bush leading this country is the worst possible person to be in charge. Rummy is out of his mind, stubborn and dangerous.
We are being led by characters from Dr. Strangelove.
Maybe Judd would prefer that we discuss classified war plans in the open so our enemies like Iran & Iraq of the 90’s will know how to prepare. That is very wise suggestion. I wonder why no military leader hasn’t thought of that before? It makes perfect sense. That way our defeat would be certain, just the way lefties like Judd would like it. I wonder why our enemies don’t reveal their terrorist and attack plans to the media?
April 11th, 2006 at 11:51 pm#4 - “These guys should know that we aren’t going to let them screw up another country, or worse, start WWIII and we will be the Axis.”
Comment by progressive and proud
*****CORRECTION - YOU would be the Axis…
#20 - “Keep in mind that in September of 2002, the date of the Iraq comments, American special ops were already operating in Iraq and the Air Force was conducting flights intended to provoke Saddam.”
- Comment by Dan Robinson
*****I hope so, Dan. You forgot to mention Saddam’s non-compliance with the cease-fire agreement of the first Gulf War, the assasination plot on Bush the Elder and the use of WMD’s on the Kurds and Iranians. You don’t need to thank me for assisting your dyslexic memory - it is a pleasure to offer my assistance….
#45 - Excellent post, sugar magnolia!!! Of course progs would love to give our enemies the battle plan - the mission objective. They love to be told how “fair and equitable” they are by the rest of the global progressive movement. Comments by a DJ in Arizona work progs up into a lather - but the Iranian “President’s” comments to wipe our ally Israel off the map are just misunderstood hyperboles….
April 12th, 2006 at 12:46 amJudging from the way the war in Iraq is going, it isn’t outside the realm of possibility that Rumsfeld didn’t have a plan 6 months prior to invasion day.
But seriously, does everyone here believe the base-line assumption that Iran is persuing more than just nuclear power plants? At this point, I’m more inclined to believe the Iranian presidents word over GWB and that used car salesman Rumsfeld.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:56 am“*****I hope so, Dan. You forgot to mention Saddam’s non-compliance with the cease-fire agreement of the first Gulf War, the assasination plot on Bush the Elder and the use of WMD’s on the Kurds and Iranians. You don’t need to thank me for assisting your dyslexic memory - it is a pleasure to offer my assistance…. Mighty Moron”
And you forgot the non-compliance of the US on UN resolutions (part of the cease fire) as well. You also forget that Cheney and Rumsfeld sold those WMDs to Iraq, and didn’t chide them for their use.
And you’re welcome for my diligence in reminding you and your short Nazi memory of your republican party involvement in gassing the kurds.
“#45 - Excellent post, sugar magnolia!!! Of course progs would love to give our enemies the battle plan - the mission objective. They love to be told how “fair and equitable†they are by the rest of the global progressive movement. Comments by a DJ in Arizona work progs up into a lather - but the Iranian “President’s†comments to wipe our ally Israel off the map are just misunderstood hyperboles…. Comment by mighty aphrodite ”
You mean like how Republicans trained Al Queda how to mount terrorist acts? And unless we’ve declared war, other countries are NOT our enemies. If however you feel Iran is YOUR ENEMY, and you reflect republican values, it explains why they’re so desperate to get nukes. Freakish Nazis like you are the ENEMY of the world, and of america. You are hate, foolishness, evil and foolhardy boondoggles. You are insanity itself - as your little retarded rants, lies, and FAKE PERSONNA daily proves.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:20 am“*****CORRECTION - YOU would be the Axis… Mighty Moron”
Correction YOU ARE the Axis you HATEFUL NAZI! Your fascist propaganda rhetoric, your homophobia and anti islamic anti-semitism, your homophobia, your attack on the ’sloven poor’, your attacks on ’socialists’, are right out of a Hitler/Goebbels playbook.
You’re a freak, a fool and an evil idiot.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:25 amAnd Mighty Moron, Hitler was an austrian with a jewish grandparent just like you claim to be. The similarities just keep on coming don’t the MightAphromoron?
