For my next trick I will make the critics disappear!
DefenseLINK News: Rumsfeld: U.S. Must Stand by Principles in Face of War Opponents — This is directly from a government press release. This guy is losing it.
WASHINGTON, April 17, 2006 – Nobody likes war and every U.S. conflict since the Revolutionary War has had its critics, but some things are worth fighting for, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today on the “Rush Limbaugh Show.”
“There have always been people who have opposed wars. Wars are terrible things,” the secretary said on the syndicated radio program. But if the United States had bowed throughout its history to critics and opponents of war, he said the country wouldn’t exist as it does today.
“We wouldn’t have won the Revolutionary War and we wouldn’t have been involved in World War I or II,” the secretary told Limbaugh. “And if we had, we would have failed, and our country would be a totally different place if it existed at all, if every time there were some critics that we tossed in the towel.”
As just as with these past conflicts, the stakes in the global war on terror couldn’t be higher, Rumsfeld said. “What’s at stake for our country is our way of life. (Terrorists) want to strike at the very essence of what we are … free people,” he said.
related link:
Rumsfeld says h’e untouchable and everything will blow over
Why didn’t Rumsfield go on a real news show? I guess they are trying to hold on to 32% of America left who still think Bush is doing a heck’ve job. I don’t think they need worry about it. I think there is a certain segment that as long as he keeps taxes low and assult weapons legal, it would be OK if Bush ran over kids in the street.
Whether you agree with the Iraq War or not, Pearl Harbor 1941 and New York 9/11 show Isolationism does not work.
What is that saying about those who forget history…
The most sophisticated, tecnologically-advanced, supreme empire in the existence of mankind is up against resurgents using crude but creative explosive devices AND WE ARE LOSING! We are just occupying Iraq. Sitting ducks. Why can’t Rumsfield acknowledge that it takes the support of the people to unite them. He got support by 9/11 in this country. What is he going to entice Iraqis with? Americans waving Iraqi flags? Most Americans are oblivious to the “war” going on except for the families who receive their sons back in black Hefty bags.
Critics, or knowledgeable voices of reason who were operating at high levels in the government that were having to be micro managed by arrogant fools who end up saying “**** this ****!” and retire early just to say something? You decide on today’s Dick Hyprocrite show, now with more Newspeak!
If it’s so damn important, then why didn’t you put in enough troops to do it right in the first place?
What a moron…
Delusional says, What?
The scary thing is that I think these morons actually believe the crap they spew. I mean it’d be one thing if they were all lying, and using the lies to keep themselves where they are, but I honestly think that some of them really believe the stuff they spew.
Rumsfeld has a constituency of one – Dubya. So long as he thinks Rummy is doing a heck of a job, he keeps him. And for Dubya, admitting that things in Iraq are FUBAR (and canning Rummy would be an admission of failure) is simply not an option.
“can’t cut and run”
“they stand up, we stand down”
the sloganeering will continue until the situation improves.
Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq. We started a war that had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Now Iraq is the best recruiting tool that Osama could have ever hoped for. The only fair comparison between the Iraq war and the war of independance, WWI & WWII is that American soldiers died. Rumsfelt should have instead compared the Iraq war with the Vietnam war.
We are in a war with terrorism but this administration does not know how to fight and win this war. The Iraq war is only weakening us and creating more enemies for the US.
Making an analogy does not imply equal status among the components of the analagy. IT’S AN ANALOGY, NOT A HOMOMORPHISM!
But in fact, he is trying to say Iraq is as important as those other wars, so the criticism stands.
Welcome to Rummyworld.
To tell you the truth I listened to this and it wasn’t a bad comparison. The Bush administration knows what they are doing is just and noble freeing these people from a brutal dictator; and it is only one battle in the larger War on Terror, that could last as long as the Cold War and be of greater importance. This administration knows that it can’t let every dissenter influence their policy and he was saying if the Executive listened to dissenters in previous wars they would never have been fought and won and the world would be much worse off than it is today.
OK, lemme see if I’ve got this right. In the 1990s, we did nothing about terrorism. We got attacked February 26, 1993: World Trade Center; November 13, 1995: Bombing of military compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; June 25, 1996: Khobar Towers bombing; August 7, 1998: U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya; October 12, 2000: USS Cole bombing; 9/11.
After 9/11, we go kick arse in Ashcanistan, then Iraq. How many terrorist incidents against America have we had since?
