Rumsfeld quitting

+1


And I have an idea I think is better than Rumsfeld's. My idea was not to invade Iraq in the first place. I'm not to worried about justice. Rumsfeld will be burning in hell when he dies along with the President.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Did the organic store have a special on tin foil or something? Jeez.

 

Here are some patriotic posters that Rumsfeld was working on:
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

SPIN DOCTORS ALL OF YALLS!!!

I don't agree that he is the fall guy, you had all those generals that came to
capital hill and said that he was a boob and he had to go.....Bush is not a military man, he listens to advisers like Rummy.....when your adviser gives you information that does not work, he has to go....to bad Bush picked Rummy over Powel...

but in the big picture, we had the cold war fighting the invisible enemy, we are fighting the invisible enemy now as well, just got a little side tracked by iraq......

I am waiting for the Aliens actually, then we can all band together and fight them for their oil...

 

Oh! I guess that you must have anticipated this then. Face the facts. YOU REPUBS GOT YOUR ASSES KICKED. Youe asses were kicked not just because of this misbegotten war,but also because of the spendthrift tendancies of the idiot repubs.

 

That history hasn't been correct since 1994. The year that the Republicans took over the senate and the house. They lost them in the mid term elections over the stupid idea of impeachment.

However, the point is this: 1. The war was started on false premises. Argument about whether deliberatly false or just a result of stupid people. 2. We've caused the death of at least 150k Iraqi, and some estimates rise to over 600k. Anybody who has a brain should understand what a huge disaster this has been.

Just about 70% of Americans finally got it, and want us out, and the sooner the better.

We need to get out of there, let them fight until a strong leader takes place. Then the country can put itself back together.

Will there be more terrorists? You bet. However, you'd better start reading their statements, because this isn't a idological war. Nope it's about what they perceive that we've done to them. Unless we change our polices over there, you can expect continued growth in the terrorist industry. This stupid war probably increased terrorist recruitment by a thousand fold, and made everyone a lot more unsafe. Dumber and dumber finially got caught.

Art

 

Yup. As did many other people. Hell, there were very good books written on the subject of how the Republicans were going to lose the House and Senate if they got lazy. They chose not to do anything about it.

Hardly. They lost, yes. However the Democrat margin of victory was tiny, and as I said well below the historical average. An "ass kicking" would have been a 60/40 majority in the Senate, and 300+ seats in the House.

It had nothing to do with the war. Did you bother to read my post, at all? Just about all of the anti-war Republicans got the boot. Just about all of the Democrats who were elected are moderate, or flat out pro-war.

It happened because many of the Republicans tried to play the center, pissed off their base, and basically acted like Democrats. Yes, spending was a part of it. McCain's bull**** and his gang of 14 (now 12) was another large part.

 

It had EVERYTHING to do with the 'war', and a little with illegal immigrants coming up from south of the border.

MOST folks are not educated enough in politics to separate any Republican up for election from Bush, so folks chose to send Bush a message by doing all they could to get anyone that could support him OUT.
We are making little or no headway in this 'war', if we wanted to negotiate a truce we don't even know who we would be talking to (and it's NOT Bin Laden, he's just a puppet now), or where they are. All we did was capture or kill most of Hussein's cronies, as far as I know we have captured almost no 'real leaders of terrorism' over there.

If you think it was anything other than that, you are dreaming.

 

Sigh. You know, it would really help if you'd actually read my post before replying to it. Please note where I said "it doesn't matter if they're Democrats or Republicans".

2006 Senate, Republican White House, second term: Dem +5, Rep -6

2002 Senate, Rep WH, first term: Dem -2, Rep +2 (this is rare)

1990 Senate, Rep WH, first term: Dem +1, Rep -1 (this isn't)

1986 Senate, Rep WH, second term: Dem +8, Rep -8

1978 Senate, Dem WH, first term: Dem -3, Rep +3

1966 Senate, Dem WH, fisrt term: Dem -3, Rep +3

1958 Senate, Rep WH, second term: Dem +13, Rep -13

And on, and on.

Nonsense.

Both numbers of which are complete hogwash. But, let's for the moment suspend reality and say either number were accurate. Which would you consider the greater loss of life: The nonsensual figure of 150,000 Iraqis accidentally killed in the liberation of Iraq, or the approximately 2-3 million Saddam intentionally killed before it? That's around sixty thousand a year. Around 185 people a day, averaged out, most for all sorts of perfectly valid reasons like "being Kurds". Yeah, sure, it would have been much better to leave him in power.

I think you need to check your arithmetic.

Yeah, sure. Meet the new boss. Just like the old boss. If you understood the underlying reason Iraq was necessary, and why the success of an Arab democracy in the middle east is so very important, you might see a bit of a flaw in that logic.

Uh, no, it has absolutely jack to do with what we've "done to them", and everything to do with the fact that most Arab fundamentalists operate under an Honor/Shame culture. The Koran states that the faithful should inherit the earth. They should have all the power, all the technology, all the wealth and prosperity. Instead, they have none of it, and Arab culture in the 20th and 21st centuries has been a complete, abject failure by any measurable metric. That causes shame. Shame breeds hate. Hate causes terrorism. And it all has absolutely jack **** to do with what we "do to them".

You can't buy off or appease an Honor/Shame culture. That only makes them hate you more. A prime example would be Egypt. We shovel over two billion dollars a year into that hole in aid. By your reasoning, they should love everything remotely connected to the US. However, they were among the first to dance in the streets after 9/11.

The only way to defeat an Honor/Shame culture such as exists in Traditionalist Islam, short of nuking the joint as we did in Japan, is to change the question from "Why does the infidel have everything when Allah says I should?" to "Why do the Iraqis have everything when they're just the same as we are?". You do that by creating a successful Arab Democracy in Iraq, and THAT, largely, is what the war there is about.

Were ancillary reasons for invading Iraq given the limelight? Sure. Saddam poured piles of cash into various terror groups around the globe. That alone was a perfectly valid reason to get rid of them. Saddam also had substantial WMD ambitions, and was in material breech of several UN resolutions regarding the chemical weapons we found there. That, as well, was a perfectly valid reason to get rid of him. But, those alone were not the only ones. There were also those fleeting buzzwords of humanity which you no doubt scoff at, like "freedom" and "democracy", as well as the importance of disassembling traditionalist islam, as I've already said.

I suppose, that said, your only response will be "No blood for oil" or some such boilerplate nonsense, so do me a favor and don't bother.

 

Really. So explain to me why pro-war Democrat/Independents like Lieberman were elected, while anti-war pseudo-Republicans like Chafee got the boot.

Also explain why the majority of Democrats who picked up seats were moderates, and not the lunatic fringe left which would exemplify a large shift in public opinion as would appear to be your contention.

Then, explain why Hillary Frickin' Clinton, of all people, loses support among said lunatic lefty fringe for her luke-warm support of the war, when if what you're implying were true, she could shriek the usual anti-war rhetoric at the top of her lungs, and if anything become more popular.

And finally, please explain exactly how you make a "truce" with people who want to kill you, regardless of what you do or don't do to them.

(And we'll ignore the outright insanity of surrendering in the first place).

 

"You do that by creating a successful Arab Democracy in Iraq, and THAT, largely, is what the war there is about."

Someone once said that the idea of creating a democracy by invading Iraq was like dynamiting a forest and expecting the pieces to fall as neat rows of suburban homes.

"And finally, please explain exactly how you make a "truce" with people who want to kill you, regardless of what you do or don't do to them."

The "insurgents" in Iraq are predominantly Sunni Muslims who feel disenfranchised after Saddam's fall. Al Quaida didn't exist in Iraq until we sent them an engraved invitation by invading the country and "unleashing hell". Of course people are shooting at our soldiers; we're a foreign occupying force. That's what happens when you invade and occupy a foreign country - people shoot at you and try to blow you up. The idea that we can somehow stop (or tie up) Al Quaida in Iraq (the Administration's most recent rationale from the war) is ridiculous, as they are a truly multi-national force that knows no borders. And, they wouldn't even be there if we hadn't invaded!

This needs to move to political.

 

I'd like to thank the Blue team for bringing to war back to US. Good thing Rummy is out, now the USA's enemies can do what they set out to accomplish, everyone is happy now.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/470143p-395680c.html

New al Qaeda tape: Won't stop until we blow up White House

CAIRO, Egypt — Al-Qaeda in Iraq claimed in a new audio tape Friday to be winning the war faster than expected in Iraq, saying it had mobilized 12,000 fighters.
The group also said it welcomed the Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and it added that its fighters would not rest until they had blown up the White House.

 

Yeah right. Donald Rumsfeld was the only thing standing between the terrorists and America. Sheesh. Once we get competent people in the Pentagon that are in touch with reality, then we might have an actual chance of "winning" this war.


I would really hate to see the White House get destroyed though. All those precious pieces of art and antiques.

 

You're watching a movie that isn't playing. Let's start with your first premise: the premise for the war. It was bull****, straight up. No WMDs, not found, non-existant. Read the statements regarding, the fear that CHeney attempte d to instill in the America public, better yet, go back and review Keith Obermann's absolute taking apart of the Bush Administration's claim. Points out all the false statements. The only real question is whether or not the falsehoods were lies, or just stupidity.

As for your diatribe regarding the "war on terror" you seem to forget that Iraq was a secular state, not a religious one. Saddam didn't kill millions of Iraqis, however millions did die because of him, and his friends, Rummy, Reagan, et al, in the war against Iran. Notice all those picture of Rummy shaking his hand, done at the time that he and his armies were killing Iranians, with WMDs which we'd sold him. Great moral position for us to be in, huh? At best Saddam killed about 100k Iraqis, at best, and I've yet to see any documentation regarding that, and I suspect it is an inflated number. Most of those that got killed, were revolting against his rule, and I suspect that if something like that occured here, we'd do the same. Sorry, I forget, we did. Check out what we did to the citizens, non-combatants in the South, during our civil war, yet we worship Lincoln, go figure. If you think that we invaded him because of his killing citizens, why in the world haven't we invaded Turkey? They've killed more Kurds than Saddam. Never noticed a point about that did we?

This war was started because some intellectual nut cases thought they could change the middle east, and some smart guys figured they could control a little oil at the same time. Both were wrong, as you are. Read a little history, specifically the consequences to the Brits from their invasion off Iraq in 1919. You might even notice a similarity or two.

BTW: you forget the 1998 election in your little list, why pray tell, because the numbers don't agree with your statement?

Art

 

Actually, yes, we found several hundred chemical rounds, which in itself directly violates UN resolution 1441.

That of course ignores the 1.7 tons of enriched uranium we found there.

Uh, no, I left it and several other years out of my "little list" because I didn't feel like listing every single one for the last hundred years. Suffice it to say that it is a very common occurrence for the party in power to lose seats during mid term elections, which was the original point you're apparently trying to evade via a red herring.

Whatever. Some people have the intellectual capacity of a diced carrot when it comes to things outside their peer-induced mindset, and experience has shown me that it's about as rewarding as talking to a brick as to debate with them.

 

"Simba", you are so full of crap that it's unbelievable.

Move this to the political forum.

 

It's great when you deal with people who's education leads them to make comments like this. Do you understand what was removed? I suspect not. This material had nothing to do with WMDs. It was fuel (and medical chemicals) for a reactor. It wasn't WMDs, nor could Iraq have turned it into same. Period. If you knew a little about physics you wouldn't have put your foot into your mouth, as you did. Commercial grade enriched versus military use is huge. Commerical grade enriched is 3% while bomb grade is about 60%.

The chemical rounds were ones that had been previously disclosed to the UN, or were without contents.

Nope, the commentary against the war is based upon facts, while those who'd stay the course, make things up, as you've done. Enjoy the movie, apparently only you and those of your political persuasion can see it.

Art

 

Boy it sure is easy to forget how we wound up where we are. Here are a few quotes that might make you think.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.



Yes they are true and yes it's true that some were taken out of context. I'm also not saying that they all support the war. I'm a little smarter than that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a warmonger and I HATE seeing our troops come home injured or in body bags. That said, almost everyone felt we needed to do something (to one degree or another and for one reason or another) to stop Saddam.

I'd love nothing more than to see all out troops pulled out tomorrow but..... anyone who thinks this is a prudent or wise move is a fool. No matter what the reasoning behind the war the simple truth is, now that it's going we can't just stop and go home.

Do I think there needs to be a real plan in place to get out troops home? I'd love to see that but the reality is we need to finish what we started, period.

 

Let's start at the begining: 1. Most of those quotes are pre 1998, when Clinton used Cruise missle against Saddam, because he (Saddam) has caused the UN inspectors to leave. As to those comments, they were probably accurate when given. However, after the attack, the consensus was that Saddam had destroyed his weapons. 2. After Bush got into office, there was a systematic profiling of the intelligence on Iraq. A classic example of the bias given was that meeting with Blair, which is now called the Blair memos, where they said they were going to war in any event, and that they'd use the WMDs to convince the population.

You've commented on Finishing what we started. Exactly what to you mean by that? Are you planning on establishing a democratic government? If so, your great, great, great grand kids will be dying over there. If you plan on installing a brutal dictator, you might have a chance of establishing a government that will last. You see, when Iraq was formed, the Brits just drew lines on a map, and presto, there was Iraq. Unfortunately, that plan is occupied by 3 seperate groups of people, who happen to hate each other. If you look at those that Saddam killed, you'll see that they were revolving against his rule. You think installing a ****e government is going to change that? You need to start reading the Arab press regarding this. They have publications in English, and you might find that the Sunni (they are the largest block Muslims, by the way) strongly resent having ****es in control in Iraq. Sunnis are the majority in Saudi Arabia, and most of the other Arab states, and a good portion of them consider this a religious war. Never read that in a US paper did you?

Let me know exactly what "finishing what we started" involves, because I don't think that anyone with any sense has the faintest clue of what that means. BTW, when this started, I said there weren't any weapons, and if you looked at the West Bank you had a vision of the future of Iraq, and I think that I got it right then. This is what happened in Viet Nam, and it came apart for exactly the same reason: when they don't roll over an pee on themselves, the American public sees that they have no horse in the race, but their kids are dying, and it's a done deal. This is a done deal, the only question is how many more young men and women get to die for nothing.

Art

 

"Finish what we started" eh? At what cost? It sounds like 1964 all over again, but worse.

The point is that there were alternatives to the invasion / occupation scenario. Yes, there were suspicions of WMDs, and Saddam was a bad guy. BUT WE TOOK THE ABSOLUTE WORST COURSE BY INVADING, spooked by ridiculous visions of mushroom clouds and lulled by neocon visions of troops being greeted with flowers and a sudden turnabout to Jeffersonian democracy. HOW STUPID AND NAIVE CAN YOU GET? Yes, now we're stuck there, spending lives and billions of our national treasure (which is, by the way, being put on the "credit card" for the next generation).

Now, we're stuck in this quagmire of Bush's making. That stupid, ignorant, arrogant little p***k who couldn't even run a baseball team or an oil company in West Texas. Meanwhile, the terrorists are getting stronger.

Thank God the election went the way it did!

 

oh sure...the defenses are down now huh? laughable! we were at just as much risk of an attact then as we are now. to think the landscape has changed for al qaeda post election...well now you sound like cheney.

 

i just read simba's profile to see his profession wondering what business space allowed for such lightweights...alas...he is a professional lion thus lives by jungle rule of law!

get of the party elephant and get real. iraq is melting down and we are to blame.

and guess what...the u.s. economy is not what it appears either!!!

 

Maybe they will give Rumsfeld the cell next to Saddam.

 

We'll see??

 

and guess what...the u.s. economy is not what it appears either!!![/QUOTE]

Absolutely true. We are pursuing a course, disastrous in the long term, of colossal trade, budget, and credit deficits in order to sustain, in the short term, the semblance of prosperity. At some point, the piper will have to be paid. When that happens, it won't be pretty.

Why isn't anyone talking about this?