Rumsfeld: ‘It Is Not A War on Terror’
In a new interview posted on Townhall.com, conservative columnist Cal Thomas asks outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “With what you know now, what might you have done differently in Iraq?” Rumsfeld offers a remarkable response:
I don’t think I would have called it the war on terror. I don’t mean to be critical of those who have. Certainly, I have used the phrase frequently. Why do I say that? Because the word ‘war’ conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn’t going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a ‘war on terror.’ Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So ‘war on terror’ is a problem for me.
Rumsfeld not only used the phrase ‘war on the terror’; he repeatedly criticized anyone who questioned the validity of it.
– “[T]here has been comment in the press of late about whether or not we’re even engaged in a war on terror, or whether our purpose might be better explained in a different manner. Let there be no mistake, we are a nation at war, against terrorist enemies who are seeking our surrender or our retreat. It is a war.” [8/2/05]
– “I would like to say that Iraq is really one of the battle grounds in the global war on terror.” [4/24/06]
– “Iraq is the central front of the global war on terror.” [12/16/05]
– Q: My argument is that we are fighting the war on terror in Iraq. Back me up a little bit on that, Mr. Secretary.
RUMSFELD: Well, you’re absolutely right. [8/3/04]– “[Iraq is] part of the global war on terror; let there be no doubt.” [9/10/03]
– Q: Do you feel that the Administration by turning its attention onto Iraq would be leaving the job undone a bit too soon?
RUMSFELD: Oh, no. Indeed that’s part of the global war on terrorism, Iraq. [12/4/02]
Rumsfeld’s outgoing memo on Iraq - which calls for a “major adjustment” in strategy - makes no mention of the one thing he would have “done differently” on Iraq.
Salon’s War Room has more.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
114 Responses to “Rumsfeld: ‘It Is Not A War on Terror’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Schmendrick
December 12th, 2006 at 2:13 pmLIAR!
December 12th, 2006 at 2:14 pmWhy do these ass-hats wait until they’re OUT of the administration to admit (some of) their mistakes?
December 12th, 2006 at 2:15 pmAbout 3 years too late, and hundreds of billions of dollars short, scumbag.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:16 pmThe fact that the man can and has changed his mind is not something to be critical about. We can only hope Bush will learn it’s okay to change his mind too.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:17 pmSometimes this Bush Cabinet members are like 2 years olds - it’s as if only the present matters - there is no past (as recorded by recording devices) or future - the only thing that matters is what you say now. It doesn’t matter to them if it is 100% off what they said before - the only thing that matters is “now”.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:19 pmYet another issue on which critics of the “war on terror” have been proven correct, and the Bush administration wrong.
Or maybe Rumsfeld is just being, you know, emotional…
December 12th, 2006 at 2:20 pmThe black community is now a liability to the Dems, as seen with William Jefferson (Clinton, coincidence, I think not), Cynthia McKinney and now Alcee Hastings. Dems will take their votes, but not share power (familiarity breeds contempt?), nor will Dems give the black community school vouchers to end the cycle of poverty.
The black community is now at its weakest point since prior to the civil rights legislation in the 1965. Women are quickly following, with only hispanics gaining incredible power. This is possible, because Dems have a lock on the black vote, as well as a significant percent of the female vote.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:22 pmGrats rummy, you were set up to fail. Were you a snivelling bureaucrat or a good soldier when you passed the setup for failure on to the thousands of troops who marched on your orders?
December 12th, 2006 at 2:24 pmThis shows me that the guy has no integrity. He’s Bush’s yes-man when he’s under his thumb, but as soon as he gets out, suddenly he grows a pair and states his own opinion. It’s shameful.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:25 pmAlmost 3,000 Americans have died over these god dam semantics. Screw Rumsfeld. We can be as critical of him as we want.
This is no different than a death row inmate saying I found god I am a changed man.
