Democrats & Liberals Archives

Why Go After Rumsfeld?

Congressional Democrats are urging President Bush to change the Pentagon’s civilian leadership. Frankly, I don’t understand why President Bush won’t even consider it, going so far as to say Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is doing a heckuva job. Does anyone really believe that?

Donald Rumsfeld is the guy who disregarded military concerns about the number of troops necessary to take and hold Iraq. He based his post-war plan solely on an optimistic best-case scenario, rather than prepare for a range of possible scenarios as any competent leader would. He refused to acknowledge the existence of the insurgency until all chances of squashing it before it took root were gone. He ignored and smacked down military commanders on the ground who requested more troops. And he failed to properly train and equip our troops and deploy the right force mix to fight an insurgency.

President Bush pledged to make Iraq's infrastructure "the best in the region" and to create a democracy there that would inspire reformers throughout the Middle East. Rumsfeld was given the job of securing Iraq so that Iraqis could rebuild their infrastructure, rebuild their economy, and create democratic institutions. But Rumsfeld's inability to adapt and respond to events on the ground made the President look like a fool. Yet, President Bush says he's doing a heckuva job.

After Rumsfeld's catastrophic failures in carrying out US policy in Iraq, President Bush's unquestioning indulgence is reminiscent of a banana republic "dear leader" who values loyalty over results. In war, a good leader fires those who consistently fail and rewards those who succeed. President Bush's idol, Winston Churchill, was famous for sacking incompetents and promoting winners. Yet, President Bush says Rumsfeld's doing a heckuva job.

Of course, Rumsfeld can't be blamed for the entire failure in Iraq, there's plenty of blame to go around from Bremmer to Congress to the Joint Chiefs to the President himself, but it was Rumsfeld's job to secure Iraq -- and he failed. And it's not just that Rumsfeld made errors, it's that he was unable to recognize those errors and surmount them.

Rumsfeld and Clemenceau are right that war is "a series of catastrophes that result in victory." That's what it looks like from the victor's point of view. But from the other side, war looks like a series of catastrophes that result in defeat. Rumsfeld led our armed forces to a strategic defeat, failing to achieve President Bush's goal of transforming the Middle East by remaking Iraq into a pro-US, free-market, liberal democracy and a beacon of hope for reformers in the region. He should be fired. A real leader would have fired him long ago.

Posted by American Pundit at September 8, 2006 1:13 AM
Comments
Comment #179740

Well put, it boggles the mind that Rumsfeld still has a job.

Posted by: Rob at September 8, 2006 2:11 AM
Comment #179751

Your whole post is designated on the premise that I raq is a failure. This has yet to be proven. It will take years and years for this to play out. Donald Rumsfeld”s legacy is yet to be defined, as is that of George W. Bush. Other nations will be going through the same circumstances as we are as the next 10 years unfold. This is not just about the United States vs. Islamic extremist, it’s about extremist vs. the world.

From Philadelphia Inquirer
by Froma Harrop
That Islamic terrorists hate the United States is an all-purpose explanation. Dig deeper into the reasons for that hatred, though, and the confident answers of “expert opinion” don’t quite satisfy.

Since that gruesome blue-sky day, Islamic radicals have staged more attacks and have been foiled in others. But try to find a connecting theme, other than psychosis. There’s only a pile of shifting motives.

Denmark just arrested nine Muslim men preparing explosives for some new outrage. Why, no one knows. Could be the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. Could be because Denmark has troops in Iraq. Could be something else.

When German authorities caught two Lebanese men planting bombs on trains, they assumed the motive was the war in Lebanon. Turns out it was the cartoons. The suspects did tack Lebanon onto their grievance list, but actually, the attack had been planned before the war began.

The 2004 bombing of commuter trains in Madrid took place in the days preceding a Spanish election. Its goal, the thinking went, was to scare voters into replacing a government that had sent troops to Iraq. They did, but three weeks later, a bomb similar to the ones used in the March massacre was found on a track near Madrid.

Why did Islamic terrorists bomb nightclubs in Bali? Were they aiming at Bali itself, a Hindu island in mostly Muslim Indonesia? Was the target Australia because it sent troops to Iraq - or Australia because it helped liberate East Timor from Indonesia? (Nearly half the people killed were Australian tourists.) Was it an objection to bikinis?

The attacks on Bombay commuter trains have been linked to Pakistani anger at India’s control over much of (Muslim) Kashmir. The bombings on London subways were traced to sons of Pakistani immigrants supposedly unhappy over how they’re treated in Britain. Intelligence officials say at least one had trained with al-Qaeda in Pakistan, where the terrorist group was also prepping suicide bombers to blow up 10 airliners flying from London to the United States.

Terrorists vowed massive attacks against France over its ban on Islamic head scarves in public schools. And a Muslim gang murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in the streets of Amsterdam over a movie he made.

Given this Wal-Martian selection of motives, one must smile at the five-years-after editorial in the Economist, which states that the number of jihadis has multiplied since Sept. 11, “partly as a result of the way America responded.” By that, the British magazine means the war in Iraq.

We can agree that the war was based on trumped-up evidence, that it was poorly planned, and that it is going badly. But Islamic terrorists are attacking people on nearly every continent - many who have little or nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy. Multicultural, we’re-not-in-Iraq Canada has uncovered a plot by 17 Muslims to invade its Parliament and chop off the prime minister’s head.

Perhaps terrorists see countries that make sensitive analyses of their complaints as easy marks. If so, then the eagerness to prettify mass murder with “root causes” could itself be a root cause.


————————————————————————————————————————
Contact Froma Harrop at fharrop@projo.com.

Posted by: Joe at September 8, 2006 6:59 AM
Comment #179755

Joe,

Iraq is not a failure? Your kidding me aren’t you Joe.

You must be thinking about some other Iraq because the one I’m thinking about is a dismal failure and a quagmire. On this the 1,228 day(or so) since “Mission Acomplished”.

Posted by: Gedunk at September 8, 2006 7:41 AM
Comment #179756
Since that gruesome blue-sky day, Islamic radicals have staged more attacks and have been foiled in others. But try to find a connecting theme, other than psychosis. There’s only a pile of shifting motives.

Joe, the above seems like a reasonable statement but if you believe it then declaring a global war on terror makes no sense whatsoever. You might as well declare a war on child molesters, take over a city militarily and throw out any pedophiles. Then expect the rest of the country to see your example and somehow magically make the offenders disappear.

