Rumsfeld: War Critics Being Manipulated By Zarqawi and Bin Laden’s ‘Media Committees’
Rumsfeld: War Critics Being Manipulated By Zarqawi and Bin Laden’s ‘Media Committees’
Yesterday on Rush Limbaugh, embattled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that those who criticize the Iraq war are being manipulated by terrorists, including Zarqawi and bin Laden, through the U.S. media:
There have always been people who have opposed wars…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.
So, according to Rumsfeld, the media isn’t just failing to report the “good news” from Iraq, it is being actively manipulated by terrorists. Those that are critical of the war are simply buying into the propaganda.
The only way to circumvent the terrorist-influenced U.S. media, apparently, is to listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
300 Responses to “Rumsfeld: War Critics Being Manipulated By Zarqawi and Bin Laden’s ‘Media Committees’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Rumsfeldian Rhapsody
Bush wont fire Rumsfeld, even though everyone wants him to.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:55 amSung to the tune of Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody.
http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/comic_feature_links.htm
Quote of week (as reported in the Washington Post) Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold - Former director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
... Adding these together, he concluded with the words that have come to constitute the definitive rebuke to the administration's leaders: "My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions -- or bury the results."
April 18th, 2006 at 9:55 amThere have always been people who have opposed wars…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.
Time to ask Scotty: "Does the President agree with this view?"
April 18th, 2006 at 9:57 amI guess Rush is back on his illegal prescriptions of oxycontin! It would take a drug-addled brain to come up with illogical "spin" of this nature!
April 18th, 2006 at 9:58 amThis proves it: Rumsfield is absolutely NUTS!
April 18th, 2006 at 9:58 amMan, what does that say for how incompetent the Pentagon is that they're worse at manipulating the media than a bunch of dudes living in caves? If that's not reason enough to can his ass, I don't know what is.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:05 amWhat is worse than Rumsfield saying this is that there are people in the US who will believe it.
What will it take for some people to come out of their comas and see this administration for what it is?
April 18th, 2006 at 10:06 amsheesh... who can swallow this trite...
April 18th, 2006 at 10:07 amBushCo = LIARS
Because they are manipulated by smoke and mirros from self-prescribed authorities, they assume that we are. When will they get that we examine all sides to the story and then rationally think for ourselves? The fact that ration usually leads to liberal viewpoints doesn't mean we have been seduced, just that liberal philosophies are more rational. Sheesh. These people really are shameless.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:08 amAccording to Rummy, six retired senior US generals are agents of Bin Ladin.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:09 amWell guess he got us. I got my talking points from Ben Laden this morning and was about to start spouting off how the "vengance of Allah will be upon the Great Satan."
April 18th, 2006 at 10:14 amGuess I have to come up with something else. (For benefit of the NSA who is reading this no doubt, this was "sarcasm" laced with a liberal dose of "irony". That means I am joking.)
Gee, media being the agents of propaganda...I guess we should all really listed to rush limbagh about that because he has a bit of experience in the area.
You know, Rush Limbaugh is really one to talk about being manipulated by propaganda....seeing as how his show is basically an acerbic version of the talking points from the RNC...or maybe I have that backwards.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:14 amWhat sort of Oxy flavored drugs is Rush sharing with the Sec Def?
April 18th, 2006 at 10:14 amDude, Rush lost a . . . . . . . . . couple hundred pounds !
April 18th, 2006 at 10:14 amDon 'Skelitor' Rommel Rumsfeld saying 'I think we just have to accept it', is comedy.
Guess what Rommey, err . . I mean Rummy, you have zero credibility.
So what you 'think', really doesn't carry much weight.
Of course its terrorists who are behind the truth coming out on Rummy and the rest of the Hitler youth in the Administration. Saying "terrorists" has been the most effective method Bush has had for 5 years to scare people into believing his lies. Terrorists must be the ones leaving all the children behind - amazing we haven't heard that one yet.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:15 amOf course its terrorists who are behind the truth coming out on Rummy and the rest of the Hitler youth in the Administration. Saying "terrorists" has been the most effective method Bush has had for 5 years to scare people into believing his lies. Terrorists must be the ones leaving all the children behind - amazing we haven't heard that one yet.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:15 amIt seems that Rumsfeld is prating on mindlessly about el Qaeda media committees (this isn't the first instance) but what he's really doing is laying the groundwork for new Pentagon media initiatives, including the internet (look out).
recent news item:
Science Board to Study Internet's Impact on Military Ops
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, April 17, 2006 – The Defense Science Board will conduct a summer study on a topic that would have been inconceivable when the Defense Department established the board 50 years ago this year: the military implications of Internet search engines, online journals and "blogs."
Kenneth Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics and a former Defense Science Board member himself, requested the study on "Information Management for Net-Centric Operations" to help evaluate the implications of the information network boom.
"Our increasing ability to leverage information and networking will be a critical enabling factor in developing better ways to work with others in the (U.S. government) and with both coalition and nontraditional partners as we, collectively, undertake the challenging missions of the 21st century," he wrote.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2006/20060417_4846.html
April 18th, 2006 at 10:21 amWhat? we've allowed al Qaeda to infiltrate our press?
Wow, we must SUCK at fighting terror!
No? We don't? We're winning the terror fight? Then how come the press is being infiltrated by al Qaeda?
:poking the rummy to watch it squirm:
April 18th, 2006 at 10:26 amYeah. I don't know if I buy Rumsfeld's reasoing either believe it or not, but recently even Comedy Central is backing down to the terrorists.
As for the generals, I still can't get passed why they didn't express this point of view privately when there were on active duty. The Bush administration is unquestionably pro-military. I could see if they had expressed those concerns and not been listened to, then it would be ok to be upset. But, to just come out and say Rumsfeld was wrong when you were part of the team helping make decisions is wrong in my opinion.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:27 amRummy and BushCo are manipulating the media, filling the airwaves with their propaganda. We are living in an extremely dangerous time. We must somehow endure another 1007 DAYS of this.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:28 amOh Snap! He just connected U.S. Citizens who disagree with the Chickenhawks to Zarqawi and bin Laden??
April 18th, 2006 at 10:30 amThat looks like a pre-alleged-Oxycontin photo of Rush.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:37 amRush STILL didn't get the CBS chair. He is the only hope they have left to help rewrite history for these impotent old men who have abrogated the Government for their feeble plans. Elitist, Aristocratic Capitalists. I bet Rush owns a lot of stock in Roche too.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:38 amOf course Bushco doesn't manipulate the press at all. Lies and deception define the Bushit presidency. Manipulation is rampant in our government. Fucking rummy is beyond belief, the sooner he dies the better for the world and the better for the ruination of hell. Fucking retarded beligerent stupid senile old fool.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:42 amI did not know my criticism of the Iraq war was the result of a Jedi mind trick.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:49 amI think Rummy did die. His soul is already burning in H-E-double toothpicks. What we see on our teevees now is a reanimated corpse, powered by some kind of positronic brain programmed solely for evil.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:50 amBush administration is unquestionably pro-military.
They are unquestionably militaristic. Not the same thing.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:52 amThis scumbag believes that because the GOP and the white house has lots of media commitees to twist the truth then some rogue terrorist in Iraq also have them. He is sooo out of synk with reality ...
April 18th, 2006 at 10:55 amYeah. I don’t know if I buy Rumsfeld’s reasoing either believe it or not, but recently even Comedy Central is backing down to the terrorists.
Or they agreed to go with Matt Stone and Trey Parker's joke since the entire episode was about censorship. After all, the supposed censoring of the image of Muhammed then "forced" Stone & Parker to mock Jesus once again.
But you go right ahead and believe that Comedy Central "backed down to the terrorists," honey. I know it makes you feel better than believing that, once again, Matt and Trey fooled you.
April 18th, 2006 at 10:57 amAfter some mild criticism in late 2004, the Congressional GOP has been predictably silent about Rumsfeld:
"I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence. I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq...There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue."
- John McCain
"That soldier and those men and women [in uniform] deserved a far better answer from their secretary of defense than a flippant comment. I wonder what the parents of the men and women over there, sons and daughters who are fighting, I do not think that they appreciated that answer."
- Chuck Hagel
Compare that to the GOP war on Les Aspin after the BlackHawk Down episode of 1993. For the details, see:
April 18th, 2006 at 10:57 am"General Agreement: Rumsfeld Fails the Aspin Test."
GEE i guess Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri arent doing their job to well since they too are NOT reporting the 'GOOD NEWS"
April 18th, 2006 at 11:02 amThis is coming from Mr. Rumsfeld who has rubbed shoulders with the worst of the worst.
Also, while you are at my site check out the comments of the Michelle Malkin readers.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:08 amI admit it. I get secret messages from Osama. He tells me to post here in an effort to tear down the legitimacy of the bushco administration.
Whew! that is sure a load off my mind.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:08 amSounds like Rummy's hallucinating. He must have been drinking from Rush's kool-aid cup. Its hard to say what might have been in the cup but the side effects are seemingly delusional and inoherent thoughts.
more observations here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
April 18th, 2006 at 11:09 amPoor baby Bush was quite rattled on the tube this morning, nearly screaming mad and professing his solid stand for Rummy. Bushie does not like any one to challenge his kingly mandates. Clearly all this administration is either sharing drugs with Rush or totaly insane. I take that back they are both, drugged and insane. Keep the pressure on and watch the nut cases self distruct........Blessings
April 18th, 2006 at 11:09 amRush Limbaugh is a fat blow hard with nothing to say, that's why he comes up with these stupid remarks. This drug taking, doctor shopping overpaid under worked idiot needs to shut up and start using his pea sized brain before opening his pie hole. I can't believe someone who thinks he's soo intelligent could say something so dumb. I wish Rush could explain exactly how the war critics are beling manipulated by terrorist. I guess they wait to hear from the terrorist so they can get the talking points and then make a statement against the war. If we were winning the war then terrorist couldn't be making any statements at all.
It way passed the time for Rumsfeld to go and idiots like Limbaugh can't understand that the Defense Secretary can actually cost the lives of our soldiers by making stupid mistakes. Unlike Rush I served in the United States Army as an Infantryman and I know the kind of bull that the Pentagon and senior officials can order you to do. There were tens of times they had us doing things that didn't make any sense at all. What Rush doesn't understand is that quite often Defense Secretarys don't have a clue. They just blindly give orders without all of the facts and some of the time even when they do, their orders don't make sense. It's the poor foot soldier standing there with the rifle in his hand who has to face the bullets and get shot because of the stupidy of his leaders.
It doesn't take getting hit by a bullet for me as someone who as been there and done that to call for the Secretary to go. I've been calling for Rumsfeld to go for over two years. The thing that really upsets me is fat Rush critizing these former Generals when he never served a day. All he's done is wrap himself in the blanket of freedom that former soldiers like the General and I provided and then has the never to critize those who provided the freedom in the first place. Stop the madness Rush! You are a fool Rush! Freedom means nothing if the ones who helped to maintain it can't critize the Secretary of Defense.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:11 amBack in the days when Rumsfeld worked for Tricky Dick Nixon he was already showing symptoms of paranoia. His condition seems to have worsened over the years.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:11 amMy local paper today had a "Letter to the Editor" from a local Bush-hating, terrorist apologist. This idiot was wringing his hands over the family in Iraq killed by Iraqi and US military forces while being visited by a relative who was a member of al-Qaeda. He described the fire fight and ensuing battle which took the lives of people aged 6 months to 75 years. Did he blame the terrorist son of a b*^ch for putting his family in danger with his "visit"? Did he blame the idiot family for welcoming this dangerous relative with open arms?? Of course not. I guess it proves the old adage that those who play with fire might get burned...
For all of you appeasers of radical Islam and all of you "kindly sensitive"
types who just want to share a Coke and a smile with those who wish the West dead, I hear they have a few openings on the Christian Peaemakers Teams.....
Have a GREAT day - - 'til later today.....
April 18th, 2006 at 11:14 amWe're being manipulated by terrorists...
Or so Donald Rumsfeld would have people believe. Here's Rumsfeld speaking about war critics with Rush Limbaugh:There have always been people who have opposed wars ... I think we just have to accept it, that people have a right to...
April 18th, 2006 at 11:17 amIt's true...I was just reading an analysis yesterday ( can't find any hard reporting anymore) by Joe Stalin too. The recipes were written by Idi Amin, and the Business section had contributions by Adolf Hitler. The travel section was dominated by Atilla the Hun. Damned liberal media!
April 18th, 2006 at 11:17 am#19 - CStorms,
How do we know that these men didn't voice their opinions privately? One has to realize that, for these men, the chain of command is pretty small (in some of their cases, only 2 or 3 people before Rumsfeld himself) and individuals in senior command positions are notoriously tight lipped about any kind of dissention (they don't want it filtering down to the troops beneath them). I have had occassion to know and work for many flag-level officers and the grand majority of them are very principled men and women. I would be willing to assure you that these men did not just decide to speak out as they have on a whim. There would have been careful deliberation as to the ramifications of their actions. I have seen many people here and elsewhere chastise them for not speaking out while they were still on active duty. What many without military experience fail to realize is that there are strict rules built into the UCMJ deliniating "political" behavior. Politics while in uniform is frowned upon (I don't know if you remember the outcry during 2004 when many officers stood behind Sen. Kerry at a rally) and there are VERY strict rules governing speaking ill of one's superior officers (it is a potentially jailable offense to do so while they are still under their commission). Personally, I applaud each and every one of these men. They have realized something that poses a threat to the safety of the men and women they commanded and have spoken up about it knowing full well that they would receive the "swift-boat" treatment. Believe it or not, to do so at all, takes immense courage...something most of these men obviously have in abundance.
As for Rummy's assertion on LimpBalls' show: He's gone completely round the bend. Bars in the windows, truly gone fishin', batshit insane is what you are Mr. Secretary.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:17 amter·ror·ism (n.)
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
-
That's the dictionary definition. How is that not exactly what the Bush Administration is doing?
April 18th, 2006 at 11:29 amResponsibilty for one's actions is like KRYPTONITE to Republicans......
Every problem in the world is the fault of the media, democrats, secularists, gays, minoritites, or muslims.......
They really are a disgrace to this nation........
April 18th, 2006 at 11:29 amHEY "RUMMY!! PROJECT MUCH?
US military planting stories in Iraqi papers
April 18th, 2006 at 11:31 amhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1201/dailyUpdate.html
Rumsfeld and Limbaugh are the lowest life forms on planet Earth! They both spew insidious propaganda and are criminal warmongers! We who oppose the Iraq war fiasco, and the Bush Regime lies, do so out of convictions that war for OIL is wrong! Osama has NO influence over me, and the American press is manipulated by the GOP, not Islamic terrorists! For Rumsfeld to insinuate that those who oppose their warfare are traitors goes beyong disgusting! Rummy must resign immediately from his position, as Secretary of Defense, for war crimes!
April 18th, 2006 at 11:35 amI guess if Rummy's military was any good, they would have captured or killed OBL and Zarqawi a long time ago. Should have been pretty easy, since they just have AKs and RPGs, and Rummy's boys have satellites, Predator Drones, B-52s, F-15s, F-16s, Apaches, Warthogs, Bradleys, Abrams, Tomahawks, long range artillery, etc., etc.......
April 18th, 2006 at 11:37 amfile this under w.t.f.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:40 amMIGHTY HYPOCRITE.... i was wondering when you were going to come to 'work'. IRI already picked up his paycheck from the repugs for his previous post. you are late!! You are a cold and sad person if you cannot empathize with a man who lost his family! i dont care if he was Iraqi or a gorrilla, loss of life for anyone is tragic. im sure they dont mean anything in YOUR pleasant life but to switch the blame and somehow indict this man for having a visit from a 'supposed' al qaeda member of his family shows just how cold and mean you really are. you are an embarrassment!!!!
April 18th, 2006 at 11:42 amJay - you would appreciate this I think. I saw a bumper sticker this morning that read:
"Killing for peace is like screwing for virginity"
April 18th, 2006 at 11:48 amMeg,
Considering Mighty Medusa pitched a serious temper tantrum when I scolded him last week about lying and joking about his supposed dead child to garner sympathy because Ryan had beaten him in a series of debates, it's even more appalling when he cannot have sympathy for the grieving mothers of real dead children. And further proof that he is a he with an imaginary family. Pathetic.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:49 amBush et al have been the most propagandaizing bunch since Hitler's crew. Terrorism and "9-11" have been used as the rationale for a systematic destruction of American society and the erosion of freedom that we once held so dear.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:53 amI don't think that the media realizes they are being used by the terrorists.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:53 amgeorge bush is the problem. I can't help but believe that bush/cheney enjoy seeing the focus on rummy as it keeps it off of them. Rummy is simply the water carrier for bush/cheney ~ why don't they get rid of him? Because he's doing what they want!
April 18th, 2006 at 12:00 pmI don’t think that the media realizes they are being used by the terrorists.
Comment by Tracy — April 18, 2006 @ 11:53 am
Of course not. But Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney like to use people in this manner.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:00 pmMr. Rumsfeld knows his audience and is preaching to the choir. Who, but the ditto heads buy into this nonsense? Mr. Rumsfeld needs to drum up support and the fact that the listeners are gullible works well for him.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:05 pmFor chrissake, stop blaming the media and take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for administration actions in Iraq and the resulting chaos!
