Friday, August 11, 2006

You Can't Make This Stuff Up ...

Whatever does Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld do when he's not planning his brilliant Iraq strategy? According to Premiere magazine, he hangs around movie sets — as in a recent visit to the Clint Eastwood-directed war epic Flags of Our Fathers.

Cast member Jesse Bradford marvels, "What was funny is that he stuck around for a while. It's like, 'Don't you have anything better to do? You’re supposed to be running the country.'"

-- New York Daily News, Aug. 11

30 Comments:

Anonymous Straight Shooter said...

Rumsfeld was merely hoping to get charisma by osmosis.

1:35 PM  
Anonymous Democrat 4 Ever said...

He just believes that courage and honor are gotten from a movie plot and a script. He desperately needs both so he went to where to see if some of it could rub off on him. He is a media slut, anything to make himself look macho - a lot like Chucklenuts. Those who can, do. Those who can't just mouth off platitudes and swagger...and hang out with pretend statesmen (and I'm not talking about Hollywood). Another day at the office for Rummy.

1:35 PM  
Anonymous Cleita said...

I don't know about running the country but shouldn't he be back at the Pentagon keeping informed on the two war fronts he's conducting?

1:35 PM  
Anonymous TwoSparkles said...

Trying to allign Iraq with WW2

"Flags of Our Father" is about Iwo Jima.

Another pathetic, Rumsfeld attempt at trying to psychologically equivocate WW2 with the discombobulated, ill-planned, perverse Iraq war.

If I hear/see one more comparison between WW2 and the Iraq fiasco--I'll scream.

Instead of spewing continual lies--you would think that anything to do with WW2--
would remind Rumsfeld of the glaring failures of the Iraq war.

In WW2--we stated, cogent goals that were consistent throughout the war.

Unlike WW2, Rumsfeld went into a foreign country with absolutely no frickin plan beyond the first week of battle. In Rumsfeld's own words, "We underestimated the psychology of the Iraqi people."

In WW2--we planned and trained for an entire year before our paratroopers were dropped
on the beaches of Normandy. Our guys knew where every berm was within 20 miles! In
Iraq--we "underestimated" "misunderestimated" so badly that we've incited a civil war.

What Rumsfeld has done in Iraq, is equivalent to us landing in Normandy--and fucking everything
up so badly and inciting so much anger that we start a civil war in France!

How DARE that evil piece of shit publicly stand in the shadow of WW2 and pretend that his
pathological failure even remotely resembles WW2.

1:36 PM  
Anonymous NewYorkerfromMass said...

Because hanging out on a movie set is a cakewalk and you hang out on the movie sets you have, not the ones you whish you had. And you hang out on the movie sets you know, not the unknown movie sets...

1:36 PM  
Anonymous shadowknows69 said...

Gunney Highway make Donny hard

1:37 PM  
Anonymous elehhhhna said...

THAT BASTARD IS TOO TAN to be working, and has been ALL SUMMER.

1:37 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

The World War II-Iraq comparisons are being made by the Bush Administration and the Bushies.
No one in the MSM is pointing out the obvious flaw in the analogy, or, even worse yet, positioning such reasoning in the context of other faulty, Bush reasoning on Iraq (A 'Democratic' government resulting from a free election could not possibly succomb to civil war) to rightfully demonstrate this Administration lacks any credibility on Iraq.
Then, when we have a glimmer of hope, Lamont's election in Connecticut meaning we finally have someone to stand up to Bush B.S. on Iraq, the MSM bleats in unison how the situation demonstrates a major political party eroding into anti-war/anti- terrorism mode to endanger the country!
Is it any wonder we are stuck in a failed quagmire with no end in sight.

3:06 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

TwoSparkles said... In WW2--we planned and trained for an entire year before our paratroopers were dropped on the beaches of Normandy. Our guys knew where every berm was within 20 miles!

TwoSparkles, No matter what kind of plans might be drawn up before a war, they usually go out the window once the battles start. The enemy adapts to our strategies, and then we have to adapt to theirs as well. Also, there are always unforeseen or underestimated circumstances to deal with. For instance, in WWII, the thick hedgerows of the Normandy beaches proved extremely difficult for our tanks to penetrate. I don't think that was exactly foreseen by our side, do you? In the meantime, while trying to solve the problem, we were vulnerable, and our troops were killed.

