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

[chance1]

Still on an island on this one - I like islands.

My points are simple - that Rummy's handling of the war and some of his comments are not linked. It's like if you have a friend who has done something bad (perhaps he cheated on you) and then he makes a speech in which some of his statements are true. You can't deny that they're true because he cheated on you.

Couple points

Not a Rummy fan - he has not done a good job

But I think you have to separate his performance in his job from some of his comments

While Hitler and today's terrorists are not the same - they both represent real danger. Used to be the Soviet Union was our greatest concern. Not now - Islamic Fascists (I think it fits) are the biggest threat

In terms of media coverage of Iraq war, Middle East conflict, Bush, his admin - it's clear to me that a disproportionate amount of articles/editorials, etc. focus on the shortcomings of the US and the admin. That's what I see. Not looking for a cheerleading squad. But Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo stories and how the admin failed in Katrina and wiretapping blah blah blah - it's overkill and clearly reflects a POV that is anti admin. Won't even get into the NYT releasing info about financial links to terrorism - nice move - really good for the country. Liberty is a great thing - if you're alive - need the latter to have the former.

As for moral high ground, I think our country exhibits it every day - and thus like most things, it gets taken for granted. Our basis for living is a sound one that transcends admins, individuals, etc. Not that much difference in Amercia really under Clinton, Bush and other Presidents - not much at all.

Alfie - the fact that no on agrees with me - if you think that is bothersome, think again.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Still on an island on this one - I like islands.

My points are simple - that Rummy's handling of the war and some of his comments are not linked. It's like if you have a friend who has done something bad (perhaps he cheated on you) and then he makes a speech in which some of his statements are true. You can't deny that they're true because he cheated on you.

Okay, but there are quite a few us (and not just here on JUB, and in this forum) that feel that those who hold the same "simple" points as you do, aren't looking at the big picture.

All of his comments are linked, because Rumsfeld has shown himself in the court of public opinion that he lives in either:

1. An alternate universe.
2. A complete Black and White World.
3. All of the above.

Lets take your analogy of the "bad friend."

Okay, just because he's a bad friend (he cheated on you), it doesn't mean that he doesn't have a valid point to make.

My question to you is, how much more lattitude do you give this friend if he continues to cheat on you, and WHY is he still your friend in the first place?

Couple points

Not a Rummy fan - he has not done a good job

But I think you have to separate his performance in his job from some of his comments

Wrong.

When he's makes public comments he's on the job.

This isn't public citizen Donny Rumsfeld making comments when the cameras are focused, the lights are one, and the are mikes live and hot. This is the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America.

While Hitler and today's terrorists are not the same - they both represent real danger. Used to be the Soviet Union was our greatest concern. Not now - Islamic Fascists (I think it fits) are the biggest threat

See, here's the problem.

When Communism collapsed in the former Soviet Union, and the Berlin wall came crashing down back in 1989, with it came the collapse of the cause celebre of "Neo-Conservatism" for the previous 50 some-odd years.

Without the "Godless Communists" who is the enemy now?

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, they've gone out looking for enemies to further "the cause." If they couldn't find any they MADE THEM UP. Imagine "Fear Factor" before the advent of "reality television." Except instead of eating bugs, Americans are now being forced to swallow vapid idealogies.

At first it was the percieved decline in morality, then the gays, then Clinton, then all of the above, and the events of 9/11 gave them the opportunity to say ALL OF THE ABOVE. Not to mention the chance to invent terms like "Islamofascism!"

Takes a fascist to know a fascist I guess. (Gawd I've been waiting to say that in this thread, in regard to Rumsfeld's remarks! )

And in your following comments, you appear to have jumped off that Island and have agreed with adding "the media" to thier list of enemies.

In terms of media coverage of Iraq war, Middle East conflict, Bush, his admin - it's clear to me that a disproportionate amount of articles/editorials, etc. focus on the shortcomings of the US and the admin. That's what I see. Not looking for a cheerleading squad. But Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo stories and how the admin failed in Katrina and wiretapping blah blah blah - it's overkill and clearly reflects a POV that is anti admin. Won't even get into the NYT releasing info about financial links to terrorism - nice move - really good for the country. Liberty is a great thing - if you're alive - need the latter to have the former.