Posted by: Schwamp at September 8, 2006 7:41 AM
Comment #179762

I am very glad that some people understand that solving and/or changing a problem of this magnitude isn’t a 30 second sound bite or a trip to Burger King.

This is a long term struggle and what is happening in Iraq is only a small part of the issue.

These blood thirsty Islamic extremists have been rapidly building their cultural and mind-altering momentum over the last 30 years. This means realistically it could take many years to quell.

Posted by: Cliff at September 8, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #179769

“These blood thirsty Islamic extremists have been rapidly building their cultural and mind-altering momentum over the last 30 years. This means realistically it could take many years to quell.”

As long as we (USA) are helping to prove thier assertions of our culture, we will only continue to foster their rosters.

Posted by: tony at September 8, 2006 9:09 AM
Comment #179774

AP
Firing Rumsfeld now does nothing. They probably think it is best to keep him and have him there to take the fall when needed.

Posted by: kctim at September 8, 2006 9:28 AM
Comment #179778

Folks,

Still, I scratch my head when I think about the Democrat’s seeming obsession with Rumsfeld—as if Cheney and Bush are untouchable. These are the people who lied to the public and made either a) deliberately misleading or b) woefully ignorant assertions about the war (and any number of other things). I think it just goes to show how poor the Democratic leadership is and the image of impotence they exude. When the R’s went after Clinton, they went right after him—not just his proxies.

As for Joe, I’d like to ask him at what point he realized we’d be there in Iraq for the next three thousand years. Surely when your leaders are telling you that the Iraqi people would be welcoming our men and women in uniform with flowers and you were saluting Bushy’s scramjet joyride (“Mission Accomplished”) you didn’t think it would take so long for this war. You have been duped like the rest of his supporters.

It’s like a country with Patti Hearst syndrome!


Posted by: DavidL at September 8, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #179779

If Rumsfeld steps down, I’d like to see Bush name Lieberman as his replacement.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 8, 2006 9:47 AM
Comment #179785

tony,

What are the legitimate options?

You cannot reason with someone whose soul purpose in life is to eliminate you. AND if they eliminate themselves in the process, that’s the best it can get.

Posted by: Cliff at September 8, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #179789

None of the neocons will lose their jobs until we can vote them out. They are all in this together. Keep in mind that Bush(the current usurper, not the President that was elected in the ’80s) appointed his friends and business network to all the key government positions.

Besides, how can Bush fire Rumsfeld? He thinks he’s doing a heckuva job himself!

Posted by: ChristianLeft at September 8, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #179793

What we are failing to address, because we are too “politically correct”, is that this whole mess is actually a war between Islam and everybody else. Islam has always been spread by force, from its inception. Now they are actually STATING that they expect the U.S., (and presumably other nations) to CONVERT! Fat chance.

Yeah, OK, the “majority” of Moslems are pretty much OK folks…like the majority of Christians. Fighting a Jihad, or a Crusade, is really too darn much hassle when you have a job and a family to feed. The worst part about this whole thing is that we, as a race, are murdering each other over which version of the Big Fairytale is “correct”. But the idea that we can “win” is absurd… unless a way to totally discredit a religion is found, so that its followers quit it of their own accord, it will persist.

Posted by: capnmike at September 8, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #179796

“You cannot reason with someone whose soul purpose in life is to eliminate you. AND if they eliminate themselves in the process, that’s the best it can get.”

Winning the war on terror does not focus on the existing terrorists - other than working through intel to take them out. The terrorists that exist today will have to be dealt with… I cannot see a way to negotiate with them. It’s like exterminating bugs in your home. You kill the ones you see, no other option… but the goal is to prevent these bugs from further infestation.

The real battle is for the average civilians in these countries… work to give these people stable lives, and work to show American values (not simply the power of our military) and you will start to make the terrorist’ mindset unacceptable in these societies. We’ve failed in Afg. & Iraq to provide livable environments for the people, and that coupled with our drawn-out military occupation of their country and the military’s failures with regards to safeguarding all civilians… it has all lead up to the viability of the terrorist’s philosophy. That will continue to generate new terrorists and allow these terrorists to coexist with the civilian population.

As someone said on TV the other night, we NEED to show these people all of the positives sides of democracy, to show that in contrast, the terrorists offer no actual solutions or long term security. We haven’t done that, and so we’ve left the civilian population completely open to the terrorist’ propaganda. Even worse, it seems we’ve gone out of our way to prove this propaganda to be true.

THAT’s called loosing the war on terror.

Posted by: tony at September 8, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #179799

I used to think only meteorologists were the only ones who could be wrong 100% of the time and still have a job…but here’s Rumsfeld who’s been wrong repeatedly and still has not only a job, but the support of the president and the Republicans in Congress!!

Posted by: Lynne at September 8, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #179800

Yes, fire Rumfeld. His record of incompetence is undeniable. But wait, while you’re at it- impeach the president, jail the VP and detain the cabinet for newly sanctioned interrogation techniques. They all deserve it. But it ain’t gonna happen. Best we can hope is to vote’em outta office. But predicting elections is even harder than picking NFL teams to win. After all, pigskin fans get at least sixteen games a season, year after year, and a whole lotta teams and players with stats and records we can pore over endlessly, while all we political wags get is a coupla national elections every few years. But now I’m talking about football, and I’m not sure why (other than the fact that it’s the greatest contest a group of men will ever gather on the field to decide). So is there any way we can focus on minimizing the neo-cons success in the upcoming mid-terms, even if it means supporting small-governmment conservatives, libertarians and the like?

Posted by: DannyO at September 8, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #179801

You all are trying to get revenge against the Bush Administraition and Rumsfeld because of your poor party’s planning and bitter demigog democrats would rather support the terrorist enemy then say good job to our president who has kept us safe and the the market rolling after clinton allowed the 9/11 events to be planned and orchestrated because slick willy was too busy working with his cigar and leaving spotson garments. Way to go, next time try electing a sex addict that doesen’t like any fat hole he see’s and sly romantic chubby chaser might be able to ruin your worthless party’s already anti-US reputation that the terrorist love about you.

Posted by: Joe at September 8, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #179805
Joe, the above seems like a reasonable statement but if you believe it then declaring a global war on terror makes no sense whatsoever.

