Rumsfeld Hammers The UN and NATO

RandFan: I'm not saying that Rumsfeld is an Evil World-Dominating Genius slavering to see American soldiers die. I'm not saying that he's probably not fundamentally a kind and decent man.

And I don't mean "funny" as in "joke funny", I mean "funny' as in "ironically", "sardonically" funny.

I'm saying that he's been publicly saying for a long time now that he is personally committed to having a war. He thinks a war with Iraq would be a Good Thing. He doesn't even care whether the American people approve or not, which is a strange attitude for a public official in a democracy.

And so I'm saying that it's deeply, extremely, ironically "funny" to hear someone who has been beating the Big War Drum for months now say something like, "No one wants war."

Sorry if you don't get it. ;)

Your "I don't really want to pay my taxes" metaphor does not hold up. You don't have a choice whether or not to pay your taxes. Donald Rumsfeld does have a choice whether or not to make statements in public like, "We will declare war on Iraq whether the American people approve or not." Donald Rumsfeld does have a choice whether or not to send troops to the Persian Gulf, and if so, how many.

It is not correct or accurate to say that he's "just following his President's orders" by setting up the situation for war, sending troops to the Gulf, putting aircraft carriers on High Alert, getting all his ducks in a row base-wise, etc. If there's one message that's been coming out of the Bush Administration vis-a-vis World Policy, it's that they're all a "team", Rice and Powell and Rumsfeld and Bush. They work together. Dubya doesn't sit up in front and give orders--they all sit down and discuss it together.

Dubya doesn't give Donald orders to start sending troops to the Persian Gulf, and Donald--that "good, kind, decent man who doesn't really want a war"--complies. Rumsfeld has been a Hawk *ever since*, and he joined the Bush team on the understanding of all parties concerned that that's what he was. He's sending troops to the Gulf and getting all his ducks in a row, base-wise, because he and Dubya agree that that a war in Iraq would be a Good Thing, not because his Commander-in-Chief told him to.

I'm talking about "actions", not " thoughts" or "motivations" or "emotions". Since I can't get inside Rumsfeld's head to find out how he really feels about sending American soldiers to die in Iraq, I have to go by his "actions", which means his public statements as well as his actual sending of troops.

Rumsfeld hasn't frequently mentioned that he didn't want to have a war. But he has frequently mentioned, one way or another, what a Good Thing he personally thinks a war with Iraq would be.

He has mentioned, once, that he doesn't want to have a war ("No one wants war...") Now, you are choosing to interpret this as "regret expressed by a kind and decent man", but what I hear is a sop issued by a politician with less-than-optimal support by the public, to all those Americans who are from his POV so inconveniently and inexplicably protesting a war with Iraq (strange how the American public hasn't begun to demonstrate "broad support" for a war as he predicted they would in his speech to the Marines back on August 27).
 
Goshawk said:
It is not correct or accurate to say that he's "just following his President's orders" by setting up the situation for war, sending troops to the Gulf, putting aircraft carriers on High Alert, getting all his ducks in a row base-wise, etc. If there's one message that's been coming out of the Bush Administration vis-a-vis World Policy, it's that they're all a "team", Rice and Powell and Rumsfeld and Bush. They work together. Dubya doesn't sit up in front and give orders--they all sit down and discuss it together.

Dubya doesn't give Donald orders to start sending troops to the Persian Gulf, and Donald--that "good, kind, decent man who doesn't really want a war"--complies. Rumsfeld has been a Hawk *ever since*, and he joined the Bush team on the understanding of all parties concerned that that's what he was. He's sending troops to the Gulf and getting all his ducks in a row, base-wise, because he and Dubya agree that that a war in Iraq would be a Good Thing, not because his Commander-in-Chief told him to.
Click to expand...
Hi Goshawk,

I appreciate the tone of your post. I usually come of as patronizing and that starts a long debate.

Kudos to you for not responding in kind.

There are somethings that reasonable people just have to disagree with. I disagree with you on this one. I think that you are selctively taking statements by Rumsfeld out of context to portray him as something that he is not.

One last thing, could you provide some evidence to show that it is Rumsfeld's decision to send troops to war? You are the first person I have ever heard that suggested that Rumsfeld had the authority to wage war.
 
Re: Why Donald Rumsfeld is funny.