I always grew up believing that "the press" was our fourth branch of government' Executive, Legislative, Judicial, and Press. Have you ever given any thought as to why the FIRST AMENDMENT made by our founding fathers to the U.S. Consitution was adopted to have the following words?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

While not Congress themselves, wouldn't you agree that members of the Bush Administration, the Vice-President, and the Secretary of Defense are making an argument to abridge the freedom of speech, the press, and for the assemblage of any persons/parties that disagree with thier failed policies?

What you appear to be decrying here is the fact that the U.S. media, as poorly as they've done thier jobs in the past six years (IMHO), AREN'T reporting the propaganda spewing out of every corner of the Republican controlled U.S. government that they should be.

I honestly don't understand why there are fellow (and apparently so many) Americans who are so quick and eager to give up the very things that America stands for, so that they can be safe from an enemy who's only desire is to destroy everything that America stands for.

"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose." ~ Janis Joplin

Give that away to those in power of our current U.S. government and what's left???

As for moral high ground, I think our country exhibits it every day - and thus like most things, it gets taken for granted. Our basis for living is a sound one that transcends admins, individuals, etc. Not that much difference in Amercia really under Clinton, Bush and other Presidents - not much at all.

So what you're saying is that things are just the same before September 11, 2001, as they are after?

I would be most happy to read some examples of that hypothosis.

We didn't have such a well defined, but yet so generic of an enemy prior to 9/11. Wouldn't you agree?

Alfie - the fact that no on agrees with me - if you think that is bothersome, think again.

Who would that be bothersome too then?

Alfie states his points clearly, succinctly, and quite damned annoyingly, I agree with a lot of what he says, just not his approach in advocating it.

But that's between me and Alfie, I would NEVER attempt to speak in his place, nor would I want him to speak in mine.

I hope that you in no way found any offense in my breaking down your post and questioning you.

I'm just attempting to further the dialogue along without making things too personal.

 

[chance1]

Centex - not personal at all - I disagree with you on most - and I'm not sure I explained myself as well as I hoped

1 - in terms of separating Rummy's job on the war effort and some of his comments - I can do it - I do do it. While you may think all of his comments are politically motivated and perhaps some/most are, I think you have to look at them independantly.

So while I believe he should be replaced in his job - his comments I look at at face value.

My question back to you would be. If John Doe made some of the comments about (not Rummy), would u be so quick to dismiss?

2 - I don't need Rummy or Bush or the Admin to convince me that Al Qaeda, Iran, Hezbollah and the rest of the terror squad are dangerous and if they had their drothers, I would not be here (nor you). I'm not spooked cause Rummy says I should be but rather because they were just trying to blow up 10+ planes out of London plus. Their actions are all I need to be concerned.

3 - Long live the press - but take anything written in print or blogged with a grain of salt - just as you believe Bush and his henchman are trying to railroad u with their view of the world, so does the NY Times and other papers. Abu Ghraib is a great example. It was overblown IMO and the focus on it was clearly politically motivated. This is not questioning their right to do so, but my question would be to what end - and the answer is to undermine the admin.

4 - I think the govt. needs to adjust to the times - and that the Patriot Act saves lives - I support it. I don't feel less free. On the contrary I feel safer. But my point was more that our way of life (other than the impact of 911) is not much different with a Dem Pres than with a Repub Pres.

5 - No one agreeing with me here is expected. It's all relative. Too much similar thinking on this board if you ask me. Too many nodding heads - all very intelligent heads - but I would suggest that:

Too much emphasis on Bush the villain
Too many personal attacks on politicians whom you (not you) disagree with

Good stuff centex

 

[Centexfarmer]

Centex - not personal at all - I disagree with you on most - and I'm not sure I explained myself as well as I hoped

First off I'm impressed with how quickly you whipped off a response. It was much quicker than my response to your post that I quoted from.

Not looking for a "I'm right, and you're wrong thingy" just an intelligent dialogue between two guys who apparently have completely different views of the same world.

1 - in terms of separating Rummy's job on the war effort and some of his comments - I can do it - I do do it. While you may think all of his comments are politically motivated and perhaps some/most are, I think you have to look at them independantly.

So while I believe he should be replaced in his job - his comments I look at at face value.

I can't.