April 18th, 2006 at 12:05 pmRe: #40.
#19, this may help you.
Right wing pundit Larry Kudlow had John Fund of the Wall Street Journal on his show and Jonathan Alter from Newsweek to discuss the Rumsfeld thing. Kudlow noted ( accurately ) that this current push by so many prominent retired generals is unprecedented in American history.
I don't remember which of his two guests made the following observation ( I will guess that it was Alter ). The way it usually happens is that the top generals make their opinions known to the White House when they are dissatisfied with the Secretary of Defense. This is debated back and forth and then the White House takes action and "reassigns" ( fires ) the Secretary of Defense.
Given that this administration has a reputation for not taking any advice that does not originate from within the "inner circle" - which includes Rumsfeld ( even if the advice comes from other Republicans like Colin Powell or Norman Schwarzkopf ) - I think you can imagine (a) that there is a good chance that these generals did not even get a sit down with the president - or - (b) they did get an audience and walked away with nothing more than a smile and a handshake - or - (c) they got some rendition of "Whoa, wait a minute guys ! Rummy is doing a heck of a job !!! ..."
So, since this was not handled properly behind close doors, ( since the political fallout would never stay behind closed doors if Bush canned Rummy ) - you have to hear about it in this unprecedented way.
As far as this particular comment made on the Limbaugh show - it should not surprise anyone.
This is the same guy that said there was no insurgency back in November of 2005. At that time, close to 2000 U.S. Soldiers had already been killed.
So, #19 - there is a real good chance these generals tried to take care of things quietly.
But at the end of the day - if your Secretary of Defense appears to be mentally ill - and the president does not remove him - what does that make this
April 18th, 2006 at 12:06 pmpresident?
The Central Committee for Media Manipulation...
Oh was a deluded world Donald Rumsfeld lives in...
April 18th, 2006 at 12:07 pm#38 Nobody is buying the "lines" any longer, dude. Everybody can see the way you work and the way you go about distorting and diverting. An example:
1. You guys wait around until someone from the admin can think of a spin (in this case, General Meyers, who has a vested interest as he owes Bush for hiring his daughter).
2. You listen closely to exactly what they say and you repeat it, verbatim.
3. You then gather a list of all those that disagree and are vocal about it and smear them. Often, there are invented stories batted about and you want so badly to find some dirt, you will buy any story told and are more than happy to spread filth around.
4. You come here thinking you have some news for us and to try desperately to believe as you do. Which we never do because we do research and find the truth. You don't want the truth, you want to hear what you want to be true. That is why you people have invented Fox. It is the only place you know they will only what you wish were true.
Do you never wonder why it is only Fox that has these "breaking" stories? Do you ever wonder why all of their reporters are unknowns or are from other stations that have ditched them because of their lack of objectivity?
Well, you also have no objectivity. That is why you have no credibility here. I'm guessing you don't have too many folks to talk with about these issues as most, especially now, will find you ridiculous.
I know you need to blather and vent here as no one wants to hear it any longer. That is fine; we will use your silly little talking points as ammunition against you as we do daily. You post your nonsense as soon as you hear it from Rush or Bill without even doing any of your own investigating. You believe them lock, stock and barrel which is your downfall. You have listened to idiots so long that you have melded with them.
Most know now that their vote for Bush was a mistake. They understand that he has the blood of nearly 3,000 Americans and thousands of innocent Iraqis on his hands over a LIE. You hated that Clinton lied about sex and said that he disgraced the office. No one died because of it and many repubs got much needed publicity.
Some people get ahead by doing a good job and some get ahead by making others look bad. Like I said at first, no one is buying the one-liners and the spin. We need more as American voters than "hey look over there." Try something new, think.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:08 pmFrom cnn:
Bush: 'I'm the decider'
President Bush today forcefully defended his defense secretary, saying Donald Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. "I hear the voices, and I read the front page and I know the speculation," the president said. "But I'm the decider, and I decide what's best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."
(we know he means that he's the dictator... :)
April 18th, 2006 at 12:13 pmTry something new, think.
Comment by progressive and proud — April 18, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
Great post! Touche'!
April 18th, 2006 at 12:14 pmUNBELIEVABLE... i prefer to call 'he' and 'it'. :). i am just dumbfounded by the insensitivity in 'its' posts. this person seriously has a problem.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:16 pmto call 'it' mean spirited would be kind! im thinking more like 'sociopath'!
Media committees. That's so damn cute.
#33 - I always wondered about you, kindness. ;)
#60 - GWB does ramble, doesn't he? He hears voices?
April 18th, 2006 at 12:18 pmGee .. I wonder who is on the Zarqawi and Osama Media Committee? I wonder if it's anyone I know? i wonder ... if ... could it be YOU? Are YOU on Osama's Media Committee? Or YOU? Or you or you or you??!!!
Why am I getting flashbacks to the old "there are Communists in Hollywood" scare of the '50s?
April 18th, 2006 at 12:19 pmMeg,
He and it are both appropriate, as in animate objects have zero feeling either. ;)
I think you're right. Ryan had posted several descriptions of sociopaths and MA fits them all. Scary how much so.
I used to pity him, but as he has no soul, I stopped wasting my emotions. At some point, you may as well :)
April 18th, 2006 at 12:20 pm"There have always been people who have opposed wars…" Really? So, is this a "bad" thing opposing wars? Or just so frick'n obvious as to be ludicrous?
April 18th, 2006 at 12:20 pmYES, you frick'n moron, there are many people who oppose war, especially when they're waged on a pack of lies!
And to suggest that the MSM is being manipulated by terrorists is simply the ultimate in scapegoating ever to be mentioned. There ought to be an award given for this utterance of lunacy. But, alas, bush will probably give rummy the "Medal of Freedom" award along with ex-CIA tenants "Slam-dunk" remark. (sigh)
GWB does ramble, doesn’t he? He hears voices?
Comment by Zookeeper — April 18, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
So he says... which he mistakes for the voice of God. Scary, huh?
April 18th, 2006 at 12:21 pmBush: ‘I’m the decider’
I saw that CNN clip. "I'm the decider. I decide things. That's what I do here. I decide deshishuns."
Blech.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:21 pmNotice that Bush no longer says anyone is doing "a heckuva job." Now they do "a fine job."
April 18th, 2006 at 12:23 pmPost 49 Jules > Thanks for the bumper sticker quote, I needed a laugh!
Did you notice how Rumsfeld over the weekend said the Generals asking him to resign did not bother him, but that was an act because his getting with Rush Limbaugh is to slime them all! Rummy shows his true self by calling us traitors for opposing his sinister sick warfare! I have called for his resignation for over 2 years, and he better pack his bags because he has insulted the entire nation now!
April 18th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#54 Enough with the stupid one liners. Geez you sound stupid. You crow like a parrot saying the exact same thing over and over. We are not buying it! Don't you get it? You just sound silly. If you actually believe what these morons say, you deserve to be so angry.
If you believe this stupid shit, you are just uneducatable or just low IQ, like Bush, and don't have the capacity to understand that you are being sold a ridiculous excuse. You are being used by fools to spread idiotic propaganda. You are a Bush apologist and must have to put in lots of hours if you actually believe someone who made sure he wasn't going to fight for his country over six individuals who have fought hard because you didn't want to.
Or, you don't believe this horse puckey, but care so much more about winning as a party and not as a country, that you will do anything in your power to keep winning no matter what. This would make you a really sick person. If this is the case, you are doomed to be unhappy forever.
So which is it? Are you in denial or do you just want a republican in every office no matter how bad they are or how much they lie? Is it about power or saving face? You know it isn't about what is good for America, or you wouldn't be smearing lifelong generals. Which is really pathetic.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:25 pmHas anyone in the Right Wing Lemmingdompubbiehood realized how self-serving & narcissistic it is to believe that Zarqawi and Bin Laden act on the basis of the U.S. media & opinion polls ?!?!!!
Jeepers.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:28 pmSomeone explain to me why this administration paints anyone against the war as anti-american or un-partriotic.
In my eyes the exact opposite is true.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:32 pmI LOVE the follow up on this thread! Hey, at least we can civilly talk and joke about morbid/delusional leaders. Except of course Mighty A....tsk, tsk tsk. You're gloating about a family that was killed cause they got caught in a firefight because a visiting relative? For the record...Mighty, you'll make one sorry ass horrible Mom (MA's a female folks, she's posted referring to her husband previously). Your kid is gonna grow up to be a Terry Nichols Federal Building bomber cause you're gonna feed it nothing but hate and bile. Please abort any pregnancies you come upon for America's sake.
OK, that was a tad cold. Don't abort your baby, give it up for adoption just like you think other women facing unwanted pregnancies should do. There, that's better.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:35 pmWhat is really funny is how Rummy makes it sound like being against war just in general is a bad or immoral thing in and of itself. I'm trying to remember... What was it Jesus said again?
It's pretty sad when an agnostic does a better job following the teachings of Christ than his supposed followers...
April 18th, 2006 at 12:37 pm"You just sound silly. If you actually believe what these morons say, you deserve to be so angry."
You seem to be talking to yourself.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:42 pm#18 I know people (general officers) who were involved with the planning for the war. Tommie Franks (and for the life of me I cannot understand why he is protecting him) went to rummy with a plan for 350,000 men. Rummy said "no way." So he came back with a plan for 300,000 and again Rummy said "no way." After a number of these exchanges he asked Rummy "how many" Rummy gave him the number and he went back and they made the plan. The military is under civilian control. Rummy runs this ship like "it's my way or the highway." Many of the senior officers have put in 30 + years working for reasonable people. For the citizens to judge them wrong cause they didn't come out while they were on active duty don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. I know my career ended prematurely.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:44 pm#67 It is just so stupid it borders insanity. So, saying terrorists love our media is enough for someone? That's it? Our media is giving solice to terrorists? So they sit around eating hummus and waiting to see what Katie Couric says? Give me a break, no one could be THAT stupid. It's like saying eating crepes means you love France thus you hate America thus you must be communist. It is moronic and redneck. And I KNOW redneck, I'm in a red state where they all vote for Bush and guns. I refuse to continue to let the low IQ nonthinkers continue to make decisions for me that they are not mentally equipped to do.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:44 pm#54
Then the NY Times and the LA Times are truely clueless?
April 18th, 2006 at 12:45 pmI have to ask - is decider a word?
April 18th, 2006 at 12:47 pmPhilosophical mutual masturbation. Wonder if they washed their hands after???
April 18th, 2006 at 12:48 pm#67
Hey that's Moussaoui's BS defense! He is sure to get off now.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12371260/
April 18th, 2006 at 12:48 pmP & P - that was great!! What does hummas taste like?
Why can't republicans be as funny as progressives? Is it that the kool-aide is so sour?
April 18th, 2006 at 12:51 pm[...] Think Progress catches Rumsfeld and Limbaugh talking about Zarqawi and Bin Laden’s “media committees”. Ridiculous and unbelievably patronizing… [...]
April 18th, 2006 at 12:55 pmThese fooles constantly conflate Iraq to the "war on terror." Coward chicken hawk bastard!
April 18th, 2006 at 1:02 pmThen the NY Times and the LA Times are truely clueless?
Comment by Tracy — April 18, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
Was making a sarcastic play off you saying 'terrorists'. I consider the Bush Regime to be terrorists.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:05 pmI have to ask - is decider a word?
Comment by Jules — April 18, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
As a Science teacher to a Math teacher... :), I'm guessing it's as close as he can come to calling himself a dictator, but not a real word.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:07 pmRummy rambling on CNN now........Geeeeeees the shit just get's to deep to scoop even with a giant Clydesdale scooper......Blessings
April 18th, 2006 at 1:15 pmJules and Unbelievable, the administration policy regarding the english language is that 'if the president says it, it's a word'. A great 'strategery', no? Never 'misunderestimate' these folks
April 18th, 2006 at 1:20 pmThis kind of statement from the Defense Secretary is horrifyingly similar to the arguments made in Germany and Japan as they were losing the war.
When lies become so desperate and pathetic like these, you know the end is near.
The sad thing is that the dead are dead and Iraq is in ruins no matter how hard we fire Rumsfeld. Even if he goes to jail, the damage is already done, much like virtually everything this administration has done. Lasting damage that will still be there after American's wake up and make a change.
Can't say that we don't deserve everything that has happened. We put these people in power and now we have to pay. I am guilty too, I voted for him twice.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:22 pmQuadrajet, thanks for the reminder. I forgot that Newspeak is now the official language in the United States.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:23 pmFuck off Don, you arrogant pile of dung. That is the lamest rationalization I've seen yet from this idiot and that's saying a lot. The man does not have the character to take responsiblity for his poor management of the war...it's as simple as that.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:25 pmQuadrajet, thanks for the reminder. I forgot that Newspeak is now the official language in the United States.
Comment by unbelievable — April 18, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
We call it 'boobonics' down here, but newspeak works too
April 18th, 2006 at 1:28 pm#76 Yet, it is you. Get a clue, you are being left out of reality. And really, nice retort genius.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:30 pm#72 There is always an idiot like Tracy around to buy whatever is being sold. Just look at her reply to me - 'I know you are, but what am I?' Really intelligent back and forth from those that listen to drug addicts and post what they hear. I expect no more from Tracy and her ilk.
It is nice to see how they work though. They form opinions on emotions, not education and thorough review. They let others do their thinking for them; they just repeat the lines.
#83 I love hummus.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:40 pmHow Cheney Operates
It isn't Bush that's keeping Rumsfeld on, ... it's President Cheney.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:44 pmThey are actively out there trying to manipulate the press in the United States. They are very good at it.
Maybe the Bushies could ask them for some lessons?
April 18th, 2006 at 1:47 pmThey have it ASS BACKWARDS!
U.S. military plays up role of Zarqawi
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12243324/
The U.S. military is conducting a propaganda campaign to magnify the role of the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to internal military documents and officers familiar with the program. The effort has raised his profile in a way that some military intelligence officials believe may have overstated his importance and helped the Bush administration tie the war to the organization responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.
Osama bin Laden: A dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government
April 18th, 2006 at 1:50 pmhttp://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: The Dead Voice of "al Qaeda" in Iraq
i have to think Colin Powell is laughing his ass off right now!
April 18th, 2006 at 1:50 pm#75 I agree 100%. I am in NO way religious. Hell, Jesus said not to worship with the hyprocrites (republican evangelicals who want everybody to know they are religious because they surely do not act that way) but pray alone.
Look it up trolls, hurry now. Borrow one of Rush's bibles and scurry.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:50 pm"They are actively out there trying to manipulate the press in the United States. They are very good at it." --- Isn't he really just describing himself and the rest of the Bush Administration??? What a hypocritical liar and what a weak statement to make!
April 18th, 2006 at 1:52 pm[...] Think Progress is reported what is the most retarded thing I've heard from the Administration this week. (They always manage to top themselves, so expect something worse by Thursday!) Yesterday on Rush Limbaugh, embattled Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that those who criticize the Iraq war are being manipulated by terrorists, including Zarqawi and bin Laden, through the U.S. media: There have always been people who have opposed wars…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. [...]
April 18th, 2006 at 1:53 pmWe try to tell our kids how important education is and the importance of being well-spoken and this idiot comes along and makes up words to fill in the blank recess of his festering mind.
How did we come to this? It is terrifying that this person is in charge of our country.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:55 pm#103 How did we come to this? Ask Tracy.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:59 pmI have rarely read anything from any terrorist in the media... most complaints seem to be about the actions of this administration. We dont need to be told by some terrorists that being lied to by the administration to start a war is wrong... I think most Americans are perfectly capable of figuring that out for themselves.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:01 pm#95
Isn't it obvious that you are the one who is ANGRY? You do read your own posts...don't you?
April 18th, 2006 at 2:04 pmrumsfeld is long on rhetoric, short on evidence.
as usual from the right wing mouth breathers.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:05 pm#86
"I consider the Bush Regime to be terrorists."
And Iran's regime? Hamas the leaders of the Palestinians?
April 18th, 2006 at 2:07 pmThat picture of Rush looks like it was taken 20 years and 150 pounds ago.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:10 pm#106 Nice try fool but you look even dumber the more you post. I laugh when I write you and laugh harder when I read your itty bitty posts.
Once again, you cannot read emotions very well. I am not surprised.
BTW, I am smiling right now, you? I am happy to know that you are marginalized as what you really are - just another lemming for the president with the lowest IQ ever. How could you have thought for a minute that he would do anything intelligent? Silly troll, tricks are for kids.
Got anger? Not me.:-)
April 18th, 2006 at 2:12 pmTracy
Hamas was once supported by Israel to counter the PLO. Israel was itself created through terrorism, ie the King David Hotel Bombing. The US overthrew the Government in Iran in 1953 and from that you got the blowback of the Hostage Crisis. The best way to stop the terror is to stop screwing around with other countries. If we call the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 911 what the hell do you call the deaths of 250,000 Iraqis killed by smart bombs and dumb bullets? The entire US Governent are War Criminals. US Forces are a terrorist organization, the US Corporate Liberal Media is nothing but lies and propaganda. I look forward to all of them being brought to justice, Republican AND Demcrat. Fluff up the feather pillows, heat the tar, get rope
April 18th, 2006 at 2:12 pm#108 Do you have anything to say with any substance? It is really too easy here. C'mon, give us something with teeth in it. Give us any rational argument. We are dying here with your one liners and Pee Wee Herman inpersonations. We need a bit more than one sentence. Rush is on so listen to him and come back with his, er your thoughts.
