Rumsfeld departure a sad loss

[JerrySeinfeld]

If you weren't indifferent, you would make sacrifices. Cindy Sheehan has made a lot of sacrifices and she's a supposedly indifferent "lefty". What are your sacrifices, plagiarizing chickenhawk?

Hey! That's my bit! Quit stealing my bit!

If you don't belief speaking out for what you believe in matters, then what are you doing on this site?

Here it is, folks: the Endgame.

We've stablished that Jerry's courageous contribution consists of little more than "speaking out". In the abscence of any other possibility, we can conclude that the act of speaking out is, in and of itself, an act of courage (according to Jerry). But, if "speaking out" is itself an act of courage, then, by Jerry's reasoning, all those damn dirty leftist pinkos protestin' the war on the streets and internet message boards of our nation are not the cowardly "pantywaists" he (charmingly) says they are. In point of fact, they are as courageous as Jerry for "speaking out". This puts our boy Jerry in a bit of a logical bind where he must either concede that the pinkos are not cowards, or, should he maintain his accusations of cowardice, be damned as a coward himself. The third option would be to acknowledge that "speaking out" isn't really all that courageous an act in a country where free speech is guaranteed and any moron with a modem and a Colecovision can trumpet his opinion from the comfort of his or her own home behind the security of pseudonym. But that would show everyone that Jerry hasn't done anything special at all, which is not what he's been protesting here.

What will happen next? I don't know, but I'll say this: this beats working.

Unfortunately for us - in today's world, "protesting" against the war on Terror isn't very courageous.

Unfortunately for us, it takes a whole lot more courage to stand up to people like you.

Good thing there are still some of us left

[Higgly]

David Frum wrote a book on his time in the White House...

If his mum had written a book, it would be important. David Frum is just another neocon dish washer.

[Higgly]

Easy to criticize... What do you suggest we do? Agree with the sexist homophobes?

So let me get this straight. Anybody who does not agree with you is a queer? Enquiring minds want to know.

[JerrySeinfeld]

David Frum wrote a book on his time in the White House...

If his mum had written a book, it would be important. David Frum is just another neocon dish washer.

Barabara Frum? BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

you must be from Ontario.

[Higgly]

Ah yes, when all else fails, blame the wogs.

This is it. If only they could contribute something like Curry or Jerk or at least a little Cajun Crawdaddy...

[Black Dog]

I don't have to highlight any quote as it is thoroughly evident that Bill Moyers entire interview with Chris Hedges indicates Hedges as directly being a peacenik, nothing more than a dreaming pacifist that is right up your ally.

Hating war is not the same as pacifism.

Unfortunately for us - in today's world, "protesting" against the war on Terror isn't very courageous.

Unfortunately for us, it takes a whole lot more courage to stand up to people like you.

Good thing there are still some of us left

How corageous can it be to stand up to a bunch of cowardly pantywaists? You must be a real wimp if you're scared of them.

It's pretty clear you have no fucking idea what courage means. Courage is to face difficulty, adversity, danger or the prospect of physical harm without fear. What danger are you in posting on a message board? What adversity lurks behind your computer screen? Hmmm?

[Higgly]

As Sec Def he bore a large portion of the responsibility.

The way I see it is Rummy knew Congress had its limits. Rummy stayed within those limits, and he failed. He could have wildly exceeeded them and still failed.

The failure in Iraq has less to do with Rummy than it has to do with the fact that it was a suicide mission from the start. As Colin Powell said to George Bush Senior: "You go to Baghdad and you will be the proud owner of 35 million Iraqis." 'Nuff said.

[Higgly]

you must be from Ontario.

So in your world, opinions are geographical?

[JerrySeinfeld]

I don't have to highlight any quote as it is thoroughly evident that Bill Moyers entire interview with Chris Hedges indicates Hedges as directly being a peacenik, nothing more than a dreaming pacifist that is right up your ally.

Hating war is not the same as pacifism.

Unfortunately for us - in today's world, "protesting" against the war on Terror isn't very courageous.

Unfortunately for us, it takes a whole lot more courage to stand up to people like you.

Good thing there are still some of us left

How corageous can it be to stand up to a bunch of cowardly pantywaists? You must be a real wimp if you're scared of them.

It's pretty clear you have no fucking idea what courage means. Courage is to face difficulty, adversity, danger or the prospect of physical harm without fear. What danger are you in posting on a message board? What adversity lurks behind your computer screen? Hmmm?

See how testy you guys get? Imagine trying to support our country's mission at a party of your type?