Sorry, he, just like Rumsfeld have already committed the crime. It is time to do the time.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:25 pmYou know the cabal boys got together in front of a mirror and practiced their pursed lip “logo” They all do it….it is fake……it is old…..and it sickens me. What are they trying to do? Elicit sympathy when they use it cause their backs are up against the wall? Or to show that they are tough? We should be afraid of their stupid grimmace? Give me a break. Assholes
December 12th, 2006 at 2:27 pmScrew you you racist piece of crap. Stop projecting and thread jacking. What the hell is your opinion of what your master Rumsfeld says. If you don’t have an opinion of the topic here, the STFU.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:28 pmSo Rummy, what would you call it then? An Occcupation of Iraq? An abandonment of Bin Laden?
December 12th, 2006 at 2:28 pmDoesn’t it look like Rummy really needs a large bag of prunes to chow down on?
How can anyone look that constipated?
December 12th, 2006 at 2:29 pmComment by Jason M. Hendler
Take your sorry cut & paste ass out of here, nebekh.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:29 pmQ: My argument is that we are fighting the war on terror in Iraq. Back me up a little bit on that, Mr. Secretary.
RUMSFELD: Well, you’re absolutely right. [8/3/04]
That must have been Jeff Gannon asking the question.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:30 pmMr. Hendler,
Do you have an opinion to share? One that is at least tangentially relevant to the topic of the thread, that is.
Or are you simply bored because not even your dog will pay attention to you today?
December 12th, 2006 at 2:31 pmThe rich “conservative” white guy community is now a liability to the Republicans , as seen with Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert, Bill Frist, Weldon, Limbaugh, Mark Foley, Jim Kolbe, Jack Abramoff, Gary Miller, Scooter Libby, John Doolittle, etc, etc…
December 12th, 2006 at 2:31 pmJason M. Hendler
You are off your meds again…
December 12th, 2006 at 2:31 pmMaybe Jason, you could actually talk about the topic of the thread perhaps?
& while you’re out in lala land, go check your meds’ dosages. You seem to be missing some of it.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:31 pmRumsfeld is right. It’s not a war on terror. It’s a war on Islamic extremist. But if people say that, they are accused of being a racist.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:31 pmWhoa, this guy is going scorched earth on the administration in an effort to protect his legacy. It doesn’t matter who goes under the bus to try to make Donny-boy look better.
No wonder bush wouldn’t fire him earlier, he knew what would happen once he was no longer beholden to bush.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:31 pmHendler has been hear a long time….too long. He is a low level plant…….planted by the people on the way out of power.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:33 pmWhat Rumsfeld didn’t say is that this is a war to control oil. Eventually it will come out, but for now, the rats are re-evaluating the floatability of the bush boat…..
December 12th, 2006 at 2:36 pmJason M. Hendler? Why I haven’t seen your sorry ass around here since when???? I think it was right before the last election. Weren’t you spouting off how the republicans would keep the house and senate? Yeah I believe so. Couldn’t have been more wrong then like you are now.
So back to Rummy, will anyone in the media call him on this? If it is now wrong in his eyes to calling it a “War on Terror” wouldn’t there be other wrongs committed under the premise of the “War on Terror”? Did he ever have a discussion with Cheney and/or Bush about not calling it a “War on Terror”? I believe they did when that short lived “Global War on Extremism” was pushed and soon dropped. Poor ratings you know.
What else may now become a “known unkown”. (I’ll never get tired of that”
December 12th, 2006 at 2:37 pmDon’t you mean “War OF Terror”?
December 12th, 2006 at 2:41 pmFunny how folks seem to find a brain after they leave the Bush admin, just sayin’.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:43 pmRumsfeld: Furthermore, it is not a ‘war on terror.’ Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So ‘war on terror’ is a problem for me.
So that’s what happens when you are unhooked from the collective.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:43 pmRumsfeld is right. It’s not a war on terror.
Comment by Kevin — December 12, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
So what do you make of his previous statements that Iraq was at the forefront of the “global war on terror.”? It begs the question of how long he has known that it was not a war on terror, doesn’t it? And if he knew, why did he keep saying it anyway?