We already know that war is hell. Less well-known a fact is that even before our troops landed at Utah Beach, American forces, during a practice landing at Slapton Sands, (known as Exercise Tiger) located in the South West of England, were fired upon by German E Boats that were listening in to the exercises, unbeknownst to us, killing 749 of our men on the evening of April 27, 1944. We lost 198 sailors and 551 soldiers even before we landed at Normandy. It was the most costly U.S. training incident of the war.

So to suggest that everything went strictly as planned for us during WWII is probably to engage in a bit of revisionist history.

3:13 PM  
Anonymous David G. said...

So to suggest that everything went strictly as planned for us during WWII is probably to engage in a bit of revisionist history.

But it's still not exactly an argument for, "Well, let's just roll the dice and see what happens," which seems to have been the plan this time around.

3:26 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David G. said...
"But it's still not exactly an argument for, "Well, let's just roll the dice and see what happens," which seems to have been the plan this time around."


I don't think we've ever had to deal with quite the same sort of enemy that we are dealing with here, David G. We are definitely breaking new ground with fighting the religious fanaticism of the Islamo-Facists who place no value whatsoever on human life.

I don't remember where I found this, but it pretty much captures the essense of the problem....

"The difference between us and the terrorists is clear: We endanger ourselves to protect their civilians. They endanger their own civilians to protect themselves."

3:52 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Talk about revisionist history.
Trinity seems to forget that it was the U.S. that created the insurgency or alleged "Islamo facists" that we are fighting in Iraq due to the lack of planning of Dumbsfeld and Co...
So much for the "breaking new ground" argument.
As for Al Queda fighting us in Iraq, despite the clear lies from Bush central, the terrorist group is only making up a small percentage of the opposition forces there, and, again, it was our own actions that brought Al Queda to Iraq.
Don't give me that Islamo facists bullshit. It is frightening to see how the Bushies have automatically without question accepted the spin that the insurgency equates to Islamic terrorists.
It is a clear attempt to fabricate a connection between Iraq and the War on Terrorism and 9-11 that has already been firmly debunked. That is what we have all been talking about on these various posts.
We see Bush and the Bush apologists making a last ditch, desperate attempt to excuse this fiasco in Iraq. The polls clearly show the majority of America is no longer buying it.

6:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Trinity. Just keeping drinking your koolaid.

6:53 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity's quotation as applied in the real world.

"The difference between us and the terrorists is clear: We endanger ourselves to protect their civilians. They endanger their own civilians to protect themselves."

Bush and Bushies: "We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."

More appropriate quote:
"We endanger the Iraqi civilians so we don't have to endanger our own civilians.
We endanger their own civilians to protect ourselves."

Is there any wonder there's an insurgency? Is there any wonder such rampart Anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab world?
Trinity sure has gotten quiet all of a sudden.

11:13 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Unfortunately, or perhaps I should say, fortunately, my real life is a bit too busy right now, and I really have no time to respond to the clueless and naive poster know as "thewaronterrible", or "twot" as I call him.

I will be back when I can, however, because I can't possibly leave his latest BS unanswered.

12:42 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Clueless and naive?
I guess that's because my substantiated argument -- The Bush Administration and Republican-led congress diverted attention to Iraq from the real enemy has resulted in even bigger problems for the U.S. in the Middle East and the world -- is simple and straightforward.
Contrast this to the Bushie convoluted, confused, baseless apologist position trying to contrive a link between Iraq and the war on terror.
The Repubs have faulted Dems for not having a clear strategy on Iraq verses their clear, straightforward "stay the course" position.
Now that stay the course hasn't worked, it is the Republicans retreating with a position as ambiguous as it is bullshit.
For the only plausible argument from the right: retreating from Iraq might embolden the terrorists, refer to my argument at the top of this post.

3:08 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Don't give me that Islamo facists bullshit. It is frightening to see how the Bushies have automatically without question accepted the spin that the insurgency equates to Islamic terrorists.
It is a clear attempt to fabricate a connection between Iraq and the War on Terrorism and 9-11 that has already been firmly debunked.