Goshawk said:
RandFan: I submit to you that Donald Rumsfeld doesn't reeeeeally want to have a war the way Martha Stewart doesn't reeeeeally want to have a Luau Party. All that organizing, all that work, all that mess...Nobody in their right mind would want to have a Luau Party. But there she is, snuggled up with the Oriental Trading catalog, ordering hula skirts...

Please don't try to tell me that Donald Rumsfeld doesn't really want a war. Somebody who really doesn't want to have a war says so, at every opportunity. "I don't really want to have a war." This is not the message Donald Rumsfeld has been giving the world. He's been beating the drums for a pre-emptive strike for months now ("We have to get Saddam before he gets us!"), setting unrealistic terms for Iraq ("They can depose him, or he can voluntarily go into exile", and, "The fact that the inspectors haven't found anything means he's hiding something", and, "He hasn't been cooperative enough anyway, so we have the right to attack him...").

Actions speak louder than words, too.

He really, really wants to have that Luau Party. He's got all kinds of really, really good reasons why we ought to have a Luau Party. He's been saying so, out loud, in public, for months now, and lately he's been snuggled up with the Oriental Trading catalog and the telephone, ordering troops and making arrangements...

SNIP SNIP SNIP...

So now you see why it's funny to hear Rumsfeld say, "No one wants war"?

It's like when you're at Martha's house, and the Luau Party that she's been planning for weeks is just about to begin, the first cars are pulling into the driveway--and she claps her hand to her forehead and moans, "Oh. My. God. How did I ever get into this? I don't want to have a Luau Party!"

What, is she kidding? She's been planning it for weeks! It's hilarious.

Rummy's hilarious, too. "No one wants war..."

* snicker *
Click to expand...

All your copious examples have proven is that the United States has consistently guessed correctly that 1441 would fail and the Iraqi deceptions would continue.

All this has come to pass, even by the UN's own limp-wristed measurement. THE US GAMBLED THAT IT WOULD WORK OUT THIS WAY, AND WON.

How does that prove that anyone WANTS a war? All it proves to me is that Rumsfeld isn't as naiive as the dipsh!ts in France and Germany.
 
Re: Re: Why Donald Rumsfeld is funny.

Jocko said:


All your copious examples have proven is that the United States has consistently guessed correctly that 1441 would fail and the Iraqi deceptions would continue.

All this has come to pass, even by the UN's own limp-wristed measurement. THE US GAMBLED THAT IT WOULD WORK OUT THIS WAY, AND WON.

How does that prove that anyone WANTS a war? All it proves to me is that Rumsfeld isn't as naiive as the dipsh!ts in France and Germany.
Click to expand...

This also proves the communist, anti-freedom intentions of the UN. The UN says: "Oh US, oh please, please, I beg of you not to invade the despotic terror state of Iraq."

And France, what a bunch of cowards! There are cemetaries in France filled with tens of thousands of US bodies--men that died freeing them from the Nazis. France is filled with cowards, not men. We should sever all ties with France and find a way to go to war with them.

JK
 
Actually I haven't had to take any of Rumsfeld's statements out of context in order to make him come off as sounding like some kind of Uber-Hawk. This was why I included the links, so you can go read for yourself what all the contexts are. He is a Hawk on Iraq, always has been. I don't have to cut and paste any of his statements out of context to show that.

And er, no, I don't believe I'm saying that Rumsfeld, alone, makes the decision whether to send troops to the Persian Gulf. Obviously that's not a decision that he's empowered to make. But I am saying that Rumsfeld, as Secretary of Defense, is point man on the Bush Foreign Policy and National Security Team (which is comprised of Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, and CIA Director Tenet) for any operation involving U.S. armed forces. For example, the Team may have made the decision to send troops, and the President may have officially authorized it, but the Washington Post headline says, "Rumsfeld increases buildup".

http://www.post-gazette.com/world/20021228usiraqworld2p2.asp
Larger force readied for Gulf as Rumsfeld increases buildup near Iraq
Saturday, December 28, 2002
By Vernon Loeb, The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has signed a deployment order to send "significant" ground forces, combat aircraft and logistics support to the Persian Gulf, a move that marks the beginning of a final buildup for a possible war against Iraq, senior defense officials said yesterday.

The classified order, a 20-plus-page document signed by Rumsfeld on Tuesday, identifies an array of forces and capabilities -- such as mechanized infantry units, mid-air refuelers and medical facilities -- that will be shipped and airlifted to Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and other Gulf nations in the coming weeks.

The document leaves it up to the individual military services to decide what specific units will fulfill Rumsfeld's force requirements. The Navy, for instance, issued "prepare to deploy" orders yesterday to two aircraft carrier battle groups and activated a hospital ship, the USNS Comfort, based in Baltimore and ordered its crew to prepare a 1,000-bed trauma center.

"It's a little bit of everything, and its very comprehensive," said one official, who declined to specify how many individuals would be affected by the order. "It's heavy on the logistics side."

The U.S. has been deploying troops, aircraft, tanks, other heavy equipment and supplies to the Persian Gulf for months in anticipation of possible military action against Iraq. Currently, there are about 60,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in the region and 400 aircraft at bases in Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain.
Click to expand...
So what I'm saying is that when the National Security Team sits down to talk about what to do about Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld probably provides the strongest and most determined voice advocating a strong armed response. Obviously the American Secretary of Defense cannot make a personal decision to dispatch troops wherever and whenever he feels like it, but once the decision is made by the National Security Team and the President to send troops in relation to the Iraq situation, it's up to the Secretary of Defense to decide which troops go.

However, it's worth noting that the Bush Foreign Policy and National Security Team don't always agree with each other, and so presumably Rumsfeld doesn't get his way all the time. I personally have not the slightest doubt that if it hadn't been for the moderating influence of Colin Powell, the U.S. would have gone Comanche on Saddam's butt months ago, whether or not the UN and the rest of the world approved. Rice isn't strong enough to say "no" to Rumsfeld, and Cheney probably agrees with him.

October 01, 2001.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1001/p1s3-uspo.html
As the sands shift, the advice that probably counts most is that coming from Bush's secretive, inner circle of security experts, including Mr. Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Powell is widely considered the most cautious of this team. He served as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in the Gulf War, but he also sat in the Oval Office of George Bush Sr. and argued against using force to roll back the Iraqi army from Kuwait, according to Bob Woodward's book "The Commanders."

< snip >

That decision was no doubt cheered by Mr. Cheney, then secretary of Defense, who early on had adopted a much more aggressive stance on the Iraqi invasion than did Powell.

The current Defense secretary, Mr. Rumsfeld, is also said to be considerably more comfortable with risk than is Powell. His deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, has urged "ending states who sponsor terrorism," and, like Rumsfeld, is said to advocate a broader war that also targets Iraq.

Says a former government official of Rumsfeld: "He's just as concerned about the risks of doing nothing."
Click to expand...
August 30, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/30/powell.iraq/index.html
Powell doesn't back invasion of Iraq without support of 'key allies'
August 30, 2002

CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) -- The White House Friday downplayed any suggestion that there is a split in President Bush's national security team over Iraq, despite opposing views coming from top members of the Cabinet.

U.S. officials tell CNN that U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other members of the team met earlier this week at the White House and discussed regional strategies, including those for Iraq.
The view of the administration is united and one in the same," Scott McClellan, White House deputy press secretary, told reporters Friday in Crawford, Texas. "We are singing from the same songbook."

However, a person close to Powell within the administration says Powell does not believe the United States should invade Iraq without the support of "key allies."

This person, who asked not to be identified but is intimately familiar with Powell's thinking, said Thursday that Powell opposes any action in which the United States would "go it alone ... as if it doesn't give a damn" what other nations think.

Vice President Dick Cheney has pressed the case for a U.S. attack on Iraq, saying the advantages of attacking far outweigh the risks of inaction. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also said this week that the decision to strike Iraq will be based on leadership, not consensus.

McClellan said the administration has been consistent, advocating a policy of regime change in Iraq. The Bush spokesman stressed the president has not made any final decisions, including whether to pursue military action to try to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...
Let me repeat that last statement: "U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also said this week that the decision to strike Iraq will be based on leadership, not consensus." "Leadership, not consensus" means that he feels that the President and the National Security Team have the right to go ahead and do what they think is the right thing to do in Iraq, and that he thinks they don't have to wait for a consensus from the rest of America.

Or the world.