Doesn’t the contradiction seem odd to you? Or let me step back, do you see a contradiction at all?
It’s a war on Islamic extremist.
Can Islamic extremism be defeated through military means? Is the invasion of Iraq helping towards that goal?
Rather than simply saying “Rumsfeld is right”, please share what you think of his sudden change of heart and why you would believe him now.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:44 pmKevin
Seen as Iraq is now going to turn into a theocracy whatever happens (Their constitution their laws on the Quran, so even the best case scenario is basically a theocracy) the war against Islamic extremism doesn’t appear to be going too well.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:46 pmDon Hendlerfeld said so.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:48 pmYou’re right. It was a conspiracy between their parents.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:51 pmThe christian community is now a liability to the Repubs, as seen with Ted Haggard (Assclown, coincidence, I think not), Pat Robertson and now Jerry Falwell. Repubs will take their votes, but not share power (familiarity breeds contempt?), nor will Rebubs give the christian community school vouchers to end the cycle of ignorance.
The christian community is now at its weakest point since prior to the Spanish Inquisition in the 1478. Cracker-ass hillbillies are quickly following, with only reasonable people gaining incredible power. This is possible, because Repubs have a lock on the christian vote, as well as a significant percent of the cracker-ass hillbilly vote.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — December 12, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
December 12th, 2006 at 2:52 pmSo, when, for Rumsfeld, did the “unknown known” that there is no war on terror become a “known known”? If you are too close to Bush, is your bag of “knowns” scrambled in some “unknown” manner? And couldn’t Rumsfeld have found something much more fundamentally wrong with the policy and strategies in Iraq than calling it a “war on terror”?
So, He Who Must Not Be Named returns with his arrogant stereotyped views. How long would he stay if ignored?
December 12th, 2006 at 2:53 pm#5: The fact that the man can and has changed his mind is not something to be critical about.
In principle, I agree with you. The problem, of course, is that Rumsfeld isn’t apologizing for his blistering and condescending attacks on people who questioned the accuracy of the administration’s phrase “war on terror.” He owes an apology to the people who were right all along, and who could not get Rumsfeld and others to listen to them.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:56 pmI guess he’s right since Shrub actually refers to it as a “war on terrrrr“, whatever the hell that is.
December 12th, 2006 at 2:59 pmIt has nothing to do with being racist. It has everything to do with the fact that the president is a Christian extremist. If he called it the Gwobal war on Islamic extremist, then that would be seen for what it really is; a Holy War. Nobody would support a holy war, so they made up a bullshEt label for it.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:02 pmRumsfeld is a war criminal as well as an accomplished jackass.
It’s nice to see his racist jackass friends still support him.
How’s are things going in the land of ponies and 21% approval ratings Jason ?
That’s great.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:05 pmhellinabucket,
“Global War on Extremismâ€
You almost got it. They changed the name around the time they thought Karl Rove would be indicted for outting Valerie Plame. It would be considered treason to out a CIA agent during a time of war. So, the change it from being a “war” to the “Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism” or GSAVE.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:06 pmHard to have a war on a tactic, or behavior. Like the war on stupidity. Or a war on sleeping too late, or a war on leaving the cap off the toothpaste, or a war on typing, or a war on looking at cathode ray tubes, or a war on belching. I think you get it.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:08 pmWell, well, well, Dr. StrangeRumsfailed comes clean. The whole “War on Terror” was as much a way to manipulate or Catapult the Propaganda within the global community.
Why am I not surprised he’s speaking out against his policies? Because this is their typical behavior of trying to preserve what they believe is their integrity.
Thanks TP I know have something really worth blogging about for today. Which is where I’ll be heading to the drawing broad…Check it out later today…
http://comlogic.blogspot.com/
Later,
December 12th, 2006 at 3:08 pmMM
Comment by mparker
Will Rummy be in the next Jackass movie?