First off, I would remind you, twot, that the President never tried to make the case that there were major Iraqi ties to the events of 9-ll. He just didn't.

Secondly, it certainly is not a stretch to say that Saddam Hussein had ties to terrorists. He not only gave dollar incentives for suicide bombers and their families, he also allowed foreign terrorists to be trained in camps in his own country.

And as far as the insurgency in Iraq is concerned, do you deny that Iran is at the bottom of that opposition, the same way it is behind every action that Hezbollah takes in Lebanon?

thewaronterrible said...
"Don't give me that Islamo facists bullshit. It is frightening to see how the Bushies have automatically without question accepted the spin that the insurgency equates to Islamic terrorists."


So, iyo, twot, the insurgency in Iraq that is out there murdering other Muslims, as well as coalition forces, are NOT Islamic terrorists? What exactly are they then? "Freedom" fighters? :rolleyes:

4:36 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity:
Stop being a revisionist.
Bush clearly made statements linking Sadaam and 9-11, or at the very least, made the clear implication of a connection.
Old news to everyone but Bushies not worth repeating.

"Sadaam Hussein had ties to terrorists."
Well in a sense so does George W. Bush, who supports state sponsors of terrorism such as Saudi Arabia through its state-sponsored Wahhabi, the radical, intolerant Sunni Islam religion of Osama Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia is also a country unabashedly against Israel and has reportedly supported Sunni radical resistance movements against U.S. and Shitte advances in Iraq.
My point is this criteria of supporting a dictatorship which supports terrorists alone does not justify an invasion.
Nonetheless Sadaam was not a supporter of America's real enemy Al Queda so the revisionism Bushies continue to attempt here remains invalid.
As to the composition of the insurgency:
There is a dispute whether Zargawi and his Al Queda followers or Saddam loyalists have played a bigger role. I would have to do more research to see whether there's anything to your claim Iran is suddenly playing a substantial role.
At least Zargawi's death did nothing to quell the insurgency. Most agree the insurgency is a diverse group with differing political, religious and tribal aims.
Nevertheless, the fact that the Iraq invasion empowered the Shiites' against Americans (your Iran connection?), supports my larger point that any Islamic facism stemming out of Iraq is of the Bush Administration's own doing.
The Hezzbollah-Israel conflict is not related to Iraq, except for the Shiite link noted above, although Bush weakly tries to extrapolate any acts of aggression in the Middle East to Iraq and a larger war on terror, without placing anything in the context of his own contribution.
We have a policy of save face harmful to America's national security.
Bush promised Iraq would bring Democracy in the Middle East and peace between Israel and Lebannon. That radical neocon experiment has blown up in his face like the rise in power of Hezzabollah and the car bombs taking 150 more lives in Iraq today.
Why don't you address my main point, the Bush diverted attention to Iraq while ignoring the real enemy that attacked us on 9-11, such as OBL and Afghanistan, which consequently has fallen into chaos as the Taliban threatens to overtake the government. Three additional U.S. soldiers were killed in Afghanistan today.
Bushie apologists and revisionists lack credibility when they contrive a link between Iraq and World War II, the initial focus of this discussion, and prop up a solution in the Bush/Cheney war on terror.
Bushies equally lack credibility when they accuse Dems of being "weak on terror" merely for offering alternatives to Bush's mountain of failed policy.

10:11 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

thewaronterrible said...
"Trinity:
Stop being a revisionist.
Bush clearly made statements linking Sadaam and 9-11, or at the very least, made the clear implication of a connection.


I do not remember that being the case at all, twot. In fact, I believe they went out of their way to say that they had no evidence of any operational link between Saddam Hussein and September 11, 2001. That was not at all one of the reasons the President gave for going to war with Iraq.

So forgive me if I do not take your word on that. Please give me a source for your above claim. Thanks.

thewaronterrible said...
"My point is this criteria of supporting a dictatorship which supports terrorists alone does not justify an invasion."


Then your point is a moot one because a) it most certainly does justify an invasion, since Bush made it clear that we would not distinguish between terrorists and the states that sponsored them, and b) because Iraq had violated more than seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions, so had broken the cease-fire treaty they had agreed to after the first Gulf War.

