Rumsfeld is a jerk...again.

[Slug69]

Rumsfeld is incorrigible.

At the presentation of a Medal of Honor to the family of the hero Paul Smith he is still linking the WTC attacks with service in Iraq. It is just brainwashing bull****. Classic propaganda and I believe a total disservice to the family of the recipient.

It isn't overt, he just manages to bring up the coincidence that the day of the MOH ceromony was also the date the WTC towers were opened 30 years ago.

Pure slime.

We were openly supporting Saddam at the height of his butchery and evil business. He should have apologized for not being able to foresee and prevent this soldiers gallant death. At the very least he should have read out the summary of the action and history of the award and skipped the WTC reference. Meh,...what can you expect from an airforce jock anyway?

Full link: http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2005/tr20050405-secdef2441.html

[radx]

I've had a severe disdain for him ever since I foudn out he didn't personally sign the letters to the family of American soldiers KIA'd.

[Pulsar]

Why can't Bush kick him out of DoD?

[dangerclose]

Rumsfeld is incorrigible.

At the presentation of a Medal of Honor to the family of the hero Paul Smith he is still linking the WTC attacks with service in Iraq. It is just brainwashing bull****. Classic propaganda and I believe a total disservice to the family of the recipient.

It isn't overt, he just manages to bring up the coincidence that the day of the MOH ceromony was also the date the WTC towers were opened 30 years ago.

Pure slime.

We were openly supporting Saddam at the height of his butchery and evil business. He should have apologized for not being able to foresee and prevent this soldiers gallant death. At the very least he should have read out the summary of the action and history of the award and skipped the WTC reference. Meh,...what can you expect from an airforce jock anyway?

Full link: http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2005/tr20050405-secdef2441.html

You're right. 9/11 has absolutely nothing to do with why we're in Iraq.
And nevermind OEF and OIF ... since he used a machine to sign his signature for death letters ... Rumsfeld has to go! How can he be so insensitive?

P*ssies.

http://img150.echo.cx/img150/8500/whywefight7gu.jpg

[Midav]

It's arguable what I am about to say and I won't engage in a flame fest... but another way to see it:

Saddam supported PA attacks against Israel. One of the main reasons OBL attacked the US was and is for our support of Israel.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I realize there is a lot more to it, but just one way of seeing it....

[obd]

Uh. maybe because Rumsfeld is actually Bush's boss....................

If Rumsfelds not personally signing soldiers KIA letters back home is a disgrace then what the hell does that make Bush's actions in the face of continued troops deaths and suffering in Iraq.

It seems to hardly faze Bush on his endless vacations..........While US troops die in Iraq Bush and his stupid wife are haming it up together at one 5 star dinner party after another cracking jokes at eachother and acting as if they couldnt be any LESS concerned....................

I find it particularly disgracefull that Bush is hosting high level Saudi's in his own home.........the SAME Saudi's that support international terror and spread Wahabi Islam...........Not only do these members of the Saudi Royal family Bush brings into his own home for dinner condone terror but they are also brutal oppressors of thier own people. They torture, murder, and rape thier own people and Bush actually shakes thier hands!!!! Those very men have US blood on thier hands, not to mention the blood, seat, and tears of innocent Saudi people!!!!! Those very same Saudi Bush is inviting into his home to meet and greet his family are the ones purposely keeping thier borders open to allow Saudi militants to flow in and kill American troops!!! The Saudi's might arrest and kill the most radical elements which directly threaten them but believe me they ARE spreading radical Islam and western hatred abroad. Where is the indignation from that?!?!?

[Ratman]

Rumsfeld is incorrigible.

At the presentation of a Medal of Honor to the family of the hero Paul Smith he is still linking the WTC attacks with service in Iraq. It is just brainwashing bull****. Classic propaganda and I believe a total disservice to the family of the recipient.

It isn't overt, he just manages to bring up the coincidence that the day of the MOH ceromony was also the date the WTC towers were opened 30 years ago.

Pure slime.