Certainly a lefty pantywaiste like you and your cronic pals doesn't present too much of a physical threat (although there are even strength in ninny-numbers). However when speaking out in support of our toops and our mission, it can certainly be an unpopular subject amongst academics and pantywaists like you. So I venture to say there is certainly at least some social courage in espousing unpopular opinions.

ANyway, *I* think so. If you disagree you have the right to. I simply like being on the side of right and good. Your protests are telling, though. You certainly seem to want to convince SOMEBODY (yourself?) that supporting a defacto return to the Taliban is a good thing

[Leafless]

... The U.S. and it's allies went into Iraq to topple Saddam and search out Al Qaeda terrorist...

Rumsfeld did his part well as no one in the WORLD has the capability to plan ahead concerning this conflict or even truly coming to grips with the enormous volatile ramifications this initial conflict has presented.

Uhhh, really? If we went in there to root out al-Qaeda, this is the first I've heard of it. Of course Cheney and Bush kept conflating Iraq and 9/11 -- which no one with two brain cells believed -- only to later issue "no, we never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11" statements when the press stopped rolling over for them. Did you drop off the GOP talking points email list?

Rumsfeld is a smart guy, but the planning of the war and the administration of the post-war period (are we even in it?) were unmitigated disasters. Whether that was the fault of Rumsfeld or Bush will come out after the Democrats are sworn in and start poring over the files and internal memos and intelligence reports.

If Iraq is the way it is because Bush went against Rumsfeld's counsel (i.e., Bush wanted a small, light force to topple Saddam), then Rumsfeld should have either done whatever was necessary to shake Bush of disillusion or resign in protest once it became obvious the war was going downhill.

If Iraq is the way it is because of Rumsfeld's obstinance and ego, then he was an utter failure as Defense Secretary.

Either way, Rumsfeld's legacy will be one of incompetence and dishonor. He will not be missed outside the Beltway and certainly not in the battlefields around the globe.

So you never heard of the Al-Qaeda/Iraq connection, is that what your saying?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...06/550kmbzd.asp

The U.S. went into Iraq to topple Saddam as part of the war on terror and it was a success. The problem is these guys who are the perpetual trouble makers not Bush or Rumsfeld.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4268904.stm

Why don't you start thinking RIGHT or maybe you and BD can permanently take up residence in Iraq or one of those other fine Arab countries.

BTW, can you prove chemical WMD are not buried somewhere in the thousands of square miles of desert, not that any one CARES.

[Higgly]

Imagine trying to support our country's mission at a party of your type?

So, in your world, there is no choice but to agree with you at parties?

[Black Dog]

See how testy you guys get? Imagine trying to support our country's mission at a party of your type?

I'm sure our grunts over in Afghanistan are inspired and heartened by your exploits around the punch bowl. With courage like yours, Jerry, you're a shoe-in for a Congressional Medal of Asshole.

Certainly a lefty pantywaiste like you and your cronic pals doesn't present too much of a physical threat (although there are even strength in ninny-numbers). However when speaking out in support of our toops and our mission, it can certainly be an unpopular subject amongst academics and pantywaists like you.

So I venture to say there is certainly at least some social courage in espousing unpopular opinions.

Which would make Holocaust deniers some of the bravest people out there. How does it feel to be objectively pro Nazi?

ANyway, *I* think so. If you disagree you have the right to. I simply like being on the side of right and good. Your protests are telling, though. You certainly seem to want to convince SOMEBODY (yourself?) that supporting a defacto return to the Taliban is a good thing

Whuzza? The only protest I'm hearing is your tortured justifications for why you're ducking out on actually doing something (such as enlisting) to back up your warrior pose. And they sound like this: BWAK BWAK BWAK BWAK-AWK! Change the subject all you wish, but you're true colours are right here on display and they are yella!

Leafy:

So you never heard of the Al-Qaeda/Iraq connection, is that what your saying?

Oh I've heard of it. But no one's actually been able to produce any evidence of it beyond the most tenuous of links. And, I'll tell you the same thing I've told a million other conspiracy nuts a million times before: if there was documentary evidence of direct co-operation between AQ and Hussein, why wouldn't the Bush administration be on that like flies on a turd?

Why don't you start thinking RIGHT or maybe you and BD can permanently take up residence in Iraq or one of those other fine Arab countries.

Huh? Can you explain what that has to do with, uh, anything. Because, like Jerry's "Oh yeah? Well you love the Taliban! Lol!!!" above, it sure looks like a non sequiter to me. Maybe you should think about that or else purple monkey dishwasher.

BTW, can you prove chemical WMD are not buried somewhere in the thousands of square miles of desert, not that any one CARES.

