Retired Generals finally calling for Rumsfeld resignation

SierraSong wrote:

Quote:

Are you equally impressed with the resume of the former head of CIA Counterespionage, Aldridge Ames? Look where it got him

As to what might impress us, we'll note that you've managed to pull off the very difficult feat of providing a response even more logically irrelevant than your earlier post.

The good news is, of course, that the lies aren't working any longer. Tonite, all the news shows did a fine job of covering McGovern's questions to Rumsfeld and then cross-checking Rumsfeld's replies with what McGovern claimed Rumsfeld had said previously. McGovern had it right, word for word. Facts, of course, have a liberal bias.

Turning, turning, turning...

Quote:

NEW YORK USA Today founder Al Neuharth, once known for his generally Republican views, appears to have seen enough of President Bush. In his column today for USA Today, he once again hits the Iraq war (he is one of the few mainstream journalists to favor a quick withdrawal), then notes the presient's approval rating having plunged from 71% to 34% in the Gallup poll since 2003.

"How low can Bush's approval rating go? My hunch is it's at or near the bottom," he suggests. "That 34% represents mostly unshakeable far-right wingers. Like Bush, Vice President Cheney and company, they are in denial. As were the 24% in the polls who still approved of President Richard Nixon before he resigned in disgrace.

"What happened to the 37% who have switched from pro-Bush to anti-Bush? They finally realized they were suckered by Bush and his buddies back then about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, his tie to terrorists and his threat to the USA."

Neuharth, a decorated war veteran, concludes: "President Abraham Lincoln was right when he said: 'You may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.'"

link

blatham wrote:

SierraSong wrote:

Quote:

Are you equally impressed with the resume of the former head of CIA Counterespionage, Aldridge Ames? Look where it got him

As to what might impress us, we'll note that you've managed to pull off the very difficult feat of providing a response even more logically irrelevant than your earlier post.

The good news is, of course, that the lies aren't working any longer. Tonite, all the news shows did a fine job of covering McGovern's questions to Rumsfeld and then cross-checking Rumsfeld's replies with what McGovern claimed Rumsfeld had said previously. McGovern had it right, word for word. Facts, of course, have a liberal bias.

Oh, get a grip and realize that just because you're mightily impressed with the credentials of some CIA has-been, not everyone is.

Did the news shows you watched include the boos for McGovern and the applause for Rumsfeld? The ones I watched did.

Oh, get a grip and realize that just because you're mightily impressed with the credentials of some CIA has-been, not everyone is.

Did the news shows you watched include the boos for McGovern and the applause for Rumsfeld? The ones I watched did.

The only thing lower than the president's approval rating is the approval rating for Democrats.

SierraSong wrote:

Oh, get a grip and realize that just because you're mightily impressed with the credentials of some CIA has-been, not everyone is.

I'm not. I'm not impressed by his credentials. I'm impressed by the questions he asked Rumsfeld.

SierraSong wrote:

Did the news shows you watched include the boos for McGovern and the applause for Rumsfeld? The ones I watched did.

• A majority of Americans say they want Democrats rather than Republicans to control Congress (51 percent to 34 percent). That's the largest gap recorded by AP-Ipsos since Bush took office. Even 31 percent of conservatives want Republicans out of power.

Why do you think he was booed? Could it be that the audience recognized that the questioner wasn't interested in any answers, but was a lame attempt to show his anti-war, anti-Israel ass.

Why do you think he was booed? Could it be that the audience recognized that the questioner wasn't interested in any answers, but was a lame attempt to show his anti-war, anti-Israel ass?

Oh, get a grip and realize that just because you're mightily impressed with the credentials of some CIA has-been, not everyone is.

Did the news shows you watched include the boos for McGovern and the applause for Rumsfeld? The ones I watched did.

Now somebody, it doesn't really matter who (I don't know the guy, and frankly, I don't care), tells Rumsfeld "You said you knew where they were". Which is the truth. What is Rumsfeld's answer? "I did not."

...

Nevermind. Back to the questions you avoided to answer. Whom would you rather prefer having asked the question? Do you think it was an illegitimate question? Do you think Rumsfeld's answer was satisfying?

Not at all. Rumsfeld should have responded by stating that based on the best intelligence we had at the time, including from our Special Forces on the ground in Iraq, CIA intelligence, intelligence from prior administrations and and foreign governments, when he said he knew where the WMD was, that's where he had been told they were. That's what he should have said in response to both McGovern's and George Snuffleupagus' questions

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were.

RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and -

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.

"Whom would you rather prefer having asked the question?"

Oh, any anti-war leftist will do.

"Do you think it was an illegitimate question?"

Depends on what you mean by the word "illegitimate." It was not against the law, and as far as I know it was not born out of wedlock, so I guess it's legitimate. Does it show Rumsfeld lied? No.

"Do you think Rumsfeld's answer was satisfying?"

Not at all.

Rumsfeld should have responded by stating that based on the best intelligence we had at the time, including from our Special Forces on the ground in Iraq, CIA intelligence, intelligence from prior administrations and and foreign governments, when he said he knew where the WMD was, that's where he had been told they were. That's what he should have said in response to both McGovern's and George Snuffleupagus' questions.

Quote:

Not at all. Rumsfeld should have responded by stating that based on the best intelligence we had at the time, including from our Special Forces on the ground in Iraq, CIA intelligence, intelligence from prior administrations and and foreign governments, when he said he knew where the WMD was, that's where he had been told they were. That's what he should have said in response to both McGovern's and George Snuffleupagus' questions

Yea, but he didn't say that. Instead he just denied making the statement and he was correctly called on it.

Oh. Hi Tico! Thanks for answering...

Ticomaya wrote:

"Whom would you rather prefer having asked the question?"

Oh, any anti-war leftist will do.

Why not just say "anybody", if you don't like McGovern? Are you implying that the right shouldn't ask questions, shouldn't demand clarification on Rumsfeld's contradicting statements?

Ticomaya wrote:

Rumsfeld should have responded by stating that based on the best intelligence we had at the time, including from our Special Forces on the ground in Iraq, CIA intelligence, intelligence from prior administrations and and foreign governments, when he said he knew where the WMD was, that's where he had been told they were. That's what he should have said in response to both McGovern's and George Snuffleupagus' questions.

Should have could have.

How do you know that, anyway? How do you, Tico, know that he didn't have information that was just as good that said "there are absolutely no WMD in Iraq", and he just decided not to take that into account?

Why didn't he just say "We have solid information on where they are". That way people couldn't call him a liar now.

Why did he say "We know"?

Yes, revel, we know this.