December 12th, 2006 at 3:08 pmJason Hendler - as bitter and deluded (and off-topic) as ol’ Rummy himself. If I were that sad a joke, I sure as hell wouldn’t publicize it on the internet.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:10 pmI see the slogan “War on terror” as a Bush administration line.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:11 pmI doubt it will outlast this administration. The British have already officially quit using the slogan. It might pop up from time to time in a historical sense, but that’s it. It will be even less used than Slogans like”War on drugs” and the like. I would think any future president would do himself/herself a favor and NOT use ANY Bush administration slogan.
“I guess he’s right since Shrub actually refers to it as a “war on terrrrr“, whatever the hell that is.
Comment by DieNowForPeace ”
dude - thanks for the laugh!!! I can’t believe you made me laugh about this crap.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:12 pmIt was and will continue to be referred to as a “war” because it gives Bush certain powers that he would only have if we were at “war… and the only problem Rumsfeld has with the word is that it makes people less accepting of his incompetence… so even though Mr. Known Unknowns doesn’t like it - the Decider has decided that it will stay… unlike Mr. Known Unknowns.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:13 pmHard to have a war on a tactic, or behavior. Like the war on stupidity. Or a war on sleeping too late, or a war on leaving the cap off the toothpaste, or a war on typing, or a war on looking at cathode ray tubes, or a war on belching. I think you get it.
Comment by ForTruth
If there is ever a war against “over-wetted” cereal flakes, Im in.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:15 pmHendler:
WTF!?!?!?
December 12th, 2006 at 3:17 pmI would say that the so-called “war on terror”, as it has been known for some 6 years now, started a long time ago.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:17 pm9/11, and the attack on American soil, was but a sortie by Islamic extremists…..in response to an ongoing war of economic, military, and social terror conducted by American “interests”…these “interests” having been given validity and support by Christian extremists…………..
Spudge-Boy, you hit the nail on the head. The last excuse standing for the war in Iraq is that it’s Bush’s Holy War, the Bush Crusade. All the others layers have fallen away and exposed the pus-filled core of Bush’s motives.
Kevin almost gets it right, it’s not a war on terror it’s a war on extremists. Then he f**s up and brands all extremists as Muslim. It is a war, and one we shouldn’t back away from, the war against religious fundamentalists. That probably includes Kevin.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:20 pmSpudge Boy,
Thanks. It was a very forgettable slogan. I wonder if they have a marketing group that field tests these slogans?
December 12th, 2006 at 3:21 pmNever said that.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:25 pmEver watch those Dateline shows where they interview the accused or convicted perp of some heinous crime? I’m always amazed how some, obviously guilty, people can look straight into the camera and lie without batting an eye. Even when confronted with evidence and their own contradictory statements. Rumsfeld is a true sociopath.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:26 pmSo why is Rummy backtracking now?
December 12th, 2006 at 3:29 pmIs it
A. He really felt this way all the time, but was so cowed by Dick and Karl that he towed the line?
B. He’s trying to cover his tracks so they can’t find him to send him to the Hague?
C. He knows he’s an evil bastard and has just got him some religion?
#5 - Universe Man,
December 12th, 2006 at 3:33 pmChanging Bush’s mind would require a surgical procedure.
what??? after years of complaining that the liberal media is not treating it like a war, he now says that it is not a ‘war on terror’ in his opinion?
http://theleftresponse.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 12/ re-bill-oreilly-studying-iraq.html
December 12th, 2006 at 3:33 pmIraq is a “War on Terror” just like they knew that the fantasy WMDs are located to the west of Baghdad, some to the south and a little north….yea right!
December 12th, 2006 at 3:36 pm.
