# Rumsfeld on Iraq: "Um, Sorry 'bout that..."



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

(Danzinger)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Not exactly. He admits to one mis-statement--identifying two sites as WMD sites instead of _suspected_ WMD sites in an off-the-cuff interview. He certainly isn't apologizing as you suggest.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*And his former boss has had to cancel his travel plans...*

*Avoiding the Handcuffs: George Bush Cancels Swiss Trip, After Human Rights Groups Seek Arrest on Torture Charges*












> George Bush has done a pretty good job of positioning himself as an “elder statesman” in the United States—at least by comparison with Dick Cheney—but the rest of the world has not forgotten the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush-Cheney interregnum.





> So the forty-third president will not be jetting off to Switzerland next week, as had been expected.
> 
> Bush was supposed to be the star attraction at a fund-raising gala in Geneva February 12. But the news that the former president would be in Switzerland set off a flurry of legal filings—and calls by members of the Swiss parliament—that sought to have Bush arrested upon arrival on torture charges.


(The Nation)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I wouldn't visit those countries either, if they were going to behave like nutjobs. Who knows whether the Swiss Parliament will listen to the nation's cranks?


----------



## boukman2 (Apr 6, 2009)

the only shame about bush not being able to travel is that since he never went anywhere before becoming president, he won't miss going anywhere after being president. oh well...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

boukman2 said:


> the only shame about bush not being able to travel is that since he never went anywhere before becoming president, he won't miss going anywhere after being president. oh well...


Exactly. Obama at least visited all 54 states.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Not exactly. He admits to *one* mis-statement--identifying two sites as WMD sites instead of _suspected_ WMD sites in an off-the-cuff interview. He certainly isn't apologizing as you suggest.


A quote from his book**:

_"While I made *a few* misstatements – in particular the one mentioned above*** – they were not common and certainly not characteristic. Other senior administration officials also did a reasonably good job of representing the intelligence community's assessments accurately in their public comments about Iraqi WMD, despite some occasionally imperfect formulations."_

** As reviewed here.

*** a reference to the 'suspect' WMD sites.

Apologise? Rumsfeld?

From the reviews I've read of his recent masterpiece, wittily entitled 'Known and Unknown', he blames everyone else for whatever went wrong. He, like Blair and Bush, is incapable of admitting that _*he*_ was wrong over WMD and the conduct of his wretched wars. The man is a consummate psychopathic BS artist who will go to Valhalla unperturbed that he made an arse of himself in front of the entire world - because the concept is inconceivable to him. I rate him very highly. As an arse.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

How does Blair rate on the arse scale, 10 being the largest arse?


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Suggest a reset on the vitriol counter, SQ.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Kazak said:


> Suggest a reset on the vitriol counter, SQ.


Ah, yes. A relaxing diversion into vitriol-land.

This is a forum-word used by those who disagree bitterly with what someone else has written. 
I think the original charge of 'vitriol' levelled at me was, in itself, vitriolic. (This post is in no way vitriolic, despite the word vitriol and its adjectival relative appearing so often.) I think that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have good cause to be vitriolic, as do the citizens of the 'Coalition of the Willing' who have lost friends and family in Rummy's wars.

In the matter of my recent post, however, I wish to plead guilty to the charge of being contemptuous.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> How does Blair rate on the arse scale, 10 being the largest arse?


Interested in arses Macfury? You'll find Blair firmly jammed up Bush's. Happy hunting!

You nicely side-stepped the point that Rummy made misstatement*s*, by his own admission, and not just the *one*, as you so loftily opined in a weedy attempt to downplay the thrust of CM's post.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Speaking of WMDs… have they found any yet?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> Speaking of WMDs… have they found any yet?


Ah, that small matter currently has the status "Known Unknown Unknown". No, wait ... "Unknown Known Unknown". Perhaps the elfin fudmeister himself will have divulged his current 'thinking' in his book.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Interested in arses Macfury? You'll find Blair firmly jammed up Bush's. Happy hunting!


Butts jammed up butts? Jam butty?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Interested in arses Macfury? You'll find Blair firmly jammed up Bush's. Happy hunting!
> ....