Chickening out was no longer an option after 9/11. Do you really think Zinni or any of the whiney six retirees could have done better? No way.
I think Rummy is doing exactly what should be done. It’s just a bunch of nattering lame-brains that are doing their best to lose this war that’s the problemm.
Secretary Rumsfeld is correct when he says that our way of life is at stake. Our way of life is now to attack nations who have neither threatened nor attacked us; yet perhaps they could. We now invade, destroy and occupy countries who could have weapons of mass destruction yet they do not have them. You know, like Japan did to us at Pearl Harbor.
This is our current ‘ way of life ‘.
By adapting this way of life, we have become the very monsters that we have been carefully and purposely taught to hate and fear.
Allen McDonald, El Galloviejo®
11. “After 9/11, we go kick arse in Ashcanistan, then Iraq. How many terrorist incidents against America have we had since?”
do the daily IED attacks on American troops in Iraq count, if we are, after all, counting Khobar Towers?
Then I would say there have been a lot more terrorist attacks against the US since the invasion.
IVOR >>After 9/11, we go kick arse in Ashcanistan, then Iraq. How many terrorist incidents against America have we had since?
Terrorists attacks on AMERICANS has gone way way up.
(I assume you consider our troops to be Americans.)
Bush just gave the terrorists a closer bead on our guys.
Nicholas >> The Bush administration knows what they are doing
So YOU’RE the last guy who believes that! I was wondering who it was going to be! 😉
Paul — you might explain to the unread that you’re quoting the only US vice-president who resigned after being indicted as a criminal.
What exactly are you objercting to in his comparison?
Are you claiming that there was unanimous support for World War II?
Ever heard of ‘He kept us out of war?’
What exactly are you objercting to in his comparison?
>Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq.
He met with Saddam’s agents many times. After one meeting, he gave a pronouncement supporting Iraq, and encouraging others to do so. Richard Clarke vetoed a mission in Afghanistan because he was worried Osama would ‘boogie to Baghdad’
As I said months ago, Rumsfeld does NOT have the respect of the military. Never has, never will.
Some outsider comes into the Pentagon, basically says “This is the way that we are going to do it and if you don’t like it… get out.”
Well.. they are getting oiut. And they are speaking up.
“The long screwdriver”… best term I have heard in a long time. It is what the soldiers are using to describe what politicians (specifically Rumsfeld) are doing… turning the screws from 20,000 miles away without being able to see the real results, just what some “yes man” cronie is willing to report.
Failure, incompetence, deceit, corruption and greed… that is what the Bush Administration and the Republican controlled government has proven to be all about. It’s time for those few Bush / Republican supporters that remain to swallow their destructive pride and admit that a mistake was made, and that change is needed. The current adminstration has disgraced America.
Zuke is dead right about isolationism being a bad strategy. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happen in Iraq. Other than Great Britain, the Bush approach has next to zero consensus support internationally and seems to be approaching the same at home.
There’s a fine line between staying the course and digging yourself deeper into a zero sum game. If historical analogies to WWII and the American Revolution are going to be used by the “stay the course” supporters, it might be prudent to remember where we would have been in the American Revolution without the French or in WWII had we been going it alone.
Having a greater regard for the experienced perspective of our State Department and Military might have resulted a different result in Iraq than what we have to contend with now. But that ship has sailed. Charting a new course in Iraq seems to have growing support without a lot of concrete suggestions on exactly how to do that other than letting the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds duke it out on their own while we play goalie around the oil fields to protect our energy vulnerability. I agree we owe the innocent people of Iraq more than that. But nothing points to that being doable, now that Pandora’s Box has been opened and the worst elements in their own country have their violent agenda in play with no regard to their own civilians.
I have to agree..usually Paul T. doesn’t quote that bastion of honesty Spiro Agnew!! GOD!! Incredible gaffe.
I think a lot of people have gotten off topic with the comments. This issue is about retired Generals speaking out against the Secretary of Defense!!!! I guess people don’t understand how much this means but when I was in the Army you couldn’t say sh*t about someone who was higher up never mind one of the head guys.
It’s VERY hard to become a General, some people do 25-30 years and never get above Colonel so anyone in that position is probably a VERY patriotic person and for someone like that to speak out against someone that high up in government is a powerful thing.