April 12th, 2006 at 1:30 am“I can tell you that anyone who knows anything isn’t talking and anyone with any sense isn’t talking therefore the people that are talking to the media by definition people who don’t know anything and people who don’t have a hell of a lot of sense.”
+
“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”
=
“I don’t know what I’m talking about.”
April 12th, 2006 at 1:32 amMy Scand is a bit weak, but somewhere in the recesses of my mind, rumsfeld translates to playground. Don’t where that arose, but my parents and grandparents spoke German, Swedish, Danish and Finnish (Also American English). I’ve forgotten most of it, but can get along in any of those countries plus just about anyone north/east of Italy and France.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:47 amWow the Bush loving trolls on here are getting meaner every day > lol. Must be because Bush is on the ropes now and they see their chances of being sadistic Concentration Camp guards slipping away! Only the criminally insane support the Bush Regime!
April 12th, 2006 at 2:29 amJay, you left out the Greedy Odd People who make up the right wing of the right wing
April 12th, 2006 at 2:32 am[…] Download rummyB.mp3 The answer is here. […]
April 12th, 2006 at 3:53 amYeah, Mabel, we’re attacking Iran. Rumsfeld just confirmed it.
April 12th, 2006 at 4:02 amOf course progs would love to give our enemies the battle plan
Comment by mighty aphrodite — April 12, 2006 @ 12:46 am
You get more pathetic every day. I think you need to bash others to feel good about yourself. Very basic psychological principal, but glaringly applicable in your case.
Go read a book on raising your self-esteem, A good therapist wouldn’t hurt either. It would do you wonders to learn some appreciation for yourself so you don’t have to belittle everyone else just to feel better about yourself.
April 12th, 2006 at 7:57 amCorrection YOU ARE the Axis you HATEFUL NAZI! Your fascist propaganda rhetoric, your homophobia and anti islamic anti-semitism, your homophobia, your attack on the ’sloven poor’, your attacks on ’socialists’, are right out of a Hitler/Goebbels playbook.
You’re a freak, a fool and an evil idiot.
Comment by Ryan Neat
Hitler was a socialist, of that there is no doubt. So are you, if not a flaming Marxist ratbastardcommiefucktard. Buy a book and improve your mind. Dumbass.
April 12th, 2006 at 10:53 amJay, you left out the Greedy Odd People who make up the right wing of the right wing
Comment by Clif
You left out the bush whackers, rump rangers, fifth column traitors, child pornographers, baby rapers, brain addled dope smoking malcontents, serial abortionists, incorrigible violent criminals and drug pushers as well as the Clintons that make up the Filthy Left wing of the Liberal Losers.
April 12th, 2006 at 11:07 amHitler was a socialist, of that there is no doubt. So are you, if not a flaming Marxist ratbastardcommiefucktard. Buy a book and improve your mind. Dumbass.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — April 12, 2006 @ 10:53 am
He was a fascist (after all, he coined the term). By my dictionary, fascism and socialism are polar opposites.
Personally, I’m not a fan of either ideology. Both leave too many loopholes that tolerate abuse. But we do need certain social programs to level the playing field for those who need a hand up. And, when we pool our money as a society, we get bigger discounts that we couldn’t afford as individuals, and with the benefit of oversight. Supposedly. No system is perfect. But sometimes the few who milk the system are cheaper than all the excessive checks we put in place to prevent them. I still think it’s about balance. You can’t fix or save everyone. A tough lesson I’m learning as a teacher.
Oh, reminds me, you’ll love this. I’ve been meaning to tell you. I was talking with my friend in San Francisco who is from India. I was telling him about some of the problem kids, and the general sense of apathy from too many that exists in the younger generation. He said that maybe it was because in India, trouble makers were allowed to be spanked, whereas here, they aren’t. But, on the other side of the argument, my school district actually still allows and occasionally uses corporeal punishment. And it’s not really that effective. Most of these kids are a result of apathetic parents. Which makes me interested in understanding why. I kow you say the Nanny State. But I think it’s more complicated than that. I just have to look it up.