Waiting patiently...
April 18th, 2006 at 2:14 pmwow. everything they know we can blame them for ( pentagon spends billions on domestic and foriegn PR.. .duh and have ''many'' business relations with the bin laden family, not only the bush family in numerous ways but Thomas Kean and his famous conspiracy novel ).. they have twisted right back around on us.
same story again.
if you are against the war you are with the terrorists.
if we do business with the terrorists we are god.. i mean good.
time to buy your rifles because these people will never stop.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:15 pm#86
“I consider the Bush Regime to be terrorists.â€
And Iran’s regime? Hamas the leaders of the Palestinians?
Comment by Tracy
Iran = Revolutionaries that have turned to terrorism since they could not get help from the US/UN to stop the creation is Israel, nor could they destroy Israel through war.
Hamas = Freedom fighters that have turned to terrorism since 1) The zionists started the terrorism in the 1930s, 2) The US/UN would not block the creation of Israel, 3) They can not defeat American military equipment in zionist hands.
Should they have turned to terrorism? I think not. America did not turn to terrorism to win its freedom, however britian didnt see it that way because we did use gorilla tactics instead of just walking out in big lines to be mowed down by redcoats. Personally I would have chosen to do what the IRA did... assinate their leaders over and over. (The IRA did dabble in terrorism, but apparently they didnt feel it got them what they were after ... which is why the arabs should stop)
But you are trying to make it look like they are just bored and so they go out and kill people. They have a very good reason to be pissed. I dont blame them for that... their tactics (terrorism) is dishonorable... Then again so is what has been and still is being done to them. If the west would make amends for what it has done and continues to do then that would take away their excuses they use to justify terrorism (in their minds).
April 18th, 2006 at 2:18 pmWhat Rumsfeld is really doing here is projecting. Since the military are very fond of spreading propaganda in Iraq by paying Iraqi newspapers to print news with positive content towards the occupation, he cannot think American media can have any other motivation to run the stories they do.
As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.(...)
The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even as U.S. officials are pledging to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech in a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption.
U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press
The Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday that the U.S. military has been paying Iraqi newspapers to print pro-American stories written by U.S. information operations troops.
A Knight Ridder investigation has found that the American military's information operations have been far more extensive.
In addition to the Army's secret payments to Iraqi newspaper, radio and television journalists for positive stories, U.S. psychological-warfare officers have been involved in writing news releases and drafting media strategies for top commanders, two defense officials said.
U.S. military pays Iraqis for positive news stories on war
Once again, Sec Rumsfeld opened his mouth and revealed more about himself than about the people he tried to smear.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:29 pmIt's come to the point where even the bravest, strongest, most reputable citizens in our country, the soldiers and the generals of soldiers, have to find safe ground before they tell the truth. Retirement, for the generals, is just that. So look for new legislation to be introduced to strip the pensions from any ex-soldier who speaks out against the admin.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:41 pmThey know how to deal with opposition... peaceful opposition, anyway. Suppression. Punishment. Fear. Works well for them. Anyone with anything to lose has to know it will be taken from them if they speak up, eh?
I heard today, that we are already infiltrating Iran. People.... it's now or never!
April 18th, 2006 at 2:48 pmI confess, Don is right. And the next time Osama and I get together we'll have a good laugh about how easy it is to fool the American people!
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!
All this talk about the press or Democrats or Republicans is so stale~~ let's get to the basics~~~~Forget the silly notions about that Saddam killed X amount of people, let's not compare bodycounts pre-action and post-Saddam. Forget women's rights or propaganda about shredders or rape rooms. After all we torture people too. We killed innocents too. We support allies who are worse than Saddam. We shouldn't care about everything.
So why did we have to remove Saddam?
By removing Saddam, we prevented a much larger war in the future since if he ever acquired WMDs, he would have been nearly impossible to remove. We cant allow a guy like that to become too powerful. Any problem in that region also makes oil prices go up - no-one wants that instability. It costs too much money.
Also now we have bases there, and a military port in the Persian Gulf. We are scaring Iran and Syria into behaving. If they dont, they will be bombed back into the stone age.
All in all, strategically the Iraq war was the best thing that could have happened to that region.
Invasion of Iraq with minimal casualties
Arrest of Saddam
Democratic election
Formation of new Iraqi government
Methodical destruction of insurgency
Only 2000+ casualties after three years
US Military bases in Iraq
US Military port in Um Qasr
Anyone who says this policy is not worth it, is simply ignorant
The world owes us a big thank you.
In short, the Saddam regime defied us so many times, making us look like fools. He even refused to get out of Kuwait and made us waste American lives in doing so. He tortured American pilots.
He was our puppet in the region to control Iran, and he thought he didnt need us anymore.
Well now he's in jail and we took pro-active control.
You see we need to have that region safe and secure - its an important region because of the oil. The world turns on oil - we must make sure the region doesnt explode in some WMD war in the future. Now we prevented it
Support our effort
If you are a real American, you will definitely support our Iraq Policy. 1800 or even 3000 KIAs in return for having military bases in Iraq and pro-active control of the region at our fingertips, and a democracy installed in Iraq, are a windfall for the US economy and security.
The casualties suffered are very very light for having invaded a nation and occupied it for 2.5 years. It is incredible, so magnificent that so much has been gained with the deaths of so few.
Again, if you really are a REAL American, you would surely support the Iraq Policy to a tee.
I also believe this war was mismanaged and Rumsfeld made several key errors, not least of which was the small force idea and the lack of planning re: post-Saddam chaos. However, having said that, we still did great!
Hillary Clinton said the United States should remain in Iraq until peace can be maintained by the Iraqi people, and said the mission was part of the "long struggle against terrorism" by the U.S. And I think most Americans agree, except for the insane antiwar crowd.
So lets support our troops until those Iraqi soldiers can secure their own country
=) thanks
What did we accomplish?
We secured Iraq, make a statement to the muslims that we are in charge, we have military bases next to the oil fields, we will have the largest ever embassy in Baghdad, and we will stay there with a garrison forever.
These are issues of National Security and National Interests.
Dont be myopic, pan out, zoom out, and see the larger picture. If you are American, you should be proud!
Thank you for reading my long post.
~~~Lisa
April 18th, 2006 at 2:56 pmhttp://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-u9DXEy08Y77qGWgb5xBi?p=80
Was Rush wearing a tin foil hat when he said that.
The only manipulating being done is by Rush Limbaugh.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:58 pmStinky cheese man and Dr. aspartamine are both neocons.The definition of a neocon is Israel First.Remember that always whenever you are confronted with this sort of bs.Who benefits?The money laundering aid to Israel must end before we the people will ever have a chance.That country is at the center of all the strife.Add to that the oil barons greed and you have the administration's agenda.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:00 pmYou see we need to have that region safe and secure - its an important region because of the oil. The world turns on oil - we must make sure the region doesnt explode in some WMD war in the future. Now we prevented it
And what is going to happen when only air is being sucked up out of those oil holes?
The answer is clear. You are an idiot. Bush is an idiot.
The answer is clear. We do not belong over there.
The answer is clear. We have the greatest potential of making use of technology compared to any other country (nuclear bombs were created by America). We should call for the collective brains of this nation to come together under a funded entity with the sole purpose to get America off the oil additiction.
Only an evil asshole goes into another mans house and kills his family and then blames it on the need for oil.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:14 pmLISA.... 'Forget women’s rights or propaganda about shredders or rape rooms. After all we torture people too. We killed innocents too. We support allies who are worse than Saddam. We shouldn’t care about everything' ???? are you on crack?.
'We secured Iraq, make a statement to the muslims that we are in charge, we have military bases next to the oil fields, we will have the largest ever embassy in Baghdad, and we will stay there with a garrison forever'. i dont think so!
April 18th, 2006 at 3:18 pm#118
I can smell the fried baloney from here:
All in all, strategically the Iraq war was the best thing that could have happened to that region.
By installing a fundamentalist theocracy?
Hillary Clinton said the United States should remain in Iraq until peace can be maintained by the Iraqi people, and said the mission was part of the “long struggle against terrorism†by the U.S. And I think most Americans agree, except for the insane antiwar crowd.
You're calling others "insane" for objecting to a war of choice that has actually made matters worse shows the paucity of your argument.
In short, the Saddam regime defied us so many times, making us look like fools. He even refused to get out of Kuwait and made us waste American lives in doing so.
You do not know much history if this is your assertion: the Kuwatis were slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields, and Saddam ASKED Reagan's representative, April Glaspie about his invasion of Kuwait, and she said the US wouldn't get involved.
He tortured American pilots.
Like the Bush administration you throw a bunch of crap on the wall and see what sticks - this isn't a viable reason for invading other countries.
"Saddam tried to kill my dad" sounds as believeable as "You see we need to have that region safe and secure - its an important region because of the oil. The world turns on oil - we must make sure the region doesnt explode in some WMD war in the future. Now we prevented it " So Bush was lying when he said it wasn't about the oil? Pick one and stick with it.
Dont be myopic, pan out, zoom out, and see the larger picture. If you are American, you should be proud!
The "larger picture" is a bloody mural painted by warhawks with no experience in real world politics.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:20 pmLISA... a quick look (it's all i could stand) of your blog reveals that you are a blatant racist so i guess your opinions are worthless here!
April 18th, 2006 at 3:25 pm[...] war dissenters are the dupes and tools of Zarqawi and al Qaeda There have always been people who have opposed wars…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. [...]
April 18th, 2006 at 3:26 pmThey had. The complaints of the general staff at the time of the war starting are well-documented. Look up General Eric Shinseki. It's standard practice not to complain in public if you're a serving (not retired) general; in fact, several serving generals have come out recently and said "We cannot say anything against the Defense Secretary, because we are serving generals."
April 18th, 2006 at 3:26 pmlove your country distrust your government.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:27 pmBy removing Saddam, we prevented a much larger war in the future since if he ever acquired WMDs
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
So by your ridiculous logic, we should just go ahead and throw you in prison because if you ever get a whole arsenal of guns in a Montana bunker, you could be difficlut to arrest for crime you might think about committing someday, in teh future, possibly.
Our law dictates that people are innocent until proven guilty. He had no WMD, so he was not guilty.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:31 pmAlso now we have bases there, and a military port in the Persian Gulf. We are scaring Iran and Syria into behaving
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
Oh, you think so? Well, you might try opening your eyes when you read the news. Iran has blatantly stated that they have enriched uranium and that if we touch them, they will unleash a jihad on our soldiers in Iraq who are already struggling. That kind of scared are talking about? Cause really, if that's scared, I hate to think what not scared is.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:35 pm#128
The Bush Doctrine regarding invading a country that might be a future threat is hauntingly similar to the premise of the movie "The Minority Report." Did you see it? If not, I highly recommend it, not only for the excellent plot and acting, but for giving the viewer something to think about.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:40 pmI noticed some childish and slanderous comments aimed towards me, which reduces the debate to a schoolyard level.
There is no fundamentalist theocracy in Iraq - whoever said that just made that up. silly boy!
Saddam doesn't fall under US Law - he went astray and we had to remove him. Just imagine the thousands and thousands of casualties if we had to remove him in 2010 for example. I am glad we did it now.
Iran needs to be treated with respect, not hostility. They helped us in Afghanistan in 2002, and we need a balance of power in the ME
April 18th, 2006 at 3:41 pmThe world owes us a big thank you.
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
And yet, all the reasons Lisa lists in her long, inane rant are US-centric and benefit the US only. Why is the world supposedto be thankful, exactly?
In short, the Saddam regime defied us so many times, making us look like fools.
Wow. This warrants an invasion, an occupation, and the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis? Killing thousands to save one's face?
Good thing she doesn't care much for Iraqis, so she doesn't lose her sleep at night knowing the killing field their country has become.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:41 pmMichael Huffington - you are quite aggressive and low class with your replies to me. I hope you can raise the level of your discourse so I can reply to your replies. As is, replying to you in full is demeaning to me.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:43 pm[...] So Rummy hides like Osama in the fortress of the Pentagon until the right-wing pundits start dishing out the spinning talking points like ninja stars. When he feels the time is right, he grants an interview — with Rush Limbaugh. There have always been people who have opposed wars…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. [...]
April 18th, 2006 at 3:44 pmGregor - why should I care about Iraqis?
The world owes us a thank you because if we are safer and better off, then so is the world
If we're not there - one day Russian and Chinese tanks will just roll into Europe - you get it?
The world needs us
April 18th, 2006 at 3:45 pmThe world owes us a big thank you.
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
Hi little evil girl with fake big balls... these people would like to thank you... they died defending their home town from your friends and family members that murdered them...
Fallujah
But since they are dead they cannot thank you... but I bet their very VERY pissed off relatives would like nothing better than to sneak over to your house and murder you and your family out of revenge...
April 18th, 2006 at 3:46 pmyou are quite aggressive and low class with your replies to me.
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
Not that you are one to talk about class; I did see your blog and your replies to Joey...
April 18th, 2006 at 3:47 pmI noticed some childish and slanderous comments aimed towards me, which reduces the debate to a schoolyard level.
Childish? Ever hear that saying "The pot calling the kettle black'? No one slandered you. Grow up. You come into a Progressive blog spouting Bill O'Reilly-style nonsense and expect us to what? Start bowing? You're not very bright are you? You make me ashamed to be a woman.
Saddam doesn’t fall under US Law - he went astray and we had to remove him. Just imagine the thousands and thousands of casualties if we had to remove him in 2010 for example. I am glad we did it now.
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
No, but we do. Hello?
Do you even know what the UN is? International law ring a bell? Didn't think so.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:48 pmFIRE RUMSFELD
~~~For starters
~~I don't like to write a hit piece on Rumsfeld because ~~I respect the elderly ~~ but after years of mindboggling mistakes on both planning and execution in Iraq ~~ and the torture scandal in Abu Graib as well as the abuses carried out in Afghanistan which even our troops in the field are deeply embarrassed and ashamed of ~~ it's time for this old old man to sit down in his wheelchair and ~~ make his way to the museum ~~ His story is simply of a man who couldn't get very far ahead in the Navy so he joined politics ~~ now he can feed his fossilized ego by overruling generals~~~ Bush Jr brought this old man out of retirement and rightaway ~~ he started talking about some missle shield and costly older Cold War weapons ~~ first sign of a problem ~~
~~This is the man who overruled 4 star generals to have a (too) small force to occupy Iraq (blaming generals for the small numbers now)
~~This is the man who refused to have generals plan for a guerrilla war
~~This is the man who was in favor of disbanding the Iraqi Army and de-Baathification
~~This is the man who told troops they should be happy with the army they have not the one they want, when confronted about armor ~~ (comments overruled by Bush a day later btw)
~~This is the man who presided over the Abu Graib scandal
~~This is the man who said he knew exactly where the WMDs were during the first weeks of the invasion ~~ that could only have been a lie
~~~This is a man who says this type of war could take 10-20 or even 30 years ~~ but it is also the same man who said it would take weeks or months rather than years ~~
~~This is the man who used a machine to sign letters notifying families of their loved ones DYING in battle because it hurt his wrist to use his own hand~~
~~This is a man who constantly tells us a rosy story about what is going on in Iraq ~~ while at the same time the top generals in Iraq tell a different story ~~
~~Currently ~~ I see us as being inbetween a rock and a hard place ~~ in Iraq ~~ withdrawing is not an option ~~ as Iraq will rapidly become an all-out chaos ~~ and staying implies staying for many more years ~~ with no progress ~~ Anyone claiming progress is either insane or gullible ~~ forget the press ~~ they are doing a great job reporting the reality in Iraq ~~ because the administration isn't telling us the truth ~~ it's that simple ~~ do we want to read feel-good stories about our soldiers handing out candy or playing soccer with Iraqi youths? ~~ I can do without that ~~ I want to know how the WAR is going ~~ and it seems Rumsfeld cannot speak in clear realistic terms ~~ I think we need a new Defense Secretary who can motivate the generals and troops with a better approach, a better tactical plan to redeploy without withdrawing ~~ and a person who can re-assemble some confidence from the American People in the mission we have ~~ Rumsfeld f-cked up just...too many times~~ I want him out~~ for the good of our troops in the field~~
April 18th, 2006 at 3:49 pmGregor - why should I care about Iraqis?
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
Good question... only because they are human being, perhaps? And they are being killed, slaughtered, in a war that didn't need to be?
The world owes us a thank you because if we are safer and better off, then so is the world
If the US is safer so is the world? What arrogance!
If we’re not there - one day Russian and Chinese tanks will just roll into Europe - you get it?
This is an absolute non sequitur...
The world needs us
Again, what a colonial arrogance...
April 18th, 2006 at 3:50 pmIf we’re not there - one day Russian and Chinese tanks will just roll into Europe - you get it?
The world needs us
Comment by MXXLENT
And so now you are a mystic that can see into the future? You are your kind are hell bent on world domination ... not Americanism... get the hell out of our country. You do not belong here. Go somewhere else and start your nazi 1000 year reich... America is above that BS.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:51 pmLISA.... i think you didnt READ his post. he was neither demeaning nor aggressive. and by the looks of your blog you are a racist!!! so of course you dont care about Iraqi's and their suffering! You are worried about us looking like fools? only a fool worries about that!
