• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Donald Rumsfeld, at it again....

Temporal Renegade

Last of the Time Lords
Joined
May 26, 2003
Messages
1,890
I was reading the paper this morning, and what did I see? Seems that Donald Rumsfeld is at it again!
What do I mean? This: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006608300381

He compares Iraq war critics, to Nazi sympathizers!! Excuse me, but
WHAT
THE
(edited, as Rule 8 restrictions apply)?!?!?!?!?!

Just read it, it'll explain better than I can right now. Of course, there's also this lil' gem:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006608270643

He's saying that families of casualties have no right to be mad. Because they're volunteers, they knew what they were getting into.

This man needs to go, by any means neccessary!
 
He compares Iraq war critics, to Nazi sympathizers!! Excuse me, but
WHAT
THE
(edited, as Rule 8 restrictions apply)?!?!?!?!?!

Hold on a second. First off, the AP article you cite doesn't claim he compared critics to SYMPATHIZERS, but to APPEASERS. There's actually quite a large difference there, and yet you felt free to simply substitute one for the other, without comment or explanation. So you're misrepresenting what the AP reported. The irony, though, is that the AP is also misrepresenting what Rumsfeld actually said (see http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4496 for some comparisons). You can find the actual transcript of what Rumsfeld said here:

http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1033

Now, if you want to read what he ACTUALLY said, and not merely how the AP reports it, and report back on your subsequent outrage, maybe we can talk about that. But as it stands now, it looks an awful lot like you're getting upset because you misinterpreted the AP's misinterpretation of what was actually said.

This man needs to go, by any means neccessary!

It bugs me when people say things they clearly don't mean, but they aren't even trying to be sarcastic. Do you honestly mean "by any means necessary"? I doubt it, because if you DID mean that, you would be advocating his assasination, since that might be what's necessary to remove him from office. And you wouldn't be advocating murder, would you? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: you're not actually that crazy, you're just mouthy.
 
Ziggurat,
That first link was very interesting. Why I am surprised eludes me. I suppose I was under the mistaken impression that the Associated Press was above such tactics. I'm no fan of Rumsfeld, but what the AP spun is a gross misrepresentation of what he said. Honestly, it was the most intelligent string of thoughts that I have heard come out of his mouth.

I like to think that I don't take everything at face value, but I wish that I didn't have to go digging for the actual transcripts of every speech or press conference just to make sure the press didn't distort it.

I did find it surprising that the AP actually went back and edited the original article. I didn't get a sense of what led them to do so.
 
I like to think that I don't take everything at face value, but I wish that I didn't have to go digging for the actual transcripts of every speech or press conference just to make sure the press didn't distort it.

Yeah, that would be quite nice indeed. I'm not sure we'll ever see that day, but fortunately it's getting easier to access the original transcripts to do such checking. But here's a scary thought: twenty years ago, tracking down the original transcript for such a report really wasn't an option for almost everyone. Was the press really better back then, or did we just have no way of catching them with their pants down?
 
Yeah, that would be quite nice indeed. I'm not sure we'll ever see that day, but fortunately it's getting easier to access the original transcripts to do such checking. But here's a scary thought: twenty years ago, tracking down the original transcript for such a report really wasn't an option for almost everyone. Was the press really better back then, or did we just have no way of catching them with their pants down?
Good question. Perhaps ignorance was bliss. :rolleyes:
 
Hold on a second. First off, the AP article you cite doesn't claim he compared critics to SYMPATHIZERS, but to APPEASERS. There's actually quite a large difference there, and yet you felt free to simply substitute one for the other, without comment or explanation. So you're misrepresenting what the AP reported. The irony, though, is that the AP is also misrepresenting what Rumsfeld actually said (see http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4496 for some comparisons). You can find the actual transcript of what Rumsfeld said here:

http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1033

Now, if you want to read what he ACTUALLY said, and not merely how the AP reports it, and report back on your subsequent outrage, maybe we can talk about that. But as it stands now, it looks an awful lot like you're getting upset because you misinterpreted the AP's misinterpretation of what was actually said.



It bugs me when people say things they clearly don't mean, but they aren't even trying to be sarcastic. Do you honestly mean "by any means necessary"? I doubt it, because if you DID mean that, you would be advocating his assasination, since that might be what's necessary to remove him from office. And you wouldn't be advocating murder, would you? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: you're not actually that crazy, you're just mouthy.

I believe his English was quite clear. I had no trouble interpreting it. Nor did you.