But, after all, it is an imperfect world. I’m just trying to come to terms with that. Mostly in myself.
April 12th, 2006 at 11:07 amlol,lol—-get’em ryan, they are looking more like bushyboy on t.v trying to pull off news conference. um, uh, duh, duh, um, huh, well, ya know um. cracks me up the very folks, reichwingers, hooorah, must forgot who sold wmd to saddam or who furnished the planes, missiles, ammo, guns to these guys… IT WAS US! so stop cherry picking ifo. and if your gung ho, stop talking and be about it. the gov says they need a few good men. go be all you can be and stop yapping. go shoot the very people WE enabled. what is wrong with amercians.
April 12th, 2006 at 11:20 am“…fantasyland?” These criminal bushbots have been in fantasyland for near on to four years now. Will we stop them from committing the same crime again? I don’t think so. No sane reason existed for attacking Iraq, none now exists for Iraq. This has not stopped this illeagle and unelected fraudulent missadministration yet and won’t in the future. Look for nuclear war, soon. Sad days.
April 12th, 2006 at 1:52 pmwhat is wrong with amercians.
Comment by bs — April 12, 2006 @ 11:20 am
Well, no vision, no foresight, emmidiate gratification is the problem. Just watch people drive, even professional drivers who hold CDL’s don’t look up the road past whats right infront of them.
April 12th, 2006 at 2:23 pmOur shipping coast for each phone is just for:$20USD..
Bellow is our model price list and our full information..
WE ARE SELLING ALL KIND OF MOBILE PHONES AT A CHEAP PRICES
WE ARE SELLING THE MOTOROLA RAZOR V3 AT JUST……… $150USD
WE ARE SELLING THE MOTOROLAJUST …………$130USD
WE ARE SELLING THE MOTOROLA MPX 200 ………………$125USD
WE ARE SELLING THE NOKIA 9500 AT JUST /…………….$200USD
WE ARE SELLING THE NOKIA 7710 AT JUST…………….$190USD
WE ARE SELLING THE NOKIA N90 AT JUST …………….$210USD
WE ARE SELLING THE NEXTEL I860 AT JUST ……………$110usd
WE ARE SELLING THE NOKIA N70 AT JUST ………………$150USD
WE ARE SELLING THE NEXTEL I930 AT JUST ……………..$130
WE ARE SELLING THE NOKIA 8850 SPECIAL EDITION AT JUST…… $150USD
WE ARE SELLING THE NOKIA 8850 GOLD EDITION AT JUST… -$126USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SONY ERICSSON P910 AT JUST …….$160USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SONY ERICSSON K500i,AT JUST ……… $100USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SONY ERICSSON S700i AT JUST …… $150USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SONY ERICSSON P900 AT JUST ……$150USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SONY ERICSSON Z1010 AT JUST …..$167USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SAMSUNG D500 AT JUST ………$180USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SAMSUNG SGH-T500 Champagne AT JUST …$130 USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SAMSUNG SGH-T200 AT JUST………..$123USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SAMSUNG SGH-T400 AT JUST…………$69USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SAMSUNG SGH-S300 AT JUST……….. $69 USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SAMSUNG SGH-E600 AT JUST …….$149USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SAMSUNG SGH-D410 AT JUST ……..$150USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SAMSUNG SGH-S105 AT JUST ……$110USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SAMSUNG SGH-P100 AT JUST …….$100USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SAMSUNG E310C FOR JUST ….$99USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SAMSUNG E330C FOR JUST ,,,,…. $128USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SAMSUNG E800C FOR JUST …..$189USD
WE ARE SELLING THE ALCATEL One Touch 501 FOR JUST….$39USD
WE ARE SELLING THE CALCATEL One Touch 311 FOR JUST……… $35 USD
WE ARE SELLING THE ALCATEL One Touch 511 FOR JUST ……… $49USD
WE ARE SELLING THE PANASONIC GD67 FOR JUST …………. $49USD
WE ARE SELLING THE PANASONIC GD92 FOR JUST $69USD
WE ARE SELLING THE PANASONIC GD90 FOR JUST …… $69USD
WE ARE SELLING THE PANASONIC GD75 FOR JUST $79USD
WE ARE SELLING THE PANASONIC GD55 FOR JUST …..$79USD
WE ARE SELLING THEPANASONIC GD95 FOR JUST …….$79USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SIEMENS C45 FOR JUST ……….$39USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SIEMENS C55 FOR JUST $49USD
April 12th, 2006 at 7:16 pmplay station 1……… $120
play station 2 ….$130
play station 3…..$150
x_box 360………$200
GARMIN 396……..$150
Game boy latext edition……$110
this games are brand new sealed in black company Box.
