<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Annals of the press secretariat: The "no bogeyman" standard 


I don't know, if I were in George W. Bush's shoes, whether I would have accepted Donald Rumsfeld's resignation after the 2004 presidential election. I do know that "not a bogeyman" is far from the most demanding job requirement among those a president might impose. A necessary if nonetheless insufficient condition, I would say.


25 Comments:

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Sep 06, 01:55:00 PM:

Rumsfeld has proven himself to be an incompetent in his handling of the war in Iraq.

Now, he is proving himself to be a paranoid psychopath by insulting the majority of people who criticize the war.  

By Blogger Norman Rogers, at Wed Sep 06, 04:50:00 PM:

What's especially delicious about the Lefties' carping about Rumsfeld is how it continuouly underscores what lightweights they all are. I just love the claim, "Rumsfeld is incompetent!"

And the current kerfuffle about Rummy's speech to the VFW is a real hoot!

The best way to get a rise out of the "Progressive" set is to rub their nose in their own hyporcrisy. The left has a pathological need to imagine they are better and smarter than the rest of us (who generally do and have done better than they in an economic sense).

I have a standard challenge for anyone who avers that "the war in Iraq is a disaster/chaos/badly managed/etc -- OK, wise guy, tell us which war you claim has been better fought by these United State? It's patently absurd to criticize the Iraq war in an absolute sense. Mistakes are made in every war and lessons are learned.

Well, when asked to respond to my challenge, all of the lefties I've used this on start stammering. It turns out that most lefties "don't know much about history books ..." And this brings us back to Rummy.

Donald Rumsfeld may be the smartest, most capable, and hardest working Sec-Def we've ever had. And I know a little about some of his predecessors -- but none of his critics (leastwhile, the ones I've met) know anything about anyone. All's they know how to do is to recite the Democrat talking points of the day.

And so, anonymous (you ignorant turd!), give us your thoughts on who has been a better Sec-Def than Rumsfeld -- and tell us why (you moron). OBTW, give us a cite for your claim that he "insulted" the "majority of people who criticise the war" (did you actually read his speech, you twit?). What a maroon!  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Sep 06, 07:12:00 PM:


I have a standard challenge for anyone who avers that "the war in Iraq is a disaster/chaos/badly managed/etc -- OK, wise guy, tell us which war you claim has been better fought by these United State? It's patently absurd to criticize the Iraq war in an absolute sense. Mistakes are made in every war and lessons are learned.


I'll do something that you wingnuts never do and actually address the issue at hand, without going back to the basic fact that the biggest mistake in this war was fighting it at all, or at least when Bush decided to do it, but way to frame the issue, Norman. Too bad you and the neocons don't have the right to judge the so-called success of this war either. Only history does, and it's not looking good right now. If it makes you feel good to set narrow parameters on what the definition of a "succesful" war is, be it body count, or other meaningless trivia.

I find it funny when right wingers and neocons ask me "what would you have done differently?" as if it's a really difficult and involving question to answer. I usually start by saying that I'd have listened to the experienced military strategists telling me that I'd need X number of troops instead of listening to the likes of Wolfowitz et al telling me that we only needed (X-Y) number of troops and that we could expect to be greeted as liberators and showered with rose petals.
Maybe then I'd listen to realistic estimates of how much a poorly managed war would cost and try to do it right instead of cherry picking analyses to suit your previously decided upon course of action, and make it look more palatable to the American people.
I'd also probably have used the results of a State Department commisioned study and plan for securing, stabilizing, and governing a "liberated" Iraq - which laid down plans to avert looting, but didn't have the oil infrastructure as the primary interest.

And yes, I did read and listen to Rummy's pathetic speech. The right wing has been wrong about so much, that it's hard to keep track.

And it's your ilk that's damaging the country more than your imagined fifth column ever could.

Pathetic.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Sep 06, 07:20:00 PM:

One more thing, norm because I've got to go home this evening:

And so, anonymous (you ignorant turd!), give us your thoughts on who has been a better Sec-Def than Rumsfeld ...

Nice try to frame the issue again! I couldn't care less who has been a better one than Rummy, and I'm sure I could find plenty. But you exibit the symptoms of the standard neocon koolaid drinker. Refusal to admit that something isn't working out. The willingness to go down with your ship, or stupidity not to realize that it's sinking. The unwillingness to even CONSIDER that the "other side" has legitimate gripes about that idiot Rumsfeld, simply because it's coming from "the other side".