April 18th, 2006 at 3:51 pmI know many posters here are left wing but that is no reason to spam my 360 blog with hate mail. Pls behave
Thx ~~ Lisa
April 18th, 2006 at 3:51 pmwhy should I care about Iraqis?
Boy are you self-centered. Because it's the human thingto do?
The world owes us a thank you because if we are safer and better off, then so is the world
We are NOT safer. In fact, the opposite. Bush has made us less safe.
If we’re not there - one day Russian and Chinese tanks will just roll into Europe - you get it?
Prove that. You can't because it's a fear-tactic based on emotion and zero logic. Man are you gullible.
The world needs us
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
As much as they need another hole in their collective heads.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:52 pmJoey likes me - we both live in Michigan
Don't judge everything by the heated debates!~~
April 18th, 2006 at 3:53 pmWhy are people calling me racist because I don't care about Iraqis?
I care about Americans and our nation. I could care less about Iraqis or Europeans or anyone else.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:54 pmFrom Lisa's blog - in her own words:
~~No I meant like my blog ~~ I don't consider my blog to have any journalistic value ~~ I almost never research anything ~~ most of what I write are comments off the top of my head as ~~ a response to some newsies I read ~~~ But as I mention ~~ this is just a 360 blog ~~ no need to make it out to be something of journalistic value ~~ the difference is her blog is made out to be something more than spouting nonsense~~ which is laughable
April 18th, 2006 at 3:55 pmI know many posters here are left wing but that is no reason to spam my 360 blog with hate mail. Pls behave
Thx ~~ Lisa
Comment by MXXLENT
You have only seen the begining of it... If you can only spout off your mouth, without backing it up then you should be aware that you just steped into a hornets nest. Talking BIG only encourages us to strike you down for your stupidity.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:55 pmI know many posters here are left wing but that is no reason to spam my 360 blog with hate mail. Pls behave
Thx ~~ Lisa
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
Just like Rumsfled, Lisa is projecting; she is one passive-aggressive twit who comes here with your inane tripe, and then has the gall to ask us not to spam her.
My irony-meter when kaput.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:56 pmpeople here blame me for not caring about Iraqis but
WHERE were all of you in the 80s? Are you saying you used to not care and now you care? lol
here...here's a UNICEF prize for you people
April 18th, 2006 at 3:56 pmAbove "when" is supposed to read "went"...
April 18th, 2006 at 3:56 pm#131
So Saddam went astray. And just who was it that said the U.S. didn't need to be the policemen of the world? Oh...who could it be? Could it be....SATAN?
Nope. Just G.W. Bush in a debate with Al Gore in 2000. And don't feed me the crap that "9/11 changed everything." If Saddam was a future threat to us in the months after 9/11, then he was a future threat to us in the months prior. I wonder why Bush didn't go after him then? Do you have the answer? After all, in the previous 10 years America had been attacked twice before by terrorists...once on our own soil.
But there is one little flaw in the slaw. Colin Powell told the world in the spring of 2000 that Saddam was contained and wasn't a threat. I don't recall Bush correcting him. Do you?
April 18th, 2006 at 3:57 pmPoint 1) Imagine the Right's response if these same generals had said the same thing about Clinton bombing Kosovo?
April 18th, 2006 at 3:58 pmWhy are people calling me racist because I don’t care about Iraqis?
I care about Americans and our nation. I could care less about Iraqis or Europeans or anyone else.
Comment by MXXLENT
Then that makes you a bigot and a racist.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:58 pmI can't keep up with all the posts directed at me so I have to cherry pick
So if you are rude, you are the first to be discarded
thx for understanding
~~Lisa
April 18th, 2006 at 3:58 pmI know many posters here are left wing but that is no reason to spam my 360 blog with hate mail. Pls behave
Thx ~~ Lisa
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
You are beyond arrogant. We didn't go to you. You came here, begging for attention and well, then you don't like it? We have better things to do that spam you. And we're more mature than that. Something you clearly do not possess yourself.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:00 pmWhy are people calling me racist because I don’t care about Iraqis?
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
You are confused.
That you don't care for Iraqis even as they are being slaughtered makes you morally bankrupt.
That you called -in your blog- Joey "Ethiopian" and a product of affirmative action makes you a racist.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:00 pm"Then that makes you a bigot and a racist."
No it doesn't. Granted I won't get a job at the UNHCR but I care about America and Americans - and yes, that includes blacks, hispanics, whites and asians :-)
You're wrong to cry wolf about racism! Are you the son of that congresswoman?
April 18th, 2006 at 4:00 pm#135
Gregor - why should I care about Iraqis?
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
So in other words, to hell with other countries and their people. American occupation and domination of the Middle East is much more important.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:01 pmIt's pretty sad Rumsfeld has to go on a lunatic right wing show to talk - I think mainstream channels will actually ask Rumsfeld hard questions and he's scared of that
Rush Limbaugh? Come on ... That's sad Donald
April 18th, 2006 at 4:02 pmYou are beyond arrogant. We didn’t go to you. You came here, begging for attention and well, then you don’t like it? We have better things to do that spam you. And we’re more mature than that. Something you clearly do not possess yourself.
Comment by unbelievable
I spamed her. She is a racist. Her blog spells it out quite clearly. You can tell by the things she posts she has never even met someone that wasnt a racist. Her whole family must be just like her. She (like every human being) is going to get screwed in this life by fate and then she will realize there is a reason that America is about THE PEOPLE and why she should care for all people such as the Iraqis.... maybe she will have a near death experience or she might be raped or her child might die and then she will realize that all people are human ...even her.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:03 pmLISA... in your own words!!!! you are racist!!! now we can call you a liar too!
That notion to me is silly because ~~ she is a very simple-minded person from a low educational background ~~ filipino immigrant parents ~~ and limited talent ~~
April 18th, 2006 at 4:04 pmGuys,
Lisa is a bimbo - click on her Yahoo profile! She has a hussy for her avatar! Ha!
And before you call me fat or ugly, you should know, I look like Salma Hayek (taller and whiter) - (how's that Gregor? :)
April 18th, 2006 at 4:04 pm"So in other words, to hell with other countries and their people. American occupation and domination of the Middle East is much more important"
We don't dominate the Middle East. We're occupying part of Iraq for the time being... we're not occupying the Middle East! ~~ Wake up Gregor
April 18th, 2006 at 4:04 pmIt’s pretty sad Rumsfeld has to go on a lunatic right wing show to talk - I think mainstream channels will actually ask Rumsfeld hard questions and he’s scared of that
Rush Limbaugh? Come on … That’s sad Donald
Comment by MXXLENT
Are you just a mindless follower? Go to the library and read... turn on history channel and watch... you got a lot of growing up to do.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:05 pm"LISA… in your own words!!!! you are racist!!! now we can call you a liar too!"
I'm just stating facts. Her parents are filipino immigrants. I also mentioned her education is low college level. Those are facts. Where is the racism.
You people really cry wolf about racism.
The reason is because you're clueless about the issues so you cry wolf about some fantasy you have.
Racism is where you specifically indicate how one group is scientifically or racially superior. I have never done that.
So from now on I will ignore the cry wolf posts.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:07 pmFrom Lisa's blog:
I don’t consider my blog to have any journalistic value
I wholeheartedly agree. Or any other value, for that matter...
I almost never research anything
It shows, your posts here are the product of years of non-research.
most of what I write are comments off the top of my head as ~~ a response to some newsies I read
I disagree -everything you write is a comment off the top of you head. It would help a little if said head had some grey matter. Oh well. You can't have it all, can you?
this is just a 360 blog ~~ no need to make it out to be something of journalistic value
No need to worry, Lisa
the difference is her blog is made out to be something more than spouting nonsense~~ which is laughable
We agree again, your blog is nothing more than spouting nonsense...
April 18th, 2006 at 4:09 pmand then she will realize that all people are human …even her.
Comment by Gerald Gibson — April 18, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
We get some radical people here, but she is worse than 100 wwallaces and Mighty Medusas rolled into one! I'm a pacifist, but she makes me want to smack her. I detest women who act like this. It's why IRI thinks women shouldn't vote, and she validates his claim. I don't want her voting, driving, breeding or leaving her living room for that matter. She's a self-inflating egocentric ignorant who is part of the reason the rest of the world hates us.
I don't hate many people, but congratualtions Lisa, you've managed to get there in all of 30 minutes.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:09 pmGerald Gibson is a Rush Limbaugh fan??
April 18th, 2006 at 4:09 pmWe don’t dominate the Middle East. (...) Wake up Gregor
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
That wasn't me -it was WC. Wake up, Lisa....
April 18th, 2006 at 4:11 pmthe difference is her blog is made out to be something more than spouting nonsense~~ which is laughable
We agree again, your blog is nothing more than spouting nonsense…
Hmmm...silly boy!~~
Well it's very tricky to take things out of context. I was talking about Michelle Malkin's blog. Sorry to offend your heroine
April 18th, 2006 at 4:11 pmWow Lisa, you're kind of a....well....tool, aren't you? Thanks for the link to your blog, although I had to scrub my eyes with bleach and de-skank my computer afterwards it clearly illustrated just who you really are. The fact that you think "Joey" likes you is a clear indication of your delusionality.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pmHmmm... I posted here for a while and 90% of what I saw:
1. people attacking me personally
2. people crying wolf about racism
3. people taking my writings out of context, chopping it up, then replying to it
4. people replying with wild and crazed conspiracy theories
~~I have to go but I will come back to thinkprogress sometime ~~ but so far I am very very unimpressed with the level of discourse of you lefties
April 18th, 2006 at 4:14 pmThat notion to me is silly because ~~ she is a very simple-minded person from a low educational background ~~ filipino immigrant parents ~~ and limited talent ~~
Comment by meg_mac — April 18, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
I hate to generalize, and am not saying ALL are this way, but after a few years in California, I ran into some women like Lisa who were first generation to Filipino parents. Spoiled rotten bitches. One of my friends married one. Pure drama, high-mainentence, whiner, egocentric. I went out of my way to avoid this woman. It was all about her all the time. I don't know if these women's parents, happy to be in this country allowed their children to be spoiled for some reason, but this person is just appalling.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:15 pmI never thought I'd live through anothe Vietnam, but Rumfeld's comments are a page out of the old playbook....ad hominem attacks against your critics by ignoring the substance of their comments and then smear them as being pawns of the Communists/Terrorists/fill in the blank enemy.
Chuck Hagel is right: Rumsfeld does not have the support of the men and women in uniform, is a demonstrated incompetent in his job, and should be held accountable. Of course, this is an administration which rewards incompetents with medals, so what's new?
April 18th, 2006 at 4:16 pm~~I have to go but I will come back to thinkprogress sometime ~~ but so far I am very very unimpressed with the level of discourse of you lefties
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
PLEASE don't! I prefer living with the ignorance of not knowing you exist.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:18 pmbut so far I am very very unimpressed with the level of discourse of you lefties
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
Your asinine rants are unworthy of a toughtful reply. For example:
"If we’re not there - one day Russian and Chinese tanks will just roll into Europe - you get it?"
Wha!? What kind of horribly flawed logic allows you to link the Middle East to Russian and Chinese (???) tanks rolling into Europe?
April 18th, 2006 at 4:20 pm#59. Great rant! I am hoping you got your points across about research and critical thinking, but I'm afraid your intended recipient may not process at that level.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:24 pm~~I have to go but I will come back to thinkprogress sometime ~~ but so far I am very very unimpressed with the level of discourse of you lefties
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
No need to come back Lisa, since you've provided a link to your blog we'll play with you there so we don't have to play with you here - recognize that argument from anywhere?
April 18th, 2006 at 4:24 pmUNBELIEVABLE.... that was LISA's quote talking about Michele Malkin. your personal experience is understood. i really had a problem with her snooty racist remark!
LISA... before you come here get your facts straight. offer useful information. can the racism. say something substinitive. we will get along fine!
April 18th, 2006 at 4:25 pmIf you are a real American, you will definitely support our Iraq Policy. 1800 or even 3000 KIAs in return for having military bases in Iraq and pro-active control of the region at our fingertips, and a democracy installed in Iraq, are a windfall for the US economy and security.
We secured Iraq, make a statement to the muslims that we are in charge, we have military bases next to the oil fields, we will have the largest ever embassy in Baghdad, and we will stay there with a garrison forever.
These are issues of National Security and National Interests.
Dont be myopic, pan out, zoom out, and see the larger picture. If you are American, you should be proud!
Thank you for reading my long post.
~~~Lisa
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
Yep...you are correct. I apologize. Nothing in your comments even remotely resembling domination or occupation by America. Silly me.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:27 pmWhile I understand your sarcasm, Judd, you have just handed Limbaugh a quote from you (at end of your piece) that you surely don't mean.
Please be more careful in using sarcasm, for your own good.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:28 pmUNBELIEVABLE…. that was LISA’s quote talking about Michele Malkin. your personal experience is understood. i really had a problem with her snooty racist remark!
Comment by meg_mac — April 18, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
Oh. She reminded me of those few women I knew in California. Can't stand the attitude, and was trying to understand how someone is that way. Surely, not a typical situation.
I'm convinced people like that come here thinking teh heathens will fall over at their brilliance and just adore them. Like we haven't heard their nonsensical rants and cowardly excuses a million times already. Crazy.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:38 pm#110
"Once again, you cannot read emotions very well. I am not surprised."
Emotions? You write from an emotional standpoint? Now that doesn't suprise me.
"BTW, I am smiling right now, you?"
Oh most definately, especially when you say that you aren't angry. You can't tell me you aren't angry at the Bush administration and Kerry for loosing to him. BTW Kerry had a lower IQ as well as grades in college.
"I am happy to know that you are marginalized as what you really are..."
Marginalized by a liberal cheerleader like yourself? Now that's funny?
April 18th, 2006 at 4:51 pmUNBELIEVABLE.... i am waiting for some lucid thought from the right but so far just tripe! there really is no defense for what is going on now!
April 18th, 2006 at 4:54 pmUNBELIEVABLE…. i am waiting for some lucid thought from the right but so far just tripe! there really is no defense for what is going on now!
Comment by meg_mac — April 18, 2006 @ 4:54 pm
Unfortunately, they allow emotion to dominate and eclipse logic. A friend of mine says it's because they are too afraid to give up their parachutes, even though their feet are firmly planted on the ground. Never know when you might sprout wings and take off, I suppose...
April 18th, 2006 at 5:02 pmGreat, another misinformed parroting troll. This one fancies himself smart. That is the first sign of stupidity - thinking one is quite intelligent.
MXXLENT - no more bull, dude, no more bull. You can't sell that shit here. Anyway, you just parrot the other trolls' narcissistic tendancies. It's always fun to watch to pigs play in the mud.
CAVEAT EMPTOR!!
April 18th, 2006 at 5:02 pmMarginalized by a liberal cheerleader like yourself? Now that’s funny?
Comment by Tracy
Marginalized by truth. We humans that are alive right now are nothing. Truth is forever. You are Marginalized forever.
April 18th, 2006 at 5:06 pm#146 Expect a LOT more email and posts on your racist blog with that quote. You are arrogant and hateful. We have no use for you here. I mean America. People like you type and talk oh so delicately but are full of ugly.
I just HATE passive aggression. I hate very little but that and canned tuna are just not tolerable to me.
April 18th, 2006 at 5:10 pmTracy you are proving yourself an idiot. I can tell you I am angry with thugs like yourself who vote with emotion and not with sense. Your amateurish posts amuse me. We toy with you here and you can't seem to tell. How obtuse you are.
BTW, YOUR IQ DOESN'T CHANGE. Geez you are dense. Bush's grades weren't earned and his IQ is MUCH lower than probably even yours, definately Kerry's. Can't you even learn something here? You are in the company of scientists, lawyers (real ones), chemical/mathematical engineers, astronauts, doctors and teachers, just to name a FEW, and you come away with nothing. Sad that you can learn nothing from all of the learned people. That is why I am here, to learn. You? Bash?
You come out and merely peer into this space but take absolutely nothing from it. Hit and run, huh?
April 18th, 2006 at 5:16 pm#112
"They are actively out there trying to manipulate the press in the United States. They are very good at it."
"So, according to Rumsfeld, the media isn’t just failing to report the “good news†from Iraq, it is being actively manipulated by terrorists."
I think that the media is being used by the terrorists to further their cause. I don't think that the MOST media is aware how and to what extent they are being used by al Qaeda. Some are aware; however, and are simply looking to bash the Bush administration for political reasons.
"Those that are critical of the war are simply buying into the propaganda."
I think that those who are critical of how this war has been run are many times right have a lot to ammuntion, because mistakes have been made; however those who are opposed to the premise of the war, i.e needed political change in the Middle East, have no creditability. Even Zinni had every reason to believe Saddam and the WMD issue was legitimate.
Zinni's own words in 2000:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=137037
April 18th, 2006 at 5:19 pmTracy, there are several other LATER articles saying he has none. So you choose to believe who you want but I'm more likely to believe the articles telling Bush it was not so. Especially when we see all the evidence that he DID HAVE before war.
If you deny, you are just in denial. That's fine if you wish to create your little world but we here can't ignore what is right in front of us. You may choose to.
What about the article that told this admin that Bin Laden was ready to strike the US with jets? I suppose he didn't like that one. What about Wilson's article and then the payback? C'mon, you have to be dilusional to believe them.
