(POLL) Most Americans Are Stupid, Ungrateful Fucks and Fascist Sympathizers

[Centexfarmer]

Short answer?

No.

Just those who continue to support Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

My opinion.

 

[Ginge]

I gather he's not running for the presidency?

 

[iman]

Apparently, "stay the course" and "cut and run" and and "adapt to win" weren't working. Now Americans who oppose the war are appeasing fascism. I think Rove is running out of steam.

 

[Txgoodoldboy]

This is the pot calling the kettle black! As for as I'm concerned, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are the fascist.

 

[smelter]

What gall! What unmitigated gall!!!!

This loser calling us stupid when every plan he's authored has failed. This loser calling us stupid when every prediction he made has proven to be wrong.

This guy shouldn't only be fired for incompetence, he should be prosecuted for criminal stupidity in time of war.

History will not be kind to this moron ..... it's just too bad that the sonofabitch is too fucking old to still be alive when it's written.

 

[naked gent]

Its a republican myth that those who don't agree with them hate america and believe the U.S. is the single cause of the worlds problems. The war in Iraq has many critics, some with medals on their chests, and virtually none of them believe the view that Rummy would foist upon them. I guess if your him its better to attack views you assign your critics than to defend your own sorry actions.

I also think the Hitler appeasemant analogy is not really accurate. After invading Czechoslovakia Hitler was not confronted and the result was tragic but he ran a country and had an army which means you confront him with your army if you wish to stop him. Terrorists don't have an army but we choose to respond with one anyway.

Rummy mentions London, Madrid and Bali and uses it as proof that we must confront the terrorists and not appease them. Good enough. But he doesn't mention the foiled London plane plot from a couple of weeks ago. The reason he doesn't mention it is that it doesn't fit the world view he's pushing. First off they were not appeased as if they were they would have been allowed to continue with their plot. Second the plot was ended not with military force which is the Rummy way but with police work which the Bush administration has said is not the way to fight this "war".....Police work was how Clinton fought this war and the Bush people don't do anything the Clinton way.

The thing that Rummy can't admit is that stopping terrorist plots IS the work of the police and not the army. I know that means his role in the "war" would be greatly reduced but thats the way it is.

Who could have known he came into office looking for Mr. Demille waiting for his close-up.

 

[jackoroe]

Perhaps I missed it. I didn't see the Secretary of Defense call any Americans Fascist loving cowards. Is there a quote missing or just more theatrics?

 

[ryankeith]

It bothers me greatly that the administration are using soldiers by saying any opposition to current policy is an attack on the soldiers as well.

 

[smelter]

^ I agree. The only question remaining is how many more young, ideological soldiers do we need to sacrifice in order to continue this flawed military solution of theirs?

Of course, these kids did volunteer to serve. They made the mistake of believing that their Commanders would only commit them to winnable wars. And for that mistake they must pay with their lives and limbs while the rest of us sit and watch, like this is some kind of bizarre reality TV show. Heaven forbid that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice must admit they fucked up ...... we certainly can't expect them to sacrifice their places in history because of some minor miscalculations ..... can we?

 

[iman]

Islamofacist seems like a legitimate term, the merging of an anti liberal authoritarianism with the religion of Islam. However, it is a term coined recently by a group (conservatives) with a political agenda and it does nothing to clarify the situation. Islamofacist is a vague epithet used only to describe an enemy. Are Palestinians islamofacists, or Saddam Hussein? The Saudis or Egyptians? How is it useful if only muddies the waters?

The word links an unpopular religion (in the West) with a WWII term of derision. It is useful only to demonize and dehumanize the "enemy". The word just over simplifies the entire problem - just as good propaganda should.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

Unfortunately as election day draws nearer we are going to be bombarded with even more convoluted rhetoric in a lame effort to bolster the GOP and promote the continuance of the murders in Iraq.
I can almost hear John Phillip Sousa playing in the background.
Hopefully the Dems and others will contradict and challenge every allegation and lie that the greatest propaganda machine in history spews out.

 

[Mr.BiGuy]

I find it ironic that Rummy is calling the ciritcs fascists. If there are fasicists in this country, it's coming from the fools in the White House, with their militaristic views and carelessness for the people.