Nevermind the fact that I call BS on your supposed ability to talk knowledgeably on any past Sec-Def, and compare and contrast their performance to that of Rummy.

So, yes. Rumsfeld is incompetent or a liar. You don't think he's incompetent, so I guess that leaves you with the other.

Goodnight.  

By Blogger Shochu John, at Wed Sep 06, 07:32:00 PM:

Norman Rogers, "I have a standard challenge for anyone who avers that "the war in Iraq is a disaster/chaos/badly managed/etc -- OK, wise guy, tell us which war you claim has been better fought by these United State?"

Desert Storm. You're welcome.  

By Blogger Mastiff, at Wed Sep 06, 08:05:00 PM:

In Desert Storm, 24% of American KIA's were due to friendly fire.

The ground portion of Desert Storm lasted less than three days. It was also overseen by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.

Are you done yet?  

By Blogger Shochu John, at Wed Sep 06, 08:33:00 PM:

"In Desert Storm, 24% of American KIA's were due to friendly fire."
345 dead out of a force of 660,000. Is it a negative that the enemy managed to kill so few relative to the handful killed by accident?

"The ground portion of Desert Storm lasted less than three days."
Short & sweet, set a clear goal, a realistic plan, and an appropriate force. Then it's get in and get out. THAT's how you run a war.

"It was also overseen by Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney."
Let it never be said my analysis is based on partisanship or "BDS." That was a good, clean operation. This is a slow moving disaster. Let all parties collect the appropriate accolades or brickbats as they are due.

"Are you done yet?"
Nothing you said has undermined my point that Desert Storm was a far better run war than its successor.  

By Blogger GhostHAVOC, at Wed Sep 06, 08:37:00 PM:

norman,

sadly, rumsfeld is marching in mcnamara's footsteps.

he (and you) cannot stop raising/bluffing with our soldier's lives and 100's of Billion of dollars (fast closing in on a Trillion dollars).  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Sep 06, 08:54:00 PM:

Donald Rumsfeld may be the smartest, most capable, and hardest working Sec-Def we've ever had.

Reeeally?

So why have an unprecedented number of retired generals united in demanding his removal?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6593163/the_generals_speak/

Some quotes for you:

Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak
Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94
"We have a force in Iraq that's much too small to stabilize the situation. It's about half the size, or maybe even a third, of what we need...The people in control in the Pentagon and the White House live in a fantasy world. They actually thought everyone would just line up and vote for a new democracy and you would have a sort of Denmark with oil. I blame Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the people behind him -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary Douglas Feith. The vice president himself should probably be included...These people have no real experience in life."

Adm. Stansfield Turner
NATO Allied commander for Southern Europe, 1975-77; CIA director, 1977-81
"I think we are in a real mess. There are eighty-seven attacks on Americans every day, and our people in Baghdad can't even leave the International Zone without being heavily armored....We have lost the support of the Iraqi people who were glad to see Saddam go. But they are not glad to see an outside force come in and replace him without demonstrating we are going to provide them with security and rebuild their economy....All in all, Iraq is a failure of monumental proportions."

Gen. Anthony Zinni
Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000
"The first phase of the war in Iraq, the conventional phase, the major combat phase, was brilliantly done. Tommy Franks' approach to methodically move up and attack quickly probably saved a great humanitarian disaster. But the military was unprepared for the aftermath. Rumsfeld and others thought we would be greeted with roses and flowers...We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath. We knew that we would...need to freeze the situation: retain control, retain order, provide security, seal the borders to keep terrorists from coming in.

So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.

Did we have to do this? I saw the intelligence right up to the day of the war, and I did not see any imminent threat there. If anything, Saddam was coming apart. The sanctions were working. The containment was working. He had a hollow military, as we saw. If he had weapons of mass destruction, it was leftover stuff -- artillery shells and rocket rounds. He didn't have the delivery systems. We controlled the skies and seaports. We bombed him at will. All of this happened under U.N. authority. I mean, we had him by the throat. But the president was being convinced by the neocons that down the road we would regret not taking him out.

I guess all these decorated career lifetime generals who are demanding accountability and competence, must hate America?  