We were openly supporting Saddam at the height of his butchery and evil business. He should have apologized for not being able to foresee and prevent this soldiers gallant death. At the very least he should have read out the summary of the action and history of the award and skipped the WTC reference. Meh,...what can you expect from an airforce jock anyway?

Full link: http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2005/tr20050405-secdef2441.html

Agree. Pure slime. And it is shocking how many like to be fed directly from the anus.

[Slug69]

It's arguable what I am about to say and I won't engage in a flame fest... but another way to see it:

Saddam supported PA attacks against Israel. One of the main reasons OBL attacked the US was and is for our support of Israel.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I realize there is a lot more to it, but just one way of seeing it....

Do you have any quotes saying OBL's main reason why OBL attacked the US was because of their support for Israel?

The picture with Saddam smiling with the Two towers being hit is what? Proof there is a link? I would bet my balls that 80% of the people living in the middle east smiled as big when the US was attacked that day. Including the Israelis!

The enemy of my enemy is my friend - Ha! Iraq was our friend when fighting Iran weren't they? - Goose!

I always thought OBL main gripe with the US was they didn't fully leave Saudi Arabia and Kuwaitt after the first Gulf war. It's bull**** anyway, OBL has hijacked Islam to promote his own ego and business interests.

[sp2c]

Rumsfeld is incorrigible.

At the presentation of a Medal of Honor to the family of the hero Paul Smith he is still linking the WTC attacks with service in Iraq. It is just brainwashing bull****. Classic propaganda and I believe a total disservice to the family of the recipient.

It isn't overt, he just manages to bring up the coincidence that the day of the MOH ceromony was also the date the WTC towers were opened 30 years ago.

Pure slime.

We were openly supporting Saddam at the height of his butchery and evil business. He should have apologized for not being able to foresee and prevent this soldiers gallant death. At the very least he should have read out the summary of the action and history of the award and skipped the WTC reference. Meh,...what can you expect from an airforce jock anyway?

Full link: http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2005/tr20050405-secdef2441.html

agreed the WTC reference was uncalled for ... but then again so was the whole 'supporting Saddam at the height of his butchery and evil business'

your no better then Rumsfeld is

[pathfinder82]

I dont think people have any idea how dangerous it is having a loose cannon like rumsfeld running our military. In a book entitled "in the company of soldiers" commanding general Petraeus of the 101st airborne repeatedly brings up the short cummings of the war plan we took to Iraq. He is the only active commanding general to speak out like this, there are plenty of retired generals who have as well. Contrary to popular belief there were some fierce fights on the way to baghdad, some spearhead elements almost got overrun by entire divisions of the enemy early on because certain aircraft mostly attack chopppers had been flown north to fill the gap that the non landings in turkey had caused. There was also a "small" oversite in regards to spray paint used to paint the rotor blades of choppers after every mission. The desert sand blasts the rotors upon lift offs and set downs, so the choppers are washed and the rotors are painted or wrapped in tape. Well no paint showed up so it kept close support choppers on the ground, a small mistake that got people killed. Somehow all the paint got stowed on a ship waiting to dock in turkey, that we now know had to sail to the gulf to unload its cargo, had that ship been able to dock it would have only been a matter of hours to fly it south to where it could have been put to use. The attack choppers role those early days of the war was to not only hunt down the medina divisions and rep. guard, they were also supposed to play a large role in covering our supply lines, supply lines like jessica lynch's.

[gaijinsamurai]

In my opinion, Bush and his pals have shown a terrible lack of judgement in their appointees: A religious nut (Ashcroft), and later someone who condoned torture (Gonzalez) for Attorney General, someone who has shown he can't work with people of differing opinions (Bolton) as UN Ambassador.....Rummy is in good company!

[Slug69]

agreed the WTC reference was uncalled for ... but then again so was the whole 'supporting Saddam at the height of his butchery and evil business'

your no better then Rumsfeld is

Saddam was killing more of his own people when we were supporting him in the eighties. With the help of at least $3 billion of US funds and credits.

