0
   

Rumsfeld tells critics to sit on it.

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 02:31 pm
So we could more efficiently invade Grenada, again.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 02:47 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
You want hear any argument of mine...


I come back to this post from a friend of mine....
now my feelings are hurt
how rude! unrefined!
to think that freeduck cold be oh so unkind.... Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 03:00 pm
oh dear me dear me
i'm afraid that can't be
i didn't mean it that way
i'm so sorry, can't you see?
0 Replies
 
ForeverYoung
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 03:21 pm
tommrr wrote:
Well, it does seem that Rummy answers questions without bowing to political correctness or public opinion. So right or wrong, I do like the fact that he is not afraid to speak his mind.


I agree.

The fact that I can tolerate differences was just brought up in another thread.

This thread mirrors my response on the other one.

The reason people hijack threads rather than either ignore them or carry on some semblance of civil discourse is because they are so f***ing ego-invested in their POV that they couldn't possibly acknowledge what you did.

Rummy doesn't 'do' political correctness, but that's all those who hijacked this thread do ... apparently. Typical .............

This ought to win me a lot of friends, eh? lol Oh, well, if I wanted a friend out of a political debate, I'd have brought a puppy (to very loosely paraphrase former President Truman).

:wink:
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 03:26 pm
ForeverYoung, all that needed to be said regarding the article posted was said on the first one or two pages. In this case, the hijacking (of which I acknowledge and enjoyed participating in) was done to distract from the pissing match that was going on between two other members. I'm glad that you can tolerate differences, but try not to pat yourself on the back too vigorously.
0 Replies
 
ForeverYoung
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 03:34 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
ForeverYoung, all that needed to be said regarding the article posted was said on the first one or two pages. In this case, the hijacking (of which I acknowledge and enjoyed participating in) was done to distract from the pissing match that was going on between two other members. I'm glad that you can tolerate differences, but try not to pat yourself on the back too vigorously.


I disagree.

If the article referenced another person, other issues would have been discussed.

Because it referenced someone who most people despise, you (plural) dismissed any elaboration or debate.

But, emkay, I'll try not to pat myself too vigorously ... shoot, it felt so good, too. Honestly, the things I give up to go along!

:wink:
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 03:47 pm
In the aftermath of yesterday's carnage, Rumsfeld once again said "...U.S.-led forces are winning the battle against the insurgents."

George Bush said, "I'm confident democracy will prevail in Iraq."

Ya know...I am beginning to understand why both these guys thought Iraqis were gonna strew flowers in front of our troops as they marched into Baghdad. They are completely divorced from reality...

...as are their adherents.



Folks...we are not winning this battle. We are, in fact, losing it.

And as for Iraq...well, almost all the evidence point to the fact that it has almost no chance of surviving as a democracy. What Iraq needs is a strong, amoral, vicious, brook no dissent, strongman, dictator to keep it whole.





They'll strew flowers in front on our troops as they march into Baghdad!!!!!!!!



How will our country ever recover from the damage caused by this pathetic administration?

How will the world?
0 Replies
 
ForeverYoung
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 03:51 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
How will our country ever recover from the damage caused by this pathetic administration?

How will the world?


The same as it ever was .........

Our country has recovered from some fairly awful occurrences (Civil War comes immediately mind ... also The Depression).

The world has recovered from the horrors of WW's I and II.

I see it all as a pendulum and, frankly, I don't believe we have gone as far wrong as we will before swinging back.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 03:53 pm
politically correct in 2004 means swallowing all of the bush administrations' spew..without spilling a drop....funny how the bushies who pride themselves on being individualists display such a pack mentality...a politically correct pack mentality.....
0 Replies
 
ForeverYoung
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 03:56 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
politically correct in 2004 means swallowing all of the bush administrations' spew..without spilling a drop....funny how the bushies who pride themselves on being individualists display such a pack mentality...a politically correct pack mentality.....


That's not true at all, IMHO.

PC is a mob mentality, but it comes from any mob ........ not only the ones with which we may disagree.
0 Replies
 
tommrr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 05:23 pm
From the Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: political correctness
Function: noun
: conformity to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated
Whereas I prefer someone that tells it like it is, without all the candy coating....but then I again, I have thick skin and don't get offended easily.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 06:43 pm
No, I agree, tommrr. That happens to be the one, and maybe only, thing I like about Rummy. Well, that and his cantankerousness -- is that a word? It's just too bad about the rest, though.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 06:48 pm
ForeverYoung wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
ForeverYoung, all that needed to be said regarding the article posted was said on the first one or two pages. In this case, the hijacking (of which I acknowledge and enjoyed participating in) was done to distract from the pissing match that was going on between two other members. I'm glad that you can tolerate differences, but try not to pat yourself on the back too vigorously.


I disagree.

If the article referenced another person, other issues would have been discussed.

Because it referenced someone who most people despise, you (plural) dismissed any elaboration or debate.

But, emkay, I'll try not to pat myself too vigorously ... shoot, it felt so good, too. Honestly, the things I give up to go along!

:wink:


Well, we'll just have to disagree re: derailment. But you might want to read again from page one for a little perspective -- unless I misread your 'liberals' grouping.

Don't worry, spend enough time in the politics forum and you'll have self-flagellation down to a science.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 07:06 am
Foreveryoung -- Rumsfeld is a major force behind the ruin not just of this country but of the world as population and the environment tremble on the brink of disaster and the world economy is near collapse. His combination of warmongering and his parsimonious budgeting for the war he wanted and promoted are not forgiveable. There is no reason for discourse: only for action.
0 Replies
 
ForeverYoung
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 07:10 am
plainoldme wrote:
Foreveryoung -- There is no reason for discourse: only for action.


I believe in action. Since you appear to believe what you posted, please share with the group what action you have been and continue to take.

Thank you.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 07:13 am
plainoldme wrote:
Foreveryoung -- Rumsfeld is a major force behind the ruin not just of this country but of the world as population and the environment tremble on the brink of disaster and the world economy is near collapse. His combination of warmongering and his parsimonious budgeting for the war he wanted and promoted are not forgiveable. There is no reason for discourse: only for action.


That is certainly your opinion. I would disagree though.

I do noit see our country, or world, being "ruined". If you'd like to take a look at some of the major forces behind the "ruination" of the US and world, examine how many of the world's conflicts involved radical Muslim fanatics reaching for power.

Now, tell me, how does Rumsfeld influence any of the worlds problems? He is responsible for the defense of our nation and has been doing his job.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 08:16 am
In Rumsfeld's defense

By Newt Gingrich
Originally published December 22, 2004
THE RECENT CALLS for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down provide a good opportunity to step back and review his record from the last four years.

Shortly after Mr. Rumsfeld began what would be his second tour of duty as secretary of defense, he made it clear that he would do what it takes to begin transforming the military and its supporting bureaucracies into a force capable of meeting the threats of the 21st century. In his 2001 Senate confirmation hearing, Mr. Rumsfeld testified, "The old deterrence of the Cold War era is imperfect for dissuading the threats of the 21st century and for maintaining stability our new security environment."

In the face of enormous internal opposition, Mr. Rumsfeld, who under President Gerald Ford directed a military that stood ready to face the might of the Warsaw Pact, began in the summer of 2001 to transform the defense bureaucracy by forcing it to recognize that the Cold War was over. He then began implementing the changes necessary to reflect that reality.

Most notably, he undertook an extraordinarily complicated set of negotiations with our allies to move forces from obsolete and expensive Cold War positions in Europe and East Asia to much more useful and less expensive positions from where they can be more effective in defending America.

Just eight short months into the new Bush administration and just weeks after Mr. Rumsfeld's Defense Department transformation plan had begun, the United States was attacked on 9/11.

By now the response to that attack is well known. Mr. Rumsfeld took control and led the remarkably successful campaign in Afghanistan, which led in short order to the defeat of the Taliban and the destruction of its terrorist training camps.

Even during ongoing military campaigns, Mr. Rumsfeld never wavered from his transformational objectives. In the summer of 2003, in order to accelerate transformation in the Army, he brought Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker out of retirement to become Army chief of staff. Mr. Rumsfeld, with the brilliant leadership of General Schoomaker, was able to move personnel from noncombat to combat units, enabling them with additional reorganization to create 15 newly restructured combat brigades.

Also, because of Mr. Rumsfeld's successful plan, our military is more flexible, more agile and better able to fight unconventional enemies.

A new civilian personnel system was designed to reward merit, reduce force stress and replace a bureaucratic culture of risk aversion with one of innovation.

Moreover, he was able to move military personnel out of jobs that should be and are now held by civilians. Under this reorganization, Army troop levels increased (by 30,000), as did the number of combat brigades (from 10 to 15), making a draft unnecessary despite some critics' claims that one was imminent.

At the same time, Mr. Rumsfeld directed the global war on terrorism through the Special Operations Command. The effort has helped other countries hunt down, capture or kill terrorists in the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Yemen, Pakistan and dozens of other countries. The combined effort has resulted in three-fourths of al-Qaida's senior leadership being killed or captured, while the organization's mastermind, Osama bin Laden, remains a powerless international fugitive (probably hiding in Pakistan).

Finally, there is the question of Iraq. The military performed brilliantly in the 23-day campaign led by Gen. Tommy Franks that defeated the dangerous Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein.

Today, Mr. Rumsfeld is working closely with the ambassador to Iraq, John D. Negroponte, to help create an interim government, build up the Iraq military and help Iraqis regain control over their own country.

Yet Mr. Rumsfeld is being used as a target by those who either oppose American military involvement in Iraq or lack the ability to understand or communicate the difficulty and the importance of defeating the insurgency inside Iraq and creating a stable elected government.

Mr. Rumsfeld, standing on his remarkable record of achievement, is far too effective a defense secretary for any serious student of recent American history to think that he should be replaced.

With Mr. Rumsfeld at the helm, the U.S. military has defeated two terrorist regimes, giving more than 50 million people a chance at freedom.

Ten million Afghans, 40 percent of whom were women who under the Taliban had no rights, voted in the free election of their first popularly elected national leader.

In Iraq, while Mr. Hussein sits in jail awaiting trial, tens of thousands of Iraqis are being trained and equipped to reclaim control of their country as the Iraqi people prepare to vote in their first free elections, planned for Jan. 30.

In addition, the most compelling reason to keep Mr. Rumsfeld as secretary of defense may simply be that there has not been another attack on our homeland since 9/11.

Mr. Rumsfeld's critics are off the mark. The military, under Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership, is our finest example of what works.

Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, is author of the forthcoming book Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America.

Source
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 08:23 am
That is actually a good overall assessment of Rummy's ingenuity. I'm just sorry that Powell and Rummy are serving as yes-men to a divine right ruler. The fiasco that is Iraq was foreseen by Rummy, Powell, Schwartzkopf, Cheney...et al
0 Replies
 
ForeverYoung
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 08:28 am
panzade:

Is Powell still in the picture?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 08:38 am
McGentrix wrote:
In Rumsfeld's defense

By Newt Gingrich


That name is familiar!

Isn't this the same hypocritical conservative piece of dung that caused so much trouble a while back during his brief tenure as Speaker of the House?

Why would anyone pay any attention to what he says?

With the exception of the words "a", "an", "the", and "and"...damn near every word he's ever uttered has been a lie...or so flat out wrong-headed that it might as well have been a lie.


Jeez!

This is like reading an endorsement of Saddam Hussein written by Mummar Quaddafi.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 04:54:06