Tony Snow: ‘I’m Not Going To Hold Donald Rumsfeld Accountable’
Tony Snow: ‘I’m Not Going To Hold Donald Rumsfeld Accountable’
This afternoon, Tony Snow went on CNN to defend the administration’s “stay the course” strategy in Iraq. The discussion veered into the subject of former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki’s pre-war prediction that “several hundred thousand soldiers” would be needed to maintain control over post-war Iraq. Snow falsely claimed that Shinseki was only referring to the number of troops needed to “go in and take Baghdad.” Snow concluded the segment by stating, “I’m not going to hold Donald Rumsfeld accountable.” Watch it.
As his Feb. 2003 testimony makes clear, Shinseki suggested a massive force would be needed to assert “post-hostilities control,” not just to take over Baghdad.
SHINSEKI: I would say that what’s been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required.We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so, it takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this. [Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/25/03]
Full transcript:
BLITZER: Remember Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, rebuked him orally for saying that that many troops would be needed.
SNOW: Well, and as you will recall, Wolf, when it came to the act of combat — as i recall what Ric Shinseki was talking about at the time is what was required to go in and take Baghdad. It turns out that it was the most effective military operations in history. As a matter of fact, I think the term that Tommy Franks used was catastrophic victory, it was so swift and more rapid than anyone perceived at the time.
…
SNOW: I’m not going to sit around and engage in the game of gosh, what would we have thought back in April of 2003, because none of us quite knew exactly what to expect next. I am not going to hold Rumsfeld accountable when neither you nor I would have been able to figure out what was going to happen.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Here we go again…Republicans are never accountable
September 5th, 2006 at 5:14 pmTony Snow lied? My goodness.
Mr. Snow, they might not have explained this to you very well, but the role of the White House Press Secretary is to get out accurate information, not simply the story the White House wants to see in the paper the next day.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:16 pmWhat is that smell? Pants on fire or has tony’s nose gotten a little longer?
September 5th, 2006 at 5:17 pmGee, it sounds like Shineksi also knew about the possibility of sectarian violence that completely eluded the administration.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:21 pmSKY NEWS TONY BLAIR IS SET A DATE TO LEAVE >>>>>>>BUSH NEXT - BUSH NEXT - BUSH NEXT _ BUSH NEXT
September 5th, 2006 at 5:23 pmI would suggest that the Democrats take a play from the McCain game plan…and keep repeating the line that Rumsfeld serves at the request of the President…thereby forcing voters to question the administration’s ability to successfully prosecute not only the Iraq war, but also the war on terror. Essentially, the Democrats need voters to doubt the President’s overall handling of national security and the war on terror…demonstrated by the fact that he continues to proceed with Rumsfeld as his operative…more than they need to push for the firing of Donald Rumsfeld.
The goal would be to take the accusation that Democrats are defeatists and shift the discussion to point out that so long as the President refuses to make much needed changes, we are already being defeated. If voters accept that the Bush administration is losing the war on terror or is unable to adjust in order to win it, they will be less apprehensive to give Democrats an opportunity.
Voters need to see the GOP plan as an open wound unlikely to get better without a new prescription and they need to be convinced that the President is unwilling to administer the necessary medication to make that happen. My own preference would have been for Democrats to offer a more concrete alternative plan for Iraq and the war on terror…but that is now unlikely…so it seems clear to me that they must now convince voters that keeping Republicans in power will not lead to success in Iraq and more importantly in the war on terror.
Read more here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
September 5th, 2006 at 5:27 pmsnow like the rest of his ilk only view things in absolutes i.e. absolute lies. Sadly, no real challenge is made to explain their spin.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:31 pm“Neither you nor I could have known…..” The Moronic bastard. Wolf and Toni are not qualified to know. They did not have access to the information that was available to Rumfeld and the Generals.
The Generals knew, and those who disagreed with Rumfeld were fired, remember? This is Rumsfeld’s screw-up.
Whether the screw-up is part of an evil plan or incompetence of epic proportions is another matter but, for Toni to say it, and for Wolf to accept the stupid rhetoric on national television, is criminal.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:31 pmSo many LIES — They forget to read everything they tell their people to say in their “talking points.” If the republicans would get off their talking points and talk to people who know more than they do, we could get this problem solved, along with other things they have screwed up.
Tony also needs to go back and read the scripts that Scott McClelland had to read before he went before the press. At least Scott kept to the points without putting in his own comments like Snow is doing. Snow trying to do a “snow job” on the American people — We aren’t buying it, Tony!!!!
September 5th, 2006 at 5:32 pmSo many LIES — They forget to read everything they tell their people to say in their “talking points.” If the republicans would get off their talking points and talk to people who know more than they do, we could get this problem solved, along with other things they have screwed up.
Tony also needs to go back and read the scripts that Scott McClelland had to read before he went before the press. At least Scott kept to the points without putting in his own comments like Snow is doing. Snow trying to do a “snow job” on the American people — We aren’t buying it, Tony!!!!
September 5th, 2006 at 5:32 pmI would suggest that the Democrats take a play from the McCain game plan…and keep repeating the line that Rumsfeld serves at the request of the President…thereby forcing voters to question the administration’s ability to successfully prosecute not only the Iraq war, but also the war on terror.