G.W.SuperChrist
You are exactly right - BushCo, especially Rumsfeld himself, needed the term “war” so that the executive branch could expand its authority through traditional and their own made-up “war powers”. Without a war, BushCo could not have pulled half the wool over the American people’s eyes that they did. Rumsfeld is just doing the same old song and dance theme of the whole cabal - blaming others and distancing themselves from any failures that they themselves caused.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:38 pmYes you did say it. Duh. Please don’t use Rummy as an example of how to behave.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:41 pmPLC & GWSC
December 12th, 2006 at 3:48 pmKinda reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Bart becomes famous with his
“I didn’t do it” schtik.
Kevin,
Did too.
“Rumsfeld is right. It’s not a war on terror. It’s a war on Islamic extremist.”
I substituted the word Muslim for Islamic, but how does that change your point?
I think it’s good to remind ourselves from time to time that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, not Iraq. But if you see the world through the Christian filter, all Muslim (or Islamic if you prefer) people are all the same.
Bush’s actions have planted the seed for many more 9/11’s, and they are growing as we blog.
Do you honestly support Bush’s war? Or are you just poking for a reaction?
December 12th, 2006 at 3:49 pm3 years later and the devils in the white house still don’t know what to call their illegal war.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:50 pmhow about, “the illegal war that kills women and babies”.
Oh come on, Jason. We both know all you care about in school vouchers is that they defund the Democratic party.
I told you of a study a few months back that said that public schools do just as well if not better than charter or public schools on everything except 8th grade english for some reason. You then made up something about there being “other reasons” for why a non-public education is better than a public one. Turns out its just hate for Democrats.
But back on topic and away from the off topic trolling, Michael Moore was saying “you can’t wage a war on terror because terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy.” He was then called unpatriotic, and perhaps fat.
December 12th, 2006 at 3:52 pmA war on the emotion terror is inherently unwinnable. It only works as an Orwellian perpetual war where victory is just over the next hill. Stay the Course, More Troops, Victory threw Vigilance, ….
December 12th, 2006 at 3:57 pm#61, Yike’s - where in that sentence did Kevin “brand all extremists as Muslim”? Dude, you didn’t do well in reading and comprehension, did you?
December 12th, 2006 at 3:59 pm#34 - G.W. Superchrist, that’s funny sh!t. LOL!!
December 12th, 2006 at 4:01 pmbush should be force fed rhummys testicles.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:05 pmLIAR!! Rot in hell, Rumsfeld.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:20 pmEastasia? We’ve always been allies with Eastasia.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:22 pmHe was for it before he was against it.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:25 pmExactly why they stopped using GSAVE the day after they started using it.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:25 pmWhether to call it a War On Terror or not was one of those unknown knowns or known unknowns or something we just don’t know we know… You know?
December 12th, 2006 at 4:25 pmOK, my bad. Kevin didn’t say all extremists were Muslim. Or Islamic.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:27 pmYou think that the “Global War on Islamic Extremism” would stick? Not in this world. Too many Muslims. Just picture how the Christian extremists would react if the President of Iran said that he was going to start the Global War on Chrisitan Extremism. They would completely flip out.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:29 pmI said we are at war with Islamic extremist. I never said all Muslims are extremist. I never said that all Iraqis are extremist.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:29 pmWhy doesn’t Bush call it something that people can relate to like:
The Global War Against al Qaeda
Since they are the ones who attacked us on 9/11.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:34 pm#67 Thanks Mikey… I was thinking that this (#34) is what Jason Hendler meant to say in #8.. he just needed help finding the right words:)
December 12th, 2006 at 4:35 pm[…] Oh, so now you tell us ? Thanks Don. Filed under: Uncategorized — cleek @ 5:28 pm […]
December 12th, 2006 at 4:51 pmBecause Al Qaeda is not the only Islamic extremist group that wants to kill Americans.
(BTW. I am surprised to see someone point out that I didn’t say what they said I said. Thank you.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:53 pmDidn’t we create al-Qaeda? When we funded/trained/armed the guys fighting the Russians in Afghanistan?
What are we gonna call the terrorists we’re creating now in Iraq? You know, all those guys pissed beyond belief at what we’ve done to their country?
Meanwhile- the Taliban is gaining more and more ground in Afghanistan…
December 12th, 2006 at 4:55 pmNo, but they are the ones who attacked us on 9/11 and we don’t need to go after 5 pissed off Pakistanis who give themselves a name and condem the US. If we went after every group that has a problem with the US and hates American, then it wouldn’t be the Global War on Islamic Extremism, because people that are not Muslim hate us too.
Why are we singling out one religion? That is what makes this a Holy War.
December 12th, 2006 at 4:58 pmHey, Jason, does 4 Black House Committee chairmen and 16 subcommittee chairmen mean anything to you? How about the names, John Conyers, Melvin Watt, and Charlie Rangel (chairman of the most powerful committee in Congress). How about Barak Obama? Is he a sign that “The black community is now at its weakest point since prior to the civil rights legislation in the 1965.”
December 12th, 2006 at 5:08 pm“Why doesn’t Bush call it something that people can relate to like:
The Global War Against al Qaeda”
My instict (and Ike) would tell me its because that would give it a definitive goal that once accomplished, would force the war to conclude.
They can’t allow a conclusion to a war they are intentionally perpetuating to line the pockets of the Defense Industry (Military Industrial Congressional Complex). Thus, they have framed it in a context that will allow it to go on as long as they see fit (forever).
December 12th, 2006 at 5:13 pmWait… so… you mean Rumsfeld was admitting that the term he used before was probably flawed and that he shoudn’t have used it?
And you people scream that the term is stupid/engage in usual Administration-bashing?
Gee, what a hypocrite! I mean, anyone who says that something they did was wrong after being asked what they did wrong that they would change is clearly an idiot, especially if it was something that they actually did as the series of quotes so helped us to understand!
This article/the comments really made me sad.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:20 pmAl Qaeda is not the only extremist group that wants to kill Americans. Agreed. And we should defend ourselves against the extremists.
If we had chased every one of those Al Qaeda bastards down in Afghanistan and skinned them alive, I wouldn’t complain, it would have sent the right message to the extremists. America will defend herself.
But we didn’t. We (Bush) changed course, abandoned the pursuit of our enemies and picked an unrelated fight with Sadam that has done nothing but increase the number of extremists that want to kill Americans. For cover, he branded his personal war a “War on Terror”.
That’s why you can feel so much hate boiling up from these blogs, there are tangible and good reasons to hate Bush and every one of his ilk. That pathetic little man has greatly increased the chance that we will see a mushroom cloud over America, not decreased it.
And the why seems to be his Christian vs. Muslim mentality, coupled with his egotistical desire to leave his mark on the world. He will leave a mark, no doubt. So does smallpox.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:21 pmI mean, anyone who says that something they did was wrong after being asked what they did wrong that they would change is clearly an idiot, especially if it was something that they actually did as the series of quotes so helped us to understand!
Comment by Jason — December 12, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
Huh?
December 12th, 2006 at 5:33 pmAmericans dying because of semantics makes me sad.
People making excuses for a war criminal makes me cry.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:36 pmAnd as far as the conference is concerned, why have all the western media gone out of their way to misquote Ahmedinejad and to condemn the conference?
http://www.yioni.com/ 2006/ 12/ holocaust-denial-or-smart-move.html…
http://www.yioni.com/ 2006/ 12/ ahmmedinejad-holocaust-and-its-myth.ht…
the truth is out there all right…
December 12th, 2006 at 5:42 pm# 22 Rumsfeld is right. It’s not a war on terror. It’s a war on Islamic extremist. But if people say that, they are accused of being a racist.
Comment by Kevin — December 12, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
**New program loaded into miniCPU: Talking Point.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:43 pm**Repeat Until Next Talking Poing Program
**Execute
Gee, what a hypocrite! I mean, anyone who says that something they did was wrong after being asked what they did wrong that they would change is clearly an idiot, especially if it was something that they actually did as the series of quotes so helped us to understand!