 

[Centexfarmer]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/30/gop.fascism.ap/index.html


^ Here is an article which appears to day that focuses on the terminology used by the Bush administration.

excerpt:
Dennis Ross, a Mideast adviser to both the first Bush and Clinton administrations and now the director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he would have chosen different words.
"The `war on terror' has always been a misnomer, because terrorism is an instrument, it's not an ideology. So I would always have preferred it to be called the `war with radical Islam,' not with Islam but with `radical Islam,"' Ross said.

Why even mention the religion? "Because that's who they are," Ross said.


Is Islamofascist really a political term? I knows its intended to be an ideological term, but is it perhaps too extreme? But can a label be too extreme regarding extremists (if indeed the Bush machine is only intending it to be an alternative to always saying "terrorist")?

Or is it blatant Propaganda which, (as we all discussed in the propaganda thead , The Matter of Propagnada)

http://justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=111456

utilizes certain buzz words, broad brushstrokes and tries to get a visceral, emotional response from the crowd?

Oooooh, Oooooh...*waving my hand in the air*....I choose the latter part of your thread as the answer!

 

[chance1]

OK - so seems to me like everyone is burying Rummy - not shocking

And I will agree that he has not gotten the job done as civilian commander of our armed forces - not a "good job" in Iraq with miscalculations on the civilian response, troops required after the fall of Baghdad, etc - long list of bad moves.

HOWEVER . . . . . .

A couple of things Rummy said that DO make sense

1) Negotiating with terrorists is akin to appeasing Hitler - weakness = danger. I agree. Better to wipe Hezbollah out IMO

2) Love the line (from Churchill) "trying to accomodate Hitler is like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last" - funny and accurate

3) The self loathing in this country is outrageous - the idea that we (the U.S.) is the real source of the world's troubles - I agree with Rummy on this. We represent what is good - sure you'll say corny and misguided - so be it. America is fuckin' GREAT country. That's why everyone wants to come here.

4) The media makes a cause celeb out of Abu Ghraib but ignores war hero stories - TRUE TRUE TRUE - just read the paper - not balanced

So, criticize Rummy all u want for his actions as "go to" for the Iraq situation. But he makes many good points. Don't confuse the 2

 

[chance1]

First, what Hitler is and what terrorism is are not synonymous. The basis for the terrorism, this "Islamofascism," is not the same as Hitler or Nazi Germany either. They aren't the same type of targets and cannot be fought the same way. Second, what does Hezbollah have to do with it? Rumsfeld declared war on them now too?

Yay for Rumsfeld, he can steal quotes well in a failed attempt to equate his failed job with the only war most Americans consider "good," not that there is such a thing as a good war or a bad peace (disagree with that then disagree with Ben Franklin).

Your stance is biased and relative, not as absolute as you or I may wish, and I think it may be ill-researched. The most pressing thing I disagree with is the broad generalization that "everyone wants to come here."

And so? The media is free and reports what it wants; it is no surprise they report on the greatest controversy for ratings and such---it is true for all news, be it local to world. What keeps the administration, Congress, or the RNC from reporting on it themselves? The media filter is not the only way to get news out there. This is a "cry foul" that has always sounded like children on a playground as opposed to responsible leaders of a "fuckin' GREAT country."

I'll take them one by one

Hitler was dangerous - innocent people killed. Terrorists kill innocents. Split hairs all you want. Both were/are dangerous and need to be addressed in a strong way - not appeasement for Hitler, not "how can we help you" to Hezbollah and their terrorist friends. Neither has regard for human life

I think the crocodile line is funny - and true - and it fits

Lots of grey in the world - for sure. Black & white does apply. America holds the high moral ground. Sure, mistakes are made - in judgement of admins - and the actions of individuals. But our system of democracy, our checks and balances - nothing like it. And ask those in California and Texas and Arizona about everyone not wanting to come here.

Yup - the media is free to report. And they choose over and over to report selectively - why? because they are biased. Abu Ghraib was treated like dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. Why? cause bashing the admin is sport for these editors - that's all. Let them write what they want. But I see it for what it is. It's like this board. Any opportunity to bash Bush, his admin, the U.S. Govt, whatever - any conspiracy theory, etc. Sure, write it. Doesn't make it true.

