| Author | Message | ||
     tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5673 Registered: 5-2001 |
We know Bush doesn't read the paper; but Rumsfeld doesn't, either? I mean, everyone knows the London plot was infiltrated and broken up by law enforcement. Was there a cruise missile attack on the London suburbs that we weren't told about? As for the growing availability of weapons, well how are we doing on cleaning up loose nukes left over from the breakup of the USSR. My understanding is, nowhere; and there's insufficient funding to finish the job. Is the growing availability of these weapons something we're supposed to just accept? | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 746 Registered: 2-2003 |
Rumsfeld's Straw Men: A straw man. No one has suggested this. Another straw man. As Lebanon has shown, there are diplomatic solutions to terrorist threats that require negotations, but not necessarily with terrorists.
Yet another straw man. Law enforcement, intelligence and tough security measures are obviously part of the solution to terrorism, but diplomacy and the political/economic for hearts and minds are also necessary components. When policies such as Rumsfeld's unnecessarily cost the lives of thousands of Americans, waste hundreds of billions of dollars and create a fertile breeding ground for terrorism, the demagogic response is to distort the criticisms of those policies into phony straw men so that the real criticisms don't have to be faced. | ||
| Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 503 Registered: 8-2004 |
Excellent post Paul, particularly, "When policies such as Rumsfeld's unnecessarily cost the lives of thousands of Americans, waste hundreds of billions of dollars and create a fertile breeding ground for terrorism, the demagogic response is to distort the criticisms of those policies into phony straw men so that the real criticisms don't have to be faced." Thank you. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2398 Registered: 8-2003  |
Of course, two can play the straw man game:
| ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1536 Registered: 4-2006 |
Interesting insofar as you people claim Rumsfeld over-emphasizes the threat, and you, in turn, way under-emphasize it. It seems Rumsfeld has not created straw men but anticipated your arguments. There is no peace in Lebanon Paul so as to give that part of your post any credence. In fact all the parties expect another round of war. The storm clouds have gathered, and only an ostrich can pretend otherwise. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2400 Registered: 8-2003 |
I give you credit. That's BS, but it's a creative use of BS in attempting to defend Rumsfeld's indefensible argument. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1774 Registered: 9-2004 |
"fertile breeding ground for terrorism," Paul, why is Bush breeding more terrorists? Is it so "Fact" can make the ostrich comment? Fact.. what would happen if the Official Policy of the Bush Crime Family was changed, so as to stop breeding terrorists? Wouldnt we be safer then? And Fact .. why do insist on changing the OP? Are you blind? Are you illiterate? Are you praying at night that Daddy Bush will keep you safe at night? You must really be brain frozen to not have picked that up. The OP is "the London plot was infiltrated and broken up by law enforcement" Rummy doesnt think so, that by a guy who attacked the wrong country, and then losses the war with the country he attacked. The biggest US Military defeat in over a 100 yrs. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1537 Registered: 4-2006 |
Winston- How is it indefensible? Because Jon Stewart says so? I think you people have great ideas if we were say, fighting a global terror war with the Swiss. But we aren't. Completely different value and cultural system that doesn't accept ours. So, what do you guys suggest? | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1538 Registered: 4-2006 |
Foj- One of the reasons I don't embrace the democratic party with great ardor anymore is that its' views on the global war on terror can be totally summarized as "whatever Bush says we are the opposite". That doesn't help this country. I wish you would write a serious, rather than an anti-Bush polemic post, so there is something to respond to. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5678 Registered: 5-2001 |
Your argument only works if 9/11 = Iraq. But it doesn't. Rumsfeld et al keep hammering away trying to make you believe (in your case, successfully) that they're the same thing. But they're not. The only way Iraq is part of some "global war on terror" is because somebody finds it expedient to say so. Once you reject that premise it all becomes much clearer. We're wasting thousands of lives, as well as billions of dollars which could have been used for something more efficacious to our safety. $100 spent in Iraq does less for us than $1 spent on cargo screening or nuclear facility protection. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1776 Registered: 9-2004 |
Again you change the subject. Back to the OP: "everyone knows the London plot was infiltrated and broken up by law enforcement" ..everyone but Rummy. & Fiction. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2402 Registered: 8-2003 |
It's indefensible because it's dishonest, pure and simple. No credible person who criticizes the war is saying the things that Rumsfeld is alleging are being said. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1779 Registered: 9-2004 |
SO Rummy is fundamentally lying? And Fiction is buying into it..... Dont worry Fiction, Bush will save us from the next attack..... like he did the last time...... | ||
| Costanza Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1773 Registered: 8-2004  |
Tom, thanks for reminding me why I love Donald Rumsfeld. | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7789 Registered: 10-2001 |
"How is it indefensible? Because Jon Stewart says so?"  libs. | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1953 Registered: 10-2005  |
Oh boy, all the SOMA liberals are declaring Rumsfeld's speech "reprehensible." Never saw this one coming. Did he ever give a speech that wasn't reprehensible to them? So utterly predictable....and to plagarize Straw...BORING! -SLK FOJ-of course FvF is falling for the lies, but you just are to darn smart to fall for them yourself, aren't you... | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5687 Registered: 5-2001 |
What does our reaction have to do with it? He said what he said, and it was disgusting. | ||
| Costanza Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1774 Registered: 8-2004 |
Tom, you may disagree with him, but exactly what is disgusting about what he said. To paraphrase Denzel, explain it to me like I am a three year old . | ||
| Strawberry Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7790 Registered: 10-2001 |
Actually, your response to what Rummy said is disgusting. You would just prefer we turn our back on terrorism. That was the Clinton way and it didn't work. That said, come Nov. the GOP will retain Congress and come 09 McCain will continue the war on terror from the White House. Libs have killed the Democratic party and thank god for that. THE GREAT STRAW IS A PROUD AMERICAN. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave  Post Number: 10642 Registered: 4-1997  |
