Rummy Comes Clean Too

[Nbadan]

Wait a minute...wait a minute....let's think clearly about this for a moment...according to the M$M....Patreus's 'path to victory in Iraq' (what-ever that is) has been paved largely by his ability to bring rival tribal leaders in Iraq on-board the American plan to rid Iraq of foreign fighters, discontinue the religious insurgency by providing weapons, cash and most important, legitimacy....

....one could say that 'Patreus's victory' has also a been a 'victory' for the leaders of the Iraqi insurgency...hmmmm?......

WASHINGTON — President Bush's first secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, architect of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, says the military alone cannot win the war against global jihad.

In a phone interview on Saturday with The New York Sun, Mr. Rumsfeld said the current war is similar to the Cold War, and that America's victory depends on assisting moderate Muslims against extremists and on reforming the domestic and international ins utions forged after World War II.

"The concept of victory in this struggle will not be a signing ceremony aboard a ship like the USS Missouri. It will be much more like the Cold War, where, over time, the struggle that is taking place between violent extremists who want to impose their will on the rest of the world, re-establish a caliphate, and require others to live lives that fit their idea of how lives ought to be lived ... that they lose and the moderates who do not want to impose their will on other people, the people who do not want to murder people, cutting off their heads and blowing people up, that struggle will result in the extremists being reduced in numbers and opportunity and support and the people who oppose extremists growing in numbers and being successful in defeating them," he said.

Shortly after the attacks on September 11, 2001, Mr. Rumsfeld described victory as a moment when Americans feel safe. Throughout the Bush administration, the concept of victory has evolved from rolling up networks for Al Qaeda and other terrorists and depriving them of safe havens to the outcome in a battle within Islam between those Muslims who seek war with the West and those who don't. When asked to elaborate Saturday, Mr. Rumsfeld said America's task primarily was "to help those people opposing the extremists, to put pressure on the extremists." But he made sure to say, "The idea that you can ignore these enemies or live and let live or find some accommodation of peaceful existence or detente is just erroneous, it can't be done."

NY Sun

Diplomacy instead of sheer force, who would have ever that that would work?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wait a minute...wait a minute....let's think clearly about this for a moment...according to the M$M....Patreus's 'path to victory in Iraq' (what-ever that is) has been paved largely by his ability to bring rival tribal leaders in Iraq on-board the American plan to rid Iraq of foreign fighters, discontinue the religious insurgency by providing weapons, cash and most important, legitimacy....

....one could say that 'Patreus's victory' has also a been a 'victory' for the leaders of the Iraqi insurgency...hmmmm?......




NY Sun

Diplomacy instead of sheer force, who would have ever that that would work?

Is he saying we can't win? Is he implying that our brave men and women can't win this war?

[101A]

Is he saying we can't win? Is he implying that our brave men and women can't win this war?

Don't know where you got that...in fact he said you HAVE to fight the extremists, while supporting the moderates.

The fight has never been against "Islam", it has always been against "Radical Islam". I don't see anything in Rumsfeld's statements to discount that.

The radicals, in "fighting" the U.S.; have killed many more MUSLIMS than Americans. That might have something to do with the moderates being more willing, now, to help us weed them out, and marginilize them. Time will tell. Right now, things are looking better, apparently.

[boutons_]

'have killed many more MUSLIMS than Americans"

In fighting a bogus war-for-oil, dubya has killed many more Americans than OBL.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Don't know where you got that...in fact he said you HAVE to fight the extremists, while supporting the moderates.

The fight has never been against "Islam", it has always been against "Radical Islam". I don't see anything in Rumsfeld's statements to discount that.

The radicals, in "fighting" the U.S.; have killed many more MUSLIMS than Americans. That might have something to do with the moderates being more willing, now, to help us weed them out, and marginilize them. Time will tell. Right now, things are looking better, apparently.

My comment was for those who criticze democrats for saying the exact same thing. When a democrat makes these statements they are bombarded with: 'why do want us to lose?', ' are you saying our military can't win?'..etc.. When a war supporter makes logical comments like Rummy did they are left alone by the talk radio crowd.

[101A]

My comment was for those who criticze democrats for saying the exact same thing. When a democrat makes these statements they are bombarded with: 'why do want us to lose?', ' are you saying our military can't win?'..etc.. When a war supporter makes logical comments like Rummy did they are left alone by the talk radio crowd.

Maybe it's because he also said (which is also a very reasonable statement, but one you certainly won't hear Reid or Pelossi utter):

"The idea that you can ignore these enemies or live and let live or find some accommodation of peaceful existence or detente is just erroneous, it can't be done."

[George Gervin's Afro]

"The idea that you can ignore these enemies or live and let live or find some accommodation of peaceful existence or detente is just erroneous, it can't be done."