Now, all of this taken together is not *exactly* the same thing as Rumsfeld making a unilateral decision, his own self, to "wage war", but it's awfully, awfully close IMO.
 
Jocko: Er, unless I missed something, or unless your crystal ball works better than mine, 1441 hasn't "failed" yet. It's still very much in progress. Even Colin Powell hasn't given up on it. The clock hasn't run out.

February 10, 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/sprj.irq.powell/index.html
Iraq is in "greater material breach" of the resolution every day, Powell told "Fox News Sunday." "I hope that the U.N. will not slip into irrelevance by failing to step up to its responsibilities at this point in history."

< snip >

If the U.N. Security Council does not support military action when it's time to take that step, Powell said, the United States and a willing coalition of other countries will.

Powell said Iraq still has the opportunity to avoid war by turning over all documents it has related to weapons, and making all of its scientists and engineers available for interviews. But time is running out before the situation requires force, he said.

< snip >

Powell said the Bush administration is waiting to hear what Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief U.N. weapons inspectors, will present in their third report to the U.N. Security Council this Friday.

Still, the United States is prepared to present a second resolution declaring Iraq in material breach of 1441, and is currently talking with allies about it.

"Those conversations have begun with respect to a second resolution, in light of continued Iraqi noncompliance," Powell told ABC.
Click to expand...
And anyway, the next step, after the U.S. officially decides 1441 has failed, won't be to send in the troops. The next step will be to get another UN resolution passed, declaring that Iraq is in "material breach". And you remember how long it took to get 1441 passed.

September 13, 2002, Bush tells the UN to get on the stick.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2254712.stm

And it wasn't adopted November 8, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/iraq.resolution/

I wouldn't look for any faster results this time around. The rest of the world isn't any crazier about the idea of a U.S.-led Iraq war now than they were last summer, and Russia, Germany, and France at the moment are quite definitely Not On The Bus.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/10/sprj.irq.france.putin/index.html
 
Goshawk said:
Let me repeat that last statement: "U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also said this week that the decision to strike Iraq will be based on leadership, not consensus." "Leadership, not consensus" means that he feels that the President and the National Security Team have the right to go ahead and do what they think is the right thing to do in Iraq, and that he thinks they don't have to wait for a consensus from the rest of America.
Click to expand...
Better believe it. We are a representative democracy. We vote for leaders to make decisions. If we needed to wait for a consensus then we wouldn't elect leaders but just have a vote for every decision. Fortunately the US is supporting the president.

Or the world.
Click to expand...
Or the world? Well most are behind us. But as I have argued over and over, the US must not abdicate its responsibility to please a others who do not have our best interest at heart.

Now, all of this taken together is not *exactly* the same thing as Rumsfeld making a unilateral decision, his own self, to "wage war", but it's awfully, awfully close IMO.
Click to expand...
No, its not even close. After the end of the Gulf war I predicted that our inability to deal with Saddam would come back and bite us in the ass.

Over the years of obfuscation and ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ from this man who was caught lying about massive amounts of Anthrax I felt that he would have to be dealt with. But the world grew tired of the entire affair. Remove the sanctions was the call. Then came 911 and an administration with a backbone and looking allot more like a responsible Churchill than an ass kissing Chamberlain. I believed that we finally had a chance to do something about a man who is a real threat to the United States its interests and its allies. Now a man who is not some pussy whipped pacifist who understands that leaders must make difficult decisions steps in and chooses men who also understand this simple concept and I am pleased.

You call Rumsfeld a hawk. Define hawk. To me Lincoln was a hawk, FDR was a hawk, Winston Churchill was a hawk, Colin Powell is a hawk, Norman Swarchkopf is a hawk. Good company to be in.

My favorite movies are anti-war movies. Catch-22, Dr. Strangelove, All Quiet on The Western Front.
The problem with these movies is they use characatures to tell a story. Catch-22's Milo Minderbinder and Colonel Cathcart, Dr. Strangelove's Gen. Buck Turgidson paint distorted pictures for a purpose.

Wars are hell, we need to realize that before we decide to wage them. But we need leaders who can decern when there is clear and present danger.

Rumsfeld is just such a leader. Painting him as some charicature serves no real purpose. As I said before, Rumsfeld is a decent man who believes that this course of action to be the best one for our country. You do not need to agree with him but making him into a movie charicature is only self serving rhetoric.
 