I couldn’t agree more with this suggestion. I recall news stories about Rumsfeld offering his resignation and Bush refusing to accept it (twice I think). Pin it on Bush.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:33 pm#6 as soon as we can take back control of the house and Senate from the repugs blocking any investigations. we can then impeach Bush and Cheney, then put them on trial for the war crimes.
They are currently trying to get the repug congress to legislate retroactive, into them not being War Crimes, which they are according to current US Law. Surely the Dems will block this, or the courts will throw it out if it passes for some ungodly reason.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:37 pmtest
September 5th, 2006 at 5:37 pmDaniel DeRito,
Good idea! I like that one. Repeat constantly that Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure of the President who has twice refused Rumsfeld’s resignation (assuming it was offered in earnest, or at all.)
September 5th, 2006 at 5:37 pmSorry I misspelled your name, Daniel. I must look more carefully. No offense meant. Great idea.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:38 pmSnow spewed the same garbage on Hardball and Matthews went out of his way to be conciliatory and deferential. Them middle-age, white, Anglos are real compadres, eh?
September 5th, 2006 at 5:40 pmMarie: “test.”
September 5th, 2006 at 5:41 pm- - Oral test.
Okay fair enough
Wolf’s followup should have been
“Now that the President has stated that Iran is likely the next battle front…how are Americans supposed to be encouraged or have confidence in this adminstration, when this admistration DID NOT FORSEE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF OCCUPYING IRAQ”
September 5th, 2006 at 5:42 pmRumsfeld is almost gone !! Repukes know they have to kick him out, they need to get off his burden, and know no one can protect him.
Hey Rummy !! don´t let the door hit ya on the way out !!
September 5th, 2006 at 5:43 pmFunny how Snow calls the taking of Baghdad one of the most effective militairy operations. If I recall correctly, one of the public lectures on Princeton’s website featured a writer/journalist expert in the Middle-East. Prior to the unprovoked US-invasion all sorts of troops were busy fortifying the city and entrenching themselves. When the American troops got nearer to Baghdad, on one morning all the Iraqi troops had disappeared - dissolved in to the populace. That particular day was then labeled as the day “we knew we were in for a long guerilla.”
With the all volunteer army - was there even any way in which the US could have put 300K+ or so soldiers on the ground?
At least the democrats are moving in on Rumsfeld. Hopefully they string along a few republican senators to do their real patriotic duty.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:45 pm15 US troops dead this month + 3 below + 2 UK troops also in 5 days
*BAGHDAD - Two U.S. Marines and one sailor were killed in action in western Anbar province, the U.S. military said on Tuesday. Sailors are usually attached to Marine units as medics in Anbar, a stronghold of Sunni insurgents fighting U.S. forces and the Shi’ite-led government of Baghdad.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:50 pmWhat did you expect? This is the professional shill hired by the White House for news Snowjobs. He won’t criticize Rummy - not as long as Bush still wants the man as Sec. Def.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pmThe really sad and disturbing part of all of this is that, to a man, this White House belieieves they are infallible, they are incapable of recognizing mistakes, no matter how horrific. Firing Rumsfeld appears to them as a tacit admission of error in judgment, a bowing to pressure (Democratic in particular) from critics - it just isn’t going to happen. The best we can hope for is that he gets sick, or finds some other reason to involuntarily leave the Dept. of Defense.
The public (the media really) need to continue asking the question and get the message into the public subconscious: Rumsfeld is a presidential favorite, but he’s failing, and Bush won’t admit it and fire him. Continuous questioning of Rumsfeld will keep Bush&Co on the defensive - that’s a good thing — but it will also have the effect on keeping that question in the minds of the public (voters).
Snow will continue to double-talk — that’s what he gets paid big bucks for - accepted. Let’s just keep him out there saying he won’t hold Rummy accountable, as more and more of our soldiers and Iraqi civiliams die and he is increasingly seen as the main shill for Bush.
If these sorry bastards spent half as much time and effort trying to be competent as they do trying to create the illusion of competence the war on terrorism would have been over four years ago!
September 5th, 2006 at 5:53 pmSCOTUS — Justice Kennedy had angioplasty today. We sure as hell don’t need Bush to appoint another conservative to the Court. Let’s hope Kennedy is OK - for more reasons than one.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:54 pmBush has given his propaganda team an impossible mission: defending Rumsfeld. Bush believes that he is being resolute, but he is just being foolishly stubborn in the eyes of most Americans.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:55 pmBut they want to guess what happened back when clinton was in office…??
September 5th, 2006 at 5:57 pmSNOW: I’m not going to sit around and engage in the game of gosh, what would we have thought back in April of 2003, because none of us quite knew exactly what to expect next. I am not going to hold Rumsfeld accountable when neither you nor I would have been able to figure out what was going to happen.
==
Yeh, it was all Bills fault, that clenis, but, gosh, Bushco isn’t gonna guess what would we have thought back then..because know of us knew, but now we will say we know,say do I sound like a hypocrite, well I am -Tony Snow
September 5th, 2006 at 5:59 pmRetrieved the source noted in my previous comment: Seymour Hersch, “The War in Iraq: Bush’s Democracy and the Real Thing” [Princeton university, link to the video about 3-4 pages down]. His point is roughly made around 31.5-36 minutes into the lecture, due to the fact that he trails off, albeit in related subjects. Shameless plug, I think that nevertheless the lecture is worth watching in it’s entirety.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:01 pmSNOW: I’m not going to sit around and engage in the game of gosh, what would we have thought back in April of 2003, because none of us quite knew exactly what to expect next. I am not going to hold Rumsfeld accountable when neither you nor I would have been able to figure out what was going to happen.
==
Translation;
“I don’t have a clue to what the course is”
September 5th, 2006 at 6:02 pmDaniel DeRito
You are a good example of the fraud being perpetrated on Democratic voters. Who writes your material?
You are touting the line that the Dems could have fought the fight better - and I’m here to tell you that if the Dems think they can win with that argument, they are not better than LBJ, who widened the war, and eventually left office in disgrace.
So I say screw you Daniel DeRito, you offer nothing except more of the same bullcrap dressed up in progressive rags
September 5th, 2006 at 6:04 pmDaniel DeRito
You are a good example of the fraud being perpetrated on Democratic voters. Who writes your material?
You are touting the line that the Dems could have fought the fight better - and I’m here to tell you that if the Dems think they can win with that argument, they are not better than LBJ, who widened the war, and eventually left office in disgrace.
So I say screw you Daniel DeRito, you offer nothing except more of the same bullcrap dressed up in progressive rags
September 5th, 2006 at 6:04 pmWho died and left Snow in charge? Who really gives a good rat’s posterior portion whether Snow will hold Rummy accountable? For that matter who gives the same rodent’s rear whether or not DUHbya holds Rummy accountable? You and I will hold them all accountable in about 8 weeks.
Stupid is Forever. Long live Queen George the Dumb!
September 5th, 2006 at 6:06 pmumm since when does Snow Jobs position give him the power to hold anyone accountable??
September 5th, 2006 at 6:08 pmComment by cmw
The Democratic Party of forty years ago is nothing like the Democratic Party of today. Your comparison is pointless and without merit.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:12 pmMarie, you said
“Let’s just keep him out there saying he won’t hold Rummy accountable, as more and more of our soldiers and Iraqi civiliams die and he is increasingly seen as the main shill for Bush”
What kind of cold hearted sob are you? While our soldiers die? That’s my son and his friends you’re talking about. When are you going to be kept out there to die so that Rumsfeld looks bad. Jesus H Christ.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:14 pmcmw,
You actually believe that Donald Rumsfeld bears no responsibility for any of the deaths our soldiers and marines have needlessly suffered just because he was too arrogant to listen to his generals?
September 5th, 2006 at 6:20 pmWayne
September 5th, 2006 at 6:21 pmNo I don’t and how you read that into my responses is beyond me.
The US president also accused Iran of being the world’s most active state sponsor of international terrorism and said it must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.
“Barbarian’s words”
John Kerry, Massachusetts senator and a former Democratic presidential candidate, said in response that if Bush had killed bin Laden in 2001, “he wouldn’t have to quote this barbarian’s words today”.
Kerry said: “Afghanistan is slipping back into chaos, Pakistan is one coup away from becoming a radical Islamic state with nuclear weapons, Iran is closer to a nuclear arsenal, and Iraq has become a recruitment poster for terror … A new document may get the administration through the next news cycle, but it will not win the war on terror. We need to change course, not more of the same.”
September 5th, 2006 at 6:21 pmI believe that any democrat who thinks they could have fought the IRaq war better is full of crap and is no better than RUmsfeld. That’s what I think.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:22 pmcmw,
You seem upset that someone thinks Rumsfeld shouldn’t be in his job because he’s done it so badly. And he has done a horrible job. If you can’t see that, then you haven’t been paying close enough attention.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:23 pmAnd Wayne
September 5th, 2006 at 6:24 pmThat includes Hilary -she’s full of crap, and full of AIPAC, and full to neo liberal bs about how she could have fought the IRaq war better. And if the Dems put their money behind her, she will lead the Democratic party into the same hell it went into during the Vietnam war led by LBJ. THAT’S WHAT I THINK
Wayne
September 5th, 2006 at 6:25 pmYou are an ignoramus of the intelligent kind - you think you know a lot and you know nothing, or you choose to ignore reality. I think Rumsfeld should be tried for war crimes and then found guilty and jailed. DOn’t lecture me on what I think about Rumsfeld to suit your need to excuse your pathetically weak and quisling position.
cmw,
There you go again. Thinking.
As I already explained, comparisons between a political party today and what it was like forty years ago are meaningless. If you want to go back that far, there were liberals in the Republican Party in those days, but not any more. Today’s Republican Party sorely lacks the diversity of opinion and thought that make for a worthwhile political party. (So does the Democratic Party, for that matter, but not nearly as bad.)
And Rumsfeld should have been fired years ago. THAT’S WHAT A MAJORITY OF US THINK.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:27 pmcmw,
In what way, exactly, is my position “quisling”? I do not believe you even know what my position is.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:28 pmIt must be Clinton’s fault. Because he was a draft dodger, he undermined faith in the military, plus he tried forcing queers into the army. Clinton did it, whatever it is. If not for him, we wouldn’t be fighting in Iraq, and if not for him, we would be winning in Iraq, and if not for him, we’d be able to withdraw from Iraq. ClintonClintonClinton!
September 5th, 2006 at 6:29 pmWayne
September 5th, 2006 at 6:30 pmMeaningless? Comparisons are meaningless? What stalinist, maoist, neoliberal, Chicagobankingmafioso group were you spawned from? What it was like forty years ago is EXACTLY what it is like today. But people like you want us to forget. BUT we won’t forget.
cmw is the latest acronym for troll. She reads like “Diane” of about a week ago.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:31 pmWayne
September 5th, 2006 at 6:31 pmWhat is your position? On Iraq
Briseadh na Faire
September 5th, 2006 at 6:32 pmYou have no business using the gaelic language to hide your deceit and perversion of speaking truth to power. YOu are not fair.