It was at it's height. Don't worry, we weren't alone in the support of Saddam at this time.

[SilviaK]

Gentleman, what Rumsfeld has done is wrong. Yes, there were many short comings in this war, as in Rumsfeld didn't think that we needed logistics units in Iraq for the initial strike. This is beside the fact. Theres nothing you or I can do about this, so suck it up.

But I believe that we are in Iraq to root out the terrorist's in the Middle East. To bring them to the ones who know how to kill them best. To fight them man to creature. We brought all these Insurgents (ones that I'm sure would be planning attacks on the U.S right now if they weren't tied up fighting our Marines) out of the woodwork to fight the ones who are trained to fight them. The terrorists picked with our civilians when they attacked the Twin Towers. They were cowards in the fact that they didn't think we would **** with them because no past president has ever really tried to do anything. Bush don't give 2 ****s about WMDs, its all about giving us a foothold in the Middle East in order to uproot terrorist organizations.

Everyone is so naive. We haven't even lost the number of people we lost in the 9/11 attacks.

Quit watching the CNN bull**** and think for yourself.

[Kitsune]

Rumsfeld is a jerk...again



Was there a period in between during which he stopped with it? I seem to have missed it... :(

[sp2c]

agreed the WTC reference was uncalled for ... but then again so was the whole 'supporting Saddam at the height of his butchery and evil business'

your no better then Rumsfeld is

Saddam was killing more of his own people when we were supporting him in the eighties. With the help of at least $3 billion of US funds and credits.

It was at it's height. Don't worry, we weren't alone in the support of Saddam at this time.
I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying it's not relevent in a topic about this soldiers' ceremony

has nothing to do with the death of this soldier or the way he died

[toki]

Gentleman, what Rumsfeld has done is wrong. Yes, there were many short comings in this war, as in Rumsfeld didn't think that we needed logistics units in Iraq for the initial strike. This is beside the fact. Theres nothing you or I can do about this, so suck it up.

But I believe that we are in Iraq to root out the terrorist's in the Middle East. To bring them to the ones who know how to kill them best. To fight them man to creature. We brought all these Insurgents (ones that I'm sure would be planning attacks on the U.S right now if they weren't tied up fighting our Marines) out of the woodwork to fight the ones who are trained to fight them. The terrorists picked with our civilians when they attacked the Twin Towers. They were cowards in the fact that they didn't think we would f*** with them because no past president has ever really tried to do anything. Bush don't give 2 ****s about WMDs, its all about giving us a foothold in the Middle East in order to uproot terrorist organizations.

Everyone is so naive. We haven't even lost the number of people we lost in the 9/11 attacks.

Quit watching the CNN bull**** and think for yourself.

You again relate this war DIRECTLY to 9/11. And to make it clear: Iraq now attracts terrorists, but terrorists actually come from all the countries like pakistan, saudi arabia or yemen. The country itself has never been special in that way. It was a secular dictatorship even Osama bin laden opposed.
A strategic fight against terrorists doesn't really exist. Terrorist are not like an army or a country, you cannot overrun them. Every child, born in the middle east can be another terrorist, when the ideology is spread like it is right now.

[Midav]

It's arguable what I am about to say and I won't engage in a flame fest... but another way to see it:

Saddam supported PA attacks against Israel. One of the main reasons OBL attacked the US was and is for our support of Israel.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I realize there is a lot more to it, but just one way of seeing it....

Do you have any quotes saying OBL's main reason why OBL attacked the US was because of their support for Israel?

The picture with Saddam smiling with the Two towers being hit is what? Proof there is a link? I would bet my balls that 80% of the people living in the middle east smiled as big when the US was attacked that day. Including the Israelis!

The enemy of my enemy is my friend - Ha! Iraq was our friend when fighting Iran weren't they? - Goose!

I always thought OBL main gripe with the US was they didn't fully leave Saudi Arabia and Kuwaitt after the first Gulf war. It's bull**** anyway, OBL has hijacked Islam to promote his own ego and business interests.