2:20 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

I thought the discussion was about the appropropriateness of Bush connections to Iraq to the war on terror and WW2?
As to Bush linking Sadaam and 9-11, I don't have time to look for specific proof now. I have heard repeatedly a tape someone made of the dozen or so times Bush put 9-11 and Sadaam in the same sentence or otherwise made the clear implication of a connection.
Prior to the Iraq invasion, as in now, Bush and Cheney publicly linked Iraq to 9-11/the war on terror. You'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind -- or Rush Limbaugh -- to miss it.
Anyway, Bush's main justification for war with Iraq were WMDs. If you can take off your Bush spin cap for a few hours, seek out a copy of PBS Frontline "The Dark Side" for a complete examination of exactly what Bush and intelligence agencies knew on WMDs prior to the invasion. There are certainly other reports on the same subject that go beyond empty right-wing spin points.
But the real questions here were not what had gotten us into Iraq, it was the Bush Administration's faulty execution of the war and it's role in creating a much greater terrorism threat in the Middle East for the U.S., as well as the inappropriate World War II connection of Bushies.
The discussion was about whether Bush and Bushies are making connections to Iraq to WW 2, the greater War on Terror and 9-11 merely to cover the administration's own blood-soaked tracks and incompetence.
You don't appear to dispute my arguments here.

8:33 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Trinity, it's quite clear that the Bush Administration made claims that Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda, and they made it repeatedly.

In June 2004 (among other times), Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."

In September 2003, Cheney said "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Cheney also repeatedly -- time and again -- talked of the discredited intelligence suggesting that Mohammed Atta met with Saddam agents in Prague. He continued to go on about this all the way through 2003.

Bush also called Hussein "an ally of al Qaeda" in 2003.


They may have not said, explicitely, "Saddam did 9/11," but they went out of their way to heighten the notion that there were ties between the two and that in some form or another Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

9:15 AM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity: an article by a UK publication The Guardian warning of the error and logic-starved simplicity of Bush attempting to create a mass Islamic conspiracy against the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/qdqgz
Please don't respond with something by or from Barnes, Kristol, or Charles Krapmuether (whatever his name is). A point-by-point analysis shows these guys were completely wrong on predictions for Iraq (like Cheney) and there is no reason anyone should give them credibility now.

9:19 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Trinity, it's quite clear that the Bush Administration made claims that Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda, and they made it repeatedly."


Yes, and I would concur with those claims, Dave G., especially since the truth of those links have been made even more clear from the gazillions of Iraqi documents that are finally being translated and made public. I'm guessing nobody here has ever read them.

However, that's irrelevant, since I was responding specifically to this claim made by twot:

thewaronterrible said...
"Trinity:
Stop being a revisionist.
Bush clearly made statements linking Sadaam and 9-11, or at the very least, made the clear implication of a connection."


As I said, Bush went out of his way when making the case for the Iraq war, to clearly state that they were not aware of any operational ties between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9-11.

Unfortunately, twot doesn't have the time right now to look for specific proof of what he just said. Perhaps later on? ;)

4:08 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Twot, you are sourcing the undisputably liberal, anti-Bush London "Guardian", yet you say I cannot use anything from Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol or Charles Krauthammer??? rofl You're a very funny guy. ;)

4:11 PM  
Anonymous David G. said...

Bush went out of his way when making the case for the Iraq war, to clearly state that they were not aware of any operational ties between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9-11.

Out of his way? no. Not the administration. Bush said once, yes, that they weren't aware of it -- long, long after they started making the case for war. But Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice all implied often that there was justification in attacking Iraq because it was in the "same region" as where the 9/11 terrorists originated from. Which is sort of like shooting a bunch of people in Cleveland because someone was murdered in Detroit.