Comment by Jason
your pity is wasted on the war criminals.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:46 pmyet another high proflie Bushie acting like the Wookies freed from the Wicked Witch of the west at last. don’t blame me, I only worked there.
December 12th, 2006 at 5:53 pm(cue The Ramones ‘Glad to See you Go’)
Re#11 & 82 SpudgeBoy
How did Al Quaeda get access to three WTC buildings to wire them with the explosives that turned all the concrete floors, metal filing cabinets, metal desk frames, metal table frames, metal chair frames, plastic waste baskets and the like into dust?
You do understand that if GRAVITY alone had brought those three buildings down, there would be a ton of metal pieces and concrete chunks found in the debris, but since the debris contained neither, then it was IMPOSSBLE for GRAVITY to have caused the damage and therefore it had to be EXPLOSIVES, right?
Unless of course you believe that one concrete floor can drop the height of one story (20 feet) and into another story and smash everything between the two floors and including the concrete floors completely into dust!
Maybe you can show me how to drop a metal filing cabinet 20 feet and have it turn into dust, because I dropped one out of my attic three stories (more than 20 feet) on to the driveway, but it did not turn into dust, what am I doing wrong?
December 12th, 2006 at 5:54 pmGawd, you guys are great. Thanks! (I have nothing to add, ‘cept that I’m all for sending Rummy to the Hague. Anyone else agree?)
December 12th, 2006 at 5:56 pmRummey is striking back because he was a loyal soldier for six years. Cheney was the prime puppet master in the run-up to “Shock and Awe”.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:04 pmW lapped it up like the discards of society down Thunderbird. On Monday, Rummey was told that he had a job that would last until January 2009. On Wednesday, he was told to pack his bags and leave. He, like Powell, will spill a few beans. Actually, Karl should have first been shown the door, deflated pundit that he is. But then, Karl may have more to show and tell.
Criticalthinker:
“Maybe you can show me how to drop a metal filing cabinet 20 feet and have it turn into dust, because I dropped one out of my attic three stories (more than 20 feet) on to the driveway, but it did not turn into dust, what am I doing wrong?”
Obviously you forgot to set your ray-gun on disintegrate *duh*.
Either that or you forgot to coat everything in a fine nitroglycerin-based paint. It’s a common mistake.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:10 pmRumsfeld is right. Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terror. Iraq is an illegal immoral war, now an occupation, that has most certainly increased the number of Middle Easterners who want to do the U.S. harm.
December 12th, 2006 at 6:21 pmRummy is a bastard, yes indeed. He is heavily responsible for the debacle that is Iraq as well as torture of “enemy combatants” (while Bush/Cheney are responsible for the actual war crime/crime against humanity that was the original act of aggression against Iraq) but there are always potential good things to come from top officials falling out of government. Rummy has juicy information. Rummy, whether in a fit of pique or in an act of desperation to (hopelessly) save his name in history could dump a LOT of information that is harmful to Bush/Cheney/Rice/Gonzales.
I dearly hope that he does try to save his place in history and actually starts talking, or letting little blurbs out here and there, as he fades into infamy. Perhaps he could write a tell-all book…
December 12th, 2006 at 6:50 pmThe black community is now at its weakest point since prior to the civil rights legislation in the 1965. Women are quickly following, with only hispanics gaining incredible power. This is possible, because Dems have a lock on the black vote, as well as a significant percent of the female vote.
And Obama and Charlie Wrangle don’t exist. and we (Rethugs) didn’t just
suffer a defeat of historic purportions in the last election.
Ignore the truth,
December 12th, 2006 at 7:42 pmlook at the shiny object swinging back and forth, back and forth……
Flint, that’s spam by now.
December 12th, 2006 at 8:01 pmit’s not a war on terror
it’s a war of terror, it’s a never ending war on a transitive adverb, it’s a redistribution of wealth to the patriots and pioneers, it’s creating the future enemies of the future wars we will need to fight against, rinse, repeat
December 12th, 2006 at 8:08 pmJason, wipe your lip please. That is unseemly.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:07 pmRummy just following the first GOP commandment.
Never let the facts get in the way.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:21 pmWe’re doomed. If you’re a wage earning worker and you make one too many errors in judgement, (e.g. underestimate the time it will take for a morning cummute, fail to follow some work procedure exactly, or make some customer service gaffe) your manager has every incentive to cast you aside and hire a fresh loyal idiot at enrty level pay. The errors are small but the consequesnces are dire.
On the other hand if you are the highest level manager of the US Defense Department arguably the largest, most powerful enterprise on the planet and you make many obvious heinous errors and a documented record of misleading your “shareholders” (us citizens), you not only don’t feel any negative personal reprecussions for your bad acts, you don’t even have to admit them.
December 12th, 2006 at 11:31 pmcriticalthinker
The two big towers were hit at precisely the wrong point. Had it been a bit higher up the towers would not have collapsed - they basically jackhammered down.
The tower that wasn’t hit that collapsed was already condemned, and I am guessing with good reason.
While there could have been explosives in the two towers, it is unlikely in my view from the fact that if such were the case the administration would not have wasted the planes. Bombs would have been just as effective, and in some ways more so - they could have pretended that they never caught the bombers and need all sorts of extra powers in order to capture the bombers, in essence being able to make what they did anyway legal and far less contraversial.
Realise that Al Qaeada has used bombs before, and some ingenous bomb makers. A demolition of the two towers would have been well within their modus operandi.
Note that I am not saying that there is nothing to investigate in your claims, only that I personally have my doubts and can see how the official report could have reached its conclusions. Note also, that I feel the official report is incomplete and being kept incomplete by the Whitehouse, which I seriously and honestly believe is engaged in a cover-up. Whether that cover-up is based around 9/11 being a product of their malice or incompetence is debateable, that there are clearly questions in need of answering is not really.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:07 amThe reaction here on think just goes to show how little the left does actually think. Rummy is not denying it is a war but that the context in which the phrase is twisted implies a different kind of war. If you listen to the speeches after 911 you can easily see that the referenced war is akin to that of the Cold War. This is a war in which either we prevail or we become slaves to Sheria law.
Lefties are idiots it’s silly that I should even have to explain this.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:09 amRummy did try to change the nomenclature over a year ago: he made an ill-fated attempt to change the name of the Global War on Terrrr (G-WOT, so easy for Bush to remember) to G-SAVE, the Global Struggle against Violent Extremism.
So this isn’t a new position for him. It’s just now he isn’t going to get chewed out b y the boss.
December 13th, 2006 at 12:16 am[…] Think Progress » Rumsfeld: ‘It Is Not A War on Terror’ what happens inside the bubble stays inside the bubble? (tags: war iraq 9/11 terra) […]
December 13th, 2006 at 3:30 amI think analysing what rumfield says searching for something meaningful is kind of a waste of time.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:39 amJoeslogic
Actually, all you have achieved is making yourself look like an idiot. The basic crux of the Left’s POV here is that we were demonised for saying the exact same thing as Rumsfeld said just now, by Rumsfeld - way back when he was calling it the “War on terror.”
Of course, righties just do not have any sort of capacity for memory, logic, or intellegence so they have to pretend that they have a point.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:14 amExcellent article,
Thanks, I hope everyone reads this
December 14th, 2006 at 10:33 amExcellent article, hope everyone reads it.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:34 amIs it just me, or is Rumsfeld actually beginning to LOOK like Robert McNamara?
December 15th, 2006 at 9:17 pm[…] Donald Rumsfeld: “I don’t think I would have called it the war on terror. … Why do I say that? Because the word ‘war’ conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn’t going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a ‘war on terror.’ Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So ‘war on terror’ is a problem for me.” [Link] […]
April 4th, 2007 at 4:17 pm