Tracy, hate to break it to you, but Bush lied.
April 18th, 2006 at 5:28 pmZinni’s own words in 2000:
http://www.libertypost.org/ cgi-bin/ readart.cgi?ArtNum=137037
Comment by Tracy — April 18, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
No, not that talking point again...
What Clinton, Kerry, Zini, others said in 2002 (let alone in 2000) is irrelevant. The quality and quantity of the intelligence on Iraq's WMD program (or lack thereof) greatly improved between the two dates thanks to the ongoing inspections; the same ones Pres Bush didn't allow to be completed because he thought were not working. Too bad for him that they were.
Pres Bush had access to more, better, more accurate intelligence in March 2003 than Zini in 2000. Zini did not order the invasion. Pres Bush did. What Zini said in that respect is irrelevant.
April 18th, 2006 at 5:31 pm"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." -Rumsfeld, 2/7/03 on the length of the military confrontation in Iraq.
I haven't believed a word this man has said ever since.
To his credit, he has tried to resign on a number of occasions, but Bush would not let him.
April 18th, 2006 at 5:34 pmWth! THEY OWN THE U.S. MEDIA!!
April 18th, 2006 at 5:35 pm#114
"Iran = Revolutionaries that have turned to terrorism since they could not get help from the US/UN to stop the creation is Israel, nor could they destroy Israel through war"
Hamas = Freedom fighters that have turned to terrorism since 1) The zionists started the terrorism in the 1930s, 2) The US/UN would not block the creation of Israel, 3) They can not defeat American military equipment in zionist hands.
Now that's some serious BS propoganda.
"America did not turn to terrorism to win its freedom, however britian didnt see it that way because we did use gorilla tactics instead of just walking out in big lines to be mowed down by redcoats"
When the insurgents in Iraq target American or Iraqi troops that's legitimate; however, when you intentionally target and blow up a bunch of civilians....you are a terrorist.
"Personally I would have chosen to do what the IRA did… assinate their leaders over and over."
That's what Israel does consistantly, but many believe this to be terrorism on the part of the IDF. What is you position on Israel's policy of taking out Hamas leaders?
"They have a very good reason to be pissed. I dont blame them for that… their tactics (terrorism) is dishonorable… Then again so is what has been and still is being done to them."
Again the IDF is not targeting civilians. If the IDF was targeting civilians, there would thousands of Palestinians littering the streets in Ramala and Gaza City....DAILY.
April 18th, 2006 at 5:38 pm#115
Are the stories accurate?
April 18th, 2006 at 5:42 pm#132
Should we have finished the job back in 1991?
April 18th, 2006 at 5:49 pmAre the stories accurate?
Comment by Tracy — April 18, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
I know you followe dthe link and read the story.
It does not matter whether every single story is accurate or not. If the Iraqi media are being bribed into printing pro-American articles only, the overall coverage becomes dishonest and inaccurate. I am sure you can understand that.
Not to mention the poor reflection it has on the US authorities, if Iraqis figure that for their American occupiers democracy means everything is up for sale, even the facts.
April 18th, 2006 at 5:57 pmShould we have finished the job back in 1991?
Comment by Tracy — April 18, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
What does this have to do with my answer to Lisa? What does "finish the job" mean?
April 18th, 2006 at 5:58 pmI want to know why Rumsfeld did not go on Fox News since that can be considered friendly territory
~~~Serious replies only please
April 18th, 2006 at 5:59 pm#202 - you are kidding right? Like Rush is not friendly territory?
April 18th, 2006 at 6:05 pmSerious replies only please
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
How can we take you seriously when you keep asking subpar questions like that.
Please explain why Limbaugh is not "friendly territory" to the Bush administration.
April 18th, 2006 at 6:08 pmOk I forgot to add ALSO you dummy
Normal people can infer that I meant they are both friendly territory but Fox News is televised and more people will see and hear Rumsfeld
Seriously, I am amazed at the simple minds here. It's like you have to spoon feed people here
Im out
vene vidi vici
April 18th, 2006 at 6:10 pm#189
"Marginalized by truth"
Are hope you aren't suggesting that liberals are any more truthful than conservatives. That even more hilarious.
April 18th, 2006 at 6:16 pmOk I forgot to add ALSO you dummy
But Lisa, you pitched a temper tantrum over others calling you names. You can't have a doucble standard. This isn't the United States of Lisa (thank God).
Normal people can infer that I meant they are both friendly territory but Fox News is televised and more people will see and hear Rumsfeld
What kind of idiocy is that? Did you recently fall and hit your head - repeatedly?
Seriously, I am amazed at the simple minds here. It’s like you have to spoon feed people here
Oh, I see, you aren't smart enough to get what we're saying, so you assume we're simple. Okay, lemme clarify. We're so much smarter than you that you're confused. You should do some research. That coming up with stuff off thetop of your head isn't working. You're missing truly brilliant insight here. Most folks in here have I.Q.s in the genius range. I bet you're luckyto be classified as 'average'.
Im out
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
Yes, of your mind.
April 18th, 2006 at 6:20 pmpff...de minimis non curat praetor
April 18th, 2006 at 6:20 pmNormal people can infer that I meant they are both friendly territory but Fox News is televised and more people will see and hear Rumsfeld
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
I see, you screw up and it's our fault that we don't understand your nonsense.
Normal people take responsibility for their own mistakes instead of deflecting blame.
Normal people can infer little from a text written by someone they don't know -specially if that person has posted idiocies such as "If we’re not [in Iraq] - one day Russian and Chinese tanks will just roll into Europe - you get it?â€
vene vidi vici
I bet you really believe that...
April 18th, 2006 at 6:22 pmLIMBAUGH'S VISION
April 18th, 2006 at 6:24 pmHe sees everything perfectly after scoring a bushel of serious downers, and now that I know rejecting his moronic views proves I'm a terrorist, I guess I'll just have to get that lobotomy, eat some drugs, and relax with Rush's show.
unbelievable - I have tried to ignore you but since I am posting around a bit before doing something meaningful, I will give you the time of day. I know you're not lucky with ladies and you are here hating on me because of it. I am not to blame for your lack of character or your poor looks. You come across as a frustrated little man with nothing going for you, except this little blog. I recommend you stay here because you always say "we", so it seems you feel accepted here as part of a group. To me you're an embarrassing nobody and so whatever you say here doesn't matter to me. However, I do feel sorry for you so I gave you something long to read. Did you enjoy it? Ok, I really have to go so I won't see your reply. Have a nice day little smurf
April 18th, 2006 at 6:25 pmWow - there are some really sorry ass trolls posting on all threads today. What happend? Is Rove on vacation and they have no one to give them their talking points?
April 18th, 2006 at 6:25 pmde minimis non curat praetor
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
You have vastly overstated your worth...
April 18th, 2006 at 6:26 pmOH PLEASE! Is there no end to the desperate lengths these dipshits will go to project blame on everyone but themselves? Don't you just hate it?
April 18th, 2006 at 6:52 pm#190
"I can tell you I am angry with thugs like yourself who vote with emotion and not with sense."
Liberalism IS a complete emotional philosophy bar none!
"Your amateurish posts amuse me."
And yours mine.
"You are in the company of scientists, lawyers (real ones), chemical/mathematical engineers, astronauts, doctors and teachers,"
I have been a registered professional architect for eight years and have a dual degree in architecture and structural engineering. Weren't you the one here the tried to BS into thinking the the 9/11 attacks were a conspiricy by the American government?
"Bush’s grades weren’t earned"
Neither were Kerry's. Kerry as a senator has done NOTHING for the state of Mass.
"That is why I am here, to learn."
You need to read your posts again, if you think that.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:01 pmLISA... what would that meaningful thing be? working in a soup kitchen? helping elderly in a retirement home? volunterring to pick up trash? tutoring,mentoring. just what meaningful thing are you about to do?
April 18th, 2006 at 7:01 pm#192
"So you choose to believe who you want but I’m more likely to believe the articles telling Bush it was not so."
Of course you would. Looking in hindsight it's EASY to do so, but based on Saddam's past actions and the fact that he has used WMDs before, the evidence against him was overwhelming at the time.
"What about the article that told this admin that Bin Laden was ready to strike the US with jets?"
Which article SPECIFICALLY said the al Qaeda was going to strike with airliners against the WTC towers. How many pieces of terrorist threat information was passed to the Bush administration from the former?
"Tracy, hate to break it to you, but Bush lied"
The EXACT intelligence information used prior to the invasion was referred to by Kerry and provided/touted by the Clinton administration....they too lied....or were they just misinformed?
April 18th, 2006 at 7:18 pmWhen Rumsfeld is out of office they're going to tell us that he JUST developed Alzheimer's. Just like Ronnie. And they BOTH had it all along.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:28 pmTRACY... we put Saddam in power. I guess you could say we are responsible for his 'WMD'! i would post the pic but can't of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with 'good ole boy' Saddam on a state visit to Iraq! that was during Georgie 1's admin.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:31 pm#193
"What Clinton, Kerry, Zini, others said in 2002 (let alone in 2000) is irrelevant."
The quote IS from 2000 prior to Bush taking office is not irrelevant considering Zinni is contradicting himself AFTER the fact and the fact that he is bashing Bush for using the SAME information that he himself had and used to formulate his quote.
"The quality and quantity of the intelligence on Iraq’s WMD program (or lack thereof) greatly improved between the two dates thanks to the ongoing inspections."
When did Saddam let inspectors back in after Bush demanded it?
"...the same ones Pres Bush didn’t allow to be completed because he thought were not working. Too bad for him that they were."
When Clinton left office there weren't any inspectors in Iraq. What exactly was Sadamm doing to comply with UN1441 or ANY of the other resolutions prior? You are insane if you think that inspections prior to the 2003 invasion were working. If that's your definition of compliance it's no wonder Sadamm scammed billions from the oil for food program.
"Pres Bush had access to more, better, more accurate intelligence in March 2003 than Zini in 2000"
Really? There was accurate intelligence information on Iraq's WMD program just prior to the 2003 invasion? I thought you and many others said it was horribly inaccurate? If that's the case then Clinton and Zinni were bafoons for stating exactly what Bush did in his state of the union address prior to the March invasion.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:36 pm#200
"If the Iraqi media are being bribed into printing pro-American articles only, the overall coverage becomes dishonest and inaccurate. I am sure you can understand that."
The article didn't say the the Iraqi press was being payed to ONLY publish pro-American articles. I wonder if those in the Iraqi press are fearful for their lives if they were to print such things. That shouldn't suprise EITHER of us.
"Not to mention the poor reflection it has on the US authorities, if Iraqis figure that for their American occupiers democracy means everything is up for sale, even the facts."
The stories have not been disputed for their accuracy.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:53 pmpff…de minimis non curat praetor
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
In other words, you have no intelligent response, so you steal a Latin phrase to look intelligent. Didn't work.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:58 pmunbelievable - I have tried to ignore you but since I am posting around a bit before doing something meaningful, I will give you the time of day. I know you’re not lucky with ladies and you are here hating on me because of it.
I'm a woman you idiot. A smart and attractive woman who hates stupid bimbos because they lower our collective value. You are the proverbial bad apple.
I am not to blame for your lack of character or your poor looks.
You have to think that to compensate for the fact that I'm smarter than you. Unfortunatley for you, I'm also better looking.
You come across as a frustrated little man with nothing going for you, except this little blog.
Considering you can't even get my gender straight after I already told you repeatedly prior, I'm not inclined to put much stock in anything else you 'think' (and I use the term loosely).
I recommend you stay here because you always say “weâ€, so it seems you feel accepted here as part of a group.
It's a female trait to say we since we are inclusive and tend to be unilateral, not hierarchical. But, since you never research anything, other than yourself, you wouldn't know anything about women. I'm wondering if you actually are one. Or another pathetic drag queen who can't afford to have his winkie removed.
To me you’re an embarrassing nobody and so whatever you say here doesn’t matter to me.
The fact that you responded suggests otherwise. And the fact that you responded this much shows that it matters a lot.
However, I do feel sorry for you so I gave you something long to read. Did you enjoy it?
No. You are a twit. I'd rather read Rush Limbaugh
Ok, I really have to go so I won’t see your reply. Have a nice day little smurf
Comment by MXXLENT — April 18, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
Yes you will, you love yourself too much to not see it.
What a serious loser!
April 18th, 2006 at 8:06 pmWell maybe if the anti-war factions weren't saying some of the exact same things as bin Laden and his buddies, I would believe your spin. The fact is, though, that the anti-war people are sharing some of the same rhetoric used by bin Laden and his henchmen. They know it is good propaganda, that's why they use it. To play ignorant to the fact that terrorist propaganda is having an effect here at home is being just that, ignorant.
I mean damn, we even have Michael Ware falling for terrorist propaganda, who is actually in Iraq. He thinks that the terrorists really care about women, because they always say in their propaganda tapes to let all women out of jails. What a complete dupe. Thinking people understand that this is propaganda to make people believe that the Coalition is going around jailing women. Michael Ware, you know, Time magazine's bureau chief in Baghdad - not all that clued in.
April 18th, 2006 at 8:18 pmSEIXON.... propaganda is only good if people believe it! you are the one who is the victim of Bin Laden and cohorts. i however can sort out the crapola from the facts!
April 18th, 2006 at 8:32 pmKeep taking the medication folks!!!
April 18th, 2006 at 8:42 pmI'm being manipulated by my own conscience, education, experience, and common sense, you fucking asshole!
April 18th, 2006 at 9:17 pm[...] Rumsfeld: War Critics Being Manipulated By Zarqawi and Bin Laden …Think Progress, DC - 11 hours ago… 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 … [...]
April 18th, 2006 at 9:26 pmI guess Rush is back on his illegal prescriptions of oxycontin! It would take a drug-addled brain to come up with illogical “spin†of this nature!
Comment by Democrat Soldier — April 18, 2006 @ 9:58 am
Watch your mouth. You are talking about one of Thinkprogress' primary sources for news pal.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:46 pmDidn't you read the story ? Zarqawi writes talking points for war critics. Rush Limbaugh writes talking points for Thinkprogress.
They don't give Rush Limbaugh front page coverage because his views should be dismissed. You would have to be on drugs yourself to think that was a logical move.
American generals are like bin Laden and Zawahiri. The media is like al Jazeera. It's all so obvious.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:47 pmIt's time for an armed revolution !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 18th, 2006 at 9:57 pmWC-#181.I was just about to post the same conclusion as you did,amazing that this one could not even agree with what she had posted,what a half hour previous ?Even the McLellatron can do better than that !!
TheRamblingGhost
April 18th, 2006 at 10:06 pm"Zarqawi and bin Laden and Zawahiri, those people have media committees. "
But wait Dummy! Bush said he is, "not that concerned about him (bin Laden)... but you are saying that it is indeed bin Laden manipulating the media, so why shouldn't Bush be concerned about him? Hmmmm?
April 18th, 2006 at 10:37 pmDamn Lisa, you really need to get a personality. Aping Mann Coulter is not very becoming.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:22 pmAs Eschaton says, these people are fucking nuts. I don't think committees are needed to prompt the opposition to American "policy" (if by policy, with apologies to Rude Pundit, we mean illegible messages we claim to have spotted on cloudy days at such and such a time) that have been created.
April 18th, 2006 at 11:45 pm#229
Hey, asshole. Speaking of the media, why isn't Foxnews.com reporting all the good news out of Iraq? I mean, during the last 3 1/2 weeks I have checked the site on 5 occasions (the latest one being a few minutes ago), and not ONE good news story out of Iraq. You know, a new bridge or hospital opening, or full power being restored to a neighborhood, or fresh water being made available to thousands of people. Bush and Company keep telling us that the media is failing to report the good stories. Fox News, the mouthpiece of the administration, should be leading the charge. Sadly, they too are MIA.
April 19th, 2006 at 12:29 amPropaganda!!! OMG OMG I'm shocked to hear there's propaganda going on.
April 19th, 2006 at 12:51 amWhen did Saddam let inspectors back in after Bush demanded it?
Comment by Tracy — April 18, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
Are you seriously asking this question? Inspectors were on the ground in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion:
UN inspection teams were searching Iraq for these alleged weapons for nearly four months prior to the invasion and were willing to continue, but were forced out by the onset of war in spite of their requests for more time.
Wikipedia: 2003 Invasion of Iraq
The weapons inspectors were not allowed in Iraq after "Bush demanded it", but because the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441 and Hussein complied with it in November 2002.
When Clinton left office there weren’t any inspectors in Iraq. What exactly was Sadamm doing to comply with UN1441 or ANY of the other resolutions prior? You are insane if you think that inspections prior to the 2003 invasion were working.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. It seems like a contradictory paragraph: Inspectors were in Iraq because Hussein was complying with resolution 1441.
And you are insane if you think the inspections weren't working. Hussein was disarmed. Unless, of course, you are willing to maintain WMDs have been found in Iraq.
If that’s your definition of compliance it’s no wonder Sadamm scammed billions from the oil for food program.
Hussein was scamming billions with the open complicity of many, including the US government:
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations assigned to investigate the scandal has also concluded that
"The United States (government) was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."
Wikipedia: Oil-for-Food Programme
And no, there was no compliance with the oil-for-food program. Pears and apples.
Really? There was accurate intelligence information on Iraq’s WMD program just prior to the 2003 invasion?