As said, it's arguable what I said and I won't go into detail as it would become a frivolous argument on either side.

Here's the US support of Israel part:


New Osama bin Laden Video Contains Anti-Israel and Anti-American Statements

The following are excerpts from the transcript of the most recent videotape of Osama bin Laden. As in previous statements, bin Laden is shown making repeated references to an American "crusade" against Islam. He claims the brand of terrorism carried out by operatives of his Al Qaeda network against America is "a good accepted terrorism" with the goal of ending U.S. support for Israel, "who is killing our children." The pan-Arabic satellite channel Al-Jazeera broadcast the video on December 26, 2001:

"After three months passed since the blessed attacks against the global infidelity, against America, the head of infidelity, and after almost two months passed since the beginning of the vicious crusade campaign against Islam, we would like to talk about some of the meanings of these events. These events revealed many issues that are significant to Muslims.

"It became very clear that the West in general and America, head of the infidels in particular, bear hate and grudge against Islam and Muslims that cannot be described.

"And those who lived during the continuous bombardment of different kinds of bombs by the American planes know that very well how many innocent villages were demolished and how many millions of innocent people were misplaced in this harsh cold weather.

"Those weak men, women and children had to live in tents in Pakistan. These are innocent, just for a suspicion and America launched its campaign; those who claim humanity and freedom. We have seen here their true criminal ways …

"Our terrorism is a good accepted terrorism because it's against America, it's for the purpose of defeating oppression so America would stop supporting Israel, who is killing our children."

From (http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp)

Yes. Osama doesn't like our support of Israel. He's mentioned it plenty of times.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Clearday-TRForce]

toki;

Every child, born in the middle east can be another terrorist, when the ideology is spread like it is right now.


actually,not like this. Every child,born in there have strong nationalist feelings agaist other countries,you call them "terrorist"...they call theirselves "nationalist"... I think the world made someones "terrorists"...I think it s complicated than we think here.

[el borracho]

Reasons like that are exactly why most people that are against the Bush administration feel the way they do. Bush supporters don't see that, but instead lump us in with the extreme liberals thinking that everyone against Bush was gonna celebrate Kerry's inauguration with a massive gay wedding/ abortion fest.

There are a lot of us that understand the greater good of the Iraq war but do not appreciate a president who repeatedly lies to his people (or is being manipulated by his associates,it's hard to tell) does business with real terrorists, and brushes away serious domestic issues on a crusade to save himself from mediocrity.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Bah, the only way to not risk criticism is to do nothing. That seems to have been the modus operandi of previous administrations, and what got us here in the first place.

Rummy may not be a feel-good glad-hander, but at least he has done something. For those who condemn what has been done- how many more catastrophic attacks on the US have there been since 9/11? Why is democracy taking hold -albeit slowly- in the Middle East? Is it a convenient coincidence? Has Iraq been forced to obey the conditions the agreed to during the 1991 cease-fire? Do we now know the status of the WMD programs in Iraq? Why has Syria been pressured out of Lebanon? Of course mistakes have been made- find me a government that doesn't make them. At least the current administration realizes that we are not at the end of history just yet.

Left to the old way of engaging terrorists and Saddam, we'd still be taking it in the *ss, wringing our hands, watching the UN pay Saddam to brutalize his people, and lobbing the occasional cruise missile at empty tents. That may be a better way to some, but it's not for me.

[Laworkerbee]

The picture with Saddam smiling with the Two towers being hit is what? Proof there is a link? I would bet my balls that 80% of the people living in the middle east smiled as big when the US was attacked that day. Including the Israelis!

Slug69

If you seriously believe Israelis smiled when the Twin Towers were hit, I got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.Don't bet your balls so lightly man, otherwise.....someone make take em

[nahimov]

Bah, the only way to not risk criticism is to do nothing. That seems to have been the modus operandi of previous administrations, and what got us here in the first place.