“I am not going to hold Rumsfeld accountable when neither you nor I would have been able to figure out what was going to happen. ”
But Shinseki knew. He had it figured out.
And it was Rumsfeld’s job to have it figured out.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:34 pmcmw,
Okay, you’ve clearly got issues that don’t involve or concern me. Insult me all you want. I’m not living in the past like you. I know that LBJ is no longer president, that George Bush lied to get support to invade Iraq, and that Donald Rumsfeld’s handling of the military is indefensible.
Good night everybody. Have fun with the inmates.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:35 pmcmw
Maybe you should change your name to Yo-Yo since you are up and down so much. There is no need to speculate how the Democrats would have responded to 9/11 or fought the war in Iraq because if the Neocons had not stolen the election there would have been no attack and no war in Iraq and you could still fill up your gas tank for a $20 bill. Marie and Wayne are right on in terms of where the responsibility should lie. You are just talking trash to read your own comments. I may be late in responding because i must do something more enjoyable than read your drivel. I have a colonoscopy scheduled. I shall return.
Stupid is Forever. Long live cmw!
September 5th, 2006 at 6:35 pmHopefully tony snow and his unaccountable president will shit the bed in november.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:37 pmI believe that any democrat who thinks they could have fought the IRaq war better is full of crap and is no better than RUmsfeld. That’s what I think.
Comment by cmw
Better means no war at all, bully boy. Get that?
September 5th, 2006 at 6:38 pmWayne
I didn’t insult you I asked you a question which you refuse to answer.
WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON IRAQ?
You won’t answer
You are a faker. A Quisling. Yes a quisling. You use the democratic party to pretend you are progressive. Like many neoliberals. You hide within the party and what are you really for? Power. At all costs. YOu and your ilk are no better than the neoliberal Repugs. You are both the same.
You would spill my son’s blood for your power and money. And I say “Screw you and your kind be you REpublican or Democrat”
September 5th, 2006 at 6:38 pmJuan C
September 5th, 2006 at 6:40 pmYes “NO WAR AT ALL” that’s my position. Is that your position. OR not?
“Briseadh na Faire” is Gaelic for “Break of Dawn.”
I will speak truth to power.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:40 pmBriseadh
September 5th, 2006 at 6:42 pmYou don’t speak truth to power, not if you try to silence me. You speak lies to deceit and you use the gaelic language to do it, which is a very bad thing to do.
You are a faker. A Quisling. Yes a quisling. You use the democratic party to pretend you are progressive. Like many neoliberals. You hide within the party and what are you really for? Power. At all costs. YOu and your ilk are no better than the neoliberal Repugs. You are both the same.
You would spill my son’s blood for your power and money. And I say “Screw you and your kind be you REpublican or Democratâ€
Comment by cmw
A fine example of a statement made of complete ignorance. First of all, I do not believe I understand what a “neo-liberal” is since the term gets bandied about so much, like “fascist”.
Secondly, I am not a member of the Democratic Party. never have been, never will be. I am a liberal libertarian humanist.
Third, if you knew ANYTHING about me at all (and you clearly don’t), you would know that I have no craving for power whatsoever.
And lastly, but most importantly, I want your son to come home safe, and as soon as practicable.
Since you asked, my position on Iraq is that we never should have invaded in the first place. The invasion was in violation of international law, and most of the Senators who voted to give Bush the authorization did so with the understanding that he would go to the U.N. for a second vote (which he didn’t do).
If you are unwilling to admit that we had no business going into Iraq in the first place, then any discussion of what to do now would be pointless because you’ll always believe it was the right thing to do and it wasn ‘t. Are you prepared to admit that the invasion of Iraq was ill-advised and illegal? If not, good night. If so, I still have to leave, so others here will be glad to help you.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:47 pmIn order to determine what contemporary Democrats might have done in response to 9/11 we should look at the latest Democratic President’s response to the first World Trade Center bombing.
In that case, the individuals responsible were apprehended, tried, convicted and punished. No sovereign nations were invaded. No innocent men, women and childred were killed. No U.S. soldiers were put in harm’s way in a war based on pretext and incompetent planning.
In my opinion, the response by a Democrat was far better than that of Rumsfeld, who, by the way, may be complicit in international war crimes.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:50 pmWayne
Why do you insist on casting me as supporting the BUsh position. I never have never will. The war was illegal from the get go. I have never held other position. But your waffling on the matter suggests you will say anything to squeak by. You cast me as the quisling. But it is you. And now you must go because you have no time. Of course not. YOu have no time to explain your waffling position.
Get lost Wayne you’re a fraud
September 5th, 2006 at 6:52 pmBriseadh
And so your position on the current war in Iraq IS? What?
You speak at length about the earlier bombing and how Bill responded. So i guess you are a big Bill person. YOu say nothing about his bombing of the Sudanese factory for no apparent reason. You say nothing about the sanctions against Iraq that lasted 10 years and under Bill, Madeleine Allbright said it was ok that 1 million plus children died due to the sanctions - she said it was a price worth paying.
