If that post were posted on the Politics for Pros thread I would not like to be around for the fire that would result led by Nadine...
By the way here's an interesting post too... Another of my favorite guys besides DeLay... Rumsfeld...
IRAQ
Why Is Rumsfeld Still Around?
Prior to the war against Iraq, the Bush administration claimed that the conflict
would be short and inexpensive. Over two years later, U.S. troops have
sacrificed over 1,700 lives, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $200 billion on the
war, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, appearing on three Sunday morning
talk shows this weekend, claims no mistakes have been made. The lead architect
of the failed Iraq policy stubbornly refused to admit that a change of course
was needed. Were President Bush sincere about his renewed effort this week to
offer a " strategy for success
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050624-3.html) " in Iraq, his
first step should be to ask for and accept Rumsfeld's resignation. RUMSFELD'S
ROSY VISION REVISED: On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace noted that Rumsfeld,
from before the start of the Iraq war, has offered a rosy picture about how the
conflict would turn out, leaving most Americans unprepared for the violence that
has resulted. Rumsfeld responded to the criticism by saying: " That's false ...
I have been very balanced and measured
(http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/11992687.htm) ." Rumsfeld's
revisionist history does a grave disservice to all Americans who believed his
and the Defense Department's assertions prior to the war in Iraq. Fareed
Zakaria, commenting on ABC's This Week, said, "On Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld has
been more Orwellian, not truthful." Despite his best efforts to fashion himself
into a " new Rumsfeld,"
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30800-2005Feb16_2.html) the
"old Rumsfeld" cannot be forgotten. Conservative columnist Bill Kristol stated
the case against Rumsfeld
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A132-2004Dec14.html) most
succinctly: "These soldiers deserve a better defense secretary than the one we
have." Let's review: Rumsfeld said he knew where the WMD were
(http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/23/donald-rumsfeld-pants-on-fire/) , he said
the conflict would not last more than six months
(http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/26/rumsfeld-big-mistake/) , he downplayed the
initial security vaccum in Iraq by saying " stuff happens
(http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/11/sprj.irq.pentagon/) ," he asserted that we
would be greeted as liberators
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1109-11.htm) in Iraq, he failed to
properly equip the troops
(http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&requesttimeout=500&folder=16&paper=1674)
for the war, and then he famously said, " you go to war with the Army you have
(http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/08/rumsfeld.troops/) , not the Army you
want."
RUMSFELD'S DICTIONARY: Vice President Cheney, as you will recall, recently said
the Iraqi insurgency was in its " last throes.
(http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/) " His assertion has since run up
against the facts, with recent violence
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/27/international/middleeast/27cnd-iraq.html?hp&ex=1119931200&en=cfa6c1cf46ad09dd&ei=5094&partner=homepage)
indicating a strengthening insurgency and the top military commander in the
Persian Gulf directly stating that he disagreed with Cheney
(http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/insurgents23.html) . This of course put
Rumsfeld in the difficult position of possibly telling the truth this Sunday.
But he didn't. In a blatant act of dishonesty, Rumsfeld went on each of the
Sunday shows and repeated his talking point of the day that Cheney's "last
throes" comment may have been accurate if you look up its definition in the
dictionary (in essence, parroting Cheney's own defense of his comments
(http://www.wonkette.com/politics/media/bush-admin-throes-the-book-at-em-109913.php)
last week). On Fox, Rumsfeld said, "Last throes could be a violent last throe,
just as well as a placid or calm last throe. Look it up in the dictionary
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160716,00.html) ." (After defending
Cheney's comments, Rumsfeld completely contradicted himself, asserting that the
insurgency could last 12 years
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1515471,00.html) .) On NBC, he
said, "The last throes could be violence, as you well know from a dictionary
standpoint (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8332675/) ." And on ABC, he told host
George Stephanopoulos to "look it up." Rumsfeld has frequently turned to the
Oxford Dictionary to bail himself out of difficult situations, such as when he
tried to twist General Abizaid's assertion that Iraq had become a guerrilla war
(http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2003/tr20030724-secdef0452.html) (Rumsfeld:
"I have since gone to the dictionary") or when he defended his characterization
of the war on terror as a long, hard " slog
(http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2003/tr20031023-secdef0810.html) "
(Rumsfeld: "It's not only the Oxford Dictionary's preferred definition, it's
mine"). Rumsfeld's quippy, semantic word-game misses the central fact that "last
throes" comment misleads the American public into believing that we're on our
way out of Iraq.
GITMO RATIONALE BREAKS DOWN IN THE FACE OF TALKS WITH IRAQI INSURGENTS: Rumsfeld
confirmed a report from The London Sunday Times
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1669601,00.html) that the U.S.
has been negotiating with Iraqi insurgents
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/27/MNGDFDFFGU1.DTL)
. To explain why the U.S. is now negotiating with the enemy -- a stance that
President Bush has yet to publicly confirm -- Rumsfeld offered the following
response: "If you think about it, there aren't the good guys and the bad guys
over there (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160716,00.html) . There are
people all across the spectrum." This nuanced view of the enemy is one that
escaped Rumsfeld when he devised his scheme to detain terrorists at the
Guantanamo Bay facility. Rumsfeld sees these detainees in pure black-and-white
terms: " They're suicide bombers (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8332675/) .
They're terrorists. They're murderers and these are bad people. These are not
good people." If the U.S. can now negotiate with insurgents in Iraq, why can't
we afford basic human rights and due process to detainees in Guantanamo?
NEW SPIN, SAME AS THE OLD SPIN: The mainstream press continues
(http://dembloggers.com/story/2005/6/24/161447/229) to repeat the canard that
the White House is changing its message
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061502184.html)
on Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld "road-tested"
(http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/11992687.htm) the
purportedly new message this weekend, and it was the rhetorical equivalent of a
1980 Austin Princess (http://www.roblightbody.com/cars/princess/princess2.jpg) :
old, tired, and unreliable. Knight-Ridder laid out the three major planks of the
"new" message: "'Progress is being made politically and economically' in Iraq;
...And we have never miscalculated, erred, or misled you." Sound familiar?
That's because each of those points -- one
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&qt=progress+in+iraq&submit.x=0&submit.y=0)
and two
(http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118262) --
have been repeated by the White House for months.
...AND JUST AS FALSE: Take point number one: though it may be true that Iraq is
slowly advancing politically, that progress has occurred despite the security
situation in Iraq
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-061605iraq2_wr,0,3206907.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
for which Secretary Rumsfeld is accountable, not because of it. Moreover, Iraq's
economy is still decidedly a mixed bag. While many Iraqis are wealthier today
than they were two years ago, "by other measures, like electricity availability
and the unemployment rate, Iraq's economy appears weaker than it was during the
Baathist reign (https://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20050603.htm) ," a
Brookings analysis noted this month.
RUMSFELD DEFENDS ROVE'S FALSE SMEAR: Asked whether he was happy with the way
liberals reacted after September 11, Rumsfeld said, "I think you're talking
about Karl Rove, is that what that is? Yeah, it is. I don't do politics. You
know that, Tim (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8332675/) ." That is, until 10
seconds later, when Rumsfeld proceeded to repeat Rove's remarks. "I think that
what [Rove] was saying was, look, the point I made earlier, do you want to treat
terrorists with indictments and trials here in the United States, or do you want
to treat terrorists like terrorists, get them off the battlefield, keep them
from killing people, find out everything you can so you can stop future
attacks?" But statements from President Bush
(http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/23/does-karl-rove-speak-for-bush/) and House
leader Tom DeLay
(http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_atrios_archive.html#111981358428554008) ,
as well as polls (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/26/17417/8637)
taken shortly after September 11, show this is patently false. Here's one
survey, taken 9/13/01-9/14/01, demonstrating startling unanimity across the
political spectrum in the wake of the attacks: "Should the U.S. take military
action against those responsible? Yes: 93% of Republicans, 86% of Democrats,
76% of independents. (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/6/26/17417/8637) "
IS RUMSFELD A ROVIAN LIBERAL?: Rumsfeld made a number of stark observations this
weekend that, if spoken from a different mouth, may have become political fodder
for Karl Rove. Rumsfeld said, " We're not going to win against this insurgency
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160716,00.html) ." He later said, "
Foreigners don't defeat insurgencies
(http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/2005/tr20050626-secdef3142.html) ." Rumsfeld
also added the insurgency could go on for 12 years
(http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/world/11995401.htm) , and he
confirmed that there have been "many" talks with insurgents
(http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050627/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq_12)
. Seems like Rumsfeld is offering " therapy and understanding for our attackers
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5093932,00.html) ."
RUMSFELD FORGETS WHETHER HE PREDICTED THE INSURGENCY: Secretary Rumsfeld
yesterday demonstrated a near photographic memory of all the bad things he told
President Bush might happen, but didn't: "I presented the president a list of
about 15 things that could go terribly, terribly wrong before the war started:
the fact that the oil fields could have been set aflame like they were in
Kuwait, the fact that we could have had mass refugees and dislocations and it
didn't happen, the bridges could have blown up, there could have been a Fortress
Baghdad with a moat around it with oil in it and people fighting to the
death.... So a great many of the bad things that could have happened did not
happen." Rumsfeld can't recall, however, if he told President Bush that there
might be an "robust insurgency": " I don't remember if that was on there
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8332675/) ," Rumsfeld told Tim Russert. |