You're right. They buried all the WMD, and then destroyed all the evidence of the program and created new evidence to make people think most of their WMD activities were curtailed after the first Gulf War, then they played cat and mouse with inspectors right up until it became apparent that the U.S. was going to invade, and then they cleverly allowed the regime to fall. Saddam's impending trip to the gallows is just part of their cunning plan. Tricky beggars.

[Liam]

Leafless... *LOL... wait, errr... you were joking, right?

Terror training camps in Ramadi or wherever were NEVER (get that? NE-VER) an argument of the Bush administration's in the period leaning up to the war. Never. Sure, they frequently and cynically conflated 9/11 and Saddam, but even up until a month ago, the closest anyone in the administration could say Saddam got to actual terrorists was that he offered money to Palentinian suicide bombers whose targets were Israeli civilians. Shitty and immoral, to be sure, but was that reason enough for the US to mobilize its entire war machine to take down Saddam? You're seriously deluding yourself.

Trouble makers... cripes, do I need flashcards for you right wingers? hand puppets?

1. Rumsfeld and Bush went into war on the easy side. They wanted a small force and disregarded the troop levels needed to secure the country after Saddam fell. Rather than using an overwhelming force, they used *just enough* troops to guarantee a loss.

2. They made the fatal mistake of disbanding the Iraqi military and sending home a hundred thousand *armed* soldiers without pay and without jobs.

3. They made the second fatal mistake of unwinding the Iraqi civil service. No civil service = no civil services. Try getting your lights turned on, try getting you grandmother's social security check, try locating your bank account.

4. They made the third fatal mistake of not understanding the country they were invading and the various factions Saddam's regime kept in check.

5. They made the fourth fatal mistake of not planning for even a handful of alternative outcomes. Prior to going in, they should have planned for various alternatives, including famine and contagion, insurrection, brittle infrastructure, political instability, social unrest, civil disobedience, energy and medical shortfalls... In the three seconds it took for me (sitting in my home office) to type that, I probably gave more thought to various alternative outcomes than Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld combined.

6. Their botching of the war only emboldened Iran, the true threat to international security and energy resources in the region.

7. They filled positions in the post-war administration with political friends and big money donors who largely proved to be incompetent and disinterested in doing anything to stabilize Iraq. Most of them seemed more interested in earning their GOP bona fides so they could go back to work at K Street lobby firms and big defense contractors after their *tour of duty*.

8. They opened the money spigot to giant corporate interests (I say this as an ardent fan of capitalism, but their aim to help the private sector should NEVER have taken precendent over the national security interest of getting the war "right").

9. They clung to a failed policy long after it became obvious to everyone that the tactics they employed were doing nothing but prolonging the need to keep boots on the ground and increasing the numbers of US and Iraqi dead.

10. They used the war and anyone's opposition as a political tool. They risked the lives of young men and women who were told they were fighting for American freedom and cynically kept them in harm's way all to serve the inflated egos of a president and Sec'y of Defense who could admit no wrong, who could not imagine how anyone could question their leadership. MIraculously, Rumsfeld's service only fell short *after* Bush suffered a setback at the polls. Ask yourself this: if he was doing well before 11/7, why isn't he still serving at the Pentagon?

Most of all, they made the mistake of thinking the American public was stupid, that we would be forever forgiving of them because they represent the *right* way of thinking, that they KNOW and that we merely follow and believe. I see you still do, which tells me that you have outsourced your independence of thought to the likes of Bush and Cheney. Good luck to you.

[Leafless]

Most of all, they made the mistake of thinking the American public was stupid, that we would be forever forgiving of them because they represent the *right* way of thinking, that they KNOW and that we merely follow and believe. I see you still do, which tells me that you have outsourced your independence of thought to the likes of Bush and Cheney. Good luck to you.

Iraq can be compared to the brawling hotel drunk who gets knocked down for the fifth time but still bounces up for more punishment and then wonders why he ends up in intensive care.

American public now sees Iraq as a pointless money pit with no end results.

Americans are more interested in their own economy and concerns like illegal immigration.

Everything you wrote in your post is only personal opinion and is not backed up with any sort of authoritative proof.

It seems you are one of the ones against the success of western ideologies.

[jdobbin]

It seems you are one of the ones against the success of western ideologies.

What is the success of western ideologies that you keep talking about?

And why keep associating people with terrorism? Anyone who thought Rumsfeld did a poor job is against the west? Does that include McCain?

[Leafless]

It seems you are one of the ones against the success of western ideologies.

What is the success of western ideologies that you keep talking about?

And why keep associating people with terrorism? Anyone who thought Rumsfeld did a poor job is against the west? Does that include McCain?

Are you in some kind of denial that the U.S. is a successful super power and Canada's success as a country is directly owed to that fact?

"And why keep associating people with terrorism? Anyone who thought Rumsfeld did a poor job is against the west? Does that include McCain?"

I have no idea what you are driving at.

I believe in western ideologies and don't have any biases against the U.S or it's politicians.

[jdobbin]

Are you in some kind of denial that the U.S. is a successful super power and Canada's success as a country is directly owed to that fact?

"And why keep associating people with terrorism? Anyone who thought Rumsfeld did a poor job is against the west? Does that include McCain?"

I have no idea what you are driving at.

I believe in western ideologies and don't have any biases against the U.S or it's politicians.

You've done some accusing in other threads that say I support terrorism or being anti-west. I have no idea what you're talking about there.

I've said Rumsfeld was doing a poor job. That isn't a bias against U.S. politicians. It's an assessment of his time in office; one that is shared by many Republicans.

As for successful superpower, I don't know that I've ever said anything about that or denied anything in that regard.

You have a list of people you want banned. I am still trying to figure out what your criteria is for that.

[Leafless]

jdobbin

See post #12-under "Al-Qaeda threatens to blow up White House."

[jdobbin]

jdobbin

See post #12-under "Al-Qaeda threatens to blow up White House."

And this has to deal with Rumsfeld how?

[Liam]

It seems you are one of the ones against the success of western ideologies.

The ignorance of this statement is astounding. Where did you pull that from? Because I don't fall lockstep in line with the Rush Limbaughs I am against the success of western ideologies? Get real.

If anything, I'd say that the tendency of some toward nationalism and authoritarianism are antithetical to western thought. Look in the mirror. You've already banished western ideology from your own brain.

[Leafless]

It seems you are one of the ones against the success of western ideologies.

The ignorance of this statement is astounding. Where did you pull that from? Because I don't fall lockstep in line with the Rush Limbaughs I am against the success of western ideologies? Get real.

If anything, I'd say that the tendency of some toward nationalism and authoritarianism are antithetical to western thought. Look in the mirror. You've already banished western ideology from your own brain.

You went to lengths in post #63 describing the U.S. invasion of Iraq as a blundered failure caused by an incompetent Bush and Rumsfeld.

It's obvious you do not consider the Iraq war on terror an absolute necessity concerning the salvation of western ideologies.

Anyone with a sense of strong western values knows automatically the Iraqi war on terrorism is not a war to be criticized under any circumstance especially by a westerner. This is complicated by the fact U.S. citizens could have a legitimate complaint concerning the cost factor but not the main factor which is the elimination of Islamic terrorism.

I find anyone to go to the lengths you have to be this critical of this Iraq conflict is not one to possess western interest at heart and as a result you could be viewed as a traitor by citizens of both the U.S. and Canada, especially not being a U.S. citizen.

[August1991]

Funny clip:

Goodbye Rumsfeld.

[Liam]

Anyone with a sense of strong western values knows automatically the Iraqi war on terrorism is not a war to be criticized under any circumstance especially by a westerner...

I find anyone to go to the lengths you have to be this critical of this Iraq conflict is not one to possess western interest at heart and as a result you could be viewed as a traitor by citizens of both the U.S. and Canada, especially not being a U.S. citizen.

This is TOTAL B.S. Utter crap.

Anyone who criticized the war in Iraq is an enemy of western ideologies?! How about this -- anyone who is either too afraid or too jingoistic to demand better of his government is nothing but a nationalist. Anyone who thinks we could not have done better is a loser. Anyone who thinks that we have not lived up to our potential is someone who accepts mediocrity. Anyone who criticicizes contsitutional rights -- like freedom of speech -- is an abettor of the forces that corrupt western ideology. How about that? Again, look in the mirror, traitor.

You foolishly cling to the notion that any criticism of the way this war was waged is a criticism of western ideology. Sorry, bud, but you missed Western Civics 101: anyone who fails to force his government to do better is a traitor to western ideology. By falling subservient to whatever political force rules the country, I count you among the boot-lickers of history. You want to undermine those who seek better for our country. You are a traitor to western thought.

People who think like you are perhaps better suited to nations where agreeing with the government is the ulitmate civic virtue. If so, consider your passport to North Korea, Iran and Burma pre-stamped and consider yourself cleared for customs.

I await YOUR apology, traitor-to-the-west.

[Liam]

... still waiting...

[GostHacked]

The Left = What? Where? Why? When? How?

The Right = 'Man...u dumb ...pantywaiste Islamofascist sympathizer wink.gif'

amirite?