From history, and public record, Rumsfeld has an agenda and a view of the world that I don't subscribe to, and cannot support. Period.

This has nothing to do with my feelings about him as a person. I don't know the guy. I'm sure he has a great sense of humor, and if it not for the fact that he's the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America, and oversees roughly 85 percent of the nation's $44 billion intelligence budget he would most likely be a very entertaining and engaging dinner guest.

My question back to you would be. If John Doe made some of the comments about (not Rummy), would u be so quick to dismiss?

Yes, for the reasons that I illustrated above.

2 - I don't need Rummy or Bush or the Admin to convince me that Al Qaeda, Iran, Hezbollah and the rest of the terror squad are dangerous and if they had their drothers, I would not be here (nor you). I'm not spooked cause Rummy says I should be but rather because they were just trying to blow up 10+ planes out of London plus. Their actions are all I need to be concerned.

You'll get no argument from me here.

However, al-Qaeda took responsibility for 9/11, and the Taliban Government in Afghanistan was harboring them. We "carpeted Afghanistan with bombs" and the Taliban fell.

It's been acknowledged (though not widely) that there is/was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq, but yet here we are. More than 2,600 of our fellow American; fathers, sons, daughters, lovers, friends, DEAD and for what?

I want to be on board! I want to see America succeed! After nearly five years I'm still waiting for my Government to let me on on wtf is going on.

Instead I'm being told that I should just stfu, and "trust them."

I consider myself a patriot, and this Administration has broken my trust too many times to continue blindly following them.

Do you know what "co-dependency" is?

3 - Long live the press - but take anything written in print or blogged with a grain of salt - just as you believe Bush and his henchman are trying to railroad u with their view of the world, so does the NY Times and other papers. Abu Ghraib is a great example. It was overblown IMO and the focus on it was clearly politically motivated. This is not questioning their right to do so, but my question would be to what end - and the answer is to undermine the admin.

I completely agree.

I NEVER believe everything that I read, regardless of the source.

I've been personally miquoted in the newspapers too many times, and I have a better understanding than most about how news stories make it to the press. (It's only relevant to my life outside of this forum so please don't ask.)

As much as you complain about WHAT the U.S. media reports on, I can complain about all of the THINGS that the Media either never reports on, or buries back on page 22A.

4 - I think the govt. needs to adjust to the times - and that the Patriot Act saves lives - I support it. I don't feel less free. On the contrary I feel safer. But my point was more that our way of life (other than the impact of 911) is not much different with a Dem Pres than with a Repub Pres.

Sorry chance. Love ya! Mean it!

But this is where you and I part company.

During the days immediatly after 9/11, GW Bush stepped up to the plate, and for a couple of days America and the rest of the world were united in our grief for what happend that day.

Then Bush and his minions politicized everything, divided this country worse than it's been perhaps since the civil-war, and began to persue an ever changing agenda and the reasons for it almost on a daily basis.

I can't blindly support that.

If the Bush Administration cannot "STAND AND DELIVER" on it's policies, both foriegn and domestic, they no longer deserve to be in power, and in my view are considered to be more of a threat to the United States Constitution and the values in which this country was founded than any terrorist group out there.

As I stated before, I would rather die at the hands of some terrorist, than to die in fear of the current government. (Honestly, I'd do most anything to get rid of both!)

5 - No one agreeing with me here is expected. It's all relative. Too much similar thinking on this board if you ask me. Too many nodding heads - all very intelligent heads - but I would suggest that:

Too much emphasis on Bush the villain
Too many personal attacks on politicians whom you (not you) disagree with

Well, in all honesty, I've never held much regard for those who chose to "go along to get along" just for the sake of an argument.

Just don't get your nose too out of joint, if some fellow JUBbers jump your shit! For some that's the only way that they know how to communicate, and may not even be aware of it.

Good stuff centex

You too!

 

[chance1]

Centex

right back at ya

Rummy is certainly a villainous figure - and history will not treat him well. It is unfortunate that Bush did not let him loose a while back. But just as I respect your right to speak, I respect his. I don't think he loses that right because he made some bad decisions.

Stay the course sounds like "more of the same". I believe we should stay in Iraq and finish the job. Help get a legitimate govt. settled, try to foster peace - make the place better for Iraqis who have had miserable lives under Saddam. I believe it is possible. I want to believe it can happen. I too think we need a change in our govt. and I hope the new one can do a better job than the current one in making Iraq a safer place for our soldiers and their people. And I believe that since now we are there, we have to make the best of it - and going back to "why did we go" does not serve any purpose.

I agree that Bush was at his best post 911 - very Giuliani-like - a real leader. I have fireman friends who were down there who met him who said he had tears in his eyes and he was a regular guy - hokey I know. He has not followed thru for sure. I think politics is a dirty biz and you can say that the Repubs have politicized more issues but I think the Dems do the same. It's about winning, like in sports - and it flat out sucks. Lots of creeps on both sides that review their talking points provided to them and . . . . . . Not a Republican thing IMO

Will work on not getting my nose out of joint. Work in progress - LOL. It's one of many steps I need to take successfully. And I'll think about them "not being aware of it" - takes some of the sting out.

One thing - not sure I'd rather die at the hands of a terrorist - they are not very humane.

Peace

 

[Centexfarmer]

Centex

right back at ya

Rummy is certainly a villainous figure - and history will not treat him well. It is unfortunate that Bush did not let him loose a while back. But just as I respect your right to speak, I respect his. I don't think he loses that right because he made some bad decisions.

Stay the course sounds like "more of the same". I believe we should stay in Iraq and finish the job. Help get a legitimate govt. settled, try to foster peace - make the place better for Iraqis who have had miserable lives under Saddam. I believe it is possible. I want to believe it can happen. I too think we need a change in our govt. and I hope the new one can do a better job than the current one in making Iraq a safer place for our soldiers and their people. And I believe that since now we are there, we have to make the best of it - and going back to "why did we go" does not serve any purpose.

I agree that Bush was at his best post 911 - very Giuliani-like - a real leader. I have fireman friends who were down there who met him who said he had tears in his eyes and he was a regular guy - hokey I know. He has not followed thru for sure. I think politics is a dirty biz and you can say that the Repubs have politicized more issues but I think the Dems do the same. It's about winning, like in sports - and it flat out sucks. Lots of creeps on both sides that review their talking points provided to them and . . . . . . Not a Republican thing IMO

Will work on not getting my nose out of joint. Work in progress - LOL. It's one of many steps I need to take successfully. And I'll think about them "not being aware of it" - takes some of the sting out.

One thing - not sure I'd rather die at the hands of a terrorist - they are not very humane.

Peace

Well, on September 11, 2001, I remember where I was, and what I was doing. Much like everyone else on that day.

A friend of mine was a passenger on fight 11 that hit the North Tower of the WTC.

A friend, and classmate of mine that I've known since JR High School was doing his best to get people out of the South Tower of the WTC before it collapsed.

A really cute "fuck-buddy" of mine from Dallas, lived in Brooklyn and worked in the North Tower of the WTC. Apparently he was doing the same.

They all died that day.

My friend on Flight 11 was a Buddhist.

My friend in the south tower was a Republican, because that's how he was raised.

My friend in the North tower didn't vote, because like most Americans he didn't see the point.

What's humane about politicizing thier lives for something that the Bush Administration would have NEVER acknowledged thier existance on?

I'm personally offended that Bush, and his Administration, took everything that WAS AMERICAN about the tragedy of 9/11 and twisted into some perverted shit that goes against everything that IS American to me.

I could buy the Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, view of the word if there was any true validity in it.

There are too many un-answered questions, and not enough leadership to give any of it meaning.

At the risk of being written off as "too emotionally involved" do you get where I'm coming from?

 

[chance1]

Well, on September 11, 2001, I remember where I was, and what I was doing. Much like everyone else on that day.

A friend of mine was a passenger on fight 11 that hit the North Tower of the WTC.

A friend, and classmate of mine that I've known since JR High School was doing his best to get people out of the South Tower of the WTC before it collapsed.

A really cute "fuck-buddy" of mine from Dallas, lived in Brooklyn and worked in the North Tower of the WTC. Apparently he was doing the same.

They all died that day.

My friend on Flight 11 was a Buddhist.

My friend in the south tower was a Republican, because that's how he was raised.

My friend in the North tower didn't vote, because like most Americans he didn't see the point.

What's humane about politicizing thier lives for something that the Bush Administration would have NEVER acknowledged thier existance on?

I'm personally offended that Bush, and his Administration, took everything that WAS AMERICAN about the tragedy of 9/11 and twisted into some perverted shit that goes against everything that IS American to me.

I could buy the Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, view of the word if there was any true validity in it.

There are too many un-answered questions, and not enough leadership to give any of it meaning.

At the risk of being written off as "too emotionally involved" do you get where I'm coming from?

I am truly sorry for your losses centex. I think we all remember where we were. I was late for work (not the norm) that morning and as I walked thru the elevators I sorta heard about the first plane, in the background. I work in the media business. I was uptown (far from the WTC) and at about 11am, I hooked up with a friend on 5th Ave near Central Park and we walked across the Queensboro Bridge, into Queens - and walked home most of the way. Got home about 6-7pm. I remember the decency and comraderie of all the people we came across - who shared water, had a kind word for each other, helped the elderly, comforted those who needed it. Stores were giving out drinks to people.

A friend of mine - one I would have loved to got to know better - who lived in the next town over - died. A close business colleague - his brother - died - Jason is still not the same guy 5 years later - I fear he will never be the same - his sense of humor is not there. Frank, a guy that I coached boys basketball against - his brother died. I actually saw him on the train yesterday and we made small talk about the U.S. Open. In the town next to mine (same town as my friend), the train station had 20 some odd cars that were not picked up. Wives/Husbands lost their spouses, mothers lost their sons and daughters. So I hear you and I do feel your pain. I am so sorry. This thread has made me think about this when I had truly blocked it out.

Politicizing a tragedy is horrible. I also think not learning from your mistakes is horrible. I think our elected leaders need to be strong minded and aggressive in the war on terror. Promoting fear is not the way. But being weak is not the way either. So while I deplore the former, I fear the latter as well. And finally, ultimately, I loathe and blame the terrorists for this. They are the ones who caused all this.

I totally understand where you are coming from

 

[Centexfarmer]

I am truly sorry for your losses centex. I think we all remember where we were. I was late for work (not the norm) that morning and as I walked thru the elevators I sorta heard about the first plane, in the background. I work in the media business. I was uptown (far from the WTC) and at about 11am, I hooked up with a friend on 5th Ave near Central Park and we walked across the Queensboro Bridge, into Queens - and walked home most of the way. Got home about 6-7pm. I remember the decency and comraderie of all the people we came across - who shared water, had a kind word for each other, helped the elderly, comforted those who needed it. Stores were giving out drinks to people.

A friend of mine - one I would have loved to got to know better - who lived in the next town over - died. A close business colleague - his brother - died - Jason is still not the same guy 5 years later - I fear he will never be the same - his sense of humor is not there. Frank, a guy that I coached boys basketball against - his brother died. I actually saw him on the train yesterday and we made small talk about the U.S. Open. In the town next to mine (same town as my friend), the train station had 20 some odd cars that were not picked up. Wives/Husbands lost their spouses, mothers lost their sons and daughters. So I hear you and I do feel your pain. I am so sorry. This thread has made me think about this when I had truly blocked it out.

Politicizing a tragedy is horrible. I also think not learning from your mistakes is horrible. I think our elected leaders need to be strong minded and aggressive in the war on terror. Promoting fear is not the way. But being weak is not the way either. So while I deplore the former, I fear the latter as well. And finally, ultimately, I loathe and blame the terrorists for this. They are the ones who caused all this.

I totally understand where you are coming from

Thank you chance1. We've found our common ground.

Would you not agree then, that as Americans that we should be truly united on the "war on terrorism," and that the Bush Administration has done nothing to keep us united on the issue?

As a country, I feel that we can do better, and that someone should hold our elected representatives accountable for thier percieved duplicity.

You didn't have to share with me what you've shared here in your post. You have my complete respect.

I hope that you and I can continue to debate the solutions to the current situaiton that our country finds itself in.

 

[kev]

When I read this no. 1 post of the AP article, and when I heard the sound bites on the news, I agreed with everything that Rumsfeld said.

The first poster does what he does best (which he has done to my words in the past, so I speak from personal experience) and distorts what was said. Jackroe calls him on it in post no. 10. He comes up with a namby-pamby response in post no. 11, which is filled with more name-calling and vituperation. This doesn't impress me.

In my view, this country (or at least the Upper West Side) is filled with people who think like the first poster (and most of the rest of you, apparently) who hate Republicans so much (and anything that they stand for), that they will do anything, say anything, reveal any national security secret, so long as it will helps them and their politics.

Rumsfeld was right to point this out. I think they should have been doing this all along. He has said that there are Americans who are more interested in dividing Americans than in fighting the people who are trying to kill us. As my father used to say, "if the boot fits..."

 

[kev]

No, Secretary Rumsfeld, and his boss, President Bush, clearly believe that this is a struggle for Western Civilization...which has been assaulted in the past. And they are now stepping up to the plate and calling terrorist sympathizers and apologists as they see them. Good for them.

Yes, I think Bush and Rumsfeld are astounded that more people don't agree with them. This is why they have been silent for so long. But they are undoubtedly stunned that there are Americans who wish ill among our servicemen. Those who leak and then publish national security secrets (don't ask me to list them...if you don't know, then you don't read the newspapers...or you think it is okay to do so) which harm our troops.

But as far as this thread goes, I am not going to get into a rehashing of what you all think of Bush or Rumsfeld. But the first poster is not bothered in the least to mischaracterize what Rumsfeld said in his speech to further the anti-Bush and anti-Republican agenda.

 

[Kurn]

R & B have to fabricate an elaborate psychological self-defense. Their failures clash with their deep commitments to imposing personal responsibility. Or do they really believe in CEO immunity? Chief Executive Officers like these would have been fired a long time ago. In some regimes they would face far worse.
I have heard them credited with good intentions. That is the whisker they are saved by and if they keep dishing out this s-*-&-% they may end up with less than that. But, psychologically, what alternative do they have??

 

[kev]

General Alfie's tirade above in his post no. 51 is a classic example of his name-calling and distortion, and in the way he hijacks his own thread.

For example, he uses the monicer "Blame America First" to apply to Republicans when it has always been synonymous with leftists (such as John Kerry, Al Gore, and Howard Dean, for example) who say that all would be swell if only America wouldn't yada yada yada.

He says I have "America-hating words", when the only thing denigrating in my two posts is to chastise those who leak and publish national security secrects in time of war that will only lead to the death of US troops and Pulitzer Prizes for The New York Times journalists.

Indeed, as I read post no. 51, I can only think that General Alfie is describing himself. The medical term for this is projection. I am glad he mentioned antipsychotic medication, because I have found that it is somtimes necessary for a physician to try different ones before she finds the one that might work for a particular patient.

 

[conrad]

Why not just consider the source? Rumsfeld is hardly the poster boy for democratic values. His record shows no loyalty to anything unless it be himself and the crowd of incompetents he's in bed with.

BEWARE OF ALL THOSE WHO ARE TOO SURE THEY ARE RIGHT....

 

[smelter]

When will this administration face the fact that it is our dependence on middle-east oil that is the root cause of all our problems. Our oil money funds the terrorists and the sooner we, as a country, wean ourselves off it, the sooner terrorism will start to dissipate around the world.

The only thing that will stop the oil rich countries like Iran is their lack of economic diversity. When their people are denied basic services due to their government's inability to fund both that and their support of terrorism, change will occur from within.

The first thing America needs to do is get rid of the big oil people in Washington like Bush and Cheney and spend our revenue in the development of alternative fuel sources. The technology exists but our government's will to fund it, does not.

 

[kev]

Well, I guess I am (should be?) honored that General Alfie and ICO7 have hijacked a thread for ME!!!

But honestly, when I read ICO7's post no. 57, it reminded me of another psychiatric condition, one called Brownaris nasalis. When combined with a virus called Blancus caninus, it causes one not to be able to think coherently, and therefore forces her to adopt another person's sentence structure when posting on the internet.

But back to topic, Rumsfeld has another oped in the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...1sep01,0,1419169.story?coll=la-opinion-center

I agree with everything he says.

 

[vox populi]

Kev--

If you agree with everything that Rumsfeld says, then there's no point in talking with you.

You apparently accept the argument that defense of liberty alone determines our nation's decision to wage a war regardless of international or national sanction. I say national because the congress did not declare war, Bush did, and not on a discernible enemy, but on a generic concept, terror.

You also apparently agree that no amount of war profiteering can ever possibly delegitimate our invasion of Iraq or recent rumblings about disabling Iran's efforts to enrich its nuclear stock. You evidently would never even consider the possibility that the invasion of Iraq was tied to any realpolitik decision making regarding stores of petroleum or the insidious politicking of Saudi Arabia and the OPEC oil cartel.

You seem to accept as fact that people in power only ever operate in the interests of the general public and that nothing other than the helath of the republic is their primary concern. If that is your position, then we are at an insurmountable impasse. There is simply no point in prolonging a discussion.

I will simply close by saying that my sentence structure is my own, and I think that Donald Rumsfeld is an incompetent ass and an irredeemable liar.

 

[opinterph]

One of the remarks from Secretary Rumsfeld’s controversial speech at the American Legion was that “any moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.” He goes on to say that most Americans “will evaluate and reflect on what is happening in this struggle and come to wise conclusions about it.” Thus, it seems apparent that Secretary Rumsfeld fully recognizes that a debate is appropriate, even in this “strange time.” Of course, it would be naive to assume that such a debate would not include analysis “about who and what is right or wrong.” It also seems fairly obvious (to me) that the only way to realistically clear up confusion is to encourage debate of the pertinent issues.

kev pointed out in post #49 that “Secretary Rumsfeld, and his boss, President Bush, clearly believe that this is a struggle for Western Civilization.” I am hearing that sentiment more often now and I suppose the Administration is introducing comparisons to what are arguably unrelated historical events to emphasize the importance they desire to focus on the current campaign. The political commentary on Friday night’s NewsHour program began on this very issue. (The commentary is typically a moderated analysis/discussion between David Brooks, a Columnist from the New York Times, and Syndicated Columnist, Mark Shields. Brooks promotes/defends a conservative view and Shields promotes/defends a liberal view.) Consider this:

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist:

The president said, in particularly the Salt Lake City speech, that this was the ideological battle of the 21st century, the battle of Iraq, upon its outcome and victory there, [depends] victory in the battle of the war against terrorism.

If that's true, what the hell are we doing with 130,000 troops there? We ought to have half a million. Why haven't we mobilized the home front? Why aren't we paying for this? I mean, why, seriously, isn't the country on a war-footing, if that's really what he's talking about?

I think Americans ARE somewhat detached from the post-war occupation of Iraq – at least to some extent because it is being managed at “critical mass,” rather than being concluded decisively. It is interesting to note that Iraq is approximately the size of the State of California and yet the most powerful military force in the world has proven incapable of controlling the terrain. Is it reasonable to suggest that a military solution may not be the best answer to this debacle? While a larger troop contingent might tip the balance, I think General_Alfie has exposed the underlying problem of that specific prospect in post #53 – “… no middle-class or upper class kid will be drafted and sent into the Iraq meat grinder. No draft = no fear …”

To a great extent, America has been “running on auto-pilot” since 9/11 and yet its citizens have increasingly come to question the wisdom of the Administration’s policies and objectives in identifying and responding to the perceived threat. I do not think the Administration can continue to rely upon our spirit of nationalism to sustain what has proven to be an ineffective, and very costly, campaign. We are certainly at risk; however, it is unclear if our current leadership is truly capable of “adapting to win.” I personally regard efforts to introduce historical correlations that merely increase the prospect of fear to be highly counterproductive. What we need is a fair and realistic discussion of the present threat and a comprehensive analysis of how our policy can be modified to better respond to that situation.

 

[kev]

Opinterph makes some excellent points about the deficiencies of the current Administration's handling of Iraq.

Nice post. It is a pleasure to read one by a gentleman.

 

[vox populi]

I am not a gentleman. Ours is not a time for gentlemanly discourse.

There is simply too much at stake. It is too easy to be lulled into servility by thinking that "our betters" know how to prosecute a war. The fact is that our betters are no better than we are and they are relying upon some of the most inane ideas to enact their policies. Their motovation is only money; their rhetoric only cant.

 

[snapcat]

I am not a gentleman. Ours is not a time for gentlemanly discourse.

Well, this is the place for gentlemanly discourse. Please don't lose sight of that.