No, the idea is to go after those countries who are using, directing and funding terrorism, like Iraq, Iran and Syria. When those countries can no longer offer funding, logistics, support and direction then the smaller groups of terrorists who are no longer as heavily funded can be gone after by more traditional intelligence and police forces.

It’s this path we much take, I have no understanding why some people have a hard time seeing this. It seems that the sound bites and crave for political power are more important to some than others. :(

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 8, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #179809

Joe:

I don’t seem to remember any Democrats or Mr. Clinton blaming Papa Bush for the attacks on the WTC that occurred one month into Clinton’s first term…why is it that Dubya and the Republicans can’t accept responsibility for 9/11 which occurred 8 months into Dubya’s term???? And why aren’t the Republicans taking responsibility for blocking the majority of Mr. Clinton’s anti-terrori legislation?

Hmmmmm…….

Posted by: Lynne at September 8, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #179817
What we are failing to address, because we are too “politically correct”, is that this whole mess is actually a war between Islam and everybody else.

So, what does that have to do with Iraq? Iraq didn’t attack us; bin Laden attacked us. We ought to have 150,000 troops in western Pakistan destroying al Qaeda, not in Baghdad escorting kids to school.

Firing Rumsfeld now does nothing.

I disagree. Replacing Rumsfeld with a more competent Defense Secretary would benefit America enormously. Does anyone think Rumsfeld, with his track record, is going to turn Iraq into a pro-US free-market liberal democracy with an infrastructure that’s the envy of the region?

We need some fresh ideas. Biden is proposing a Bosnian-like partition which the Kurds and Shiites want. Kerry favored doubling the number of Special Forces and Civil Affairs units — the guys trained to handle insurgencies and win hearts and minds — and drawing down a lot of the regular troops. Clinton, at one point, wanted to put another 100,000 troops in Iraq.

With Rumsfeld, we’re guaranteed to just “stay the course”.

They probably think it is best to keep him and have him there to take the fall when needed.

That might be good for the President Bush, but not for America.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 8, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #179819

AP
Firing him now wouldn’t really give them that big of a push is what I meant.
I should have made it more clear that I believe he is there for political butt-saving reasons.
A big name who can be used for damage control.

Posted by: kctim at September 8, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #179821

Why would I care about the politics, kctim? I’m far more interested in seeing my country do well.

Let me put it this way, Clinton never played politics with terrorism or Iraq or Bosnia or Kosovo or Somalia or Haiti. Why would I accept Republicans playing politics with this war?

You may be right about what the Bush administration is doing — actually, I’m sure your are, it’s the same thing Bush did with Tenet — but that doesn’t make it right.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 8, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #179829

I too am more interested in seeing our country do well, but we both know that is not how the game is played, by BOTH sides.

I wasn’t saying it was right either. I was simply stating why I believe Rumsfeld has not been replaced yet.

The lefts dream that clinton never played politics with terrorism and the rights dream that Bush doesn’t, is only one of the many reasons why we, as a country, fight amongst ourselves rather than fight for our country.

Posted by: kctim at September 8, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #179832

Joe,
“clinton allowed the 9/11 events to be planned and orchestrated because slick willy was too busy working with his cigar and leaving spotson garments.”
What a weak and totally last ditch defense this is for backing an Administration that has made a mess of everything it’s touched.
I have heard this argument before from the right and find it so inane it’s laughable Joe!!
Granted, Clinton’s morals may have been askew but his actions didn’t change policy. He didn’t propagate a war based on lies, break the laws that were written to protect privacy, ignore the top Generals and the CIA to have “His” war, drop the ball with natural disasters, back the proposal that would have given the UAE our ports, allow big business to totally rape the country in their greed, and the list goes on.
How many facts do you need to see what these “people” are doing to our democracy.
Since R. Nixons admin., Cheney and Rummy have been influencing Republican policy and waiting for the day they could find the right dupe to fulfill their need for power. They found that dupe in George W. Bush.

Posted by: Phil at September 8, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #179836

Do Not Feed The Trolls!

Posted by: tony at September 8, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #179845

Posted by Cliff:

You cannot reason with someone whose soul purpose in life is to eliminate you. AND if they eliminate themselves in the process, that’s the best it can get.

Maybe you can’t reason with someone whose sole purpose is to eliminate you. However, as you point out, there is “attrition” in the ranks of those people trying to eliminate you. If you do things “Right”(tm), then those ranks will (perhaps slowly) thin out as new people will not see the need to join the cause. However, if you do things “Wrong”(tm), then individually they may eliminate themselves, but, as a whole, you continuously remain under threat.

(note: do not assume that the use of the terms “right” and “wrong” above are in any way politically affiliated.)

Posted by: DSM at September 8, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #179847

As a point of intellectual curiosity, what code black security documents DID Sandy Berger cram into his pants and socks? You know, right before he was supposed to testify before the 9/11 commission.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 8, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #179851

“With Rumsfeld, we’re guaranteed to just “stay the course”.”

AP,

Why have the Republican’s been able to portray only two options, namely:
(1)Stay the course.
(2)Cut-n-run.

What happened to “change course”? That hardly means surrendering or accepting defeat. For Bush & Co. to simply “stay the course” must mean they’re perfectly happy with the current state of affairs. I guess that’s the best we can expect from the Republicans.

IMO that’s the question everyone should ask in November. Is this the best we can do?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 8, 2006 1:48 PM
Comment #179852

tony,

You and I agree on what to do with current terrorists.

However, we disagree on what is happening in Iraq at the current time. I make a point of talking to our armed forces people in my travels and I ask them what is going on and if they are making a difference. I have talked to over 35 and found that all of them, except for one, (he felt he was tricked by his recruiter) were positive on the impact that they are making, especially in social and economic areas.

Are we doing nothing? Of course not…
Could we do more? Of course…
Are we making headway? Yes…
Do we have the plan? Yes…
Could we do it better? Yes…

Posted by: Cliff at September 8, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #179865

“If Rumsfeld steps down, I’d like to see Bush name Lieberman as his replacement.”

Posted by: nikkolai at September 8, 2006 09:47 AM

This is a most excellent idea. By giving the defense department to a Jew and rabid Zionist, it would give American foreign policy a certain symmetry it has heretofore been lacking, and give the Arabs and Persians the confirmation that America is truly concerned about their welfare—and their oil.