He was able to get past Harpo???beejacon


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> He was able to get past Harpo???beejacon


Blair got there first. Stephen was just a wannabee, but during his whole career never saw a Yankee arse he didn't like.


----------



## boukman2 (Apr 6, 2009)

*known*



MannyP Design said:


> Speaking of WMDs… have they found any yet?


i believe the WMDs fall into the category of 'known knowns'. aren't any, never were...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

MazterCBlazter said:


> This thread is really getting anal.


Feel we're getting to the bottom of things?






​


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I accuse this thread of harbouring posterior motives.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Comment removed for reasons obvious to anyone who read it.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Rumsfeld's WMD Evidence*












> I am shocked, shocked to discover that the Joint Staff's J2 (intelligence) shop told former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld in September 2002 that it had no idea whether Saddam's WMD program was actually active or had any stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons. It's quite amazing, in fact, but here is the briefing in response to the SecDef's inquiry. If you've never seen a Rumsfeld "snowflake," an example is at the very first page.


(Crooks and Liars)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

^^^^^^^^
Then how do you explain this one?



> "*The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction*, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998


Was Bill Clinton a crook, or a liar?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I'll say both. Clinton, for all his folksy charm and global charitable activities, was still the leader of the current global empire and worked to maintain / further its reach. 

In terms of foreign policy or economic policy, the Dems and Don'ts are simply two sides of the same coin. The objectives are practically identical: one party just likes to hold your hand while they're reaming you. The other could care less about your feelings.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Fair answer.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> Then how do you explain this one?
> 
> 
> ...


Seriously MF, are you intending on defending Donald Rumsfeld and the Iraq War? Rumsfeld was part of the Bush Administration that was intent on invading Iraq, no matter what. WMDs were just the convenient excuse. That's well documented. You really want to defend that? Even the libertarian hero, Ron Paul, would disagree with you there.

Your out-of-context quote from Clinton appears to say that he was intending on doing the same, but he was not. Clinton was attempting to get Saddam to knuckle under to co-operating with UN weapons inspectors and he was enforcing the no-fly zone and economic sanctions. Clinton was the POTUS and absolutely no angel. There is no doubt Clinton was involved in attempting to get Saddam to bend to his will and the wills of other western countries, especially considering the amounts of oil that Saddam controlled. But there is no evidence that Clinton was planning an invasion, as you disingenuously imply. He was playing the hawk in an effort to bolster his strategy and no doubt earn some political points for looking like a "strong" leader. It's never a bad move for a US President to rattle the sabre from time to time. Unfortunately in the US, that kind of BS plays very well.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Seriously MF, are you intending on defending Donald Rumsfeld and the Iraq War? Rumsfeld was part of the Bush Administration that was intent on invading Iraq, no matter what. WMDs were just the convenient excuse. That's well documented. You really want to defend that? Even the libertarian hero, Ron Paul, would disagree with you there.


"Iraq has WMDs and must be dealt with" had been a consistent theme, not only from Bill Clinton, but many in his administration. As CubaMark correctly assesses, the actual invasion simply occurred during Bush's presidency. Witness Obama's half-hearted approach to withdrawing from Iraq and surge in Afghanistan to see how this is merely a different phase of the same policy with a Democrat in control instead of a Republican.

How you construe that as support of the Iraq invasion on my part is beyond me. A waste of waning U.S. resources.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Iraq has WMDs and must be dealt with" had been a consistent theme, not only from Bill Clinton, but many in his administration. As CubaMark correctly assesses, the actual invasion simply occurred during Bush's presidency.


" ... simply occured ... " :lmao:

So the invasion would have _simply_ gone ahead regardless of who was President at that time?

I get it! Dubya, Dick, Rummy et al were the fall-guys. They couldn't help it. It wasn't their fault that they launched a disastrous invasion, on flimsy pretexts and with poor planning for the post invasion phase.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> " ... simply occured ... " :lmao:
> 
> So the invasion would have _simply_ gone ahead regardless of who was President at that time?