Yes, there was. The inspections were working:
America and Britain's tough stance comes despite Mr Blix's report outlining improved cooperation from Iraq. Thirty-four of Iraq's illegal Samoud 2 missiles had been destroyed, Mr Blix said, despite Baghdad's insistence that the weapons did not violate the UN-mandated 150km limit.(...)
In sharp contrast with US and British claims that Iraq is not disarming, Mr Blix said the destruction of the missiles was a "substantial measure of disarmament".
"We are not talking about the breaking of toothpicks," he said. "These are lethal weapons being destroyed."
Blix wants months - and Straw offers 10 days
Hans Blix was giving the UN Security Council regular updates on his team's progress in Iraq. It was all there for everyone to see.
I thought you and many others said it was horribly inaccurate?
I can't speak for others, but I haven't said such thing and I disagree with that statement.
What I have said all along is that Pres Bush cherry-picked the "intelligence" he wanted to hear, mainly the rubbish given to him by Ahmed Chalabi, instead of the accurate data Blix was providing.
If that’s the case then Clinton and Zinni were bafoons for stating exactly what Bush did in his state of the union address prior to the March invasion.
No, not this talking point again...
Pres Bush had access to the intelligence because of his clearance. That intelligence was not shared even with Congress.
April 19th, 2006 at 12:57 amThe stories have not been disputed for their accuracy.
Comment by Tracy — April 18, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
Your defense of the Iraqi press-for-sale is morally bankrupt.
Even assuming the stories are 100% correct, the freedom of the press is seriouly jeopardised if journalists take bribes to slant their stories one way or another -which is what this is about.
Also, the article says the stories are "basically factual" but they "present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said." That does not sound to me they are 100% accurate and correct. Not only that, the stories are written by US soldiers and presented as if written by independent journalists. This is seriously misleading. You see no problem with misleading readers like this? Do you consider it appropriate to bribe a journalist to give positive coverage to an event, cause, or person?
April 19th, 2006 at 1:34 am#247
Let's not forget that Colin Powell himself told us in, I believe, the spring of 2001 that Saddam was contained and was not a threat, and that his capabilities of producing WMD's were severely limited. Or something like that.
April 19th, 2006 at 1:43 am" 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. "
Media committees? What media committes? I have seen no media committees.
No media committees are even required as:
"* A comprehensive study published in 1981 by the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs showed that 54 percent of elite journalists identified themselves as liberal but only 19 percent as conservatives. In every presidential election between 1964 and 1976, at least 80 percent of them voted Democratic"
Now, it's back to work on FF public relations releases that Bush hating, Democrat and Socialist western journalist are in a great rush to receive and distribute through all forms of many outlets.
The Freedom Fighter PR dept. has an easy task actually. They throw press release treats to the western media dogs who beg on their back legs.
April 19th, 2006 at 9:49 amAre hope you aren’t suggesting that liberals are any more truthful than conservatives. That even more hilarious.
Comment by Tracy
#208 Tracy,
April 19th, 2006 at 9:49 amCould you please put that first sentence into intelligible English?
#218 No, you are incorrect (again). I posted nothing about conspiracy theories with respect to 911, you are mistaken. I was at ground zero on that day, along with my husband, a NYC Paramedic who came back covered in human remains. You speak of things you think you know. I know not why you are so arrogant and why you feel you have the answers.
When you say 'and yours mine' I think you mean 'as yours do me.' Unless you are sure of what you are saying, don't post it. And you talk of me rereading my posts...geez.
When you post of your education, you need to be extra careful about your posts. Most here don't feel it necessary to tell us all of their intelligence. Much like secure men don't feel it necessary to let others know of their masculinity (ex.IRI). It reeks of insecurity.
You speak of liberalism being an emotional philosophy; then what is conservativism? Do you really believe Bush is intelligent? Do you really believe that 91, which is below even the national IQ average, is capable of anything great? He will go down in history as one of the dumbest and most arrogant. Why do you think he has never admitted any mistakes? Do you honestly believe none were made? Do you ever wonder why he won't own up to his mistakes? When he says things like 'I'm the decider and I decide what's best' are you proud? When he stumbles on words, does that make you feel good about our leader? Are comfortable, especially after Katrina, with the way FEMA operates? Are you comforted knowing that credit card companies and oil companies make our laws? Are you concerned about the next hurricane season? Do you find the six generals that spoke out about the micro and mismanagement of the military to be less knowledgeable than Rumsfeld? Do believe a civilian with NO military experience is better suited to understand the field operations?
April 19th, 2006 at 10:58 amNow hold on just a second! Here is one story where Rumsfeld says that the U.S. press is being manipulated by Zarqawi...
Rumsfeld: War Critics Being Manipulated By Zarqawi and Bin Laden’s ‘Media Committees’
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/18/rumsfeld-limbaugh/
...followed by another one where the Pentagon admits to fabricating the "Zarqawi legend"?
U.S. military plays up role of Zarqawi
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12243324/
The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK.......so Rumsfeld, who controls the Pentagon (who in turn,made up the whole Zarqawi boogyman), is chastising the media for falling for the story he's been pushing? I really really need a drink. Come to think of it, I need a whole lotta drinks.
April 19th, 2006 at 11:17 am#247
"but because the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441 and Hussein complied with it in November 2002."
Sadamm WAS NOT in compliance with UN 1441. That's total BS! Do a Google search "Blixx says Iraq not in compliance" and you will find hundereds of links refering to Iraq's non-compliance prior to the 2003 invasion.
"The weapons inspectors were not allowed in Iraq after “Bush demanded itâ€, but because the UN Security Council passed resolution 1441 and Hussein complied with it in November 2002."
UN 1441 would have NEVER been brought to the U.N. Security Council for a vote if it wasn't for the Bush administration had not have pushed for it. The very idea of inspectors going BACK into Iraq was a Bush administration proposal, not a U.N. idea.
AGAIN, what exactly was Sadamm doing to comply with UN1441 or ANY of the other resolutions prior?
"And you are insane if you think the inspections weren’t working."
If you were to actually read the text of UN1441 you couldn't possibly think that they were.
"Hussein was scamming billions with the open complicity of many, including the US government:"
Exactly! however it wasn't the U.S. government who was paying the money.
"The largest of these recipients, Houston based Bayoil and its CEO, Bay Chalmers have been indicted by the US Department of Justice for their actions."
"Yes, there was. The inspections were working:"
"America and Britain’s tough stance comes despite Mr Blix’s report outlining improved cooperation from Iraq."
Improved cooperation?...well that justs make everything better. What about the 10 years prior to Blix and his team going in?
"Pres Bush had access to the intelligence because of his clearance. That intelligence was not shared even with Congress."
So did CLINTON AND ZINNI. You are right Bush has access to the SAME intelligence information that the Clinton administration and Zinni had in order for them to make their PUBLIC statements prior to Janurary 2001 that Sadamm basically had to "be removed" from power.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/809168.stm
"In November 1998, amida crisis with Iraq over U.N. weapons of mass destruction (WMD) inspections, theClinton Administration stated that the United States would seek to go beyond containment to promoting a change of regime."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051115-1.html
April 19th, 2006 at 11:26 am#248
First of all if you think that the Iraqi press is TOTALLY free then you have some serious issues.
"Even assuming the stories are 100% correct, the freedom of the press is seriouly jeopardised if journalists take bribes to slant their stories one way or another"
They weren't being asked to "slant" their stories, but just to report both sides of the situation in Iraq.
"Not only that, the stories are written by US soldiers and presented as if written by independent journalists."
You would believe an independent (LOL!) journalist over a U.S. soldier?
"Do you consider it appropriate to bribe a journalist to give positive coverage to an event, cause, or person?"
When the journalists are biased, for what ever reason, the whole truth must be displayed especially during time of war. If you can guarantee a hint of objectiveness and unbiasedness, which in Iraq's press corp you can't, then I would think that it wouldn't be appropriate. No comment on the daily threats the Iraqi journalists come under for what they print in their newspapers?
April 19th, 2006 at 11:40 amI smell a desperado trying to shore up a counterattack from perhaps his last line of defence. General Donald Custer knows his last stand is with a few drug induced neocons that perhaps still listen for their fix of the Drug Rush. Pity Donald, even neocons are getting bored with him.
April 19th, 2006 at 11:41 am#251
No...you should be able to figure out the mistake.
April 19th, 2006 at 11:45 amGosh, did Rumsfeld just paraphrase Herman Goering? :
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
April 19th, 2006 at 12:09 pm-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
#252
"I posted nothing about conspiracy theories with respect to 911, you are mistaken."
Sorry about that. Do you remember who it was?
"I know not why you are so arrogant and why you feel you have the answers."
You do the same! Are you kidding?
"When you say ‘and yours mine’ I think you mean ‘as yours do me.’"
I ment that your posts are just as amusing.
"Most here don’t feel it necessary to tell us all of their intelligence."
You just said that I was in the company of many "professionals" here. How would you know that?
"Why do you think he has never admitted any mistakes?"
You really need to slow down and read some of my posts. I have stated MULTIPLE times that the Bush administration has made mistakes foreign policy wise and domestically.
"Do you honestly believe none were made?"
Of course not!
"Do you ever wonder why he won’t own up to his mistakes?"
I wondered that of EVERY president. It's all political posturing.
"When he says things like ‘I’m the decider and I decide what’s best’ are you proud?"
He is the commander-in-chief. I wouldn't expect my boss to make company decisions based on a critical review from a local architectural magazine's opposition to one of the projects I worked on. That's just an example that I have personal experience from.
"When he stumbles on words, does that make you feel good about our leader?"
MANY CEOs can't and don't speak well in public.
"Are comfortable, especially after Katrina, with the way FEMA operates?"
Nor the way it operated after Hurricane Andrew in August 1992.
"Do you find the six generals that spoke out about the micro and mismanagement of the military to be less knowledgeable than Rumsfeld?"
No, and I have already said that Rumsfeld needs to go, but ONLY for political reasons.
"Are you comforted knowing that credit card companies and oil companies make our laws?"
If that is what you believe...
"Do believe a civilian with NO military experience is better suited to understand the field operations?"
Not really, but especially not when they get to be commander-in-chief from 1992-2000.
April 19th, 2006 at 12:18 pm"#259 Not really, but especially not when they get to be commander-in-chief from 1992-2000."
Clinton administration was not hijacked by PNAC Neocons , even though they tried:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
April 19th, 2006 at 12:46 pm#252
"You speak of liberalism being an emotional philosophy; then what is conservativism?"
Liberalism as I see it is a "which ever the way the wind blows mentality" in a sense there is only moral relativism.
http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=1172
Now I will in turn ask you...Why do you think conservativism is emotionally based?
April 19th, 2006 at 1:07 pm#260
So goes al Qaeda's astronomical rise in power and influence.
April 19th, 2006 at 1:09 pmTracy, you have answered none of my questions with any substance. You gave me spin; something I would expect from a politician. I ask you if you were proud that he has terrible grammer and you tell me that a lot of people do. That is bullshit. Yes or no would suffice, all else is evasive bull.
When I asked about his saying 'I'm the decider...' you give me an obtuse answer. I meant the way he says things. He makes no sense and is not succint or clear. I was asking about form not substance.
I ask about Katrina and you bring up Andrew. Why can't you just answer a freakin question instead of trying to spin like a politician? You are just like McClellan and his constant stroking. How about Katrina? KATRINA? The response was disgusting and you know it. How about FEMA? Should it have been merged into the abyss?
I hope many see your post and your NONanswers. You are devoid of conclusions only deception. You post is so lacking, I am sorry I wasted my time trying to debate you. You have only spin and talking points.
Try again, Tracy. If you were on the stand, you would be declared a hostile witness. That is what most trolls turn into here. In a court of law you would be considered in contempt.
April 19th, 2006 at 1:14 pmTracy, "listen" closely...I did not say anywhere that I felt either liberalism OR conservativism was an emotional philosophy. You don't get me at all.
You have been wrong a few times today and are also wrong about liberals, democrats and progressives. You, like many, hate what you don't understand. I believe it is just the moniker you hate and have been told ridiculous stories by those with vested interests in you thinking what they want you to.
That is why I am guided by no news faction, only education. Try it, it is actually fun to gain knowledge. It is odd that you have gained nothing here.
April 19th, 2006 at 1:18 pm"#260 So goes al Qaeda’s astronomical rise in power and influence. "
As everyone knows by now, Saddam Hussein and Iraq did not do 9/11, but Al Quaeda's influence has been moreso AFTER Bush's PNAC illegal pre-emptive invasion...
April 19th, 2006 at 1:24 pmSadamm WAS NOT in compliance with UN 1441. That’s total BS! Do a Google search “Blixx says Iraq not in compliance†and you will find hundereds of links refering to Iraq’s non-compliance prior to the 2003 invasion.
Comment by Tracy — April 19, 2006 @ 11:26 am
"The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, (...)
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully, (...)
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates;(...)
Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq
Nowhere in the text that it say Hussein has to comply happily and smilingly. The inspectors were in Iraq. Hussein was acting in compliance with the resolution.
And out of curiosity, I did the google search you mention. It always goes back to someone else saying "Blix says..." but these are not direct quotes from Hans Blix. He never actually said it. That was a spin to hype the case for war.
If you were to actually read the text of UN1441 you couldn’t possibly think that [the inspections] were [working].
See above. In addition, the purpose of the inspections was to verify Hussein did not have WMDs. He didn't have them by the time of the invasion. If you think Hussein was indeed a threat and possessed WMDs, you should be easily able to produce links and evidence to show that he had them.
however it wasn’t the U.S. government who was paying the money.
It doesn't matter -it doesn't relieve them from the fact they knew Hussein was working around the Oil-For-Food program.
What about the 10 years prior to Blix and his team going in?
I thought it was clear I was talking about about the run-up to the war and invasion. Hussein was definitely in breach before that -hence the sanctions.
So did CLINTON AND ZINNI. You are right Bush has access to the SAME intelligence information that the Clinton administration and Zinni had (...)
I never said that by March 2003 both them and Pres Bush had access to the same intelligence -I thought it was clear I stated the very opposite. If you are trying to prove to yourself that I am against the invasion because it was Pres Bush's idea, you are sorely mistaken. I don't care for Clinton. Much less for Zinni. I am against the US meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, which includes initiatives for "regime change".
April 19th, 2006 at 1:28 pmFirst of all if you think that the Iraqi press is TOTALLY free then you have some serious issues.
Comment by Tracy — April 19, 2006 @ 11:40 am
I smell a strawman in the making...
They weren’t being asked to “slant†their stories, (...)
Yes they were. I will quote the article again: "Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said."
That's the very definition of slant, and they are not presenting both sides. I thought you had read the article.
You would believe an independent (LOL!) journalist over a U.S. soldier?
You miss the point which is that presenting the news piece as coming from a independent journalist (whatever that means in Iraq nowadays) is a wanton lie, designed to deceive and sway public opinion.
When the journalists are biased, for what ever reason, the whole truth must be displayed especially during time of war.
Right, and paying them to slant their stories achieves that objective how, exactly?
If you can guarantee a hint of objectiveness and unbiasedness, which in Iraq’s press corp you can’t, then I would think that it wouldn’t be appropriate.
That's your defense? "Everyone else does it"?
No comment on the daily threats the Iraqi journalists come under for what they print in their newspapers?
Despicable. But you are changing the subject.
April 19th, 2006 at 1:38 pmIf you repeat a lie enough, people will begin to believe it.
April 19th, 2006 at 2:35 pmI picked up this story on Al-Jazeera, blogged it weeks ago, about the Iraqi insurgents sacking Zarqawi. Has it gotten ANY play in the USA? Not so far.
Gee, I wonder why?
April 19th, 2006 at 2:59 pmwanting to listen to the radio cast, I have my barf bag in hand - do I have to subscribe to Rush (and change my life) to hear it?
can anyone suggest a place to find the full transcript?
~peace
April 19th, 2006 at 3:35 pm#263
"Tracy, you have answered none of my questions with any substance."
Your questions were lacking substance to begin with, however that questions I thought were WORTH answering, which were the MAJORITY OF THEM, were to the point. Just because you didn't like the answer is irrelevant.
"I was asking about form not substance."
You need to be more clear and precise then. Yes, when Bush say that he is the one who decides who will be Secretary of Defense and not his biased opposition, YES I am proud. It should have been obvious in my answer. I didn't realize I had to annunciate my ansewers on such a elementary level.
"How about Katrina?"
Yes Katrina was handled badly just as Andrew was. You should have gotten that already.
"Should it have been merged into the abyss?"
No.
"If you were on the stand, you would be declared a hostile witness."
And if you were a prosecutor, the trial would have moved on without you.
"In a court of law you would be considered in contempt."
This blog is the furthest thing from a legitimate court.
April 19th, 2006 at 5:06 pmRummy, you're such a crack-up.
Which Zarqawi are they talking about? The wooden-legged one that jumps from speeding cars and runs faster than Jesse Owens or the dead one?
April 19th, 2006 at 5:19 pm#251
No…you should be able to figure out the mistake.
Comment by Tracy —
#257
April 19th, 2006 at 5:24 pmDon't expect people to follow your arguments, when you can't even put them into decent English a good deal of the time.
#264
"Tracy, “listen†closely…I did not say anywhere that I felt either liberalism OR conservativism was an emotional philosophy."