We really didn’t have enough people in Iraq and the strategy of going into a town and blowing through left many caches left for the taking. We should have moved more slowly and methodically. Also why is only half the Army in Iraq at any given time? I understand soldiers need downtime but why not send everyone until this thing is over? With the additional manpower protecting Iraq would be a lot easier and in my opinion we would be out already. This 12-18 month tour crap is garbage. Personally from what I’ve seen it seems as though the administration wants to prolong this conflict.
Sorry guys for going on too long.
AB CD >>He met with Saddam’s agents many times. After one meeting, he gave a pronouncement supporting Iraq, and encouraging others to do so. Richard Clarke vetoed a mission in Afghanistan because he was worried Osama would ‘boogie to Baghdad’
I’ve HEARD claims like this but I have yet to see very convincing evidence of this. If Bush had such proof, you’d expect him to be giving it a parade down Broadway.
Over here in the Middle East, I don’t know anyone who believe that Saddam and bin Laden collaborated in any significant way.
For starters, they are both bin Laden and Saddam are paranoid power-hungry egomaniacs.
It is inconceivable to me that Saddam would EVER let someone like ban Laden get a toe-hold in his country. And it is almost as hard to believe that bin Laden would every trust a secularist like Saddam.
Maybe there could be lip-service for political reasons but it is very hard to imagine those two collaborating. All the evidence (your claims withstanding) I’ve see proves this to be true.
It seems like even the street sweeper here had a better grasp on political reality than Bush and Rumsfeld did.
Lets see, Rummy’s trying to modernize the military and a few old fossils retire and criticize him. Big Deal. There were just as many retired Generals criticising Clinton, but because he was a liberal the media gave them no airplay. Things are going fine.
After the cold war America remained the sole superpower (hyperpower if we want to use what the French call us). Instead of using that power to expound good and love like Jesus Christ taught us, we have abused that power to bully small countries into “democratic” submission. The neo-cons have made no secret to their desire of complete world domination. But the world is seeing what the Bush clan cannot, and that is that America led by the current administration is corrupt beyond recognition. Our president is suppposed to protect U.S., instead he has put us in direct harm. The world HATES Bush and his Empire which we coincidently are a part of. That hatred extends to individual American citizens because we, by birth into this land, are labelled “Americans”. A label is a dangerous thing. Bush (666) has placed us in the twilight of the end of our Nation of the Free. Feardom has replaced Freedom. Like we saved the Germans from Hitler, Russia/China will save us from Bush.
Actually this blog can be entertaining.
Saddest part in all this Iraq mess is that the loss of freedom seems to be happening in the US.
Also sad is that the remnants of families in Iraq from “collateral” damage are going to be the US’s enemies for the rest of their lives. This admin has created a mess that will take the US years and years to recover from(20-30 yrs. in my estimation). How would you react if a member or all of your family were killed and then refered to as “collateral”
But in early 2000, Zinni told Congress “Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region,” adding, “Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions … Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months.”
Still keeping Fox Snooze in biz, eh?
Attacks on our troops in Iraq during wartime do not count. They are armed, trained to expect this kind of thing, and prepared to respond in kind in case of an attack. Every time these vermin attack our troops openly, they lose big time.
Does anyone else here realize that terrorists/insurgents are wussy pussy sissies?
31. Ah, changing the terms of the debate, eh? Now “attacks on our troops in Iraq during wartime don’t count,” but attacks on our troops in Saudi during “peacetime” do … dead is dead, Ivor. and what about attacks upon our Marines in Beruit? doesn’t Reagan’s fiasco count in the neocon calculus?
face it, the world is a more dangerous since the Iraq war. it not only has unnecessarily put our soldiers in harm’s way, alienated those who might be friendly or neutral, but it is also hampering our ability to deal with the _real_ WMD threat – Iran and hunt down the _real_ 9/11 perpetrators in Afghanistan.
>>He met with Saddam’s agents many times. After one meeting, he gave a pronouncement supporting Iraq, and encouraging others to do so. Richard Clarke vetoed a mission in Afghanistan because he was worried Osama would ‘boogie to Baghdad’
>I’ve HEARD claims like this but I have yet to see very convincing evidence of this
Try reading the 9/11 Commission report. Look up the phrase boogie to Baghdad. Or do you not consider that very convincing either? The US and Russia couldn’t possibly work together given Soviet communism, so I suppose you don’t believe the history books that talk of an alliance between the two countries during World War II?