My only quibble—I don’t think Don and his stuff should ‘step down’. I think he should be drop-kicked down the stairs and into the parking lot, where he can pick up the pictures of his kids and wife and his jar of jelly beans at his leisure.

And no unemployment compensation for you!!

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 8, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #179867
Clinton never played politics with terrorism or Iraq or Bosnia or Kosovo or Somalia or Haiti.

*cough* *cough* Sorry, went down the wrong way…

He didn’t propagate a war based on lies, break the laws that were written to protect privacy, ignore the top Generals and the CIA to have “His” war, drop the ball with natural disasters, back the proposal that would have given the UAE our ports, allow big business to totally rape the country in their greed, and the list goes on.

Let’s see….

I may be wrong, but didn’t Clinton order the bombing of a ‘chemical plant’ that most people now feel was not a chemical WEAPONS plant in Sudan? Wasn’t the bombing (as well as others on empty al Qaeda training facilities) enacted just 3 days after Clinton admitted to the Lewinsky affair?

The factory was a principal source of Sudan’s anti-malaria and veterinary drugs. Human Rights Watch reported that the bombing had the unintended effect of stopping relief efforts aimed at supplying food to areas of Sudan gripped by famine: “many relief efforts have been postponed indefinitely, including a crucial one run by the U.S.-based International Rescue Committee where more than fifty southerners are dying daily”. In Summer 2001, Werner Daum (Germany’s ambassador to Sudan 1996–2000) wrote an article in which he estimated that the attack “probably led to tens of thousands of deaths” of Sudanese civilians. The regional director of the Near East Foundation, who has direct field experience in the Sudan, published in the Boston Globe another article with the same estimate.

The Sudaneese government demanded immediately afterwards that the UN investigate and offered access to the site to anyone, including the US, to test for chemical weapons (the residue would be in the soil after the bombing) but the US blocked all attempts to ‘get to the truth’. And it refuses to apologize for the attacks as well.

Officials later acknowledged, however, “that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980s.”[4] The U.S. State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research wrote a report in 1999 questioning the attack on the factory, suggesting that the connection to bin Laden was not accurate; James Risen reported in the New York Times: “Now, the analysts renewed their doubts and told Assistant Secretary of State Phyllis Oakley that the C.I.A.’s evidence on which the attack was based was inadequate. Ms. Oakley asked them to double-check; perhaps there was some intelligence they had not yet seen. The answer came back quickly: There was no additional evidence. Ms. Oakley called a meeting of key aides and a consensus emerged: Contrary to what the Administration was saying, the case tying Al Shifa to Mr. bin Laden or to chemical weapons was weak.”

Sound familiar?

In fact, democrats have a real problem here.

If they support that Clinton didn’t ‘invent’ the chemical weapons (meaning Clarke was wrong about something) link as an excuse to do something to avert attention to the Lewinsky scandal then they have to accept that al Qaeda and Iraq were involved in a chemical weapons facility just a short 3 years before the 9/11 attacks and then our invasion of Iraq in which many liberals tell us there were no ties between the two organizations…

So basically, Clinton is no better than Bush or Bush was right to invade Iraq… It has to be hard to be a democrat these days. :/

Posted by: rhinehold at September 8, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #179871

This is worse than simply bad leadership skills, their behavior is criminal: fraud (e.g. Halliburton), perjury (WMD lies before official groups), and human/civil rights violations (wiretaps, torture, and the pronunciation “nucular”)
charge and impeach all 3 of them, remove from office and…

Nancy Pelosi for President in January 2007

Posted by: Tom_D at September 8, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #179874

“Your whole post is designated on the premise that I raq is a failure. This has yet to be proven.”

You seem to miss the point. Even if in a few years, Iraq turned into a democratic utopia that spread to the entire middle east (yeah, right), the FACT is that it cost WAY more lives (ours and theirs) AND money, than was necessary BECAUSE of rummy’s bad planning and meddling. PERIOD.
When YOU are responsible for thousands of unecessary deaths, yes, you should probably be fired. In the real world, people get fired for losing one big account, or misjudging the publics buying habits. Thousands of deaths and he still gets to make his stupid little annoyed look faces while he lectures others who know better than him? No EFFIN way.

Posted by: Observer at September 8, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #179875

Cliff…

What is the plan?

What is the Republican plan on “winning” this occupation?

Posted by: Patrick Howse at September 8, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #179876

Lynne:

Thank you for your contributions. You are cool water in a blistering desert.

Posted by: Tim Crow at September 8, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #179878

I agree! We put up with bad leadership, criminal behavior, perjury, human/civil rights violations and torture for way too long. But I don’t recall clinton saying “nucular?” I’ll have to look that one up.
Oh well, at least one of those criminals was impeached.

And Pelosi?
I thought you guys wanted to win an election? Don’t just give up like that.

Posted by: kctim at September 8, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #179881

“When YOU are responsible for thousands of unecessary deaths, yes, you should probably be fired”

What about when YOU are responsible for 70 some Americans dying in Waco? Should one be fired for that too? Or is that “different?” As it is with most other things the left chose to ignore or excuse.

Posted by: kctim at September 8, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #179888

For once I’d like to see a defense of Bushie and Rummie without a “Oh yeah, what about the dems”.
Very VERY hard to do. Impossible I would say.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 8, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #179889

Defending Bush is not too hard, Rumsfeld not so much. His only real focus should have been the execution of this war and he has mucked it up beyond what even I thought possible.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 8, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #179890

“I don’t seem to remember any Democrats or Mr. Clinton blaming Papa Bush for the attacks on the WTC that occurred one month into Clinton’s first term…”

I don’t remember that either. But then again, I don’t remember any Republicans saying clinton was trying to rule the world and that we should understand, coddle and work with the terrorists who just killed our fellow Americans either.

“why is it that Dubya and the Republicans can’t accept responsibility for 9/11 which occurred 8 months into Dubya’s term????”

Amen! Could you please show me where “Dubya” said 9/11 didn’t happen on his watch and that he accepted no responsibility for it? I would like to pass it along to others.

“And why aren’t the Republicans taking responsibility for blocking the majority of Mr. Clinton’s anti-terror legislation?”