Rummy may not be a feel-good glad-hander, but at least he has done something. For those who condemn what has been done- how many more catastrophic attacks on the US have there been since 9/11? Why is democracy taking hold -albeit slowly- in the Middle East? Is it a convenient coincidence? Has Iraq been forced to obey the conditions the agreed to during the 1991 cease-fire? Do we now know the status of the WMD programs in Iraq? Why has Syria been pressured out of Lebanon? Of course mistakes have been made- find me a government that doesn't make them. At least the current administration realizes that we are not at the end of history just yet.

Left to the old way of engaging terrorists and Saddam, we'd still be taking it in the *ss, wringing our hands, watching the UN pay Saddam to brutalize his people, and lobbing the occasional cruise missile at empty tents. That may be a better way to some, but it's not for me.

I don't know why Lebanon is credited to Bush. He has done zero there. Obviously Lebonese did not want Syria in their country for a loooong time now. This has NOTHING to do with Iraq. Things of the same nature are happening all over the world. Ukraine for example. Why, Bush is trying to get credit for that one too I think.

[EsoognomEhT]

Maybe Hoon & Rumsfeld should get together

[Laworkerbee]

nahimov

and he problably could since they supplied Ukrainian opposition with money woot

[nahimov]

nahimov

and he problably could since they supplied Ukrainian opposition with money woot

But he did not pay the people to revolt against thier corrupt government. Democracy needs to happen from within countries it is not a desease that spreads. That idea is just stupid.

[Laworkerbee]

Nothing happens without money, only the niave believe otherwise

[nahimov]

Nothing happens without money, only the niave believe otherwise

The pro government guy had even more money from Russia. Did not help him much.

[askDNA]

I have some respect for Rumsfeld, considering he WAS a professional Naval Aviator and not this Air National Guardsman protecting Texas from the Viet Cong.

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/images/chickenhawk.jpg

[pathfinder82]

Reasons like that are exactly why most people that are against the Bush administration feel the way they do. Bush supporters don't see that, but instead lump us in with the extreme liberals thinking that everyone against Bush was gonna celebrate Kerry's inauguration with a massive gay wedding/ abortion fest.

There are a lot of us that understand the greater good of the Iraq war but do not appreciate a president who repeatedly lies to his people (or is being manipulated by his associates,it's hard to tell) does business with real terrorists, and brushes away serious domestic issues on a crusade to save himself from mediocrity.


awsome post.


I mean how many times do we need to see a submarine surface and hit a civillian boat leading to deaths among its passengers, only to learn that the person at the controls was a texas buisness man with ties to the Bush family. If that was a democratic administration you would never hear the end of it, its plain to see the republicans control the media. How else could thing like this get maybe one week, if that, of play. I mean we have never had an administration look this guilty and dirty, I cant wait until the crap comes out years later, im sure collin powell is chomping at the bit.

Might I remind people, this administration hasnt done a thing for us at home, and dont say they secured our country, they have not, just travel or cross a border, nothing has changed.

[Slug69]

I posted this thread because even at a ceremony celebrating the actions of one of Americas finest soldiers Rumsfeld was still using it as a podium to pump propaganda. It says a lot about the man and the administration he is a part of.

In a post above someone mentions the invasion wasn't about WMD but about getting a foothold in the Middle East to fight terrorism and uproot their bases. If this was the case, fine. It is just a shocking shame that the US Govt. doesn't give a rats about the people caught in the crossfire. The US govt has paid out over 14,000 claims for wrongful death because of careless/accidental gunfire. The payouts are approx. $200.00. That is the value of an Iraqi's life. The amount of attacks with IED's and VBIED's are increasing - this information was inadvertently released in the report on the Italian Journalist roadblock incident. There is no end of the amount of people lining up to become suicide bombers. How do you combat that? How do you defeat an enemy who has nothing to lose? Perseverance?

