Reply With Quote
Spin, rinse, repeat.
We need solutions. We get blundering and bluster.
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. H. GoeringBy ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
6 minutes ago
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."
In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.
In remarks to several thousand veterans at the American Legion's national convention, Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failed efforts to appease the Adolf Hitler regime in the 1930s.
"I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism," he said.
Rumsfeld spoke to the American Legion as part of a coordinated White House strategy, in advance of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, to take the offensive against administration critics at a time of doubt about the future of Iraq and growing calls to withdraw U.S. troops.
Rumsfeld recalled a string of recent terrorist attacks, from 9/11 to bombings in Bali, London and Madrid, and said it should be obvious to anyone that terrorists must be confronted, not appeased.
"But some seem not to have learned history's lessons," he said, adding that part of the problem is that the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive.
He said, for example, that more media attention was given to U.S. soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib than to the fact that Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith received the Medal of Honor.
"Can we truly afford to believe somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?" he asked.
"Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and lies and distortions being told about our troops and about our country," he added.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was addressing the American Legion convention later Tuesday, and President Bush is scheduled to speak here later in the week. On Monday, Vice President Cheney and Rumsfeld made separate addresses to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Reno, Nev.
Rumsfeld made similar arguments in Reno about doubters of the administration's approach to fighting terrorism, saying too many in this country want to "blame America first" and ignore the enemy.
Spin, rinse, repeat.
We need solutions. We get blundering and bluster.
So creating an Islamic state in Iraq is going to help?
"So creating an Islamic state in Iraq is going to help?"
no of course not. That's much worse. Saddam and secular Iraq were causing no problems, no threat to USA, and separated Iran from Israel. Thanks to dubya, Iran will have unimpeded access thru Shiite Iraq to Israel.
Causing no problems? No threat to the USA? The delusion continues. You should get a job rewriting history textbooks for the public school system.
You might ask Israel how happy they were to have Iraq protecting them from Iran while the scud missles were falling on them.
What problems was Iraq causing to Israel after Iraq was castrated in the first Gulf war?
And what if any of those problems were a threat to the USA?
The US/coaltion "fixed" the Iraqi SCUDS problem in the first Gulf war, followed by the US occupation of nearby countries and US surveillance.
I'm talking the period after the Gulf war, and certainly in the period around WTC attack, say from 2000 forward to the phony Repug war in March 2003.
Is there any point in responding? You don't seem to read anything that you don't agree with anyway. What the . Here goes.
Saddam was paying 25 thousand dollars to the families of suicide bombers that killed Jews. There were also rumors that Saddam was producing anthrax, and may have been the source of the anthrax attacks in the US. There were also reports that Saddam had purchased thousands of atropine self-injectors for his army.
9/11 had taught Americans that waiting for ironclad evidence was unacceptable, and the Bush administration stepped up the policy that Bill Clinton started with the Iraq Liberation Act, which was the basis for support of the war.
It's my opinion that 20/20 hindsight makes you braver than you were five years ago.
"Saddam was paying 25 thousand dollars to the families of suicide bombers that killed Jews"
I knew about that. How does that affect the security of the USA?
Saddam hit the USA with anthrax? GMAFB.
Phony Iraq war has taught Americans that the WHIG/Repugs are ing muderous liars with hidden agendas they will advance by exploiting WTC and war on terror to advance. And then there is the mind-boggling, multiple incompetences, having hoodwinked the USA, of rushing into the war (to satisfy 2003 prez campaign tactics) under-manned, under-equipped, assuming a slam dunk/mission accomplished, no insurgency planned for, expecting a spontaneous breakout of democracy, dismantling the Iraqi police and Army that permitted general security to go down the toilet, etc, etc. etc.
yes, the Iraq war has taught the USA a lot about the Repugs, none of it good.
Like I figured, you are too stupid and set in your ways to be deterred by facts. Why do you even bother to post in a discussion forum? Why don't you go find a blind dogmatic partisan lustboy forum to post in?
Like I figured, you are too stupid and set in your ways to be deterred by facts. Why do you even bother to post in a discussion forum? Why don't you go find a blind dogmatic partisan lustboy forum to post in?
Isn't Rumsfeld talking about "Islamic fascism"? How does Saddam fit into that? And now where is Iraq going?Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