Re: You have to admire, in a very strange way....

Reginald said:
Just how Sadam's plan has worked out.

German Foreign minister raising his voice to a US Def Sec.

Half of Europe against the other half.

The UN exposed for what it really is, impotent.

NATO obligations (Re Turkey) being procrastinated over.

People now want the weapons found, not proof they were destroyed (As laid out in 1441).

The US gradually being made to seem more and more the bad guy in this (Even if you thought they already were, you can't doubt that its getting stronger).

He just does his thing and sits and watches while the rest of the world beat each other up verbally about if its right to beat him up.


I bet that guy is laughing his Bl@@dy head off.
Click to expand...

Well said Reginald! He probably won't be laughing so hard in a few weeks however.
 
Re: Re: You have to admire, in a very strange way....

Buzzsaw said:
Well said Reginald! He probably won't be laughing so hard in a few weeks however.
Click to expand...

LOL...sooner than that.

JK
 
Sadams a master!!!

YES!!! U2 spy planes can fly and look for WMD!!!
(now we have had time to hide them from the air....I wasnt stalling for nothing folks)

Headlines headlines headlines.


A few hours later.....


With just these few condidtions....LOL

Keep your eye on the cup folks, thats one elusive pea!!
 
Re: Sadams a master!!!

Reginald said:
YES!!! U2 spy planes can fly and look for WMD!!!
(now we have had time to hide them from the air....I wasnt stalling for nothing folks)

Headlines headlines headlines.


A few hours later.....


With just these few condidtions....LOL

Keep your eye on the cup folks, thats one elusive pea!!
Click to expand...

The conditions are that only blind pilots may be used and all cameras in the plane must have the lenses polished with 120 grit wet-n-dry. The aircraft must also fly inverted.
 
RandFan: I don't see how quoting the man's own words constitutes making him into a "caricature". None of them are quoted out of context. All of them are his public statements on the subject of Iraq. The way you make a man into a caricature is by taking statements that aren't relevant and quoting them out of context. This makes him look foolish, to someone who doesn't realize where the quotes came from.

But all of the statements that I quoted were all perfectly relevant, and none of them were out of context.

When the subject of Iraq comes up, the simple truth is that Rumsfeld truly believes that the best solution is going to be an armed response. I was not able to find anywhere else where he said, "Well, maybe a war isn't such a good idea..."

And since neither of us has any way of knowing how he really feels, inside himself, about war, or Iraq, the point about whether he is in fact a "kind and decent man" who is genuinely distressed by the prospect of sending American soldiers to die in Iraq would seem to be moot, wouldn't it? I can't prove that he doesn't care; you can't prove that he does care. And as a matter of fact, I am perfectly willing to concede the point--to admit--that he probably does feel distress at the prospect of sending American soldiers to die in Iraq. Like I said, I'm not trying to portray him as some kind of Mad Warmongering Genius slavering to see American blood spilled in Baghdad. Nothing I have heard from him, or about him, would seem to indicate that he's a Saddam-style psychopath, just that he's a politican doing his job, which happens to be planning and running wars.

But the main point is, even if he does privately feel regret at the prospect of a war with Iraq, it hasn't changed his public face.. His public face still makes it perfectly clear that he's all for war with Iraq, 100%. And this should hardly be surprising, considering that "war" is, after all, his job. If he didn't "like" war, at some level, if he didn't "enjoy" it, he wouldn't have been tapped to be Secretary of Defense. All of the other people in the Cabinet have backgrounds that are relevant to their posts, and furthermore, that suggest that they enjoy what they do. He was Ford's Secretary of Defense, too.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bushcabinet.html
Donald H. Rumsfeld. The role as secretary of defense is not a new one for Rumsfeld. He held the same position under President Ford. The role of the U.S. military, however, has changed dramatically since 1975. Rumsfeld has indicated that he favors building an impenetrable national missile defense system. He and Vice President Dick Cheney have strong ties that date back to the Nixon administration, when Cheney served as Rumsfeld's assistant in the Office of Economic Opportunity. In 1974, Rumsfeld led President Ford's transition team, and he brought Cheney, his protégé, to the executive office. When Rumsfeld was named secretary of defense in 1975, Cheney was appointed Ford's chief of staff. Rumsfeld served in Congress from 1962 to 1969 as a representative from Illinois. When President Carter was elected in 1976, Rumsfeld entered the private sector. He recently headed a panel that concluded countries such as North Korea and Iran could eventually have the capacity to launch ballistic missiles at the United States. The commission's report helped to reinvigorate the debate over the need for a national missile defense.
Click to expand...
Someone who backs the NMD because he's worried that Iraq and North Korea might nuke the U.S. cannot IMO fairly be characterized as a "dove".