Apple 20 GB iPod …………………….45 USD
Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Pink M9435LL/A ……40 USD
Apple 40 GB iPod photo………………..40 USD
Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Silver M9160LL/A ….40 USD
Apple 60 GB iPod Photo M9830LL/A……….60 USD
Apple 60 GB iPod photo ……………….55 USD
Apple 30 GB iPod Photo M9829LL/A……….50 USD
Apple 512 MB iPod Shuffle MP3 Player……40 USD
Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Blue M9436LL/A…….45 USD
Apple 2 GB iPod Nano………………….50 USD
Apple 4 GB iPod Nano………………….60 USD
Apple 30 GB iPod Vidoe……………….110 USD
Apple 60 GB iPod Vidoe……………….150 USD
WE ARE SELLING THE SIEMENS M35i FOR JUST…… $59USD
WE ARE SELLING THE TERO 660 FOR JUST………..$130
AND MANY OTHERS OF TERO’S PRODUCTS…..
WE ARE SELLING THE XBOX 360 FOR JUST…………..$180
AND MANY OTHER PRODUCTS OF XBOX’S………….
WE ARE SELLING THE PLAYSTATION II FOR JUST…….$130
jefjayphones@hotmail.com,jeffphonesinternational@gmail.com
Or on our mobile number:+2348059345036
“Hitler was a socialist, of that there is no doubt. So are you, if not a flaming Marxist ratbastardcommiefucktard. Buy a book and improve your mind. Dumbass. Comment by I-RIGHT-I”
Read a book you MORON, Hitler was a FASCIST/NAZI, which is a RIGHTWING. Hitler criminalized socialism and fought Russia.
For someone that accuses others of not reading a book, you’re the most ILLITERATE and STUPID IDIOT AROUND.
Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named “National Socialist.” But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship — it can only be democratic. Hitler’s other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.
April 13th, 2006 at 3:04 am“Hitler was a socialist, of that there is no doubt. So are you, if not a flaming Marxist ratbastardcommiefucktard. Buy a book and improve your mind. Dumbass. Comment by I-RIGHT-I”
Read a book you MORON, Hitler was a FASCIST/NAZI, which is a RIGHTWING. Hitler criminalized socialism and fought Russia.
For someone that accuses others of not reading a book, you’re the most ILLITERATE and STUPID IDIOT AROUND.
And as for ‘marxist’, do you even know what that term means? Answer NO. You’re probably stupid enough to think that the RUSSIAN DICTATORSHIP/ARISTOCRACY was a socialist state. Socialism is the OPPOSITE of a totalitarian government. The Soviet Union was NOT a socialist state, it was a government state.
Morons like yourself always CLAIM socialism means that the government owns everything - that’s WRONG. I could actually educate you on what socialism is, and means - but a closed minded bigot like yourself is too STUPID to have an intellectual discussion with, so lets focus on the point at hand.
HITLER WAS A REPUBLICAN by american standards. He was NOT a socialist, and he was NOT a liberal. He advocated and implemented the same roundup of liberals, communists, socialists and gay people you do. You’re about as NAZI as they get WHACKO!
April 13th, 2006 at 3:11 amUnbelievable,
You might like this primer on liberalism and socialism.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-socialism.htm
Usually when liberalism is taken too far, it actually is adopting rightwing characteristics instead of staying true to liberalism. Unfortunately when things swing too far to the left, the knee jerk seems to become totalitarian (rightwing) instead of remaining true to the values of liberalism. The soviets and china are both great examples of this.
This breaks out all of the common liberal philosophies, I’m curious to see what you think about this critique.
April 13th, 2006 at 3:15 amYou left out the rump rangers, child pornographers, baby rapers, brain addled dope smoking malcontents, and drug pushers as well as the Clintons that make up the Filthy Left wing of the Liberal Losers.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I —
To Iam-aWRONG-IDIOT,
April 13th, 2006 at 3:27 amDrug-smoking malcontents: Do you mean like the collected children of George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, all of whom have been picked up at one time or more for under-age drunkenness and/or drug problems?
Child pornographers and baby rapers: Do you mean the various Republican office holders and Dept. of Homeland Security high-level staff arrested for pedophilia and/or child porn recently?
Rump rangers: Do you mean Ken Mehlman, or whoever let gay hooker Jeff Gannon/James Guckert into the Bush White House several times (according to Secret Service records) even before he managed to wrangle a press pass for a phony Texas-GOP website? I am so puzzled as to why a “good” homophobe like yourself would keep on defending such a homophile administration.
This breaks out all of the common liberal philosophies, I’m curious to see what you think about this critique.
Comment by Ryan Neat — April 13, 2006 @ 3:15 am
Ryan thanks for the link. I’m running out of time to read it thoroughly, but I did review it. Will read it more closely when I get a chance.
At this point, I think that most theories and ideologies assume that people will follow the rules and laws that govern them. In reality, that ignores the very basic reality of survival instinct. People are interested in self-preservation first.
I’m having a hard time labling myself anymore. Because I have a variety of views that don’t align with anyone ideology. I guess it’s why I like defining myself on my own terms. But, I understand that when it comes to a system for government, there needs to be a consensus.
As we’ve been discussing, I don’t think any of the extremes have worked well. And I think Capitalism (”An economic system in which private individuals or corporations own and invest in the means of production”) has been an extreme that fosters greed - as we are seeing daily.
Probably some hybrid. But I don’t know what. But the link is a great start. I appreciate it.
Since you’ve studied Economics, and have a broad expanse of political and historical awareness, I’m interested to hear what you think. What do you think is the most tried and true form of government put into practice?
April 13th, 2006 at 8:03 ameven though he was an atheist.
Comment by Ryan Neat — April 13, 2006 @ 3:04 am
Everything he wrote (and frequently said) - in his own words - made it clear that he considered himself a Catholic. Mein Kampf is littered with references to his religious beliefs in Christianity. Sorry Ryan, but I have to disagree. It’s too hard to ignore the logic in his perversion of the Catholic faith as an excuse to kill millions of Jews and ’sinners’ to believe he was an atheist. He was no different than Osama bin Laden who has perverted Islam to kill innocent Americans in the name of Allah. Why I am not a fan of organized religions.
April 13th, 2006 at 8:09 amHitler used the catholic religion to accomplish his goal of eradicating the jewish populations in Europe. That does not neccesarily mean that he was a devout or even just a practicing catholic. Do you really think George Bush is a practicing Evangelical christian? If you go by his actions since he took office, he is not. He just talks a good game, just as Hitler did.
April 13th, 2006 at 10:29 amHitler used the catholic religion to accomplish his goal of eradicating the jewish populations in Europe. That does not neccesarily mean that he was a devout or even just a practicing catholic. Do you really think George Bush is a practicing Evangelical christian? If you go by his actions since he took office, he is not. He just talks a good game, just as Hitler did.
Comment by flipus — April 13, 2006 @ 10:29 am
Considering most Christians disagee with one another on their own ideology (hence the many varieties within the religion itself), it’s probably hard to say who is and who isn’t. The system has no litmus test for deciding. If you believe you are, by their standards of acceptance, it is enough. It doesn’t mean there aren’t extremists who prevert the ideology - but that exists in justabout every ideology going.
April 13th, 2006 at 10:36 am