So somehow Bill is OK and Bush is not because - how is it different? More children died on Bill’s watch than have on Bush’s, not that I support Bush’s cause I don’t. But Bill ain’t no walk in the park.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:55 pmNobody in that Adminstration can talk about Iraq or the War on Terror without lying their ass off. The truth of how they have bungled this whole disaster is too much for these imbeciles to contemplate.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:55 pmcmw, you really do have issues that have nothing to do with Wayne or any other poster here. There are meds to help with that. You are the only one here who believes that Wayne’s position is waffling. Why don’t you check out his myriad other posts on TP and then come back and apologize?
Wayne really does have to go home, and so do I. ‘Night, all!
September 5th, 2006 at 6:56 pmcmw,
Perhaps I misunderstood this:
When are you going to be kept out there to die so that Rumsfeld looks bad. Jesus H Christ.
It kind of sounded like you were defending Rumsfeld. If you were not, then that part of our dialog was a misunderstanding, and I apologize for that.
As for the I didn’t insult you , forgive me for not recognizing What stalinist, maoist, neoliberal, Chicagobankingmafioso group were you spawned from? as the compliment you must have clearly meant it to be.
How did I “waffle” again?
September 5th, 2006 at 6:57 pmJane
September 5th, 2006 at 6:59 pmGO f yourself.
Jane
GO f yourself.
Comment by cmw
That just shows how useless trying to have a conversation with you is. Insulting my wife is not going to earn you any respect from me.
Okay, everybody. We’re through with this guy. Have fun with him.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:01 pmWayne
September 5th, 2006 at 7:02 pmThat’s right - I took exception to Marie thinking it was ok to let anybody continue looking bad while soldiers die - for the sake of letting that person look bad -I may hate RUmsfeld, BUsh, CHeney, but i also hate the Clintons and all the power elite, and all the people on this blog who think they know so much and know nothing. I take exception to anybody thinking a life is worth someone looking bad. And I find Marie particularly elitist and distasteful in her shunning of any content in her discussions - she cavalierly talks about people dying so Rumsfeld will look bad - people like her make me sick
Tony Snow: Mouthpiece for the progaganda president. Too bad we have the most dishonest administration ever. They’re too cowardly to face the truth, so how can they ever possibly win a so-called “war on terror”. All they know is how to lie and how to spread fear.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:03 pmAnd Wayne, one other thing
People who say “forget the last 40 years” those are the people you should NEVER trust.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:04 pmcmw,
Personally I enjoy reading Marie’s posts. I think she has some wonderful things to say. I think you took that one statement of hers out of context. In fact, I’m sure of it since you don’t seem to take the time to read what people actually write.
For example, I never said “forget the last forty years”. You made that up. All I said was that both of the two major political parties were different forty years ago in both ideology and policy. To equate today’s parties to the ones forty years ago is absurd.
Lastly, before I go (for real), may your son stay safe and return home healthy. I really do mean that. I want it for all of them.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:13 pmcmw: “I believe that any democrat who thinks they could have fought the IRaq war better is full of crap and is no better than RUmsfeld. That’s what I think.”
WTF???!! A number of prominent democrats stated years ago that the administration should have taken Shinsekis’ advice and committed more troops up front. Democrats also are on record for disaggreeing with the way the post-invasion was run — they criticized allowing looting, firing all of the civil servants, protecting the Oil Ministry instead of the arms depots, libraries and museums.
Your statement just makes no sense at all. Of course democrats could have run the war better. Anybody but libertarians could have run the war better.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:14 pmI have been banned for speaking my mind
September 5th, 2006 at 7:17 pmOh my, wasn’t I pointing this out repeatedly not a million miles from here? Once again, these guys show how unfit they are for any position of authority. They can’t take responsibility for anything.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:20 pmbluedog49
WTF - but not Hilary
Hilary Clinton’s floor speech in support of going to war with Iraq - 10/10/02 - She waffles this way and that, giving every possible excuse for everything and in the end she votes for war. It’s people like Hilary Clinton that destroy a party.
“In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated “sovereign sites” including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980’s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam’s compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein’s biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can’t use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush’s speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President’s efforts to wage America’s war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed. ”
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
September 5th, 2006 at 7:26 pmon S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered
Well done, cmw. You think as fast as you type. Moron.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:30 pmJuan C
September 5th, 2006 at 7:35 pmSInce you can only type about 5 words, I guess you can’t think it all. Moron
I have been banned for speaking my mind
Comment by cmw
You should be banned for insulting Wayne S and telling his wife togo F herself. Both violate the terms of use ( read link atbottom).
But since you posted again, I guess you haven’t yet.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:35 pmHey Juan C
September 5th, 2006 at 7:36 pmRead Hilary’s speech for Chris’ sake. YOu believe she’s the next savior of the free world.
cmw = empty vessel.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:38 pmWayne
September 5th, 2006 at 7:39 pmSo Jane is your wife. Well that makes total sense. She watches your back and attacks people with nasty insults to defend you. So much for elitist DLC types - you can’t even articulate a position. You’ve yet to answer the question - what’s your position on Iraq. Instead you get yoru wife to attack and then when she gets her comeuppance you act all huffy. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Oh, sorry. Im not proud of my posts today. Im mad at something. Im gonna take off. (But cmw is still a moron)
September 5th, 2006 at 7:39 pmJuan C - you are describing yourself
September 5th, 2006 at 7:39 pmJuan C
September 5th, 2006 at 7:40 pmDo you have a position other than to watch Wayne’s back. Maybe you are Jane’s avatar. SOrry that word may be too big for you.