Whether he said sympathisers or appeasers doesn't matter, he was merely once again calling people who do not support the war bad(though calling us all Nazis when his and his bosses actions fit so much better there seems a bit much). Interestingly, that makes me bad for an odd reason - I wanted the little slime taken out(that's Soddomite Hussein) since the mid-90's BUT we did not do it right or we would not be in the stupid situation we are in now (as demonstrated by the second item where troops are being kept past their rotation time and according to the Rummy they and their families have no right to be upset about it). Even the idiots who handled Vietnam didn't keep making that mistake (I was there so I have a right to say that - though I personally believe US citizens who moved to Canada instead also do). So, the Rummy , the Shrub think the upset families and soldiers are bad, the protestors are bad etc. , fine. A lot of us know who really are.

And I am glad I have no problem understanding the language.
 
And I am glad I have no problem understanding the language.
Rummy and the rest have about out Godwinned every Godwinning schmuck on the internet at this point.

Can't they come up with another analogy? The Hitler/Fascist metaphor is so last century. :cool: Looks to me like a paucity of gray matter at the speechwriting, and thus the conceptual, level.

DR
 
Whether he said sympathisers or appeasers doesn't matter,

Of course not. Such mundane insistence on actual facts on my part only obscures a higher "truth", is that it? But it wasn't even Rumsfeld who equated critics of Bush with Nazi appeasers (not sympathizers), but the Associated Press. Rumsfeld himself never actually made that blanket accusation. Funny how elastic the truth can be for some people.

he was merely once again calling people who do not support the war bad

Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble pointing to where he said that in the transcript either. That's why I provided the link, after all. Like I said, if you've got criticisms of what Rumsfeld actually said, then by all means post them. I care little about complaints based upon misrepresentations.
 
I believe his English was quite clear. I had no trouble interpreting it. Nor did you.

Whether he said sympathisers or appeasers doesn't matter, he was merely once again calling people who do not support the war bad(though calling us all Nazis when his and his bosses actions fit so much better there seems a bit much).

That's your interpretation.

I don't think people who oppose the war are "bad." I just think they're wrong. And "appeasement" comes to mind, just like the DefSec said.

And I am glad I have no problem understanding the language.

Again, I think you're wrong.
 
Hold on a second. First off, the AP article you cite doesn't claim he compared critics to SYMPATHIZERS, but to APPEASERS. There's actually quite a large difference there, and yet you felt free to simply substitute one for the other, without comment or explanation. So you're misrepresenting what the AP reported. The irony, though, is that the AP is also misrepresenting what Rumsfeld actually said (see http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4496 for some comparisons). You can find the actual transcript of what Rumsfeld said here:

http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1033

Now, if you want to read what he ACTUALLY said, and not merely how the AP reports it, and report back on your subsequent outrage, maybe we can talk about that. But as it stands now, it looks an awful lot like you're getting upset because you misinterpreted the AP's misinterpretation of what was actually said.

It bugs me when people say things they clearly don't mean, but they aren't even trying to be sarcastic. Do you honestly mean "by any means necessary"? I doubt it, because if you DID mean that, you would be advocating his assasination, since that might be what's necessary to remove him from office. And you wouldn't be advocating murder, would you? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: you're not actually that crazy, you're just mouthy.

'By *any* means neccessary'? Of course not; murder is never a viable option. It should have said, 'By any legal means neccessary'. The mistake was mine.

The very fact that Rumsfeld is still trying to tie critics of this war to ANYTHING 'un-American', is still offensive, regardless.

And, by the way, 'mouthy' people are the ones who brought this whole fiasco to light in the first place. Do you mean to say, that we should just sit back, let them do what they will, and suck it up, compliant and non-complaining?

Do you favour being mislead and lied to, by the very people who we've entrusted with our safety and well-being?

Are you in favour of this abomination that's taking place in Iraq, with 3000 Americans and countless others (Allied troops and Iraqis) dead, and no real known reason as to why it's going on? Every time a reason comes up, it's always somewhat different: WMDs, terrorist cells, Saddam was threatening his neighbours, threatening the U.S., etc. Do you know the real and true reason(s) as to why it's happening? Because I sure don't.

I'm tired of being looked at as un-Patriotic, un-American, un-co-operative, and un- anything else, simply because I'm sick and tired of seeing stories of soldiers dying on the news every night, involved in a war that was started by a bunch of rich, white frat boys who've never been involved in actual combat before in their lives, and acting like they've all the angles and answers to this situation.

And, before you ask, NO, I don't have any answers to this at all.
 
Rummy's skill is in getting people to take his unspeak seriously. Just try reading his statements while quacking like a duck in place of every syllable it'll make exactly as much sense.
Rumsfeld is, in my view, a dimmer, more ideologically stubborn version of those who are so distant from the consequences of their actions, and so indoctrinated, that they can speak of the crimes that they facilitate without shame or revulsion...Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, massacres by toops in Iraq like Haditha...you name it, but the buck never even reaches him, let alone stops with him.

