From the Desk of Donald Rumsfeld

[Freibier]

From the Desk of Donald Rumsfeld . . .

In Sometimes-Brusque 'Snowflakes,' He Shared Worldview, Shaped Policy

By Robin Wright (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/robin+wright/)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 1, 2007; Page A01


In a series of internal musings and memos to his staff, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Donald+H.+Rumsfeld?tid=informline) argued that Muslims avoid "physical labor" and wrote of the need to "keep elevating the threat," "link Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Iraq?tid=informline) to Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Iran?tid=informline)" and develop "bumper sticker statements" to rally public support for an increasingly unpopular war.
The memos, often referred to as "snowflakes," shed light on Rumsfeld's brusque management style and on his efforts to address key challenges during his tenure as Pentagon chief. Spanning from 2002 to shortly after his resignation following the 2006 congressional elections, a sampling of his trademark missives obtained yesterday reveals a defense secretary disdainful of media criticism and driven to reshape public opinion of the Iraq war.


Rumsfeld, whose sometimes abrasive approach often alienated other Cabinet members and White House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline) staff members, produced 20 to 60 snowflakes a day and regularly poured out his thoughts in writing as the basis for developing policy, aides said. The memos are not classified but are marked "for official use only."
In a 2004 memo on the deteriorating situation in Iraq, Rumsfeld concluded that the challenges there are "not unusual." Pessimistic news reports -- "our publics risk falling prey to the argument that all is lost" -- simply result from the wrong standards being applied, he wrote in one of the memos obtained by The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Washington+Post+Company?tid=informline).
Under siege in April 2006, when a series of retired generals denounced him and called for his resignation in newspaper op-ed pieces, Rumsfeld produced a memo after a conference call with military analysts. "Talk about Somalia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Somalia?tid=informline), the Philippines (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Philippines?tid=informline), etc. Make the American people realize they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists," he wrote.
People will "rally" to sacrifice, he noted after the meeting. "They are looking for leadership. Sacrifice = Victory."
The meeting also led Rumsfeld to write that he needed a team to help him "go out and push people back, rather than simply defending" Iraq policy and strategy. "I am always on the defense. They say I do it well, but you can't win on the defense," he wrote. "We can't just keep taking hits."

The only man to hold the top Pentagon job twice -- as both the youngest and the oldest defense secretary -- Rumsfeld suggested that the public should know that there will be no "terminal event" in the fight against terrorism like the signing ceremony on the USS Missouri when Japan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Japan?tid=informline) surrendered to end World War II. "It is going to be a long war," he wrote. "Iraq is only one battleground."
Based on the discussion with military analysts, Rumsfeld tied Iran and Iraq. "Iran is the concern of the American people, and if we fail in Iraq, it will advantage Iran," he wrote in his April 2006 memo.
Rumsfeld declined to comment, but an aide said the points in that memo were Rumsfeld's distillation of the analysts' comments, though he added that the secretary is known for using the term "bumper stickers."
"You are running a story based off of selective quotations and gross mischaracterizations from a handful of memos -- carefully picked from the some 20,000 written while Rumsfeld served as Secretary," Rumsfeld aide Keith Urbahn wrote in an e-mail. "After almost all meetings, he dictated his recollections of what was said for his own records."
In one of his longer ruminations, in May 2004, Rumsfeld considered whether to redefine the terrorism fight as a "worldwide insurgency." The goal of the enemy, he wrote, is to "end the state system, using terrorism, to drive the non-radicals from the world." He then advised aides "to test what the results could be" if the war on terrorism were renamed.
Neither Europe (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Europe?tid=informline) nor the United Nations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/United+Nations?tid=informline) understands the threat or the bigger picture, Rumsfeld complained in the same memo. He also lamented that oil wealth has at times detached Muslims "from the reality of the work, effort and investment that leads to wealth for the rest of the world. Too often Muslims are against physical labor, so they bring in Koreans and Pakistanis while their young people remain unemployed," he wrote. "An unemployed population is easy to recruit to radicalism."
If radicals "get a hold of" oil-rich Saudi Arabia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Saudi+Arabia?tid=informline), he added, the United States will have "an enormous national security problem."


The memos delve into issues beyond Iraq and terrorism. In a memo to national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Stephen+Hadley?tid=informline) in July 2006, Rumsfeld warned that the United States is "getting run out of Central Asia (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Central+Asia?tid=informline)" by the Russians, who are doing a "considerably better job at bullying" than Washington is doing to "counter their bullying."
As public discontent and congressional questioning grew in 2006, his final year at the Pentagon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Pentagon?tid=informline), a series of snowflakes revealed a man determined to counter the chorus of media criticism in one- or two-line zingers to staff members about specific articles.
"I think you ought to get a letter off about Ralph Peters' op-ed in the New York Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/NYP+Holdings+Inc.?tid=informline). It is terrible," he writes on Feb. 6, 2006. In a Feb. 2 New York Post column, Peters decried "chronic troop shortages in Iraq" while the Pentagon buys "high-tech toys that have no missions."
On March 10, he commanded J. Dorrance Smith, the assistant defense secretary for public affairs, to craft a "better presentation to respond to this business that the Department of Defense (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Department+of+Defense?tid=informline) has no plan. This is just utter nonsense. We need to knock it down hard." A Washington Post-ABC News (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/ABC+Inc.?tid=informline) poll that month found that 65 percent of Americans thought that Bush had no plan for victory.

On March 20, Rumsfeld ordered a point-by-point analysis of the seven "mistakes" columnist Trudy Rubin wrote about in the Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Philadelphia+Inquirer?tid=informline) and a response to her essay -- which he wanted to see before it was sent out. Rubin wrote that the war had "gone sour."
"Please have someone find precisely when I said 'dead-enders' and what the context was," he ordered Smith in September 2006.
A November 2006 editorial in the New York Times (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+New+York+Times+Company?tid=informline) that said the Army was ruined "is disgraceful," Rumsfeld wrote to Smith. The editorial said that "one welcome dividend" of Rumsfeld's departure was that the United States would "now have a chance to rebuild the Army he spent most of his tenure running down."
Rumsfeld later reprimanded his staff, writing, "I read the letter we sent in rebuttal. I thought it rather weak and not signed at the level it should have been." He then instructed staffers to prepare an article about the Army. "We need to get that story out," he wrote on Nov. 28, 2006, a Tuesday. He ordered a draft by Friday.
source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103103095.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR)

[khukuri]

He also lamented that oil wealth has at times detached Muslims "from the reality of the work, effort and investment that leads to wealth for the rest of the world. Too often Muslims are against physical labor, so they bring in Koreans and Pakistanis while their young people remain unemployed," he wrote. "An unemployed population is easy to recruit to radicalism."

I literally lost any respect I had left for this moron, his following and the idiots who wanted him to stay as Defence M. He doesn't have the slightest clue of the simplest things such as Why Saudis prefer to take in outer labour then use other arabs, its one of the saudis security strategy s. I didnt know we muslims, a billion of this planet were all a lazy bunch because of our religion. What a moron!!!

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Good read.

As for Rumsfeld being "misunderstood"...I beg to differ. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the USA when it invaded Iraq, did not have enough ground forces.

And, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that declaring a "victory" in Afghanistan was also a mistake.

What has happened since 9/11/2001 in the war on terror? A lot. And, under Rumsfeld's command, most flawed.

Drop a few bombs, and declare a victory against the Taliban in Afghanistan? BIG MISTAKE. The so called victory, had most of the tribal chiefs agree to switch sides, and defect.

That strategy has now brought in a resurgent Taliban, more lethal.

Invade Iraq? There is STILL a big debate within the Pentagon, and the debate is about whether we should have focused more on Afghanistan, instead of Iraq.

Now here is the kicker...we invade Iraq, with limited resources, and are going to end up being there for years, if not decades from now. We allowed most of the Iraqi military to escape within the civilian population. We failed to secure the country after the invasion. And now, due to Rumsfeld's mis-management of both wars, we are now fully paying the price.

Rumsfeld was not a hero. Instead, he was a fraud. And, he needed to be removed from power.

There is a war on terrorism, no matter how you slice it. It will be fought generations from now. And, its high time we woke up. And, while under Rumsfeld's command, the USA Military has blown a major chance for victory in places like Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld was right on one aspect...about chronic unemployment and rancid living conditions within the middle east. But he was very wrong also...there are conditions all over the world that must be cleaned up too, for these are the same conditions that spawn wars...all that is different is a change of climate. And what rips me, is his gross statements against muslims, has not only managed to stir up a giant hornets nest, just in the middle east, but world wide also.

And, if I am not mistaken, the same media monsters that were blasting him about his constant failures, are the same media monsters he allowed to be embedded with allied forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq in the first place.

I can only hope, that Rumsfeld would be tried for treason, and punished accordingly under the law, if we ever have to pay the price for this bumbling fool's mistake. And, ifhistory is to be a judge, Rumsfeld will be remembered as the only sec def to hold the same job twice, but he was also the same sec def to screw up the job twice also.

[Beowulf]

Good read.

As for Rumsfeld being "misunderstood"...I beg to differ. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the USA when it invaded Iraq, did not have enough ground forces.

And, it does not take a rocket scientist to see that declaring a "victory" in Afghanistan was also a mistake.

What has happened since 9/11/2001 in the war on terror? A lot. And, under Rumsfeld's command, most flawed.

Drop a few bombs, and declare a victory against the Taliban in Afghanistan? BIG MISTAKE. The so called victory, had most of the tribal chiefs agree to switch sides, and defect.

That strategy has now brought in a resurgent Taliban, more lethal.

Invade Iraq? There is STILL a big debate within the Pentagon, and the debate is about whether we should have focused more on Afghanistan, instead of Iraq.

Now here is the kicker...we invade Iraq, with limited resources, and are going to end up being there for years, if not decades from now. We allowed most of the Iraqi military to escape within the civilian population. We failed to secure the country after the invasion. And now, due to Rumsfeld's mis-management of both wars, we are now fully paying the price.

Rumsfeld was not a hero. Instead, he was a fraud. And, he needed to be removed from power.

There is a war on terrorism, no matter how you slice it. It will be fought generations from now. And, its high time we woke up. And, while under Rumsfeld's command, the USA Military has blown a major chance for victory in places like Afghanistan.

Rumsfeld was right on one aspect...about chronic unemployment and rancid living conditions within the middle east. But he was very wrong also...there are conditions all over the world that must be cleaned up too, for these are the same conditions that spawn wars...all that is different is a change of climate. And what rips me, is his gross statements against muslims, has not only managed to stir up a giant hornets nest, just in the middle east, but world wide also.

And, if I am not mistaken, the same media monsters that were blasting him about his constant failures, are the same media monsters he allowed to be embedded with allied forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq in the first place.

I can only hope, that Rumsfeld would be tried for treason, and punished accordingly under the law, if we ever have to pay the price for this bumbling fool's mistake. And, ifhistory is to be a judge, Rumsfeld will be remembered as the only sec def to hold the same job twice, but he was also the same sec def to screw up the job twice also.

Tried for treason? You're a ****-ing nutter.

[Laworkerbee]

I can only hope, that Rumsfeld would be tried for treason, and punished accordingly under the law, if we ever have to pay the price for this bumbling fool's mistake. And, ifhistory is to be a judge, Rumsfeld will be remembered as the only sec def to hold the same job twice, but he was also the same sec def to screw up the job twice also.

Treason eh? I'd hate to see what you would have in store for Robert McNamara or Henry Kissenger.

[LMAV]

Treason eh? I'd hate to see what you would have in store for Robert McNamara or Henry Kissenger.

Lets not forget about Murtha, who's smear against fellow Marines were used in terrorist propaganda.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I literally lost any respect I had left for this moron, his following and the idiots who wanted him to stay as Defence M. He doesn't have the slightest clue of the simplest things such as Why Saudis prefer to take in outer labour then use other arabs, its one of the saudis security strategy s. I didnt know we muslims, a billion of this planet were all a lazy bunch because of our religion. What a moron!!!

This just in:



Saudi Marriage 'Expert' Advises Men in 'Right Way' to Beat Their Wives
Friday, November 02, 2007

Move over, Dr. Phil, there's a new relationship expert in town.
He's Saudi author and cleric, "Dr." Muhammad Al-'Arifi, who in a remarkable segment broadcast on Saudi and Kuwaiti television in September, counseled young Muslim men on how to treat their wives.

"Admonish them – once, twice, three times, four times, ten times," he advised. "If this doesn't help, refuse to share their beds."

And if that doesn't work?

"Beat them," one of his three young advisees responded.
"That's right," Al-'Arifi said.

He goes on to calmly explain to the young men that hitting their future wives in the face is a no-no.

"Beating in the face is forbidden, even when it comes to animals," he explained. "Even if you want your camel or donkey to start walking, you are not allowed to beat it in the face. If this is true for animals, it is all the more true when it comes to humans. So beatings should be light and not in the face."

His final words of wisdom?

"Woman, it has gone too far. I can't bear it anymore," he tells the men to tell their wives. "If he beats her, the beatings must be light and must not make her face ugly.

"He must beat her where it will not leave marks. He should not beat her on the hand... He should beat her in some places where it will not cause any damage. He should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child -- slapping them right and left.

"Unfortunately, many husbands beat their wives only when they get mad, and when they start beating, it as if they are punching a wall – they beat with their hands, right and left, and sometimes use their feet. Brother, it is a human being you are beating. This is forbidden. He must not do this."
Link to story & video (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307680,00.html)


I get what you're saying, but I couldn't resist. I have to respectfully disagree with you - I think that in places like Saudi Arabia - religion very much plays a role in shaping society - and is to a large extent responsible for why there are 25 million Saudis and only 500,000 working in the private sector. I have to think that Rumsfeld didn't choose his words more carefully because he was writing a quick internal memo.

[Mastermind]

Interesting. I'll have to go buy a few of Rummeys books and dig a bit to learn more. Rummy sounds like a real scrapper...and a guy who knows how to play rough. I like his persuit of erronious columnists and his efforts to 'set the record straight". Not enough of that has ever happened under the Bush admin...one reason the bush people have had so much trouble is they have allowed a rabid media full license to kill and acted like total pussies in the face of obviously incorrect press. This only led to much more public whippings of the Admin and ultimately the military. Rummy and bush certainly had the bully pulpit to counter such nonsense and to help bring foucu on the good things the US was doing...we spent a half trillion bucks up armoring hummers and hardly a cent on PR. They should have hired Swartzkoph to generate the PR...he did a fantastic job of it in GW1...We could not stay away from our TVs watching all those "dirty buggars" getting blasted and watching the CNN talking head screaming like little girls and diving for their gas masks and kevlar in their Baghdad hotel rooms. It was absolutely Great! But, the constant hammering about "murderous GI's and Marines" and the "Abuse of the Panty headed prisoners" and the "Korans on toilets in Gitmo" just distracted everyone so much and then the carrying of the water for the enemy in our own congress just sickend people to a point we gres totally disgusted. What is really sickening is how sloppily the second half trillion is being spent...paving camel paths and bringing electricity to people who never saw a lgiht bulb in their entire life...what horse crap.

Well, anyway...after reading this little bit from above, I am gaining a new respect for Rummy...he sounds like my kind of guy.

[Moose]

I think everybody should be asking them selves why he spent so much time personally going after journalists. Is that really what he the secretary of defence should be doing? It sounds a little desperate/aggressive.

[JKD]

I think everybody should be asking them selves why he spent so much time personally going after journalists. Is that really what he the secretary of defence should be doing? It sounds a little desperate/aggressive.

You didn't know? The evil liberal mainstream media is part of a vast conspiracy to destroy America. They meet bi-weekly with the Legion of Doom at a secret volcanic lair to formulate their nefarious plans. As a loyal American it is your job to blame as many things as possible on The Media.

They are failing in their job to act as a PR wing for the administration(as long as that administration is Republican at the time, mind you). And it shouldn't be a difficult job since as we all know republicans can do no wrong.

But yeah anyway, it would certainly seem there were much more important things for Rumsfeld to have been worried about.

[vryhpyammoadded]

I somewhat liked Rummy. Sure he wasn’t perfect and made mistakes and we could have done better but still I think he was going generally in the right direction. Accuse him of Treason? That’s laughable.
And yes, he and the administration should have played heavy against the MSM which is sore need of a thorough bitch slapping back into its proper neutral place.
So crucify me…

[little icebear]

Treason eh? I'd hate to see what you would have in store for Robert McNamara or Henry Kissenger.

I think hanging would be appropriate. p-)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I think everybody should be asking them selves why he spent so much time personally going after journalists. Is that really what he the secretary of defence should be doing? It sounds a little desperate/aggressive.

I think that's his job. Wars under a democracy are a political exercise. They are won or lost based upon the population's will to see them through. In fact, it's the reason why, despite everybody's rather obvious admonition that "we should have gone in with twice as many people" - it's the reason why that was impossible. War is kind of like buying a car - the imperative to buy a car exists regardless of how painful the monthly payments will be - you simply have to make it happen with what you've got. So he was like our car salesman, trying to justify the expenditure to us.

The war has to be constantly sold, and in order to implement it (which after all is the secdef's job - he's the bridge between the civilian and military world) - he has to constantly manage public perceptions of the war. He's the guy with direct access to information from the military. And - big shock here - our past secdefs have done a lot more than just try to get the truth out. They've outright lied and concealed information in order to win...it comes with the job.

[Laworkerbee]

*cough*Sandy Berger*cough**cough**loosing a lung**COUGH*

[Weasel]

Buying a car although you can´t effort it makes you look like an idiot.

[Mastermind]

Buying a car even though you can't afford it gets you laid much more often. Not all things are pure "dollars and cents".

[Mr. JOSHUA]

*cough*Sandy Berger*cough**cough**loosing a lung**COUGH*

What bullshyte.

Not only does he get off, he also gets another top position in the devils cabinet if she's elected........I knocked on wood when I wrote that.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Tried for treason? You're a ****-ing nutter.

Why is that?

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Treason eh? I'd hate to see what you would have in store for Robert McNamara or Henry Kissinger.

McNamara was just plain stupid. Merge weapons programs...the famed M16 rifle, which is now the de facto weapon of the US Armed forces. It started out as a failure, but history knows the rest. The F111...mixed success. Vietnam policies...that's another story. His policies, were in fact stupid.

Kissinger...well, what can I say...he should be in prison right now for human rights violations and war crimes.

Rumsfeld...tried for treason..and punished accordingly...butchered US Defense policy during the first four years of the Bush administration, was to say the least a bumbling affair into incompetence.

The very people we so called were "trying to save from tyranny" and oppression while invading Iraq, is the same people that he screwed over by not preparing for a occupation, and massive rebuilding effort. The part that would be treason in my opinion, is this fools handling of the war in Afghanistan...send special forces in, drop a few bombs, convince a few tribal elders to defect to the Northern Alliance, and declare a hollow victory. Now, Al Qaeda is inside of Pakistan, operating with impunity, those very same tribal elders have now become Taliban again and are resurgent and quite potent, and that same AQ, is now planning more and spectacular attacks against the USA mainland as a result.

[Lambert58]

If we're going to start tyring people for treason, I have a very long list, on which Rummy is so far down that we'll never get to him. I'm going to start on the west coast and work my way east.

[ElHombre]

War is kind of like buying a car - the imperative to buy a car exists regardless of how painful the monthly payments will be - you simply have to make it happen with what you've got.

If that's the case then we're paying for a Porchse and driving around in a Yugo. :roll:


And - big shock here - our past secdefs have done a lot more than just try to get the truth out. They've outright lied and concealed information in order to win...it comes with the job.

Except in this case, we're not winning.

[ViktorNavorski]

Except in this case, we're not winning.Based on...

[ElHombre]

Based on...

Go take a walk down a Baghdad street without guards or armor and if you come back alive, we'll start talking about the 'victory in Iraq'. :lol:

[ViktorNavorski]

Go take a walk down a Baghdad street without guards or armor and if you come back alive, we'll start talking about the 'victory in Iraq'. :lol:I expected originality, the least you can do is give credit where it's do for that comment. But if we're going to play semantics and cherry pick the best and worst as a determinant for any conditions of victory, why don't you do likewise in Ramadi or anywhere in Anbar province or Iraqi Kurdistan and let us know about "defeat in Iraq."

Surely, the point, not miss by anyone that doesn't see thing through partisan filters is that the situation is neither won or lost at the moment. It could still go either way. Comparable to only a short while ago when the pundits were screaming at the top of their lungs about "Civil War...blah...blah...blah," things are a lot better. Making blanket judgment is nothing more than playing politics.

[ElHombre]

I expected originality, the least you can do is give credit where it's do for that comment. But if we're going to play semantics and cherry pick the best and worst as a determinant for any conditions of victory, why don't you do likewise in Ramadi or anywhere in Anbar province or Iraqi Kurdistan and let us know about "defeat in Iraq."

You're the one claiming things are improving in Iraq. Thus you should be the one to take a nice stroll through those places you mentioned without armor or guards. It will be good evidence that things have improved in Iraq. I won't because I don't think risking my life for a foolish cause is a good idea.


Surely, the point, not miss by anyone that doesn't see thing through partisan filters is that the situation is neither won or lost at the moment. It could still go either way. Comparable to only a short while ago when the pundits were screaming at the top of their lungs about "Civil War...blah...blah...blah," things are a lot better. Making blanket judgment is nothing more than playing politics.

War supporters are not 'waiting to see if improvements will occur'. They just don't want to admit the critics have been right all along and that invading Iraq was a bad idea. Stop digging the hole deeper.

[loganinkosovo]

You didn't know? The evil liberal mainstream media is part of a vast conspiracy to destroy America. They meet bi-weekly with the Legion of Doom at a secret volcanic lair to formulate their nefarious plans. As a loyal American it is your job to blame as many things as possible on The Media.



Not quite...they just get the DNC talking points faxed to them every day and go off those.

[JKD]

Not quite...they just get the DNC talking points faxed to them every day and go off those.

One of the problems with today's press IMO. Not a whole lot of real investigative journalism going on. Especially on television. But hey, if you want to see what the RNCs talking points are for the day there's always News Corp.

At least there is Frontline.

The big bad liberal media boogie man and sense of victimhood is pretty deeply ingrained into today's republicans though. I can imagine joe republican bumping his head on the cabinet and shouting "Ouch! Damn media!"

[little icebear]

Rumsfeld...tried for treason..and punished accordingly...butchered US Defense policy during the first four years of the Bush administration, was to say the least a bumbling affair into incompetence.

The very people we so called were "trying to save from tyranny" and oppression while invading Iraq, is the same people that he screwed over by not preparing for a occupation, and massive rebuilding effort. The part that would be treason in my opinion, is this fools handling of the war in Afghanistan...send special forces in, drop a few bombs, convince a few tribal elders to defect to the Northern Alliance, and declare a hollow victory. Now, Al Qaeda is inside of Pakistan, operating with impunity, those very same tribal elders have now become Taliban again and are resurgent and quite potent, and that same AQ, is now planning more and spectacular attacks against the USA mainland as a result.

Don´t forget the war in Iraq, the Prison in Guatanamo and last but certainly not least the fearmongering and undermining of liberty at the homefront.

The neocon administration just kicks ass... can´t imagine how boring the world would be without those cats. p-)

And Rummie is my fave! I mean, of course he´s evil through and through, but he´s a charakter and has got a unique sense of humor!