Well I certainly haven't heard pelosi or reid utter that we could ignore these enemies etc, or that we could live and let live..etc..

This is yet ANOTHER attempt by dummy to insinuate that if you don't buy bush's strategy that you want to :

"The idea that you can ignore these enemies or live and let live or find some accommodation of peaceful existence or detente is just erroneous, it can't be done.

..

No one Democrat has ever publicly made these comments so it's very dishonest to put words in people's mouths. Can we agree on this?

[101A]

Well I certainly haven't heard pelosi or reid utter that we could ignore these enemies etc, or that we could live and let live..etc.. This is AGAIN an attempt by dummy to insinuate that if you don't buy bush's strategy that you want to : ..

Fair enough.

Then please explain WHAT it is that Pelosi and Reid DO want to do, other than "redeploy".

I know they want to end wiretapping. I know they want to end waterboarding. I know they don't want to build any fences. What I don't know is what they WANT to do.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Fair enough.

Then please explain WHAT it is that Pelosi and Reid DO want to do, other than "redeploy".

I know they want to end wiretapping. I know they want to end waterboarding. I know they don't want to build any fences. What I don't know is what they WANT to do.

I certainly don't agree with Pelosi and reid a whole lot but i will put words in their mouths and say that they want to bring ther troops sooner rather than later. You may not agree with that but if that's their intentions you can't possibly make the leap and assign their motives as wanting to 'live and let live', or whatever dummy mentioned.

PLEASE stop making the comments that dems want to end wiretapping..this dishonesty is beginning to infuriate me. The dems want Bush or any other president to get a warrant to listen to phone calls. Even after the fact if necessary..so do you interpret that as wanting to end wiretapping?

[DarkReign]

I want to end wiretapping and torture. Does that make me a defeatist?

If so, I dont give a . One should never marginalize the tenants you supposedly support in an effort to protect them.

Moreso, you invalidate the very fabric upon which you stand. Unless of course, that is your true intention.

[Purple & Gold]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Benjamin Franklin -

[Nbadan]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

- Benjamin Franklin -

Nice quote - but timely quotes won't get you anywhere...if you want to save what's left of your Democracy, then contact your legislators and tell them that you want impeachment put back on the table...these Neo-cons are dangerous, and they have no intention of ever releasing the power that they have given themselves at the costs of our democracy....

[xrayzebra]

Nice quote - but timely quotes won't get you anywhere...if you want to save what's left of your Democracy, then contact your legislators and tell them that you want impeachment put back on the table...these Neo-cons are dangerous, and they have no intention of ever releasing the power that they have given themselves at the costs of our democracy....

Yeah, they want to go back to the foundation that made
this country what it is. Damn conservatives, they want
the cons ution followed. Like really, really equal rights
for everyone, not the PC version of a level playing
field. We need some of that good old progressivism,
right dan.

Oh, by the way dan, we live in a Republic not a
Democracy. Well most of us, California does the
dimm-o-craptic thing and vote on everything including
if they want a Wal-Mart store built.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yeah, they want to go back to the foundation that made
this country what it is. Damn conservatives, they want
the cons ution followed. Like really, really equal rights
for everyone, not the PC version of a level playing
field. We need some of that good old progressivism,
right dan.

Oh, by the way dan, we live in a Republic not a
Democracy. Well most of us, California does the
dimm-o-craptic thing and vote on everything including
if they want a Wal-Mart store built.

Is the cons ution not being followed now? Or do you just disagree with how it has been interpreted? You mention foundation of this country and wanting to go back to it? How?

[xrayzebra]

Is the cons ution not being followed now? Or do you just disagree with how it has been interpreted? You mention foundation of this country and wanting to go back to it? How?

Did you read what I posted? Also can you cite any part of
the cons ution that covers abortion as a federal
responsibility? And where in the cons ution is "level
playing field" covered? Or marking up for past sins covered?

There are more areas, but those are just the ones I can
think of right now.

The cons ution gives very limited powers to the Feds,
but over the course of our history they central government
has taken more and more power away from the States.
And our courts have allowed it.

[clambake]

gee ray, you're gonna be dead in a few years, so why do want our country to invade other countries just to steal their resources? can you take oil with you?

[xrayzebra]

gee ray, you're gonna be dead in a few years, so why do want our country to invade other countries just to steal their resources? can you take oil with you?

No, but I can contribute to the oil pool, like all old dinosaurs
did/do. But will you respect me in the morning.......no.

[clambake]

No, but I can contribute to the oil pool, like all old dinosaurs
did/do. But will you respect me in the morning.......no.

just make sure they don't dump you off the california coast

[xrayzebra]

just make sure they don't dump you off the california coast

Would they do that to me......