Interestingly, he seems to me to be the only one of the clique to display a sense of humour. And then there is his poetry collection...;)
 
Rummy and the rest have about out Godwinned every Godwinning schmuck on the internet at this point.

Can't they come up with another analogy? The Hitler/Fascist metaphor is so last century. :cool: Looks to me like a paucity of gray matter at the speechwriting, and thus the conceptual, level.

DR
Right on man.

/raises fist in the air

Damn Bu$Hitler and his Theo-Nazis.
 
Whether he said sympathisers or appeasers doesn't matter,
Sorry, yes it matters, and it matters very much. Because if people are allowed to get away with claiming he said opponents of the war are like Nazi sympathizers, it won't be long before Everyone Knows He Said That. Just like everyone knows Dan Qualyle said he needed to brush up on his Latin before a trip to Latin America.

An appeaser is someone who thinks you can make the Nazis (or the Islamists) change their behavior by giving them what they want.

A sympathizer is someone who thinks the Nazis (or the Islamists) shouldn't have to change their behavior and that it's wrong to try.

Please tell me you didn't need to have that explained.
 
Isn't it Rumsfield's week to dis the disagreers of the war in Iraq?

Last week it was Cheney ....

Charlie (next week Bush) Monoxide
 
Just to clarify my part in this - I neglected to say exactly why I don't support the war as it was done though I thought I had implied it with the comment on Soddomite Hussein. Just prior to starting the so-called war the military started putting out false information (I assumed it was true) that they were planning on using MOABs in/on Iraq (that's fuel air bombs aka FABs or FAEs of which the biggest US one was the Mother Of All Bombs). They lied - MOABs had been developed (good) but not used(bad). Anyone seeing the remains of an FAE attack tends to gain a little smarts - the lnowledge they really do not want to die that way- so only the hard corpse terrorists would likely continue the "struggle". Videos on Al-Jazeera with those little guys going off would have been enlightening. See, I have a weird policy which Shrub and friends do not seem to share, I like the US Military (the people in it's lower ranks anyway) and if there is a choice between ten (100, 1000, I'm flexible) citizens of a miscreant country and a U.S. soldier, I pick the U. S. soldier. So, I would not have had U. S. forces on the ground until every military base or target in Iraq had been evaporated. And once on the ground, heavilly armored vehicles woul have worked through town by town giving the citizens a fair chance to give up any arms bigger than a slingshot but responding thoroughly to any assault on U. S. troops. Roads running across the borders would have been either constantly air monitored or, if impossible, bombed sufficiently to be unusable. War is not pretty and if you go into one you must be prepared to win it, preferably hard and fast (blitzkrieg may have been developed by the Nazi's and I do loathe them, but it is the best way to wage war if you must).

If you have not quite caught my drift, this is it: you don't appease the slime, you wipe it out - we failed in this because we played games instead of making war - and I loathe it because our soldiers are dying for someone elses inabilities. Not fair, not rational, not appeasement or sympathy for the bad guys.
 
Last edited:
....If you have not quite caught my drift, this is it: you don't appease the slime, you wipe it out.....

Now I'm even more confused.

The U.S. military campaign in Iraq has been better than textbook. The invasion lasted but a dozen days, with very, very few U.S. casulties.

Even the occupation has come with very few casulties, when compared to occupations in the past.

Once again, the failures in this endeavor are political and ideological, and that is exactly what Rumsfeld is talking about in the article cited in the opening post of this thread.
 
there's also this lil' gem:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006608270643

He's saying that families of casualties have no right to be mad. Because they're volunteers, they knew what they were getting into.

Please quote anything in that link that refers to "casualties". Everything I can see that refers to familes being mad is referring to families of a brigade that's not coming home as planned. It has nothing to do with casualities.

If you don't like somebody and you're looking to make other people not like them, I doubt that it helps much to just make things up and intentionally misquote them.
 
While the AP did appear to misrepresent Rumsfeld, it's never a good idea to start using Nazi analogies when analyzing the modern world.

Godwin's Law doesn't just apply to folks who compare Bush to Hilter!
 
I like this "in your face" strategy of Bush & Rumsfield. Comparing 65% of America to morally confused Nazi appeasers is going to be a popular theme. I say go for it.
 
An appeaser is someone who thinks you can make the Nazis (or the Islamists) change their behavior by giving them what they want.

Please tell me you didn't need to have that explained.

Rumsfeld says: "With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?"

Jerry Seinfeld says: "Who are these people?"

Show me an appeaser, otherwise this looks like the Rumspeak version of your basic strawman argument.
 

Back
Top Bottom