So, you don't think he's a Hawk, and I don't think he's a Dove. All that leaves is "Moderate", which would be somebody who really doesn't want to have a war but who sees that sometimes it's the only option.

Why don't you be the one to go find some other statements of his that would indicate that he's a Moderate, that he really doesn't want to have a war? So far all we have in the "regret" category from him is the one statement in the OP: "No one wants war..." Why don't you go look around on CNN.com and GoogleNews and see if you can find some other times when he expressed sorrow, or regret, at the prospect of a war with Iraq? Because all I found, when I was putting in search terms like "rumsfeld iraq troops" was the quotes that I gave you. If you think I was only giving you the quotes that proved he was a Hawk, then by all means, go and find some other quotes that prove that he isn't. I would welcome the information.
 
Goshawk said:
But the main point is, even if he does privately feel regret at the prospect of a war with Iraq, it hasn't changed his public face.. His public face still makes it perfectly clear that he's all for war with Iraq, 100%.
Click to expand...
And thank god that he isn't some wimpy pacifist. Rumsfeld understands the importance of the assignment that he has. I am really glad he is there. You certainly are welcome to say he "wants" war. I disagree. I think he knows that there is a problem and this is the best way to solve the problem. Saying that it is funny because he "wants" war does not ring true to me.

So, you don't think he's a Hawk,
Click to expand...
I accept that he is a Hawk, the problem is I don't know how YOU define Hawk. To me a Hawk is not some one who "wants" war. A Hawk is someone who understands that strength is more important than weakness to avert war. A Hawk is someone who understands the lessons of pre WWII and how pacifism created a monster and that there will always be tyrants that will exploit weakness. Our mistake prior to Saddam invading Kuwait was not putting on a united front and letting Saddam know that we would act should he invade. It wasn't that we gave him our permission it was that he thought we would NOT ACT.

Rumsfeld is a man who will act. This does not make him want war. And those that use such rhetoric are self serving.

When student activists seized the embassy members in Iran it was because they truly believed that America would not act. On the contrary they believed that our people would rise up on their side. We must let the world know that we DON'T want war. However we are prepared to act if our security is threatened. Rumsfeld makes it known to the world that we are not some wimpy super power afraid of offending and unwilling to act in its own defense.

Why don't you be the one to go find some other statements of his that would indicate that he's a Moderate, that he really doesn't want to have a war?
Click to expand...
Rumsfeld message is quite clear. We are prepared to act in the face of aggression. We will uphold agreements that others make when the surrender. Saddam has failed to live up to his part of the bargain. He is in breech and he is not cooperating. We will act and not be like the parent who keeps telling the spoiled child, "stop that Johnny", over and over again.

If you think I was only giving you the quotes that proved he was a Hawk, then by all means, go and find some other quotes that prove that he isn't. I would welcome the information.
Click to expand...
No, you say he wants war. All of his quotes clearly say to me that he is prepared for war. That the 12 year history of Saddam is clear. This man is not going to change. We all know that. Let's stop kidding ourselves. He has obfuscated and lied and been caught time after time. He was caught with massive amounts of biological agents when he swore he didn't have them. Rumsfeld knows this, he knows the likely hood of Saddam changing. He is preparing the nation for the probability of war. That does not make him "want" war.

Saying Rumsfeld "wants" war is spin and propaganda. I accept that you believe it but I have not seen any evidence that he "wants' war anymore than I want to pay my taxes or my brother-in-law wanted to sell his home.
 
So long Mom,
I'm off to drop the Bomb,
So don't wait up for me


Stop calling it Aggression,
We HATE that Expression,
We'd rather wipe them out by peaceful means!

Oh where is Tom Lehrer when you really need him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom