The UN, US and Iraq IV

I watched the interview ... Rumsfeld simply did not fall into the trap of providing conjecture as answer to what remain complex, ongoing unresolved questions.

0 Replies

Uh-huh.

Uh-huh.

Maureen Dowd wrote:

Crawford George has morphed into Baghdad Bob.

The war began with Bush illogic: false intelligence (from Niger to nuclear) used to bolster a false casus belli (imminent threat to our security) based on a quartet of false premises (that we could easily finish off Saddam and the Baathists, scare the terrorists and democratize Iraq without leeching our economy).

Now Bush illogic continues: The more Americans, Iraqis and aid workers who get killed and wounded, the more it is a sign of American progress. The more dangerous Iraq is, the safer the world is. The more troops we seem to need in Iraq, the less we need to send more troops.

The harder it is to find Saddam, Osama and WMD, the less they mattered anyhow. The more coordinated, intense and sophisticated the attacks on our soldiers grow, the more "desperate" the enemy is.

Eyes Wide Shut

0 Replies

The only thing Rumsfeld seems to have jutting out is his forehead in that stoic scowl of his.

0 Replies

That's exactly the problem, timber, "Rumsfeld simply did not fall into the trap of providing conjecture as answer to what remain complex, ongoing unresolved questions" that should have been resolved BEFORE they started this war.

0 Replies

It's like doing a business plan and leaving out any contingencies or pitfalls. Any neighborhood banker worth his snuff would look at it and start laughing. They admit they didn't plan on what is happening there or in Afghanistan yet they won't outline just how far off they are.

0 Replies

Again its perspective. I see an ability to adapt a plan to the exigencies brought on by developments. The planning could and should have been better from the start, but there's a plan and it is being worked. I also figure its better to do something about a problem than doing nothing.
What has been done is that for the Iraqis water supply and sewage treatment, electricity, medical care, education, and personal freedoms have been improved over pre-war levels. The local economy is developing despite sabotage of petroleum and industrial infrastructure, indigenous authority is increasing at local, provincial, and national level, and the framework for continued progress has been firmly established.
The beneficiaries of the media fixation on negative aspects are those who would see Iraq again a repressive, monolithic, totalitarian state. That turn of events assuredly is not in the plans. What I see as intolerably hypocritical is the subordination of the overall good of the Iraqi people to the political agenda of those opposed to US action in the matter. It is clear to me who really stand for freedom, security, and prosperity.

0 Replies

Quote:

I watched the interview ... Rumsfeld simply did not fall into the trap of providing conjecture as answer to what remain complex, ongoing unresolved questions.

He fell pretty damned easily into certainty of conjecture BEFORE the war. Come on, timber.

0 Replies

timber's quote, "What I see as intolerably hypocritical is the subordination of the overall good of the Iraqi people to the political agenda of those opposed to US action in the matter." At what cost to the US? How much sacrifice of US lives and billions is worth "the overall good of the Iraqi people?"

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I watched the interview ... Rumsfeld simply did not fall into the trap of providing conjecture as answer to what remain complex, ongoing unresolved questions.

He said they had nothing to project from. Then how did they come up with 87 billion?????????

0 Replies

The "plan" is certainly being "worked" as in orchestrate.

0 Replies

Gels, That's only the 'current' request. You can bet your bottom dollar, more requests will be forthcoming.

0 Replies

And don't forget, that's over the $70 billion already requested and spent.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

What has been done is that for the Iraqis water supply and sewage treatment, electricity, medical care, education, and personal freedoms have been improved over pre-war levels.

I'd be willing to bet there's no way for you to prove that statement.

And I dare you to prove me wrong.

(aside to timber: I really don't mean for that to sound so challenging, but you have, through miles and miles of these threads, posted your theory, supposition, and prognostication as 'fact', while rarely supporting it with any verification. IMO your authoritative tone is what (you believe) converts your opinion into reality.

timber, from now on, you need to back up your contentions with more proof. Or else you simply need to curb this declarative sense of self-righteousness that each post of yours communicates. The high standards of this forum, and your role in it, makes this a higher requirement for someone--indeed, anyone-- who wears 'moderator' under their name.)

You are as entitled to an opinion as anyone else here; you are also entitled to look like a complete ass in expressing it. As do the rest of us, self included. I do not mean to deny you any of the Craven-given rights as a member of the board.

That's really the only reason I'm calling you out on it. Your opinion, that is. The bullshit part of it, specifically.

blatham is correct that 'waffling' isn't something Rumsfeld could have been called before today. It's obvious to everyone who's watched and listened to this megalomaniac since his comments from "sweep it all up" became public.

Here's a statement by someone you won't have any respect for, yet who nevertheless nails it (as usual):

Quote:

"Donald Rumsfeld made clear that the Administration has no answers to the increasingly violent situation in Iraq. More than six months after the 'end of major hostilities', when the President boasted that the American mission was 'accomplished', they still have no plan to stabilize Iraq, return control to the Iraqi people, and protect our troops. After months of saying his capture was imminent, Rumsfeld also acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was probably still alive and at large.

"The failure of the Administration to present an adequate success strategy is an example of the leadership gap that has emerged at a time when the country needs direction most..."

Yeah. General Wesley Clark (a guy who knows something about being in a war) said that, today.

timberlandko wrote:

It is clear to me who really stand for freedom, security, and prosperity.

And it's probably nobody who disagrees with the administration or with you, now isn't it?

Tell the truth... :wink:

0 Replies

I'd lop off the head and balls now, PDiddie, just to make sure it's no longer active.

0 Replies

Helicopter Shot Down
A short interview with Rummy about that left me with the impression that he thought it was not that big of a deal. No comments about sadness for the families of the 15 soldiers who died or the wounded. Rummy came off as callous. If any of my relatives were in Iraq I would be extremely angry, worried and disheartened by this USA Regime's attitude toward the troops there.

The exit strategy is now Iraqization, like Vietnamization. When Amerika & the UK leave I feel that there will be a three way civil war in Iraq. It will be a little dificult for the Multi-National Corps to carry on their raping of the country.

0 Replies

Rummy seems to have a Marie Antoinette complex, a disease that's been epidemic with no cure in site.

0 Replies

Rationalizing
How does one live with blood on one's hands? I am glad that I don't have that problem at this time.

0 Replies

I thought he might go into the Lady MacBeth soliloquy at any moment.

0 Replies

Or perhaps he could give us his imitation of Pontius Pilate?

0 Replies

here is an excerpt from an article in the WORLDPRESSREVIEW . you can view the whole article at : www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1615.cfm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The only overt and unconditional supporter of the U.S. occupation of Iraq are the tribes of Barzani's and Talabani's Kurds. All other groups are against the continuation of the U.S. occupation. The provisional government established by the United States and its primary ally, the Kurds, do not want Turkish soldiers in Iraq. The Kurds, despite their close relationship with the United States, do not even want Turkish troops to pass through their territory."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i believe it is well known that turkey as a long time occupier of the lands now known as IRAQ is not welcome in iraq. as thomas l. friedman stated recently in the NYT : "... the u.s. must be NUTS -his word, not mine - to ask turkey to send troops to iraq...". i wonder if history and geopolitics are study subjects that have fallen out of favour with today's leaders ? isn't it like asking the hatfields to go over to the mccoys(did i spell that right?) to help the feds in seizing the mccoys moonshine; they would hardly be welcome, would they ? hope i got this right; would be grateful if anyone can illuminate this further(living too far away from the boys). hbg

0 Replies

The UN, US and Iraq IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know