By Blogger Norman Rogers, at Wed Sep 06, 09:23:00 PM:

Um KC -- I didn't ask you what you WOULD have done. I mean -- you're a complete twit so why should anyone care how smart and prescient you claim to be? I asked, "who in our history has done better?" And, of course you made my point -- you self styled "progressive" are ignoramuses. You can't answer the question because your educational experience was limited to making dioramas and taking field trips. Did you ever think there's a reason why you're working at Burger King?

Shotsee John opines that Desert Storm was better fought than Iraqi Freedom. What a hoot! Hey Shotsee? What was the proximate cause of WWII? Answer: WWI. WWII was a continuation, following an eighteen year armistice so that Germany could rearm.

Iraqi Freedom was a continuation of Desert Storm -- WHICH NEVER ENDED (you moron!). Did you ever hear of the "NO FLY ZONES"? We were spending about $4Billion/annum keeping the war going until GWB finally fulfilled the sense of Congress and brought regime change to Iraq. You really are an idiot!

And Anonymouse -- if you answered my question, I missed it. Give us an example of a war fought by these United States that YOU think was better fought/run, etc. (And I think your claim that you "saw the intelligence" and you "did not see any imminent threat" is really, really funny. OBTW, the President labled Iraq as a "gathering" threat, and the notion that you saw "intelligence" is almost as funny as how you describe you current "employment".  

By Blogger luc, at Wed Sep 06, 09:58:00 PM:

By Norman Rogers, at Wed Sep 06, 04:50:07 PM

…”why (you moron). OBTW, give us a cite for your claim that he "insulted" the "majority of people who criticise the war" (did you actually read his speech, you twit?). What a maroon!”

I think you are unfair to the poor Anonymous!!

First you do not recognize his courage for posting an Anonymous comment, second after realizing his intellectual capacity from the tenure of his post you try to confuse him by using closely spelled words: moron and maroon. Next time, be kind to morons by calling them imbeciles or idiots but not maroons!  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Sep 06, 11:50:00 PM:

"We were spending about $4Billion/annum keeping the war going until GWB finally fulfilled the sense of Congress and brought regime change to Iraq. You really are an idiot!"

Good thing our Best. Defense. Secretary. Ever (and he's so handsome too!) fixed that problem. Now, instead of having to wait a whole year to spend that $4 billion, it only takes two weeks! What a relief. And the best part is that it's all paid for by oil revenues!

If they can pull off that kind of magic, just think what this administration will accomplish when they get around to fixing the deficit.

JK  

By Blogger Shochu John, at Thu Sep 07, 01:36:00 AM:

Well Norman, I cannot say I am interested in taking part in a name calling contest. It is a form of argumentation I am happy to say I left behind in grammar school. If you want to have a civilized discussion, however, I would respond to your points like so:

To say that WWII was an inevitable effect of WWI, you have to ignore a lot of human action and circumstance in between, including two massive regime changes. This a a very peculiar way to view things, and I do nto see the logic supporting this view. Further, to say that the current morass is an inevitable result of the first Gulf War, you have to explain how this war would have resulted even if it had not been initiated by the United States in 2003. Why is it that we could not have continued the comparatively cheap containment policy into the forseeable future?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Sep 07, 06:40:00 AM:

"The ground portion of Desert Storm lasted less than three days."
Short & sweet, set a clear goal, a realistic plan, and an appropriate force. Then it's get in and get out. THAT's how you run a war.


After all that's happened in the last 15 years it takes a certain level of insanity to view Gulf War I favorably at this point.  

By Blogger Norman Rogers, at Thu Sep 07, 08:59:00 AM:

For luc -- the expression, "What a maroon!" is an homage to Bugs Bunny. It ranks among the cartoon characters most famous lines: "What's up Doc?", "You realize this means war!". And while I make no claims to spelling accurately without computerized assistance -- this was not a typo on my part.

Anonymouse is still unable to suggest a war experience and/or a Secretary of Defense that he can claim compares favorably to Iraqi freedom and Donald Rusfeld. And you wonder why I think you're an idiot? (and ignorant?)

Shotsee, you really need to read some history. Check out the circumstances of Germany's acceptance of the surrender of France (hint: Hitler did it personally -- in the same railroad carriage used to accept German surrendered in 1918). Germany had unfinished business -- hence WWII (the continuation). As to your questioning of why we could not have continued the "comparatively cheap containment (of Saddam) policy", Gee -- 9/11? Anthrax? Saddam's known associations with Al Qaida? Saddam's WMD programs?