Like Presidential Decision Directive, PDD 39? Which sat in the National Security Council, in the In Box of one of the officials with no action taken, for about 2 years.
You know PDD 39 right? It was the document defining what the missions and roles were of combating terrorism.

Posted by: kctim at September 8, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #179892

For once, I would like to see people use the same set of rules.
You can’t ignore, defend or excuse something for one person and then demand “justice” when the other side does it and expect to be taken seriously.

Posted by: kctim at September 8, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #179907

kc,

Everybody makes mistakes. Using a tank that caused a fire is a big mistake and Reno was taken to task for it, acted contritely afterwards, and modified her future actions.
Starting a unilateral war based on lies and misrepresentations then not accepting responsibility for an abysmal implementation while blaiming everyone else and repreatedly making the same mistakes is cause for termination, no matter what hypocricy you might see elsewhere.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 8, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #179908

Rhinehold,

Please defend Bush on facts and results.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at September 8, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #179912

“Should Rumsfeld be fired?”

Well lets see…Does Busch have any cronies left he hasn’t given some cushie job to???? Wait I know, how bout his little bro in Florida whos popularity has been declining of late…OH MY GOD! Another Busch in Washington!!!

Posted by: Wolfey at September 8, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #179916

“Everybody makes mistakes. Using a tank that caused a fire is a big mistake and Reno was taken to task for it, acted contritely afterwards, and modified her future actions.”

Thanks for the media’s version of what happened. Try looking into it some yourself, use the facts to come to your own conclusion and then explain why the slaughter of innocent Americans was just a forgettable mistake.

“Starting a unilateral war based on lies and misrepresentations”

Please give your proof to the DNC, moveon or any other left group so that they can bring charges up on Bush and Rumsfeld and get them out of office.

“then not accepting responsibility for an abysmal implementation”

When has Rumsfeld or Bush stated they weren’t responsible for what happens in Iraq?
And just FYI: Iraq was arguably one of the most effective wars ever fought.

“while blaiming everyone else”

Who has Rumsfeld blamed the decision to go into Iraq on?

“and repreatedly making the same mistakes is cause for termination”

And what would those mistakes be? How do you know we don’t learn from our mistakes and correct them?

“no matter what hypocricy you might see elsewhere”

If you ignore the hypocricy of the left and those on the right ignore their own hypocricy, how will anything ever change?

We are at war with terrorists, not with who is in the Whitehouse.

Posted by: kctim at September 8, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #179917

“OH MY GOD! Another Busch in Washington!!!”

Beats a pelosi or a hillary any day of the week.
So if you guys are serious about winning, you better find a true Democrat or else it will be “more of the same.”

Posted by: kctim at September 8, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #179918

Tony,
Is it feeding the Trolls or Lemmings?? It’s this type of mentality that put these criminals into power. They follow blindly into the abyss only because they are Republicans, and they must be right because they are Republicans. It shouldn’t matter which side your on. If an Admin. is out of control as this one is, they should be held responsible for their actions. In this case nothing short of a prison cell would do.

Posted by: Phil at September 8, 2006 5:27 PM
Comment #179923

“Could you please show me where “Dubya” said 9/11 didn’t happen on his watch and that he accepted no responsibility for it?”

Hi neighbor,

Condi’s testimony before the 9-11 commission was enough for me. But beyond (or before) the failures of Bush and Co. you bet, Clinton and Co. did little or no better. Outside of providing insurance for many more American children I hold little regard for Clinton.

ie: the Waco “thing”. Sure, it should have been handled better, but we are a nation of laws. If you find yourself under investigation for “anything” what’s the best response to handle that? While I hate to personalize things, here I go.

When I moved to Kansas in November 2002 no one other than my oldest son and his family knew me. Due to my neurological illness I could pose as the “poster boy” for Anti-Meth ads, although I’ve never used meth in my life, but I’m stricken with this neuromuscular thing so my arms look like twigs, I have a constant tremor, quaivering voice, visual and auditory problems, etc. Since I was moving into a 100 year old home I was faced with various problems, such as a slow sewer and restoring various boiler parts, that required several potent acids in large quantity.

So everything combined (strange new guy moving into a rural home, alarming physical characteristics, purchase of chemicals that can be used for Meth production)put up a “red flag” and someone informed the Sheriff. Well, they arrived with a “no-knock warrant” but the house was virtually open and I was fumbling around with one of the radiators in the driveway when they pulled up.

Certainly not the best “welcome wagon” but I was totally cooperative and we all actually had a good laugh together. The state canine-cop handler had an extra special laugh because the “canine” discovered I had a pocket full of doggy treats.

The point is, I could just as easily have run in the house and grabbed one of my guns, then, I’m fairly sure, you wouldn’t be having to read my ramblings. It’s all a matter of action/reaction. Of course if the vehicles pulling up are black suburbans and everyone is wearing a black JC Penney suit I might think “uh-oh Guantanamo”!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 8, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #179925

KDem
“But beyond (or before) the failures of Bush and Co. you bet, Clinton and Co. did little or no better”

Well said KD. I wasn’t trying to place Bush above clinton on this matter nor was I trying to place all the blame on clinton either. Both should of done more, both could of done more and for the sake of all of us, I hope hindsight will help prevent future attacks on us.

Your personal story is interesting too. I believe if the Sheriff would have been the one to approach Koresh, as they did with you, then MAYBE things would have worked out differently.

“Of course if the vehicles pulling up are black suburbans and everyone is wearing a black JC Penney suit I might think “uh-oh Guantanamo”!”

And what would you have thought or done if those vehicles had pulled up and everyone was wearing black camo with their faces covered and pointing firearms at you?
I know what I am prepared and ready to do if somebody kicks down my door.

Posted by: kctim at September 8, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #179927

“I may be wrong, but didn’t Clinton order the bombing of a ‘chemical plant’ that most people now feel was not a chemical WEAPONS plant in Sudan?”

Rhinehold,

Since you say, “most people”, I should maybe just let this ride, but even the 9-11 commission pointed to an almost undeniable connection:

“The al-Shifa plant was closely tied to the Sudanese government and to Sudan’s “weapons development infrastructure”; bin Laden maintained close ties to the Sudanese government even after his expulsion; “bin Laden had worked with Sudan in testing and developing chemical weapons and was known to be seeking chemical weapons capability for the fundamentalist Islamic groups he financed”

“But most important, we learned that “telephone intercepts collected by the National Security Agency included contacts between senior Shifa officials and Emad Al Ani, known as the father of Iraq’s chemical weapons program.”

Although, the 9-11 Commission also found a direct tie between Iraq’s involvement with Bin Laden which now seems more and more unlikely or altogether untrue. Instances of failed intel make me wonder if it is even possible to consider any kind of “pre-emptive” military action.

I honestly just don’t know. Is it better to do nothing?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 8, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #179930

“And what would you have thought or done if those vehicles had pulled up and everyone was wearing black camo with their faces covered and pointing firearms at you?”

kctim,

Well, I no longer keep any guns in the house due to depression regarding my illness (I don’t want to leave one of my kids with the mental image of my brains splattered on the ceiling), but honestly I still believe that the best response would be the ‘passive” response. Obviously you’re intelligent. That’s what lawyers are for. A good lawyer can kick somebodies a$$ and make it hurt for a long, long time.

Just ask Sicilian Eagle sometime. OTOH once you arm yourself against a violation of “domestic” law you have entered into the realm of being an armed combatant. You’ll lose! Keep it all legal friend.

KansasDem

PS: In reality I’d drop to the floor begging for them to be gentle. I’m falling apart and I don’t heal well. OTOH if they tried to force me to say something that wasn’t true I’d tell them to kiss me where the sun don’t shine.

Posted by: KansasDem at September 8, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #179931

I am a little tired of people feeling sorry for the wackos in Waco… I dont… If you ask any of the good Texas republicans who live within ten miles of the Koresh compound they’ll tell you that their glad that nest of vipersare gone.While I bewail the loss of the lives of innocents in the fire, it was their nutball parents who placed them in harms way. There are hundreds of innocent women and children killed in Iraq every month. Using this incident as evidence of a failure in the Clinton admin. while defending Busch’s war in Iraq is ludicrous!

Posted by: Wolfey at September 8, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #179940

911 truth or fiction?
Censorship is not pretty. That is, except when Democrat mistakes are being portrayed. Then censorship is required!

You see, it’s ok to call Bush a liar, a murderer, even a Nazi, but don’t ever, ever, ever say that the Clinton Administration wasn’t fully focused on the war on terror! That’s crossing the line. Especially with an election coming up.

It happens to be true. Both that Clinton wasn’t very focused on terror and that there’s an election coming up. But the Bush administration also dropped the ball, (or was asleep at the wheel) when 9-11 happened. That’s because the Bush administration didn’t change anything when they came into office. ‘They let it ride.’ Of course, they came into office a little slowly, as you may recall, with the highly contested Bush win in Florida.

The saddest part of all of this is the amatuerish and clumsy way Democrats act these days.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid an election-year debate over who can best defend America, U.S. congressional Democrats urged ABC on Thursday to cancel a TV miniseries about the September 11 attacks that is critical of former Democratic President Bill Clinton and his top aides.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada denounced the five-hour television movie, set to air in two parts on Sunday and Monday nights, as “a work of fiction.”

Reid and other leading Senate Democrats wrote to Robert Iger, president and CEO of ABC’s corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co., urging him to “cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program.” ~al reuters


I am shocked! Deeply shocked that a Democrat, a liberal of tolerant pedigree, would seem to stoop so low as to demand that a work of art be removed from broadcast simply because of it’s political content. It smacks of McCarthyism. And we sir, do not tolerate such intolerance in this country! At least that’s what I’ve heard.

Focus, focus, focus.

Democrats have again convinced themselves that they are on their way back to power. (Sweet comforting fabulous power!) But this inner reality is somewhat new and unstable. Nothing must be allowed to burst that little bubble of fantasy about victory in November. (Herein you find the reason why so many governments in the past have sought to silence the slightest murmer of contradiction.)

I find it hard to believe that all the recent news coverage over the last two weeks virtually proclaiming that Democrats will retake take both houses of congress are not the result of just a little bit of wishful thinking. But let them have their fantasies. Who knows?

What I find funny is that if it is so important to cancel this movie because it is factually inaccurate, or somehow slanted, then where were these same democrats demanding that Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 be cancelled?

I also find it hard to believe that any hollywood production, I believe this was made by ABC Disney, could actually have a pro-bush agenda involved in the creation of such a ‘docudrama’. For that matter, when has any made-for-TV-movie been 100% accurate?

ABC said its movie was not a documentary but a dramatization drawn from the official 9/11 commission report, personal interviews and other materials.

“As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the film contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue and time compression,” ABC said. ~al reuters

On the whole, even if the flaws in this movie are exactly what democrats say they are it is still propably far more accurate and positive than 98% of all the other stuff being made today in hollywood that is negative about Bush and Republicans. Democrats should just suck it up.

By the way, what was Sandy Berger stuffing in his pants at the National Archives? I’m even more curious now. What did he know and when did he know it?

Posted by Eric Simonson at September 7, 2006 11:51 PM

Posted by: Frank at September 8, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #179943

I COULDN’T agree more with the part that states
that this adm. has alowed big corporation to rape
the common interests, when it is those forces
that carry the burden of the economy.

Posted by: Herman Love at September 8, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #179950
Amen! Could you please show me where Dubya said 9/11 didnt happen on his watch and that he accepted no responsibility for it? I would like to pass it along to others.

Bush never said that he was responsible for 9/11. Now they have some perverted docudrama making up history called “The path to 9/11” The last hour of the movie shows Condi rice speaking before Congress about the PDB titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US” unfortunately no one will ever see that part because Bush has already reserved airtime to pre-empt the last hour of the movie with a bunch of Republican talking points!


Why are there no commercials airing during the preview of the movie? Is it being broadcast by not-for-profits?


If its a docudrama and not a documentary why are the Republicans trying to push Scholastic Books to distribute 100,000 copies to teachers as a learning aide for children? Are they trying to rewrite yesterdays history? Are they trying to rewrite todays history?


Why was Rush Limpballs allowed to preview the movie but not Clinton, Richard Clark, Sandy Berger, or anyone else that could debunk it?


The only facts in the movie are that we had a President named Bill Clinton and another one named George W. Bush. Anything else portrayed in the movie is total fiction and propaganda.


The Republicans have become very very desperate. I guess its time to call Blackwell and Harris so they can steal yet another election.

Posted by: Pat at September 8, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #179951

If Rumsfeld steps down, I’d like to see Bush name Lieberman as his replacement.

Posted by: nikkolai at September 8, 2006 09:47 AM
————————
This makes no sense to me. Another politician in an area where expertise is sorely needed? I think we need to replace Rumsfeld with a military man. Schwarzkopf, Shelton, Zinni, or somebody that’s got some time in country and knows what the hell the military need to do.

Posted by: Dennis at September 8, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #179954
I am shocked! Deeply shocked that a Democrat, a liberal of tolerant pedigree, would seem to stoop so low as to demand that a work of art be removed from broadcast simply because of its political content. It smacks of McCarthyism. And we sir, do not tolerate such intolerance in this country! At least thats what I’ve heard. Posted by Frank

McCarthy called anyone who disagreed with the Republicans communists! The Bush Administration calls anyone who disagrees with their policies unpatriotic and coddling the terrorists. The only sign of McCarthyism is by the Bush Administration and the Republicans.

Posted by: Pat at September 8, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #179970

—- Since the rest of the 9/11 report was just
released today must have many Bloc’s fingers,
really backtracking! A must see for all.
Even ABC is thinking about totally pulling their

9/11 Docudrama, Amazing!! —————————-

Posted by: DAVID at September 8, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #179974

“Even ABC is thinking about totally pulling their
9/11 Docudrama”

DAVID,

I hope so. I imagine you read my message at Ray’s thread. My problem is not just the possible faulty content but the timing. Officially they’ve said that it’s a drama and not factual although they’re using peoples names. Well, less than two months prior to an election it’s irresponsible.

This is a cut-n-paste from my comments on Ray’s last thread:

“Now, something off topic but IMO important:
Would everyone try to help me get out the word about contacting ABC about the upcoming ABC special about 9-11? I’ve done so here:

“Tell ABC to Tell the Truth About 9/11”
http://thinkprogress.org/tellabc

I only used their format and typed my own personal message but anyone can take one minute and just use the “boiler plate” message provided.

Thanks, KansasDem”

I know that not everyone will agree with me on this issue, but I feel it’s important to get the “word” out. Propoganda in a democracy is always wrong, but within the final few weeks of an election it’s DEAD WRONG!

I ask only that everyone exercise their democratic rights and let ABC know what they think.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 8, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #179977

“Posted by Eric Simonson at September 7, 2006 11:51 PM


Posted by: Frank at September 8, 2006 07:28 PM”

Frank,

It’s impossible to tell where you leave off and Eric starts! BTW my name is also Erick. You’ll notice it’s spelled in the true Nordic way, with a ‘c’ and a ‘k’!

Yeah, I have a problem with the release of bogus info within just a few weeks of a decisive election. Many House and Senate races are just close enough that anything could tip the scales so a “contrived” version of facts bearing a simple disclaimer is totally irresponsible IMO.

Do they have the legal right to run it? YES!

Do I have the legal right to protest it and inform ABC that if they’re irresponsible I’ll boycot their channel? YOU BET!

This is still America!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 8, 2006 10:13 PM
Comment #179979

“Why was Rush Limpballs allowed to preview the movie but not Clinton, Richard Clark, Sandy Berger, or anyone else that could debunk it?”

Uh, yeah that kind of bursts the “Liberal MSM bubble” a little more doesn’t it? The fact is there is no liberal MSM. There’s the republican BS and the truth. Anytime the truth leaks out it’s called “Liberal MSM” lies!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 8, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #179986

—-Not long ago President bush Made a statement,
that he wants to make a speech in between the
two segments @ 9:00 pm , looks like things
are gettin Hot!!!

Posted by: DAVID at September 8, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #179987

KansasDem:

I’m with you buddy. Boycott ABC and do not watch this crap in a can.

By the way Eric, comparing this “drama based on factual accounts” (yeah right) to Michael Moores documentary is comparing apples and oranges. There was no hidden agenda in Moores documentary it was straight in your face showing the “right” for what it really is. Liars, cheats and crooks.

Posted by: wolfey at September 8, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #179989

Kansas Dem— I had not read anything yet, I was
trying to keep up with all the folks that are
coming out of the air waves, I call it backing
an trying to cover their buts! I am trying to
find out how the full 9/11 report got released an
who released it. We have recall rights in Mi.!

Posted by: DAVID at September 8, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #179992

I know I’ll be glued to the screen Sunday and Monday nites. Watching football on ESPN.

Posted by: wolfey at September 8, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #179995

———— Senate Panel Finds No Prewar
Iraq-Al-Qaeda Link——What next?

Posted by: DAVID at September 8, 2006 11:18 PM
Comment #179996

Check out shortcut or read

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-21075sy0sep08,0,3611179.story?coll=dp-news-local-final

Eustis chief: Iraq post-war plan muzzled
Army Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, an early planner of the war, tells about challenges of invasion and rebuilding.
BY STEPHANIE HEINATZ
247-7821
September 8, 2006
FORT EUSTIS — Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday.

In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said “he would fire the next person” who talked about the need for a post-war plan.

Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq.

Scheid, who is also the commander of Fort Eustis in Newport News, made his comments in an interview with the Daily Press. He retires in about three weeks.

Scheid doesn’t go so far as calling for Rumsfeld to resign. He’s listened as other retired generals have done so.

“Everybody has a right to their opinion,” he said. “But what good did it do?”

Scheid’s comments are further confirmation of the version of events reported in “Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq,” the book by New York Times reporter Michael R. Gordon and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Bernard E. Trainor.

In 2001, Scheid was a colonel with the Central Command, the unit that oversees U.S. military operations in the Mideast.

On Sept. 10, 2001, he was selected to be the chief of logistics war plans.

On Sept. 11, 2001, he said, “life just went to hell.”

That day, Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of Central Command, told his planners, including Scheid, to “get ready to go to war.”

A day or two later, Rumsfeld was “telling us we were going to war in Afghanistan and to start building the war plan. We were going to go fast.

“Then, just as we were barely into Afghanistan … Rumsfeld came and told us to get ready for Iraq.”

Scheid said he remembers everyone thinking, “My gosh, we’re in the middle of Afghanistan, how can we possibly be doing two at one time? How can we pull this off? It’s just going to be too much.”

Planning was kept very hush-hush in those early days.

“There was only a handful of people, maybe five or six, that were involved with that plan because it had to be kept very, very quiet.”

There was already an offensive plan in place for Iraq, Scheid said. And in the beginning, the planners were just expanding on it.

“Whether we were going to execute it, we had no idea,” Scheid said.

Eventually other military agencies - like the transportation and Army materiel commands - had to get involved.

They couldn’t just “keep planning this in the dark,” Scheid said. Planning continued to be a challenge.

“The secretary of defense continued to push on us … that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we’re going to take out the regime, and then we’re going to leave,” Scheid said. “We won’t stay.”

Scheid said the planners continued to try “to write what was called Phase 4,” or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.

Even if the troops didn’t stay, “at least we have to plan for it,” Scheid said.

“I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that,” Scheid said. “We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.

“He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war.”

Why did Rumsfeld think that? Scheid doesn’t know.

“But think back to those times. We had done Bosnia. We said we were going into Bosnia and stop the fighting and come right out. And we stayed.”

Was Rumsfeld right or wrong?

Scheid said he doesn’t know that either.

“In his own mind he thought we could go in and fight and take out the regime and come out. But a lot of us planners were having a real hard time with it because we were also thinking we can’t do this. Once you tear up a country you have to stay and rebuild it. It was very challenging.”

Even if the people who laid out the initial war plans had fleshed out post-invasion missions, the fighting and insurgent attacks going on today would have been hard to predict, Scheid said.

“We really thought that after the collapse of the regime we were going to do all these humanitarian type things,” he said. “We thought this would go pretty fast and we’d be able to get out of there. We really didn’t anticipate them to continue to fight the way they did or come back the way they are.

“Now we’re going more toward a civil war. We didn’t see that coming.”

While Scheid, a soldier since 1977, spoke candidly about the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq, he remains concerned about the American public’s view of the troops.

He’s bothered by the nationwide divide over the war and fearful that patriotism among citizens will continue to decline.

“We’re really hurting right now,” he said.

Posted by: Khalil Abdel-hameed at September 8, 2006 11:21 PM
Comment #179998

————-GUESS WE WERE MISSLEAD_________

Posted by: DAVID at September 8, 2006 11:22 PM
Comment #180000

——-MISSLEAD IS MUCH TO GENEROUS A WORD——-

Posted by: wolfey at September 8, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #180002

“I’m with you buddy. Boycott ABC and do not watch this crap in a can.”

You must let them know!

You can do it here:

http://thinkprogress.org/tellabc

Use their “boiler plate” message or whatever. This could effect elections in some venues.

Check out the “RED” side blog already. They want to paint this as interference with free speech.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 8, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #180007

Khalil Abdel-hameed,

Good link. While no one else seems to have picked up on your name I’m curious to hear a bit more.

No prejudice on my end, just curiousity. Arabic names are as difficult to me as I’m sure anglo names might be to you. My last name ends with an “ell” which is about the same as the “son” in Johnson or Carlson. It’s good to understand as much as possible about other cultures, languages, etc.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 8, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #180012

KansasDem:

Thanks for the link.

My E-Mail to ABC CEO..

Airing the biased and inaccurate depiction of the tragedy of 9/11 so close to the mid-term elections gives one pause to ponder your motives.

I only ask that you give a competant and unbiased production company who wishes to portray an accurate historic account of 9/11 five hours of prime time on your fine network.

Posted by: wolfey at September 9, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #180013
I may be wrong, but didn’t Clinton order the bombing of a ‘chemical plant’ that most people now feel was not a chemical WEAPONS plant in Sudan?

Nope. Most people look at the VX nerve gas precursors found on the site and the contracts with Iraq and the fact that all the intelligence services involved and even Mary McCarthy, an intelligence analyst who was against targeting the facility, are certain it was producing chemical weapons, and they concede it was a valid target.

With Bush, we now know that the intelligence commuity was telling him that Saddam probably DID NOT have WMD, but he cherry picked and overstated and misled us and our allies into a quagmire. Big difference.

But then again, I don’t remember any Republicans saying clinton was trying to rule the world and that we should understand, coddle and work with the terrorists who just killed our fellow Americans either.

I don’t remember anyone saying that either, except some right-wing nut balls on the radio who have no idea what they’re talking about. Certainly no Democrat ever said that.

But back to my original point: Rumsfeld led our armed forces to a strategic defeat, failing to achieve President Bush’s goal of transforming the Middle East by remaking Iraq into a pro-US, free-market, liberal democracy and a beacon of hope for reformers in the region. He should be fired. A real leader would have fired him long ago.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 9, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #180046

“remaking Iraq into a pro-US, free-market, liberal democracy and a beacon of hope”

AP,

Rememeber Condi praising the progress when the shiite community in Iraq chanted “death to America” right after Israel began bombing Lebanon?

This is what we wanted, right?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 9, 2006 2:18 AM
Comment #180075
Uh, yeah that kind of bursts the “Liberal MSM bubble” a little more doesnt it? The fact is there is no liberal MSM. Theres the republican BS and the truth. Anytime the truth leaks out its called “Liberal MSM” lies!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at September 8, 2006 10:19 PM

Why don’t you just answer the question or concede that the Republicans could not prerelease the film to anyone that could debunk it because then Rush wouldn’t have any talking points prior to airing. I’m sure once the film is aired it will backfire in the faces of those who thought it was good propaganda for the Right.

Posted by: Pat at September 9, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #180164

Pundit: I am going to have to disagree. Rumsfeld has been a great success.Not for the country but for the military-industrial complex that is really running it. He has managed to take what was a dastardly act by a few thousand lunitics that called for a major police action and turned it into a global conflict without end. The defense industry can suck us dry for another 40-50 years with nary a whimper. How they missed the cold war.

Posted by: BillS at September 9, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #180279

Bill,

Thats just what I get out of this whole mess.

Rummy is doing a great job.

Just not for us.

Posted by: Gedunk at September 10, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #180362

KansasDem, I have an arabic name but never been there. In the military now and thought it was a good article for this topic. Maybe should have picked a better name, but wanted to just post this.

Posted by: Khalil at September 10, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #209981

Hi Khalil: how are you? Please contact me so we can get connected again.
Joy

Posted by: Joy Morrison at February 28, 2007 6:55 PM
Post a comment