It may very well have, yes. And I can say that without the use of emoticons to bolster what I have to say.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It may very well have, yes. And I can say that without the use of emoticons to bolster what I have to say.


It probably would have, as the banksters and the military suppliers seem to be firmly in control of US policy. Witness how quickly BO agreed to the Great Bankster Heist during the 2008 election. Absolutely a golden opportunity to veer away from the iceberg and he blew it.

BO has had ample opportunity to close Gitmo and withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead he continues to pound the invasion drum with Iran perhaps being the next victim. If there are any withdrawals it will almost certainly be more of a reassignment to a third front.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> "Iraq has WMDs and must be dealt with" had been a consistent theme, not only from Bill Clinton, but many in his administration. As CubaMark correctly assesses, the actual invasion simply occurred during Bush's presidency. Witness Obama's half-hearted approach to withdrawing from Iraq and surge in Afghanistan to see how this is merely a different phase of the same policy with a Democrat in control instead of a Republican.
> 
> How you construe that as support of the Iraq invasion on my part is beyond me. A waste of waning U.S. resources.


Excuse me if I've misinterpreted your comments on Rumsfeld as defence of the Iraq invasion. Beyond the criminality of the invasion, and waste into the trillions, it was a grand waste of untold thousands of human lives, mostly Iraqi people. Truly an evil act. I see now that your defence of Rummy is only your reflexive "if you can't defend a right-winger, insinuate that his opponent is no better" response.

But your preposterous theory that Clinton planned a war and Bush & Co were only carrying on with previously set policy is nothing but fiction. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so show the world how Clinton was doing anything other than sabre rattling. Where is the proof that he planned to invade. Excuse me again, but your claim is nonsense.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> It probably would have, as the banksters and the military suppliers seem to be firmly in control of US policy. Witness how quickly BO agreed to the Great Bankster Heist during the 2008 election. Absolutely a golden opportunity to veer away from the iceberg and he blew it.
> 
> BO has had ample opportunity to close Gitmo and withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead he continues to pound the invasion drum with Iran perhaps being the next victim. If there are any withdrawals it will almost certainly be more of a reassignment to a third front.


It's the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned the world about in the late-1950s. I can't say I'm surprised that any US President doesn't go against it.

As I said earlier sabre-rattling and looking like a hawk plays to the cheap seats in the US. Unfortunately looking warlike looks macho to many Americans, seeking peace looks week-kneed to those same people.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But your preposterous theory that Clinton planned a war and Bush & Co were only carrying on with previously set policy is nothing but fiction. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so show the world how Clinton was doing anything other than sabre rattling. Where is the proof that he planned to invade. Excuse me again, but your claim is nonsense.


The claim is yours, not mine. Another invasion of Iraq had been on the backburner for years.

When the U.S. finally attacked Iraq under Bush it was with the support of Democrat allies who had reviewed the "evidence" and decided to authorize the use of force. Deomocrat Senator John Kerry, for example:



> When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.


Likewise, I think Bush would have been just as likely to bomb Sudan as Bill Clinton was.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The claim is yours, not mine. Another invasion of Iraq had been on the backburner for years.


You just made that up. Proof?



Macfury said:


> When the U.S. finally attacked Iraq under Bush it was with the support of Democrat allies who had reviewed the "evidence" and decided to authorize the use of force. Deomocrat Senator John Kerry, for example:
> 
> 
> > When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.


The "evidence" was bogus as we all now know. Many believed the Bush/Rumsfeld song and dance at the time. At the time I believed the chief American UN weapons inspector who said that Saddam had no significant WMD capability. Conservatives everywhere at the time were intent on ignoring everything that didn't lead to an invasion.

You keep trying to spread the blame around for the Iraq war, even though you claim not to be defending the Bush administration. Looks like a defence to me - saying "it was on the back burner for years". Ultimately much of the blame belongs to everyone in the countries that went along with him and for believing anything that lying sack of manure ever uttered. Others may not have believed the false evidence, but thought it would be in their interest to join the party (Stephen Harper for one, fortunately not in power at the time). But Bush and company were the protagonists and shoulder the blame for the action.