The people turning their backs on terrorism are the ones who decided to invade Iraq rather than find Bin Laden. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5689 Registered: 5-2001 |
See my first post for what makes me sick. He says "Iraq" is the same as the "war on terror." It's not. He says "law enforcement" does not work. But the end of the London plot shows that it does. He says new weapons are bad, but he and his boss won't stop loose nukes from Russia. If they are so bad, why won't they spend to get them back? You can look at Paul's post too. He says it well. Rumsfeld does not tell the truth when he says us libs say these things. We don't. He sets up straw men and knocks them down. But he won't speak to what our real points are. Straw's point is bad too. We do not want to "turn our back on terrorism." Not at all, we just think that Iraq is the wrong place to fight it. We think that Bush had a grudge against Saddam in 2000 and that 9/11 just gave him a way to get him, and that is wrong that now bin Laden is still loose while our men in Iraq get killed. - - - - How's that? All one-syllable words except for proper nouns and direct quotes. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2406 Registered: 8-2003 |
I would think a three-year old would understand that dishonest arguments are disgusting. Rummy should cite names, dates, places, and full exact quotes in which credible people have suggested "appeasing" terrorists. He hasn't, and neither have any of his wing nut defenders. Of course the reason he hasn't is that he can't. He might be able to find some obscure fringe wacko someplace, or perhaps he can truncate a quote and take it out of context, but he won't be able to find a fully contextualized quote from a mainstream Administration critic that was made post 9/11 that supports his claim his critics are "appeasers." | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10643 Registered: 4-1997 |
Using the term "terrorists" is actually an example of thinking too small, but that's nothing new for Rummy Dummy, who wouldn't even listen to military leaders regarding Iraq. What we're encountering in Iraq isn't mostly terrorism, it's armed resistance, guerilla warfare. It's just easier for the administration to explain it as "terrorism" because it's something we can all get behind rather than a faction in a wider civil war (which side are we on?). Then it's not about Bush/Cheney/Rummy's imperialist leanings and ties with oil and war industries, it's about protecting us from being invaded by Iraq, as if that would happen. This is what happens when middle America puts its trust in a man who brags about not reading and adopts military slogans for educational goals. He's a twisted sociopath. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3781 Registered: 5-2001  |
The neoconflators have no choice but to hang straw men. It's the only way they can appear to be right, and that's only to the supplicating wingnut zombies who are incapable of listening with a critical ear to begin with. And it's no better to dismiss the entire left wing's position as being the arbitrarily chosen opposite of whatever the administration chooses. That's inaccurate and lazy. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 979 Registered: 1-2006 |
Those straw men want us dead, and will do it unless they are defeated. jd | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2408 Registered: 8-2003 |
Glib and vacuous argument. | ||
| Costanza Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1775 Registered: 8-2004 |
Tom, still don't see it. He never said law enforcement doesn't work , he said fighting terrorism isn't simply law enforcement. My 4 year old know that pitching simply isn't throwing fastballs. He seems to give specific examples of how the press has their priorities screwed up. In his opinion Liberals are acting like appeasers before WW2. If Dems can call Iraq Vietnam the Rummy can put the Demm position in historical context also. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10644 Registered: 4-1997 |
Giving up on Bin Laden is the #1 Appeasement ever by any president ever. | ||
| Costanza Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1776 Registered: 8-2004 |
Who said he gave up? | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2409 Registered: 8-2003 |
vandelay, how do you get from this quote that Rumsfeld says law enforcement works. In my mind "fundamentally different approach" means well, fundamentally different
| ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10646 Registered: 4-1997 |
"You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. " http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2014 Registered: 10-2004  |
Seems to me that appeasers is just the latest bs codeword being thrown at the left by the Orwellian right. Every talk show is full of appeasement talk now and this board is a reflection. The first thing I would ask anyone who is accusing the left of appeasement, exactly who is being appeased? Does diplomacy = appeasement? If sanctions are called for is that appeasement? How exactly can one appease a criminal, terrorist, nefarious group that does not operate within international law? The left has consistently called the administration on its buffoonery, errors in judgement, hypocrisy and criminality. (while the right wing has actually appeased themselves into believing the governments policies are beneficial to us). | ||
| MBJ Citizen Username: Mbj Post Number: 236 Registered: 10-2005 |
Knothead invests a new word..."conflators". Dave posts something stupid like we "given up" searching for Bin Laden. This board is a joke. | ||
| Costanza Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1777 Registered: 8-2004 |
Dave , Bush knows there are many qualified people looking him. FDR's strategy in WW2 wasn't to spend every day trying to capture the emperor. Boogie, doesn't seem that he dismissing law enforcement. If Iran wants to give Hezbollah nukes you don't call Elliot Ness. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2016 Registered: 10-2004 |
 | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3787 Registered: 5-2001 |
MBJ, don't let the screen door hitcha on yer way out, now... | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10647 Registered: 4-1997 |
Why didn't Bush simply say there are people looking for OBL? Also, what's your source on "there are many qualified people" looking for him? That's your assumption based on zero evidence. Kind of like Bush admin people regarding WMD. No wonder Republicans hate science and curry favor with relligious nutjobs who don't require evidence. | ||
| Costanza Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1778 Registered: 8-2004 |
Dave , I don't hate curry flavor. Sona is terrific especially with free rice. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10648 Registered: 4-1997 |
There's no such thing as free rice. Everyone knows that. More lies and outright distortions from the spicy right, I see. | ||
| Costanza Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1779 Registered: 8-2004 |
"Combatting spiciness Indian food is not simply adding rice, It requires a fundamentally different approach." |