If it is about getting a foothold in the Middle East to uproot terrorism that means the US has no intention to eventually leave. How would the American public react knowing this. If uprooting terrorism is what we are trying to do, why haven't we gone into Pakistan with crushing force to find the biggest terrorist financier of them all. The war in Iraq was not about terrorism, it was a get square and a diversion from the real political problem that OBL's escape into Pakistan represented.

The US Govt. knows they will never be able to force countries like Iraq and Afghanistan into thriving democracies just because they are there. Those sort of changes have to come from within at their own pace, not with an M4 held at your back.

Sgt. Paul Smith died protecting his buddies, sent to fight in a god forsaken war. I don't think Mr Rumsfeld would ever do the same for his buddies. I don't know if he even has any real buddies at all.

[ElHombre]

I have some respect for Rumsfeld, considering he WAS a professional Naval Aviator and not this Air National Guardsman protecting Texas from the Viet Cong.

and exactly who did you vote for last november?

[pathfinder82]

Its weird, I liked rumsfled at first, I thought here is a no nonsense type of guy, now I know he is full of crap. The person who has the biggest gripe with rumsfeld has to be Gen. Franks. Everytime rumsfeld is asked about troop strength he defers saying "it was what Gen. Franks called for". That is BS, rumsfeld butted heads with Franks and others on troop strength before the invasion, but he got his way. People in the pentagon were deeply worried and internal memos began to fly around the building. They were not worried about troop strength during the initial push(although indications are we got pretty lucky) into Iraq, they were worried about numbers when the fighting stopped, during mop-up and reconstruction, and hey guess what...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Reasons like that are exactly why most people that are against the Bush administration feel the way they do. Bush supporters don't see that, but instead lump us in with the extreme liberals thinking that everyone against Bush was gonna celebrate Kerry's inauguration with a massive gay wedding/ abortion fest.

There are a lot of us that understand the greater good of the Iraq war but do not appreciate a president who repeatedly lies to his people (or is being manipulated by his associates,it's hard to tell) does business with real terrorists, and brushes away serious domestic issues on a crusade to save himself from mediocrity.


awsome post.


I mean how many times do we need to see a submarine surface and hit a civillian boat leading to deaths among its passengers, only to learn that the person at the controls was a texas buisness man with ties to the Bush family. If that was a democratic administration you would never hear the end of it, its plain to see the republicans control the media. How else could thing like this get maybe one week, if that, of play. I mean we have never had an administration look this guilty and dirty, I cant wait until the crap comes out years later, im sure collin powell is chomping at the bit.

Might I remind people, this administration hasnt done a thing for us at home, and dont say they secured our country, they have not, just travel or cross a border, nothing has changed.

I actually thought this post was a joke. Honest to God - I did. I kept waiting for the punchline...but there wasn't one.

I hereby declare this post as the John F. Kerry Grasping at Straws Award winner for this week. I've seen people try to pin all kinds of half-assed things on Bush, but blaming him for a submarine hitting a boat is an act of pure, undiluted genius. I bow to you, Sir. Your prize package of Breck shampoo and recycled custom printed Post-It notes with "President" crossed out and "Senator" penciled in will arrive shortly. :lol:

[pathfinder82]

nice try jerkoff

[walford]

The Republicans control the media? Given that I formerly did research and written a few editorials for Accuracy In Media (http://aim.org/) for over a year, all I can say is... rofl rofl rofl

Put 'CBS' into AIM's search box and you get 100 results. Same for the other networks. Reed Irvine (http://www.aim.org/guest_column/2292_0_6_0_C/) (RIP) made a career out of Leftist media bias. The Media Research Center (http://www.mrc.org/) isn't doing too shabbily either.

Take a look at a little review I did of the NY Times (http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2003/nov12.html) for example.

Don't get me started...

[pathfinder82]

and your a republican so what.

[Ratman]

The Republicans control the media? Given that I formerly did research and written a few editorials for Accuracy In Media (http://aim.org/) for over a year, all I can say is... rofl rofl rofl

Put 'CBS' into AIM's search box and you get 100 results. Same for the other networks. Reed Irvine (http://www.aim.org/guest_column/2292_0_6_0_C/) (RIP) made a career out of Leftist media bias. The Media Research Center (http://www.mrc.org/) isn't doing too shabbily either.

Take a look at a little review I did of the NY Times (http://www.aim.org/publications/briefings/2003/nov12.html) for example.

Don't get me started...

Please don't get him started. For every one of your studies Walford, their must be 28 that state otherwise.

As for AIM, it's just another paid-for media blitz for the rightist media:
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=674q6oftmr359?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Accuracy+in+Media&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02a

Edit: Interesting further tidbit
http://www.answers.com/topic/media-bias?hl=accuracy&hl=media

Covers something that I had never heard of: 'hostile media effect" whereby an indvidual is likely to see the media as skewed against their position(s). Just as you see the NYTimes as biased, I see the FoxNews biased.

Also, and I hope you would agree that, just because one does research on an issue doesn't make their viewpoint correct. I'm sure Wolfowitz did research on how to run an occupation....

[Ratman]

Bah, the only way to not risk criticism is to do nothing. That seems to have been the modus operandi of previous administrations, and what got us here in the first place.

Rummy may not be a feel-good glad-hander, but at least he has done something. For those who condemn what has been done- how many more catastrophic attacks on the US have there been since 9/11? Why is democracy taking hold -albeit slowly- in the Middle East? Is it a convenient coincidence? Has Iraq been forced to obey the conditions the agreed to during the 1991 cease-fire? Do we now know the status of the WMD programs in Iraq? Why has Syria been pressured out of Lebanon? Of course mistakes have been made- find me a government that doesn't make them. At least the current administration realizes that we are not at the end of history just yet.

Left to the old way of engaging terrorists and Saddam, we'd still be taking it in the *ss, wringing our hands, watching the UN pay Saddam to brutalize his people, and lobbing the occasional cruise missile at empty tents. That may be a better way to some, but it's not for me.

I see your point about action and criticism 2Sheds. But the point, as I see it, is that in a democracy, there is supposed to be some transparency, some truthfulness, in the decision making process. That means no invasion of Iraq based on lies (even if there are a number of positive benefits), no bashing into peoples heads the non-connection between 9/11 and Saddam.

We elect leaders to make responsible decisions based on the facts at hand. As is often the case, mistakes are made. It's not the mistakes, it's the knowingness of Rummy et al that they are saying one thing and doing another. And I don't care what side of the aisle one is on - that type of leadership is taking us (and the world) down the wrong track, IMO.

[walford]

and your a republican so what.
1. There is plenty of evidence disproving your gratuitous assertion that the GOP controls the media -- namely a long history of documented bias.
2. One cannot register party affiliation in the Commonwealth of Virginia, so I have no idea of what source you have.

I have indeed explained -- in great detail -- my ideological positions on this board. No mention of political party was offered.

Apparently you are fond of making definitive statements based upon assumptions that are not founded in fact. From that, one could take some educated guesses as to YOUR affiliations...

For every one of your studies Walford, their must be 28 that state otherwise.This coming from someone who, when confronted with piles of evidence that Saddam had ties (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=682755&highlight=#682755) to international terrorism, simply dismissed it with "...it has all been explained or debunked before..." and offered no evidence to the contrary. So forgive me if I remain skeptical of your alleged 28:1 ratio of evidence that the Mainstream Media is actually a circle-jerk society for the GOP.


As for AIM, it's just another paid-for media blitz for the rightest media:
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=674q6oftmr359?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Accuracy+in+Media&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02aAIM makes no pretense that it is non-partisan. It was created specifically to counter the Leftist bias in the media. Such bias created such a hunger for alternative sources of info, that other commentary organizations emerged. The very success of conservative talk radio stands as clear evidence that Big Media still leaves a void that begs to be filled.

Because of people like Reed Irvine, the Philosopher Kings simply do not have a monopoly on the media anymore. Bless him for that. As I stated in my NY Times piece, a functioning democracy must have an informed electorate, not a propagandized one. Too bad if you don't like it.