I don't care if YOU said it....I am saying it.
"That is why I am guided by no news faction, only education."
You sure attempt to fool everyone here.
"It is odd that you have gained nothing here."
Oh, I have gained something here...that there are many here who think that liberal = free thinker. That total BS! You aren't trying to BS me here into believing that you are some kind of intellectual and that you haven't been brainwashed by years of liberal propoganda...are you?
.
April 19th, 2006 at 5:30 pmNor the way it operated after Hurricane Andrew in August 1992.
comment by Tracy
#259
April 19th, 2006 at 5:30 pmIncidentally, since you don't seem to have noticed, George H.W. Bush was still president in August 1992. I know you cons love to blame everything on Clinton, but he was elected in November that year and didn't take office until January 1993.
limbaugh makes me violently ill
April 19th, 2006 at 6:06 pm#266
"Nowhere in the text that it say Hussein has to comply happily and smilingly. The inspectors were in Iraq. Hussein was acting in compliance with the resolution."
Now lets get to the important part, i.e. that Iraq, AFTER UN 1441 was passed, was never was in FULLLLLL compliance. This resolution demanded compliance to EVERY resolution the Saddam was in breach of thru out the 1990s. You can't say he was in PARTIAL compliance and say that's good enough.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/27/ip.00.html
"HANS BLIX, U.N. CHIEF WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it."
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
"Resolution 1441 (2002) was adopted on 8 November last year and emphatically reaffirmed the demand on Iraq to cooperate. It required this cooperation to be immediate, unconditional and active."
If you read the rest of this update report you will see the Iraq was still not in full compliance of UN1441 and other subsequent resolutions and as you can see the cooperation right up untill before the 2003 invasion was NOT immediate, unconditional, and only partially active.
"If you think Hussein was indeed a threat and possessed WMDs, you should be easily able to produce links and evidence to show that he had them."
Again Blix, in his report, stated...
"Paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002) states that this cooperation shall be “activeâ€. It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of “catch as catch canâ€. Rather, as I noted, it is a process of verification for the purpose of creating confidence."
..meaning it was Iraq's responsibility to provide a full and accurate declaration of it's WMD program and that this is not a game of "find them if you can".
Blix:
"They point to lack of evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise....Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number."
"I never said that by March 2003 both them and Pres Bush had access to the same intelligence -I thought it was clear I stated the very opposite."
Well at least please provide evidence and show how that intelligence was different from what Bush had prior to the invasion. If Clinton was calling for regime change prior to 2000, which he was, there must have been good evidence to make such a case.
"I am against the US meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, which includes initiatives for “regime changeâ€."
Now that's very telling. So with that philosophy, you would have still been against taking out Hitler and his regime prior to his invasion of Poland in 1939? That would have probably prevented WW2 from starting and millions from being killed...don't you think?
April 19th, 2006 at 7:31 pm#267
"That’s the very definition of slant, and they are not presenting both sides. I thought you had read the article."
If the Iraqi press was NOT habitually publishing anti-U.S. articles and news stories then why would the U.S. government offer money so that they would publish pro-American stories? It seems to me that the Iraqi press is not "fair and balanced", to use Fox news lingo, therefore the U.S. felt this was the only way to get the other side of the story told.
"You miss the point which is that presenting the news piece as coming from a independent journalist (whatever that means in Iraq nowadays) is a wanton lie, designed to deceive and sway public opinion."
So the news pieces comming from these "independent" journalists inside Iraq are nothing but lies? I would say they are just biased and not objective.
"Right, and paying them to slant their stories achieves that objective how, exactly?"
Again I don't think it's "slant" if there are other stories published on a daily basis that paint an entirely different picture counter to those written by U.S. soldiers. The soldiers there in Iraq are just as much a part of what is going on there as the Iraqis themselves. If you have a FAIR debate each side gets to present their side of the story.
"That’s your defense? “Everyone else does it�"
This is not a court of law. There aren't published rules about how news must be presented during a time of war especially when the "other side", i.e the U.S. soldiers, doesn't get to be heard.
"Despicable. But you are changing the subject. "
I am not changing the subject, considering the whole reason that the U.S. thought it necessary to pay to have these soldiers stories included in Iraqi newspapers was because the Iraqi press is being threatened DAILY by insurgents if they publish pro-American stories.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:49 pm#273
"Don’t expect people to follow your arguments, when you can’t even put them into decent English a good deal of the time."
If you were to follow my posts you would know that is a lie.
April 19th, 2006 at 7:52 pm#275
"I know you cons love to blame everything on Clinton, but he was elected in November that year and didn’t take office until January 1993."
When did I say that Clinton was responsible for the FEMA debacle when hurricane Andrew hit in 1992?
April 19th, 2006 at 7:57 pmIf you read the rest of this update report you will see the Iraq was still not in full compliance of UN1441 and other subsequent resolutions and as you can see the cooperation right up untill before the 2003 invasion was NOT immediate, unconditional, and only partially active.
Comment by Tracy — April 19, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
I already posted evidence that, unlike what you claimed, inspections were on the ground in Iraq prior to the invasion, in compliance with the UN resolution 1441.
Also, Hans Blix asked to be given more time to complete the inspections because the UNMOVIC team was looking for any traces of chemical or biological weapons, which they didn't find, and had ordered the destruction of the Salmud 2 missiles they did find. In other words: contrary to what you stated, the inspections were working. Although the resolution demanded immediate disarmament, what was needed was time to ensure that Iraq, indeed, had no WMDs:
Despite a report from the chief UN weapons inspector describing Iraqi cooperation as "active or even proactive", America and Britain today pushed for a resolution giving Iraq a maximum of 10 days to comply fully with UN demands to disarm.
Blix wants months - and Straw offers 10 days
The head inspector himself was asking for more time.
Well at least please provide evidence and show how that intelligence was different from what Bush had prior to the invasion. If Clinton(...)
I provided one link already, here it is again: Bush Resurrects False Claim That Congress Had “Same Intelligence†On Iraq
By March 2003 Pres Bush had access to intelligence nobody else had, due in part to the ongoing inspections. Pres Clinton did not have the same information in 2000 as Pres Bush in 2003 thanks to those inspections.
If Clinton was calling for regime change prior to 2000, which he was, there must have been good evidence to make such a case.
Clinton did not order the invasion of Iraq on fabricated "intelligence". That's why this debete is not about him.
So with that philosophy, you would have still been against taking out Hitler and his regime prior to his invasion of Poland in 1939? That would have probably prevented WW2 from starting and millions from being killed…don’t you think?
With that philosophy I would have supported a full set of sanctions against Germany for the illegal annexation of Austria in 1938, and I would have supported -no, demanded- France and the UK live up to their promise to provide Poland with military assistance in case of attack -which eventually happened in 1939.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:37 pmThis is not a court of law. There aren’t published rules about how news must be presented during a time of war especially when the “other sideâ€, i.e the U.S. soldiers, doesn’t get to be heard.
Comment by Tracy — April 19, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
I am fully aware this is not a court of law. I meant defense as in "an argument in support or justification".
You keep skirting the issue, which is not about letting the soldiers be heard, but about how they misrepresented the articles as not being written by soldiers. If they truly wanted the soldiers opinion to be heard, they should have credited them as the authors, instead of hiding that fact.
I cannot fathom anyone defending the spread of lies because the other side does it.
April 19th, 2006 at 8:56 pmWhen did I say that Clinton was responsible for the FEMA debacle when hurricane Andrew hit in 1992?
Comment by Tracy
#280
April 19th, 2006 at 9:32 pmThen why did you bring it up in response to a question about George W. Bush's mishandling of Katrina? Also, in another one of your posts, you referred to the commander-in-chief without military experience who was in office "from 1992-2000"--which couldn't help but giving the impression that you thought Clinton was president from 1992-2000, rather than from 1993-2001. Anyway, one could make a better case that mishandling of major disasters run in the Bush family.
This piece is dishonest. Rumsfeld didn't say that war critics are manipulated by terrorists. Please try again.
No wonder the radical right thinks progressives are stupid.
April 19th, 2006 at 9:51 pmHere is what the Boogy Man made me say:
April 19th, 2006 at 10:17 pm"The Axis of Evil is Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld..."
If anyone is bin Laden's pawn it has to be the Bush administration itself. A huge , economically straining, Arab - US war is exactly what Bin Laden wanted and still wants.
His philosophy has always been linked to the Soviet - Afgahnistan war. He believes the Soviet Union was brought down by the mujahadeen and the same can be done to the US. All he had to do was get us to do was spend billions on a war and at the same time disrupt our oil supply, which is exactly what he is accomplishing.
Bush is crazy and reckless. Perhaps even the stupid among us can see that now.
Using nuclear weapons in Iran - madness.
And what if Iran does get nuclear weapons and send nuclear missiles towards Israel? The middle east would be turned into an unliveable nuclear waistland from fallout raining from their own bombs or the bombs that the United States or Israel would be forced to unleash against their installations. Nuclear weapons are a no win situation. Always have been and always will be.
April 20th, 2006 at 12:09 amIt's such a great feeling to be able to kinda skim through a whole bunch of screaming, back-and-forth comments and not get stressed about any of it anymore. All during '05 I would still get upset, worrying that a bunch of stupid pussies would be actually able to succeed in stopping the war. But sometime in the beginning of this year, I finall realized that they have no effect on anything we do in Iraq, so whether they like it or not is a moot point. We're there, we're doing what we're going to do, and everything anyone tries to do to fuck with things fails anyway, so, I'm over it. C'mon conservatives, you should be able to see this by now. Yeah, I know it's still annoying, but so are all gnats. Just keep half-assed shooing at them once in awhile, that's all it takes. I think we've got other, more important things to worry about at this point, if you know what I mean; let's have the conversations that we need to have with people that can actually reason and that matter, and those are the conversations we need to be having between ourselves over the many pressing issues that need to be addressed.
April 20th, 2006 at 2:09 am[...] thinkprogress.org/2006/04/18/rumsfeld-limbaugh/ [...]
April 20th, 2006 at 5:29 amWell, how ridiculous is this? Everybody knows that terrorists invent the news--DOMESTIC terrorists on Pennsylvania Avenue! No matter what major network you tune in to, it's the same picture--literally. Remember the news before 2000?
April 20th, 2006 at 6:36 amNo, we ordinary citizens aren't as benighted as these bastards believe. How can you
fight a war on terror? War is terrifying. What happened to the "-ism?" Just so you
spies reading this know, I have some news for you: I'M the one who gets to decide,
not you. I and the other 300 million American citizens whose combined ideals comprise the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Hell, I loved America. God rest her soul. It
saddens me to realize that it's too late for us to save ourselves. All I can say is
thank God there is one.
#289 "Well, how ridiculous is this? Everybody knows that terrorists invent the news–DOMESTIC terrorists on Pennsylvania Avenue! No matter what major network you tune in to, it’s the same picture–literally. Remember the news before 2000?.."
Well said, #289...The news during the Vietnam War was not hidden... we saw both the Vietnam War and protestors of the war on the news every night. Because citizens were able to see both sides of the issue, American citizens were able to greatly influence the end of the Vietnam War era. The number of dead troops still reached a horrific 58,000, even though our news was not blocked or spun out of control as it is now by , as you say, the "domestic terrorists on Pennsylvania Ave." I don't dare predict what the final death toll of this endless war will be, now that we only get sanitized news.
April 20th, 2006 at 9:42 am#281
"I already posted evidence that, unlike what you claimed, inspections were on the ground in Iraq prior to the invasion, in compliance with the UN resolution 1441."
You haven't given any evidence that Iraq was in FULL compliance. I never said that Iraq was denying inspections on the ground in Iraq. Read my post again.
"Although the resolution demanded immediate disarmament, what was needed was time to ensure that Iraq, indeed, had no WMDs:"
What the resolution demanded was what Iraq was suppose to do. You can't change what the resolution says to fit what you THINK it should have said.
"The head inspector himself was asking for more time."
I got new for you, the head inspector doesn't trump what was demanded in the resolution. The resolution said "immediate" disarmament, not "gradual" disarmament.
"Clinton did not order the invasion of Iraq on fabricated “intelligenceâ€."
The 9/11 panel concluded that the pre-war intelligence was NOT fabricated....just wrong.
AGAIN, if Clinton was calling for regime change prior to 2000, which he was, there must have been good evidence to make such a case. What was his evidence for calling for the SAME thing Bush actually executed in light of the fact the Bush had more intelligence (said to be correct at the time by the CIA and the NSA) that supported BOTH Clinton's and Bush's call for a regime change? Please answer this question and not attempt to side step it by bring up another talking point that the 9/11 commission didn't proclaim.
"With that philosophy I would have supported a full set of sanctions against Germany for the illegal annexation of Austria in 1938"
And just how would that have stopped Hilter from invading Poland and starting WW2?
"I would have supported -no, demanded- France and the UK live up to their promise to provide Poland with military assistance in case of attack -which eventually happened in 1939."
So WW2 would have started with the Germans immediately fighting with the French and the British? This wouldn't have stopped Hilter from invading nor discouraged him from implimenting his grand plan for the total domination of Europe.
April 20th, 2006 at 1:14 pmI love Rummy. He's entertainment to the world, and will go down in history as a flippant goofball. The unfortunate reality is the damage he is doing to the US. Reality has a way of re-balancing, and in the US it will not be pretty - at all.
April 20th, 2006 at 1:14 pmThe Patriot Act turned all of the sheeple into terrorists. That's what Rommel .. er..
April 20th, 2006 at 1:25 pmRummy thinks of the people in this country. That's what all the Bushists think.
They think you are sheep and will take anything they dish out.
#282
"...but about how they misrepresented the articles as not being written by soldiers."
I must have missed this part. Who did they U.S. say that these pro-American articles were written by?
April 20th, 2006 at 1:30 pm911 was an inside job and until we all come to this realization and do something about it, we are all screwed! Go here to see proof:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
April 20th, 2006 at 1:42 pmLiberals, you suck..
Conservatives, you suck..
3rd parties, you suck..
You all suck!
We all suck!
Noeone is right!
Everyone is dumb!
Do we all feel better now?
The only thing that ever makes me feel good is science anymore. All else sucks balls. I don't even trust liberals anymore. I used to. Not anymore. They're in the same sack as the 'conservatives'. You're all in the same damn sack, and you're screwing for virginity. I am starting to believe that the only good in this world is what we can do ourselves. The only thing worth knowing is that which you can derive through carefull observation and so forth.
What do I mean by carefull observation and so forth? First of all, try to figure out on your own whether the earth circles the sun or the sun circles the earth. You cannot use a science book, and noeone else can offer any help. This is your own experiment. Have fun!
I'm willing to bet that, if you're not a seasoned science major, this will stump you...
If not, then isn't it great that we have the mental faculty to summon this? If so, then..
Maybe this is an eye opener. This is how smart we really are. What do we do then when we want to know something? We log on, we watch TV, we read a magazine, we go to school, etc. So just remember, as I do every day, we're each the equivalent of a child and most of our knowledge base is derived from what? And what is a liberal, what is a conservative? Hmm?
We're children, get rid of the labels. Put a face on it, please. Bush has a face too.
And liberals, quit being so fake? You blame the oil, but you still use it. A guilt trip?
Where are the alternatives you say exist? Where are the answers?
Atleast the conservatives shoot for what they believe in, and get the job done.
So, if you're liberal and want to stand for something, offer a real alternative.
Get off your collective arses before there is no planet left to garden and care for.
Unless you prefer enriched uranium salad? Maybe some toxic tuna? What else is there?
Don't blame the conservatives. Don't blame bush either. They're doing their job. What are you doing? Complaining about what others are doing, and not about what you're not doing?
I'm sorry, if i have to give you the raw end of the stick, but maybe liberals ARE fake.
April 20th, 2006 at 5:19 pmI like conservatives as much as I like liberals. Meaning not at all, I don't like either of them either. And when did they become liberals and conservatives? We should call them for what they are: right-wingers and left-wingers. I have known and admired many conservative- and liberal-minded people in my day, but never someone shouting from the wings. Bush is none of these incidentally. He is bringing about the downfall of our nation for greed and misguided religiosity. Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz, etc. are, for lack of a better term, "evil." Not simple, but very pure. Evil.
April 20th, 2006 at 9:38 pmI don’t think that the media realizes they are being used by the terrorists.
Comment by Tracy
Yes, ignore the fact that even the 9/11 Commission, led by a Republican, has given the Bush administration most failing grades on its (lack of) response to the committee's recommendations; ignore the fact that virtual nothing has been spent to beef up border security (thus possibly allowing potential terrorists to slip in); ignore the fact that 4 1/2 years after 9/11 the Bush administration still has done nothing to increase the number of intelligence agents competent in Arabic, Farsi, or other languages the terrorists are likely to speak; but blame everything on the media for being supposedly used by the terrorists. Absolute rubbish! I suppose this will launch some attacks on me, but the truth is that while the Bush administration is big on swagger, it is in reality very weak on terror, and nothing you have posted so far can convince me otherwise.
April 21st, 2006 at 12:48 amBush is a person. It is convenient to blame all our problems on our president. The nation is STILL of the -people-. We can complain, we can shout and scream, but are we going to do anything else other than continue to live our fake lives while blaming everything/everyone else? This has little to do with Bush, and more to do with bigger problems that are the result of a collective sloth mentality/behaviour. We're not taking responsibility for the little things in each of our tiny lives. It is these things that have a huge cost on the broader scale. People like Bush and others are trying to offer a solution, and all you can do is blame them? We all look like fools, not just Bush and his cronies. We're each to blame for a collective inability to act.
I think we would all be better off looking in the mirror. A lot more get done faster.
April 21st, 2006 at 3:38 amOh, does this remind: Most hack at the branches of evil, while few hack at the roots.
What happens? It grows back.
Where does it all start? I think it starts with us. We have to make this change happen.
If we don't like what Bush is doing, all we can do is what we know to be best. What happens when you blame someone or somethign else too much is you become dependent on this. You get locked into a corner of the room and soon you're going to feel more powerless than an ant.
I'm not trying to wipe out your ego or to tell you you're liberal slime. I'm saying that this nation IS STILL OF THE PEOPLE. What happens here, what it amounts to, is our collective ability to act and influence the environment around us. Bush and others like him do something very well. They ACT, and they do so with the best of their knowledge/ability. We can blame them no more than we can blame ourselves. All we can do is act to the best of our knowledge and ability. This is what Bush and others like him are doing, and it is what you, I, and everyone else should be doing. If this is a country of the people, lets prove it.
If you think Bush is in Iraq, for oil, FIND A DAMN ALTERNATIVE.
Don't get fricken stuck in the corner, feeling weak and abused..
When you have the ability to make a positive change towards our future! If we don't fight for our rights, we will lose them. That is not because of hitler or bush. That is because this nation is of the people. And if the people aren't willing to be responsible, nor will the country be.
Blame Bush not for his actions, bot for his faults. And we all have faults. Everyone.
Noeone is blameless in the end. Not a single soul.
April 21st, 2006 at 3:54 amLet me explain further. Someone said earlier that until we realize 911 is an inside job, we'll never get better. This is like saying that until we find the cancerous tumour, we will never get rid of cancer. This is BS! Cancer starts not in this bulging fat toxic tumour, it starts in the world around us. It feeds into everything we do and interact with. This is part of a larger world.
If it overwhelms you to consider that cancer is more than just a tumour, that to target it and remove it is not good enough, maybe you should go back to using oil and blaming bushites. No, instead this problem starts with you and i. This problem starts in our homes, in our schools, in our parents, in our children, in everything and everyone we know. Nothing will get better until we start working on ourselves. Look in the mirror more, be aware of the pumping of your heart.
Again, removing the tumour alone is like hacking at the branches of evil.
LOOK IN THE MIRROR PEOPLE! THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT STARTS WITH US.
April 21st, 2006 at 4:07 amSorry, but Rummy is right -- the Jihadists have done a very good job of manipulating the American mainstream media into believing that they're the victims, not the people they kill.
April 22nd, 2006 at 3:47 pm#302
April 22nd, 2006 at 5:26 pmYour comment is so off-kilter and full of fantasy. I don't know anyone, on the left or right or in the media, who thinks the jihadists are the victims rather than the people they kill.
"I suppose this will launch some attacks on me, but the truth is that while the Bush administration is big on swagger, it is in reality very weak on terror, and nothing you have posted so far can convince me otherwise."
How about the fact that there hasn't been a single international terrorist attack on U.S. interests since 9/11.
April 24th, 2006 at 10:49 am#304. Tracy. See #286....specifically
"If anyone is bin Laden’s pawn it has to be the Bush administration itself. A huge , economically straining, Arab - US war is exactly what Bin Laden wanted and still wants."
"His philosophy has always been linked to the Soviet - Afgahnistan war. He believes the Soviet Union was brought down by the mujahadeen and the same can be done to the US. All he had to do was get us to do was spend billions on a war and at the same time disrupt our oil supply, which is exactly what he is accomplishing."
Substantively true. And when this philosophy can be neatly tied into religious dogma, you've got the perfect tools to bankrupt our country.
Why bother with another attack? Any damage they could inflict would be trivial compared to the damage that we are inflicting ourselves (e.g., soldiers and civilian lives, massive debt, erosion of civil liberties, ignoring or minimizing other massive problems, increased fear and paranoia, political and other polarizations) in response to "terrorism". Bin Laden appears to be a student of history and something of a social psychologist. Our goverment's response (typical of domesticated primates running on a fairly primitive circuit of consciousness) was and will always be highly predictable. Bin Ladin must laugh his head off everyday. His organization set the wheels in motion. Now they can sit back and watch the results.
It remains an open question whether our actions since 9/11 have in any way deterred al Quida's agenda. As a psychologist with a keen interest in history it appears patently obvious to me that our "solutions" to terrorism are predictable and exactly what bin Laden hoped for.
Left and Right wing solutions at the level of consciousness that the majority of us operate at will be ineffectual. One can always of course always argue the merits of stupid ineffectual vs. less stupid ineffectual. I tend to agree with the majority of persons on this blog that in the case of the original subject post, we are dealing with stupid ineffectual. But I personally believe that Rummy is stupid like a fox. His statements serve his agenda. Can any of us say anything else?
My collection of quotes below punctuate the paragraph above. Alas, solutions are much more difficult than methodological criticisms, which is mainly what we blog about.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
"History is the nightmare from which I am trying to awaken..." Stephen Dedalus (James Joyce).
"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." George Bernard Shaw
"What experience and history teach is this -- that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles" Hegel
"Patriotism ruins history" Goethe.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:51 pm"Alas, solutions are much more difficult than methodological criticisms, which is mainly what we blog about."
Because that is the EASY and LAZY way to vent frustration.
"I tend to agree with the majority of persons on this blog that in the case of the original subject post, we are dealing with stupid ineffectual."
Would that be better than the majority here, i.e. ineffectural...period?
"His statements serve his agenda. Can any of us say anything else?"
Everyone's statements serve THEIR agenda or LACK there of.
"If anyone is bin Laden’s pawn it has to be the Bush administration itself."
That depends on your perspective. Hitler thought the British and the French to be the same pawns leading up to WW2, nothing was done untill it was too late, then we had to WASTE millions of lives to correct a huge ineffectual, not to mention just about non existant policy of prevention. I pitty the ones who thought that these people, i.e. bin Laden, Saddam, Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong-Il could be "contained".
"Bin Ladin must laugh his head off everyday"
In between waking up in the middle of the night from every little sound that could be the last time he hears anything? He's not laughing, he's wondering where he will sleep tomorrow night. BTW where is that MASSIVE support that bin Laden once had with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan? His support in that country isn't even close to what it once was back in the 1980s.
April 24th, 2006 at 5:40 pm306
> “Alas, solutions are much more difficult than methodological criticisms, which is mainly what we blog about.â€
"Because that is the EASY and LAZY way to vent frustration."
I think your comment is unecessarily vitriolic. It is true that people are here--and on blogs all over the net--to vent frustration. Something necessary and healthy. On this blog, it's probably safe to say that the majority of people commenting are clearly unhappy with the current admistration, and obviously the war. I'm unhappy with them too. But with respect to why I'm here, it's mainly because I like to learn. What I frequently learn is that people are clearly domesticated (barely) primates. And that stupidity is highly contageous. But there is information exchange here that interests me and teaches me. I guess I've revealed myself as a subscriber to the theory of evolution. Sigh. I've already alienated myself to the right wing trolls with that comment. (I think of myself as largely apolitical btw).
I'm not sure that "lazy" applies. Are you including yourself in that broad commentary or just the others on this blog?
>“I tend to agree with the majority of persons on this blog that in the case of the original subject post, we are dealing with stupid ineffectual.â€
"Would that be better than the majority here, i.e. ineffectural…period?"
I don't think that you (or I) are able to comment meaningfully on whether the people who post here are ineffectual. You sound like a person who is very very certain of his (her?) position.
>“His statements serve his agenda. Can any of us say anything else?â€
"Everyone’s statements serve THEIR agenda or LACK there of."
What agenda might I infer from your statements? :)
But of course. I didn't mean to take it to the trivial. I meant that many politicians, and others in positions of leadership, will often make absurdly stupid comments, like the one that started this post session. It's not because Rummy is stupid, but because spin is everything. And while large numbers of his detractors (which include me) will rail against the absurdity of his statements, and shoot logical loopholes in it by the dozens--as we have seen in these posts--the True Believers will feel reassured that they need to be extra careful (paranoid?) because bin Laden and company are manipulating the US media. Heck you can't even be certain of the posters on this blog who criticize the actions of our politicians can you? Shades of Joseph Stalin....
I can't claim to read Rumsfeld's mind, but I prefer to think that he doesn't actually believe that al Quida is actually manipulating our media in any significant way, but is spinning what his admirers need to hear. It's always been very effective to yell "it's them bastards over there, and if you don't agree with me, then you're obviously one of them bastards." Now whether Limbaugh on the other hand is a spin doctor or actually believes....
>> “If anyone is bin Laden’s pawn it has to be the Bush administration itself.†(quoted from post #286)
" That depends on your perspective. Hitler thought the British and the French to be the same pawns leading up to WW2, nothing was done untill it was too late, then we had to WASTE millions of lives to correct a huge ineffectual, not to mention just about non existant policy of prevention. I pitty the ones who thought that these people, i.e. bin Laden, Saddam, Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong-Il could be “containedâ€.
While I quoted post 286, it isn't the terminology I personally would have used. I quoted it because you (and others--not on THIS blog of coursse!) state that we've had no further attacks on American soil since the war with Iraq, AS IF there is a cause and effect relationship between that war and no further attacks here. I'm sure we all feel better that it's ONLY our soldiers that are dying now... My point was that conclusion doesn't necessarily follow BECAUSE bin Laden is accomplishing his aims--as poster 286 pointed out. Bringing us down by the methods already discussed. Factually speaking, they could commit acts on the scale of 9-11 several times a year, and they would have minimal effect on our way of life--other than the psychological ones--and of course our massive reaction to them. Tens of thousands die annually on highways in this country and we don't stop driving. Nor do we spend a hundred billion or so trying to improve highway safety.
Although many draw the parallel to Hitler, the only accuracy of comparison is fanaticism. Nor is there any accurate comparison between the use of the word "pawn" in my quote versus your use of it above. Hitler hoped that he could hold off an effective alliance by telling whatever lies he needed to, until he had consolidated his power. Bin Laden executed a strike, to which our response was predictable, and desired.
We're talking about the putative head of a guerilla organization that is "terrorist" because they don't have what Hitler had. A huge stockpile of weapons and the technology and resources to take on the rest of the world. Kim Jong-il comes closer to a Hitler, but we've had a ceasefire with North Korea for over 50 years. Is it the lack of oil or the reality of nuclear weapons and the stalemate that they produce? China as a friend?
As far as I know (and I freely admit that there are a million opinions on the subject) we don't really have any data that clearly support that somehow our "war on terror" has made the world safer than it was 5 years ago. In my opinion, the preponderance of the evidence argues the opposite. Certainly the data are very clear that the cost is high in many ways.
>“Bin Ladin must laugh his head off everydayâ€
" In between waking up in the middle of the night from every little sound that could be the last time he hears anything? He’s not laughing, he’s wondering where he will sleep tomorrow night. "
I know that you and many others would like to believe that he's shaking in his boots. That wouldn't fit his psychological profile. Look at the recent trial of Moussaoui. This fanatic typifies the genre. Death will only assure his entry to heaven (in his cosmology). Members of his organization seem to have supreme assurance that they will be victorious. And of course its only members on THEIR side who seem to have that supreme assurance....
>BTW where is that MASSIVE support that bin Laden once had with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan? His support in that country isn’t even close to what it once was back in the 1980s.
I'm not in touch with the Mujahadeen to be able to comment on this. I doubt whether you are either. If I had to speculate however, it would be because of the withdrawal of the Soviet, since you are referring to a drop in support which was high in the 1980's rather than stating the drop occurred subsequent to our entry into "the war on terrorism".
But even if Mujahadeen support for bin Laden has decreased, every time another Moslem in the middle East (and elsewhere I'm sure) rightly or wrongly views another Moslem civilian death as the result of Imperialist Christian/Zionist meddling, they start looking for an al Quida cell to join. Bombing (or whatever) people into submission might work in conventional warfare, not fanatical terrorism.
At the risk of repeating myself...
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.â€
April 24th, 2006 at 11:35 pmFriedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
[...] Rumsfeld: War Critics Being Manipulated By Zarqawi and Bin Laden Think Progress, DC - Apr 18, 2006 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 [...]
April 25th, 2006 at 2:28 am#307
"I think your comment is unecessarily vitriolic."
Yeah you are right that was a little over the top. I was referring more to the abundance of non-methodological criticisms here in this blog, i.e the majority. I have never seen so much hand wringing and lack of solution suggestion to problems on one site.
"Sigh. I’ve already alienated myself to the right wing trolls with that comment."
Evolution? Nothing wrong with that in the natural realm (only to a point with humans in my opinion) or political.
"But there is information exchange here that interests me and teaches me."
Based on the number of comments, I would say it's few and far between.
"Are you including yourself in that broad commentary or just the others on this blog?"
I have had some lazy moments, I will admit. I do however reserve those for responses to the comments which are "non-methodological" criticisms. In that sense I would say it's quite frequent.
"You sound like a person who is very very certain of his (her?) position."
Not all of the time. I debate to test my position(s).
"What agenda might I infer from your statements?"
A conservative agenda.
"..shoot logical loopholes in it by the dozens"
It's more like attempt to shoot ideological looopholes.
"...because bin Laden and company are manipulating the US media."
And many news sources unfortunately, are complicit in a sense that they will report only on the shortcommings of the U.S. and it's allies in this was against bin Laden as to further their AGENDA which is to make Bush look bad politically in order to return their liberal friends to power in congress.
"...but I prefer to think that he doesn’t actually believe that al Quida is actually manipulating our media in any significant way, but is spinning what his admirers need to hear."
Considering news sources like the NY Times and the LA Times are driven in what they write by a liberal political agenda (not just in their op eds), they are complicit with groups like al Qaeda. I quailify that by saying that I don't think they willingly or consciously help al Qaeda, but when their reporting is so politically driven they do just that.
"...AS IF there is a cause and effect relationship between that war and no further attacks here."
There is an absolute and direct correlation between the fact the so many of the resources of al Qaeda ARE being diverted from plotting and planning to funding and logistical support for those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I sure hope that was just an honest oversight on you part.
"I’m sure we all feel better that it’s ONLY our soldiers that are dying now..."
Now you just went off the deep end. How can you possibly suggest that only U.S. troops are dying vs. the number of Iraqi police and soldiers that die on a daily basis in Iraq. It isn't even close! Are you kidding?
"Factually speaking, they could commit acts on the scale of 9-11 several times a year, and they would have minimal effect on our way of life–other than the psychological ones–and of course our massive reaction to them."
That statment isn't even close to being factual! Did you not see what happened to the stock market and oil prices on September 12, 2001? Again please tell me you are just joking.
"My point was that conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow BECAUSE bin Laden is accomplishing his aims"
If his aim is to get the U.S. to withdrawl from Iraq and Afghanistan, then one has to ask why, other than to eject the infidels from Muslim and Arab land? I think well all know that bin Laden trying to project himself and his organization as freedom fighter is totally bogus and nothing but a front. I think the real answer is obvious. His organization needs a place to operate and train, i.e. Afghanistan and wants to establish a Islamic state, i.e. Iraq, as he HIMSELF has proclaimed. The U.S. invading and disposing of Sadamm provided nothing more than an opportunity for his organization to wield influence in the middle on the Islamic world.
"Nor is there any accurate comparison between the use of the word “pawn†in my quote versus your use of it above."
The context of the comparison is not the same, but using the term "pawn" is definately usable in order to describe Hitler's use of Britian and France prior to his invasion of Poland. Hiltler used Chamberlain and the French when he signed the Munich Agreement in order to fool them into backing down so he could invaded Poland.
"In my opinion, the preponderance of the evidence argues the opposite."
In the short term since 9/11, probably, but in the long term yes the world will be safer.
"I know that you and many others would like to believe that he’s shaking in his boots. That wouldn’t fit his psychological profile."
I think he most definitely is afraid of being captured. If he was so sure of himself and his organization's cause then he would have made a stand in Tora Bora and went out as a martyr back then and let one his senior lieutenants take his place and carry on the fight.
"If I had to speculate however, it would be because of the withdrawal of the Soviet, since you are referring to a drop in support which was high in the 1980’s rather than stating the drop occurred subsequent to our entry into “the war on terrorismâ€."
Well according to the Taliban's leaders and statements make by al-Zawahri they think that they will drive the U.S. forces out just like they did with the Soviets. With this propaganda, the ranks of those fighting the allies in Afghanistan should have grown to the order in which the Mujahadeen had against the Soviets in the 1980s...not REDUCE prior to what it was before the U.S. invasion.
"Bombing (or whatever) people into submission might work in conventional warfare, not fanatical terrorism."
The U.S. isn't trying to bomb the Iraqis or the Afghans into submission. The terrorists in those two places ARE trying to do just that...bomb people into submission.
"...And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
The abyss is only an abyss is nothing is done to counter it's expansion.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:01 pm[...] Rumsfeld on Limbaugh’s show: Al Qaeda is getting the media and the Generals to complain about Rumsfeld and Iraq. [...]
January 13th, 2007 at 6:52 am