Juan C
September 5th, 2006 at 7:41 pmOf course. Run and hide instead of stating a position. Hiss and scratch but never say anything of weight. Good job. YOu’ve earned your quisling salary.
Wayne, Jane, Juan, Marie
You’re probably all the same person
You have no position, and you make no sense, except to tell people to forget history and to stand by while soldiers die as long as it makes Rumsfeld look bad -
You’re a sad explanation for the current DLC
Biseadh - you claim to speak truth to power, unfortunately you don’t
September 5th, 2006 at 7:46 pmWolfowitz’s words in rebuttal of Shinseki as I remember them were something
like, “I can’t imagine why it would take more troops to keep the peace than
it took to fight the war.” So he explicitly knew that Shinseki meant that the
large number of troops would be needed after the success of the initial military
campaign.
Not all of us can be fooled all the time.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:49 pmMy advice is to ignore cmw, who appears to just be angry indiscriminately and needing a target, any target, to vent that anger. I suspect that there is more going on there than any of us can help with or respond to in any useful way.
September 5th, 2006 at 7:54 pmI agree PLC!
The best way to deal with someone like cmw is to talk about him but not to him… eventually he will get fed up with the fact that nobody takes his bait and he will leave.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:01 pmThis is a different Wayne, cmw.
You have done nothing but attack people here.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:03 pmTake your meds and a nap.
Come back when you can discuss things without insulting people. Untill then, most of us will treat you as a troll, or ignore you altogether
G.W.SuperChrist
September 5th, 2006 at 8:09 pmIt’s actually quite sad to read cmw’s posts as he seems genuinely hurting and angry but unable to focus those feelings. Further, sprinkled in his posts are views that would allow him to find a home here but he does not let himself get past his anger and actually read others’ views.
This is a copy of a post I included in a thread earlier, but seems more appropriate here.
“responsibility†= the ability to respond
September 5th, 2006 at 8:14 pmTherefore, elected officials who hold the decision making and funding power have the ability to respond to world events and must be held accountability in direct proportion to their relative ability to respond.
i had the chance about 5 weeks ago to have a little “chat” with scottie maclieland, tony’s predecessor. my wife talked me out of it. i will never ever let that happen again. i could have been minorly famous for being the guy who broke the jaw of the former white house liar in chief and gave him permanent concrete burns on his face.
i hope to have a chance to “chat” with him again soon.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:15 pmi hope to have a chance to “chat†with him again soon.
Comment by jimmyw — September 5, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
I don’t know if he’ll be inviting you back for another “chat” now that you have let the cat out of the bag as to your true intentions… but I hope you get your shot!
September 5th, 2006 at 8:26 pmWasn’t it Donald LetsGetReadyToRumblesfeld who thought a “small, light, fast” army was the way of the future? Completely against much of the advice and thoughts of various Generals?
He ploughed ahead with his “less is more” blunder, screwed up - with obviously screwed up results only blind fanatics can’t see - and somehow that’s not his fault and he’s not to be held accountable to it? When it was his idea?
Remind me again, who IS accountable for this debacle then? Oh silly me that would be Clinton right? The neocons and their cheerleaders seem to like delegating all responsibility to the democrats, maybe they should just go ahead and leave the White House and give the responsibility of running the country to them too?
September 5th, 2006 at 8:27 pmWho bears responsibility for things going horribly wrong in Iraq? Well, those foreign fighters, of course.
By “foreign” it is understood Iraq, or Syria. US troops are somehow not considered foreign to Iraq by the Bush administration. And I thought Iraq was a sovereign nation.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:32 pmTony Snow: ‘I’m Not Going To Hold Donald Rumsfeld Accountable’
I didn’t know it was Snowflake’s job to hold Rummy accountable.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:22 pmIt is apparent that truth is not yet held to be a valuable commodity.
Are any of these people looking into their mirrors?
What kinds of drugs must they be taking to make it through their days?
How much money does it take to live a lie?
In the Spirit of Crazy Horse!
September 5th, 2006 at 9:38 pmGregor, Iraq was a sovereign nation.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:43 pmSnow concluded the segment by stating, “I’m not going to hold Donald Rumsfeld accountable.†Watch it.
Er… why ? Sounds like a pretty reasonable thing for a White House spokesman to say in regard to the Secretary of Defense.
Did you leave out some background info here which would have told us that the white house spokesperson has actually been given a place in the chain of command of the armed forces or even the executive ? Or does his not condemning the Sec Def come as much of a suprise as the whitehouse picture hanger not doing the same.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:46 pmI believe that any democrat who thinks they could have fought the IRaq war better is full of crap and is no better than RUmsfeld. That’s what I think.
Comment by cmw
First off lets forget what political party Rummy is from so we can clear the air of the foul political gas that surrounds these issues and makes it difficult to approach with descending into baseless opinion wars.
Now, Do I think Rummy has done a good job fighting this war? [Freedom Operation]
No. Rummies biggest screwup, that cost the US dearly in its fight for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people,[Freedom Operation], went right down the tubes with the Abu Graib torture scandal.
My position on the war on terror is that Afgahnistan was a good starting point but we should not have entered Iraq.
No matter what Hillary said about WMD, she bought into the OSP’s cherry picked intelligence. Nearly every Senator did.
I think that Bush is far to reactionary and didn’t think thru their plans very well. Another critical error on Rummies part.
And lastly I dont think that a terrorist group that has no country, that has no real military,Jets or tanks, subs or sattelites can be fought by attacking soverign nations.
This type of warfare requires not shock and awe but the same kind of ideology that finally brought the IRA bombers to terms.
The Israel/lebanon war further bolsters this in that Shock and Awe is not effective in symmetric warfare.
So, I think Rummy needs to go for these reasons and not because he is a Republican.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:50 pmPsychopaths are not accountable.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:56 pm“It turns out that it was the most effective military operations in history. As a matter of fact, I think the term that Tommy Franks used was catastrophic victory, it was so swift and more rapid than anyone perceived at the time.”
Oh yeah, and for years and years the second half of that happy-joy-joy military action has been going real well, as you can see on the TV.
These Republicans don’t even live on our planet.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:58 pmIts the presidents job to hold Rummy accountable, and the peoples job to hold the president responsible.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:02 pmYeah, but Wolf let him get away with it, didn’t he? Why didn’t Wolfie call him on it? Laziness? Cahoots? Payoff? Stupidity?
You choose.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:03 pmSorry. I know it’s OT, but I also know TP won’t TOUCH the Lieberman fiasco.
Seems the GOP has sent MILLIONS of dollars his way!!! (not news to TP, of course….)
http://www.insightmag.com/ Media/ MediaManager/ Lieberman2.htm
September 5th, 2006 at 11:07 pmWow, I said something about Tony which was deleted. It was the 3rd comment.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:45 pmTony Snow is a complete dumbass, and Rumsfeld can either resign or be tried for war crimes!
September 6th, 2006 at 12:44 amTony Snow… is Phil Hartman’s Frankenstein, re-animated. just lots less truthful, and personable.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:50 amI’m afraid Australia’s Prime Minister might have taught George Bush to never sack anybody. If you do sack someone then the opposition can say, “Look, they had to sack Rumsfeld. Why did they allow him to organise Iraq.”
The Australian PM Howard hasn’t sacked anyone in 10 years of government and there have been plenty of scandals.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:18 amThe rhetorics is getting more and more ridiculous by the day… it’s nigh impossible to miss what’s going on. They’re shittin’ their pants.
September 6th, 2006 at 1:54 amTP just deleted five posts of mine that were insightful and on topic from the Fareed Zakaria thread. When I log in as myself, they are mysteriously there. But when I don’t log in or log in from another computer, they are magically gone. In otherwords, only I can see them.
I have heard of others experiencing this same fort of veiled censorship, (or should I say censorshit?), and its just about the last thing I’d expect to find in a liberal blog. If you’re gonna ban someone at least have the balls to tell them. Don’t let them WASTE their time writing comments that were on topic and thought provoking when no one but they can see them.
Its seedy and you guys ought to be above that. Besides, did I miss something? Was my few insightful posts somehow interfering with the huge number of 15 actual comments in the Zakaria thread?
Was somehow my adding a few comments taking away from the fact that the thread was dead? Was somehow going over a measly 15 comments going to interfere with some negative number you were trying to acheive?
The fact that my comments appear when I log in tells volumes as to the source of the anomoly, and all I can say isThinkprogress may be many things, but one of them is NOT a place where freedom of speech prevails, nor is an equal voice offered to all.
So to my friends and my foes in this mindcontrol experiment, I will sign off for the last time and bid you adieu.
Good night, and good luck.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:21 amI really thought six freakin’ years into the game I couldn’t be shocked anymore about how much these bastards lie. Wow, was I wrong.
September 6th, 2006 at 2:44 amWorfeus- don’t exile yourself, theres alot of people on this site that dig you and respect your opinions, it is f’d up when they delete your posts, progressive??
Heres a great source of Info - I get the email everyday
Wednesday on Antiwar.com
http://antiwar.com
- US Blunders Help Political Islam
September 6th, 2006 at 4:17 am- Poll: Europeans See US as Threat to Global Stability
- War Backfiring on US, Khatami Says
- US Losing Control of Anbar Province
- Iraqi Parliament to Debate Federal Break-Up
- Pakistan Signs Pact With Pro-Taliban Militants
- Report: Taliban Taking Over Again
- NATO Troops Kill Up to 60 Taliban in Afghanistan
- Olmert Rejects Calls for War Inquiry
- Hezbollah: We’re Keeping Our Rockets
- Justin Raimondo: Pawns of the War Party
- Jeremy Brecher & Brendan Smith: Bush Aims to Kill War Crimes Act
- Gareth Porter: Neocons Discredit Intel in Haste to Attack Iran
- Sibel Edmonds and William Weaver: The 9/11 Commission: A Play on
Nothing in Three Acts
- Terence Samuel: Think Bush Will Pipe Down About Iraq? Think Again
- Eugene Robinson: Who Set the Wayback Machine for 1939?
- Norman Solomon: Spinning the Troop Levels in Iraq
- Ashraf Fahim: Bush’s Hezbollah Hangover
and much more
Let me see. THEY first said they needed to attack Iraq because it was on the verge of producing weapons of mass destruction. THEY said there was no more time to let the weapons inspectors do their job. But THEY were all wrong. Who is responsible for the wars a country gets itself into? Right, the boss of Defense, Rummy. “We know where the WMD are, they are around the Area of Tikrit” Give me a break, and quit your job yourself. It is clear to everyone that neocons are not just incapable, impotent but even willing to tell the media/public anything to keep justifying themselves like devils in holy water. How I am looking forward to the day I day just so I can see them all burn before my eyes, for their lies.
September 6th, 2006 at 4:30 am#114 Worfeus are you sure the other computer isn’t just showing an old cached copy of the page? I didn’t realise there is any kind of “login” system here at TP since you can use any name and email address. Which have even been hijacked before.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:05 amWell, whoop-dee-doo for your subaru, Tony. Hate to break it to you, but NOBODY CARES what you think, all of your lying makes you utterly worthless, opinion-wise. Not that you were any great shakes before. And Tony, we never expected anything else.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:26 amOf course, when has the rightwing ever held the rightwing accountable for anything?
With a Liberal, the buck stops here.
With a conservative, the buck stops with the nearest liberal.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:28 amdixie blood
It was not exactly unexpected. Pakistan was only ever marginally on America’s side anyway, and with that lurvally nuclear technology deal with India (you know, the country Pakistan has been involved in a low level war with since about forever) president Bush proposed, Pakistan didn’t exactly have much reason to remain an ally much longer.
Not to mention the fact that Pakistan is the reason why North Korea managed to get nuclear weapons so quickly.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:44 amWORFEUS - please don’t go! I enjoy your posts. Perhaps there is a technical explanation.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:20 amWhat’s the point of interviewing snow about this? I mean, why expect him to have any response but spin. That is his job after all. He would never say he thinks anything the administration has done was wrong. His job depends on supporting the admin. So why even waste airtime or bandwidth? We learned a long time ago to watch what they do, not what they say.
September 6th, 2006 at 9:54 amWORFEUS, don’t go! We need you here.
Thanks Wayne, Juan C. Notice how, as soon as PLC said to ignore cmw, he/she disappeared!
September 6th, 2006 at 9:55 amYeah, well that number of troops (300,000 +) would clearly have required a draft. End of conversation.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:37 pmIf Donald Rumsfeld was serious about qutting Bush would have accepted his resignation. He has accepted other resignations without any hesitation what so ever. So, I get the impression that if Rumsfeld was serious, and meant what he said he would not be Secratery of Defense now.
Barbara Boxer D-CA is introducing a bill to force Bush to fire Rumsfeld. She already has a number of co-sponsors for her bill to fire Rumsfeld. We are all getting tired of the lies, day in and day out.
And this afternoon Bush announced that he knew there were detainees being held in secret prisons around the world. What’s up with this George? He can say whatever he wants but it doesn’t change how the American people feel about his failed policies not only in Iraq, but our economy, the outsourcing of American jobs to hire cheap labor from where ever they can find it. Squeazing the Middle Class from all sides, and lower paying jobs that have been created to replace the ones that were outsourced, and outsourcing American jobs is good for the economy according to the Bush pundits.
One of the most frustrating issues facing America today is the illegal alien crisis, and blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens. Now Bush even has the churches involved as santuaries for people who break our laws, and expect to be treated in the same manner as legal immigrants.
The House and Senate have suspended debate on this crisis until after the November elections.
Tony Snow is just another Bush Lackey who does what he’s told to do or he gets fired. Plain and simple, but the two people who should be fired are Bush and (shotgun) Cheney…
September 6th, 2006 at 3:52 pmThanks Jane, Margert and others for your words of support. Unfortunately Think Progress needs to rename itself to “THINK LIKE US OR GET OUT”.
TP has turned into a joke. I am apparently BANNED now, and this will likely be deleted to. I tried to post earlier from my home but they have blocked my home IP. I am only getting this in as I am at work.
I was finished posting last night, but I am writing this because so many people responded to my final post.
But first, to the clown who deleted my posts last night deleted 5 good, thoughtful, non vicious posts that I took time to write to help support the Fareed Zakaria thread? Just WHAT was wrong with those posts?
Here is one of those posts from last night, that you thought was too incendiary, too racy, too profane and or too off topic in a thread that was about IRAN, and Bush comparing Terrorism to Nazism.
:|
If posts like this are subject to being blocked (if I log in as me I can see it, if I don’t log in or log in as someone else then I CAN’T see them. This means they are using cookies or something to trick posters into wasting their time while they censor their comments).
Its a joke.
If anyone wants to talk to me I will be looking for my friends over at Lydia Cornell’s blog. It is liberal, progressive and she doesn’t pull crap like this. http://www.lydiacornell.com
It may not be as big as ThinkPROPER, but if TP keeps going the way its going that might change soon.
Look for me in there, because I won’t be in here anymore.
Chow for now
September 6th, 2006 at 4:19 pmAh, Worfeus, we’ll miss you here, but we’ll visit you there. Wayne and I will definitely continue to read and enjoy your posts at Lydia Cornell’s blog. There’s nothing wrong with your post that got deleted, I can’t imagine what the problem is.
Chow to you to!
September 6th, 2006 at 7:24 pmDaria Model
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pmJosh Hartnett
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pmDaria Werbowy Josh Hartnett
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pmDaria Werbowy
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pmDaria Polish Werbowy
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pmmodel rockets
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page?and have to say thanks. nice read?
April 11th, 2008 at 5:49 pmDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 13th, 2008 at 9:21 pmRecord Tv Shows On My Computer
download satellite tv for pc
April 14th, 2008 at 7:11 am