The reason that the Leftist commentary shows have not enjoyed staying power is because THAT point of view already saturates the entire culture. Of course under their breath, the elitists mutter that the reason is that the majority of the American people are just too stupid to appreciate their nuanced wisdom.

I am one of those from a blue collar background who decided to go into the belly of the beast and make a point of reporting what makes him tick. It's not pretty, either.

[walford]

That means no invasion of Iraq based on lies (even if there are a number of positive benefits)What lies, pray tell? That it turned out that there was no WMD in Iraq? There is a big difference between acting on incorrect/inadequate intelligence and deliberately spreading falsehood. What truly is a lie is that the invasion was based upon lies. Insofar as these benefits are concerned, it must truly be galling to those who advocated 'containment' to be shown wrong. 12 years the Iraqi people languished and died wholesale under a UN-approved 'peace' while Westerners profitted -- many of whom were the same ones who opposed Saddam's forcible removal. And yet Bush is still demonized for the cruelty of ending such a bestial regime.

, no bashing into peoples heads the non-connection between 9/11 and Saddam.Another distortion is that anyone in the Bush admin said that there was a DIRECT connection between Saddam and 9/11. Bush was talking about finishing the job his father foolishly left undone BEFORE 9/11 ever happened. What is indeed demonstrable is ties between Saddam and international terrorism. But you've already shown no openness to entertain that [see my previous post].

We elect leaders to make responsible decisions based on the facts at hand. As is often the case, mistakes are made. [that much is true] It's not the mistakes, it's the knowingness of Rummy et al that they are saying one thing and doing another. [any examples, or is this another Leftist mantra?] And I don't care what side of the aisle one is on - that type of leadership is taking us (and the world) down the wrong track, IMO. [We have had fully enough of the other track offered by the previous administration, thank you very much.]

[Yosy]

Bah, the only way to not risk criticism is to do nothing. That seems to have been the modus operandi of previous administrations, and what got us here in the first place.


Better to do nothing than do everything wrong. And to those that say that Iraq attracts those that would be otherwise preparing terrorist attacks in the US - has everyone forgot about A-stan?

Rumself not signing himself the KIAs... that's just the lowest thing a person in his position could do :fork:

[2Sheds_Jackson]

This is tiptoeing into tinfoil hat territory. And OMG you guys got Walford started. Now I'm going to have to stand in the bucket and sing (sorry...old Monthy Python joke) He's sure to bury us all under a heap of reference material!

Listen - any assertion that the mass media is biased to the right is laughable. Even assuming that Fox news is biased to the right -assume for the sake of argument that they are - who else is there? Was Dan Rather following the wishes of the right when he made up the anti-Bush story? Are the other networks - CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, PBS - and innumerable newspapers falling in line with their constant barrage of anti-Bush and anti-war coverage? Where was the firewall of Bush endorsements during the last election from the media? It's sheer idiocy to look at the evidence and state that.

Blaming Bush for sinking a boat is also a bit odd, don't you think? I only bring it up again because it illustrates the mindset that can assign blame where there clearly is none. You may as well blame him for your pen running out of ink.

I won't even bother addressing the bogus posts about starting wars based on lies or the rest of the usual transparent half-truths served up as flame bait. If people cannot or will not acknowledge established historical facts, there is little to be gained from entertaining their fantasies.

About Rumsfeld & the KIA paperwork - have all past SECDEFs personally signed that paperwork? It was my impression that in previous wars, it was the unit's CO that sent the condolence letters. It would seem to me that it was probably a silly idea for these letters to be "from" a member of the national leadership - it appears to be little more than a feel-good gesture to begin with. We all know that the US Secretary of Defense did not personally know, or even know of the person who was killed. Still, it was a bad idea to first commit to sending the letters, then only sign them mechanically. Bad form. IMHO these letters should originate back down where they used to, and keep the system honest.