5:06 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity: Documents?
The buzzer sounds and the referee steps into the ring.
"Now we can say indisputably that Trinity gets his info from bull shit right-wing talking points," he says to the audience.
The documents Trinity mentions above were at once discredited by the Bush Administration and intelligence and defense department officials. All expressed concern the documents once exposed on the web would be subject to looney interpretations from loonies.

http://tinyurl.com/hcs3t
And I will believe the above report long before Faux news talking heads and far-right wing commentators who have solely advocated the story.
While, we're at it, the below report, among others, thoroughly debunked another recent Faux propaganda story initiated by Santorum and Hoekstra that attempted to show WMDs were found in Iraq after all.
http://tinyurl.com/nuoly

5:41 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Trinity said: "yet you say I cannot use anything from Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol or Charles Krauthammer???"
No, that's not what I said.
I said these three neocon clowns have been documented to have repeatedly made false predictions on Iraq that turned out to be completely, fatally wrong.
(And of course there were a fair number of ignored media commentators, as well as prominent U.S. intelligence and military officials who had expressed contrary views and who were wrongfully cast off by hawkish imbeciles as lunatics who turned out to be completely right).
Therefore the three clowns' predictions on anything Middle East MUST today be taken with a very large grain of salt, as well as several shots of brandy, to be lent any credibility.
Yet, they are still deemed perfectly credible to the Bushies, who blindly fail to place their latest opinions into any context.
This is no different than allowing Sadaam Hussein to express opinions on the direction of Iraqi politics today.
Is it any wonder the U.S. is in trouble?

6:18 PM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

Trinity - the one thing I remember most about the Iraq invasion is the stragedy used to warrant the invasion. The reasons for invasion are the only plans that the Bush Administration gave considerable thought to and planing for.
Here they are in what I remember their order:
1. Iraq has WMDs, will use them, have used them ( one time was during the Reagan tenure when he gassed the Kurds and the Reagan Administration with the aid of Chaney and Rumsfeld continued to sell WMDs to saddam), will provide to them to the "terorist", wants more from the United States, wants to build more, on and on and on on until the world had no doubt about the message. But when that proved not a fact, the next step in the well planned strategy was ready to be implimented.
2. Saddam is a ruthless leader, but only against his own people notwithstanding during wars, mistreats his people, is brutal, is the devil incarnate on and on and on until the world was convinced. But then, the civilized world wondered why not invade other dictators that were as bad as Saddam. But they were prepared for other reasons.
3. There was a concerted effort to link 911, Al Quiada, and "terrorism" to Saddam. You are right, Saddam did pay $25,000 to Palestine "terrorist" that killed Jews. There was no connection to any US citizen. Bush may not have said verbatum, "Saddam was involved in the 911 plot", but it takes someone who has an IQ below 50 - which is almost close to being a plant- not to understand the attempt of the Bush Administration to connect Saddam to 911, to Al Quiada, and to the "terrorist". This went on and on and on until everyone who thinks Bush speaks to God believed it, which was his target group. By all the polls taken on this subject, it worked. If Bush and his cronies never pushed this idea then how on God's green earth does so many people like you believe there is this connection when there is zero evidence that it is true. People that believe this shit must not read anything but Bush"s speeches or the speeches of Bushey followers.
4. If reasons 1-3 did not work to their satifaction, then use: We have to spread Democracy to that part of the world to cause peace and prosperity ( which is a great idea if we use our model as an example and not a war to force something that these people have to do on their own). Unfortunately, some of these countries have voted "terrorist " into their government because they do not really understand democracy is supposed to follow the U.S. model( only politicians that can be bought). A demcratic government that works better than ours where religion is not political policy is the ideal because we do not like their religion.
5. Now if 1-4 fails, then just punt and say it was just the right thing because it is our God's will and it will be good for them to be invaded by the U.S. We can destroy their country and their government and rebuild it all from scratch.

8:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoop brings up a very strong yet terrifying point. It appears the only issue of which Bush has given any serious thought and planning was how to get Americans to go along with his Iraq war scheme.
(Well that and maybe Terry Schiavo and stem cell research).
More thought went into conning America than the actual planning of the war itself.

8:30 AM  
Blogger A. Wickersham said...

Wow - this Trinity is a perfect spin machine - I could wash my dirty drawers with her!! Honey, you live somewhere south of not-very-bright, but you make a hell of a parrot. Talking like you've fought a few wars yourself or something...every credible military expert our Country has has panned Donny and his bullshit war for 3 years. What is it you wingnuts say? oh, yeah - DEAL WITH IT!

6:44 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares