1
   

The most dangerous man in the Bush administration.

 
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2003 09:23 pm
Danger to the administration? Possibly Rumsfeld (though he's well protected). Danger from the administration? Cheney -- without hesitation.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2003 09:24 pm
Man, I've never heard Schieffer say anything near that pointed.

I hope our soldiers come home safe, and I hope the blasted moron in the white house is out on his arse after one term.
0 Replies
 
williamhenry3
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2003 11:46 pm
Without his own naivete, Dubya would not find himself mourning the loss of war dead.

The most dangerous man in the Bush administration is Dubya himself. He let the big guys, e.g. Cheney and Rumsfeld, dupe him into approving our current crisis in Iraq.

Dubya could have ended the conflict before it was begun with one simple word, "No!"
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2003 09:10 pm
Quote:
Rumsfeld didn't hesitate to offer criticisms back when the Clinton administration and NATO, led by Gen. Wesley Clark (now a CNN commentator) were prosecuting what turned out to be a highly successful war in Kosovo.

Four years ago, he told CNN that he saw a "similar pattern" to the Vietnam debacle in that conflict. "There is always a risk in gradualism. It pacifies the hesitant and the tentative," whatever that meant.

Rumsfeld went on to use a phrase that has since become an unwelcome cliché: "What [gradualism] doesn't do is shock and awe and alter the calculations of the people you're dealing with." Rummy had still more to say, again on CNN, about Clinton's Kosovo strategy. "I think the goal is to complexify the problem for the enemy and not simplify it. And so when you begin to start ruling things out, like ground troops, or say we're only going to hit these targets and not those targets, the effect of that, it seems to me, is to make the problem for the other side much simpler." (Of course, our announced doctrine in Iraq today is to hit certain targets and avoid others, as it should be, but never mind.)

Like the critics who annoy him so much today, Rumsfeld didn't let his loyalty to the troops get in the way of his blasts at the White House. "Well, you know, when we're engaged in battle, I think you set aside how we drifted into it -- and there's plenty of blame for that on both sides of the Atlantic, in my view -- and I fully support the military effort," he said.

A few weeks later, Rumsfeld showed up on CNBC's "Hardball" to reiterate the same critique, while again insisting that with troops in battle he wanted "to be supportive." He even had some advice about working out a deal with Slobodan Milosevic:

"I'm not a fan of how we seem to have drifted into this, and I -- I worry about a gradualist approach ... I think it was a mistake to say that we would not use ground forces, because it simplifies the problem for Milosevic," he told Chris Matthews. "We -- we constantly say we're not gonna hit these targets, we are gonna hit those targets, we're gonna bring in Apaches or A-10s, but we're not gonna do it for two or four or six weeks. It seems to me that we ought to stop saying things to appease and placate our domestic political audiences and we are -- ought to start behaving in a way that suggests to Milosevic that it's his -- in his interest to -- to end this and stop the ethnic cleansing and to come to the negotiating table and -- and work out something rational."

As Rumsfeld continued to talk, what he said got worse. He suggested that the administration and NATO were playing "into [Milosevic's] hands" and might be bluffing. "I would not say that we've been effective in this campaign because it seems to me that the goal in life is to avoid crises, not to manage them once you're in them. And I feel that this was an avoidable -- probably an avoidable situation."


Salon.com
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Apr, 2003 07:47 pm
http://www.bartcop.com/db030421xx.gif
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Apr, 2003 11:18 pm
"So the surviving Iraqis get to choose their own government, they just don't get to choose what their choices are. So says Rummy: He's ruling out an Iran-style religious government in Iraq as well as any attempt by Syria and others in the region to influence Iraq's future.

You know, this could be a good thing for the Iraqis. Look what happened to us when we got an unelected President who decided he was chosen by God to lead the nation."

-- Roger Ailes (NOT the Nazi at Fox)
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2003 07:13 am
Does anyone else notice that it's Rummy who's in charge of the civilian process of choosing a new government in another country? Secretary of what?
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 © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 07:36:46