 

[beekman001]

Well we've elected a president who's held onto power via an un precidented ammount of fear mongering so I guess I'd say yes

 

[smelter]

This was Keith Olbermann's comments on Rumsfeld ...... it's a long article but well worth the read:

Aug. 30, 2006 | 8:34 p.m. ET
Feeling morally, intellectually confused?

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American. For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.

It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong. In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.

It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.
It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.
It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.
Most relevant of all — it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.

That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill. History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.

Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards. His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis. It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.

But back to today’s Omniscient ones.

That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely. And, as such, all voices count -- not just his. Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their “omniscience” as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically. And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes?

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

The confusion we -- as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding. But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart — that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism.”

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it. This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed. Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: “confused” or “immoral.”

Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:
“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.

“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”

And so good night, and good luck.

 

[naked gent]

OK - so seems to me like everyone is burying Rummy - not shocking

And I will agree that he has not gotten the job done as civilian commander of our armed forces - not a "good job" in Iraq with miscalculations on the civilian response, troops required after the fall of Baghdad, etc - long list of bad moves.

HOWEVER . . . . . .

A couple of things Rummy said that DO make sense

1) Negotiating with terrorists is akin to appeasing Hitler - weakness = danger. I agree. Better to wipe Hezbollah out IMO

2) Love the line (from Churchill) "trying to accomodate Hitler is like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last" - funny and accurate

3) The self loathing in this country is outrageous - the idea that we (the U.S.) is the real source of the world's troubles - I agree with Rummy on this. We represent what is good - sure you'll say corny and misguided - so be it. America is fuckin' GREAT country. That's why everyone wants to come here.

4) The media makes a cause celeb out of Abu Ghraib but ignores war hero stories - TRUE TRUE TRUE - just read the paper - not balanced

So, criticize Rummy all u want for his actions as "go to" for the Iraq situation. But he makes many good points. Don't confuse the 2

Chance I'll take them 1 by 1 too.

1. Who is talking about negotiating with terrorists? We don't have anything to do with hezbollah and Israel isn't about to negotiate with them either so exactly who is Rummy referring to? And its fine that we can all agree that hezbollah should be eliminated but its a bloody business and no one actually wants to do it....and that includes Israel.

2. Good line. Although I think a more accurate Churchill quote for Rummy would be "when you're going through hell, keep going."

3. Again I'd have to ask what self loathing americans he is talking about. Do you know any cause I sure don't. There are americans who are more willing to admit their countries mistakes than Rummy is but then thats not a high hurdle.

4. True enough but I'd ask you is that a reflection on how the media reports news, including local news (if it bleeds it leads) or a reflection on how the media feels about their country?

Rummy thinks some of us don't understand the threat, some of us don't think Rummy understands how wars are won.

 

[nditalynow]

Rumsfelds' latest comments are nothing more than a continuation of Karl Rove's directions of how to hang on to public opinion. They're obviously desperate! Not long ago they implied Americans were unpatriotic if they had the guts to question their motives with invading Iraq. Now their fascists? Truly the spin of a desperate administration. I admit that many Americans are misinformed and easily manipulated (remember the headlines in the British newspaper after Bushs' re-election in ,04? "How can 58 million people be so stupid?") The Republicans had a better line of b.s. than the Dems in 04. It doesn't mean Americans are stupid. I just wish they would start thinking for themselves instead of letting the media and organized religion tell them how to live their lives. You have some scary people running your country, America. If you care about your country, return control of the government to the Democrats and IMPEACH that fundamentalist, religious nut case!

 

[smelter]

^^ That's a very interesting character study of Rumsfeld, DS. I think you might have hit the nail on the head. From my short stint in the service, albeit only through conscription, I have personally seen this mindset manifested in some career soldiers. The founding fathers, in their wisdom, created a civilian run form of government that should prevent this from getting out of hand but the Bush administration seems to have a unique confluence of dark and secretive personalities in it. Rumsfeld, Rove and Cheney are a very scary and quite dangerous trio. Combining them with a malleable, not too bright, born-again, ex-alcoholic President who literally thinks he's on a mission directed by God .... now we've entered into some real, uncharted waters. Fear is the product they sell and far too many of us have bought in ..... hook, line and sinker.