What's great about Goerge W. Bush -- and most of his cabinet, is that THEY GET IT! They have carried the fight to the enemy! You wusses would trust our security to phonies like Clinton (check out the ABC series next week -- Clinton and Berger don't come off well).  

By Blogger luc, at Thu Sep 07, 10:26:00 AM:

By Norman Rogers, at Thu Sep 07, 08:59:29 AM

I am not sure if you realized but my previous comment to you was facetious and was actually making fun of Anonymous and his comment and was not criticizing your spelling. Be that as it may, I am happy to see you accepted my suggestion and called him an idiot and not a maroon….hahahhaha  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Sep 07, 10:57:00 AM:

"Gee -- 9/11? Anthrax? Saddam's known associations with Al Qaida? Saddam's WMD programs?"

Whooaaa. Seriously? Are we blaming Saddam for Anthrax now? I missed that memo. (Karl, if you're out there, put me back on your distribution list!) But it makes sense if you think about it. After all, Saddam was behind 9/11 and was on the verge of getting nukes. And now thanks to W's clarity, Al Qaeda's massive Saddam-era presence in Iraq has dwindled and they're in their final death throes. Phew!

-Rummy is Yummy  

By Blogger Lanky_Bastard, at Thu Sep 07, 10:57:00 AM:

"As to your questioning of why we could not have continued the 'comparatively cheap containment (of Saddam) policy', Gee -- 9/11? Anthrax? Saddam's known associations with Al Qaida? Saddam's WMD programs?"

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or the delivery of the Ames strain of anthrax to 2 Democrat Senators and memebers of press. He had less contact with Al Qaida members than George Bush senior, and the only WMDs we've discovered (after 3 years of searching) were obsolete pre-Gulf War munitions.

Disregard of fact, name-calling, and Bugs Bunny didactics: there's a pretty low standard for pro-war arguments, but I thought it was higher than this.  

By Blogger Shochu John, at Thu Sep 07, 11:45:00 AM:

"Shotsee, you really need to read some history. Check out the circumstances of Germany's acceptance of the surrender of France (hint: Hitler did it personally -- in the same railroad carriage used to accept German surrendered in 1918). Germany had unfinished business -- hence WWII (the continuation)."

Normee, you really need to understand some history. Hitler expolited resentment at the loss of WWI and the subquent terms of the Treaty of Versailles in furtherance of his own power. This is a far cry from saying that "Germany" as some sort of amorphous nation-actor had unfinished business. Had certain actors acted differently, namely, not saddling the nation with a puntive treaty in the middle of a depression, there is no reason why lingering WWI resentment would not have dispersed peacefully. This is one of the more poorly conceived of the WWII analogies used to prop up this war as a good idea, and that's saying a lot. As to the rest of your bizarre non-facts, what lanky bastard said. I will add that President Bush said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11 and that there were no WMDs. He does "get it" does he not?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Sep 07, 03:58:00 PM:

"OK, wise guy, tell us which war you claim has been better fought by these United State? It's patently absurd to criticize the Iraq war in an absolute sense. Mistakes are made in every war and lessons are learned."

On a more serious note: the question isn't which war was fought better. From a purely military perspective, this war was actually fought quite brilliantly and smoothly. The question is which Occupation/Reconstruction we've conducted better? I'd venture to say all of them. Germany. Japan. The South. Hell, we've done better (a little) in Afghanistan. I'm open to the argument that Lebanon and Somalia were worse (a little red meat there for the Clinton-haters in the house), though obviously those were disasters on a much smaller scale. They do make everything bigger in Texas, after all.

Now in all fairness to our great leaders, Israel doesn't always have such great success with these things either, and those guys know what they're doing. Of course, the whole mistakes-are-made-in-war and the occupying-a-middle-eastern-country-is-hard theories should perhaps give us just a teensy bit of pause next time we want to start a war.

Much like Stormin' Normin, the problem with this administration is not that they're dumb, or evil, or greedy for oil. It's that they often ask the wrong questions. (The other problem is when they do ask the right questions, they tend to be convinced they know the answer in advance).

JK  

By Blogger Norman Rogers, at Thu Sep 07, 04:07:00 PM:

For Shotsee and Anyonymouse

Oh Goody, we struck a nerve. Of course you morons are quick to claim that Saddam had no WMD, he had nothing to do with Al Q, he had nothing to do with 9/11, he had nothing to do with anthrax, etc.

Permit me to educate you twits (I love it!).

1. It is known that Saddam had an active bio-weapons program, including the large-scale encapsulation of finely powdered anthrax spores in glass ampules. None of these ampules have been found and Saddam submitted no proofs they were destroyed. Both a pharamicist and a doctor in Florida have claimed that a man they later recognized as one of the 9/11 hijackers inquired about treatment for what appeared to be a topical anthrax sore.

2. Saddam had extensive contacts with Al Quaida and provided a safe haven for Zarkowi when he was forced out of Afghanistan. Zarkowi was permitted to set up armed camps and to wreak havoc against the Kurds and to produce ricin.

3. It has been reported that Iraqi intelligence assets met with Mr. Atta in Prague shortly before 9/11. Even the 9/11 commission acknowledged this (although they felt it didn't fit in with their understanding of Atta's movement -- even though they had no evidence for his whereabouts during this period other than cell-phone records.

4. Saddam had an abiding hatred for these United States and was on the verge of overturning the sanctions regime.

5. It was the stated purpose of these United States (since '98) to effect "regime change" in Iraq.

Given the above, it was reasonable, necessary, and prudent to take this guy out. GWB gets it. He fights. You pussies would talk and talk and talk until they came for you. What morons you are.

Anyway idiots, the challenge to you was to justify your criticisms of the the President and his Sec-Def (and the conduct of the war), in RELATIVE terms -- not ABSOLUTE. Give us an example of a war waged by these United States that you think was better fought -- and tell us why.

You struck out with Desert Storm -- that one was ongoing twelve years later. Care to try again?  

By Blogger RonB, at Thu Sep 07, 07:26:00 PM:

For a guy who can't spell...

"Zarkowi"

You should probably pick a better tack than calling people idiots and morons.  

By Blogger Shochu John, at Fri Sep 08, 11:53:00 AM:

Well, Normee, I think I've figured out why all the lefties on whom you use your little challenge start stammering. I assume it happens after you shower them with your brilliant thories of the 9.11 hijackers not only visiting Saddam, but playing in his WMDs. Would you mind telling me your source on that one? If I had to guess, I'd say WorldNetDaily or NewsMax. I promise to send any link your provide to all the idiots, morons, and pussies I know so that they may be enlightened as well.  

By Blogger Shochu John, at Fri Sep 08, 01:56:00 PM:

And the Senate just releases a very interesing report, which states, amongst othger things that Saddam's government had not have any formal ties to al Qaeda and "did not have a relationship, harbour, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".

But Norman said, "2. Saddam had extensive contacts with Al Quaida and provided a safe haven for Zarkowi when he was forced out of Afghanistan. Zarkowi was permitted to set up armed camps and to wreak havoc against the Kurds and to produce ricin."

Idiots, morons, pussies, everywhere!  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Fri Sep 08, 02:33:00 PM:

This has turned into a farce, with so much empty BS thrown out to reinforce ideological positions as to make the entire discussion worthless. Kudos. I mean really, who quotes a 15 yr. retired AIR FORCE general about a ground based pacification campaign? Answer = someone who doesn't know any better.

"He had less contact with Al Qaida members than George Bush senior"

This is being disproven, step by step, as masses of Iraqi documents are being translated demonstrating contact between Iraqi agents and Al Qaeda agents in Afghanistan. I'm pretty sure some of them were posted about on this blog in the spring.

"and the only WMDs we've discovered (after 3 years of searching) were obsolete pre-Gulf War munitions."

It's cute the way you tossed in 'obselete' like that, as if it 1, were true, and 2, invalidates the whole point. The fact that they were found at all means that Saddam didn't comply with the UN and disclose/destroy all of his WMDs, which was the public basis for the war. It turns out that he WAS misleading the inspectors and lying to the world after all. Hmm. Who'd have known?

By the by, Norman can spell Zarqawi however he pleases so long as the name is recognizable. It's Arabic. It doesn't translate phonetically into English. At all.

زرقاءي  

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?