I know it pains you MF to admit it but the Iraq invasion belongs to Bush and all his fellow neocons who thought it was such a fantastic idea. This ranks as one of the all-time worst decisions ever made by a US President.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I would be willing to bet my house that Saddam kept a small cache of biological weapons hidden somewhere in Iraq. All it takes to hide is a small petrie dish in a buried freezer somewhere. If you were to need mass quantities in the future, it would be easy to ramp up production from just a small sample. In contrast, weaponizing things like Anthrax takes a lot of time and money. Considering that they invested millions in such programs, the odds of them not keeping them is probably near zero. The odds of finding such a needle in a haystack and even less than that.

It doesn't necessarily justify the invasion, but I think that Saddam presented some level of risk, wilful or not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I know it pains you MF to admit it but the Iraq invasion belongs to Bush and all his fellow neocons who thought it was such a fantastic idea. This ranks as one of the all-time worst decisions ever made by a US President.


It pains me not in the slightest, because the Democrats were just as complicit, adding their stamp of approval to the war using exactly the same "evidence" which also convinced Tony Blair. There was a host of sabre rattling from most of the Clinton bigwigs including Bill himself during the Bubba years.

I think the war was a bad idea, but the blame goes all around.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I would be willing to bet my house that Saddam kept a small cache of biological weapons hidden somewhere in Iraq. All it takes to hide is a small petrie dish in a buried freezer somewhere. If you were to need mass quantities in the future, it would be easy to ramp up production from just a small sample. In contrast, weaponizing things like Anthrax takes a lot of time and money. Considering that they invested millions in such programs, the odds of them not keeping them is probably near zero. The odds of finding such a needle in a haystack and even less than that.
> 
> It doesn't necessarily justify the invasion, but I think that Saddam presented some level of risk, wilful or not.


I'd be willing to bet there are petri dishes all over the world. It's a dangerous world. Saddam was an evil despot for sure. No, this absolutely did not justify the invasion.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> It pains me not in the slightest, because the Democrats were just as complicit, adding their stamp of approval to the war using exactly the same "evidence" which also convinced Tony Blair. There was a host of sabre rattling from most of the Clinton bigwigs including Bill himself during the Bubba years.
> 
> I think the war was a bad idea, but the blame goes all around.


An alcoholic man decides it's a great idea to get hammered and drive his car home drunk, with the result of taking out a transit busload of innocent people. Who do you blame?

Yes, the wife refused to recognize the problem, even though she suspected her husband's alcoholism was serious, because she didn't want to upset their family or more selfishly, interrupt the big paycheque he brought home. The children saw that their Daddy could do no wrong and they loved him intensely. In the back of their minds they knew he got a little too drunk and there was something wrong with that but questioning their father was too much of a threatening proposition for them. The man's buddies ignored his drinking because it didn't really affect them and most of the time he was fun to be around.

The man's friend's and family bear some responsibility for the deaths of the innocents because they could have spoken up. They all helped to enable him to continue in his habits. But the man himself is the one who is arrested, charged and sentenced and has the main responsibility for his actions.

I thought you libertarians understood all about personal responsibility. Bush was the decider, wasn't he? Please stop with the pathetic sob story about how his environment made him do it. He could have chosen to embrace the truth, stop lying about the situation and saved thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. John Kerry, Bill Clinton or Tony Blair didn't make him do it.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree here. Government is simply too powerful and has too easy an access to the nation's wealth. But the government large enough to support you from cradle to grave is large enough to do anything it wants with your money as well--like fight ill-considered wars or chase enviro-wackiness that consumes 100s of ill-spent billions.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I agree here. Government is simply too powerful and has too easy an access to the nation's wealth. But the government large enough to support you from cradle to grave is large enough to do anything it wants with your money as well--like fight ill-considered wars or chase enviro-wackiness that consumes 100s of ill-spent billions.


A surfeit of porridge today, MF?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> A surfeit of porridge today, MF?


That's Scots' food. I won't touch it.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> That's Scots' food. I won't touch it.


We're willing to share. Just a wee spoonful?


----------



## screener (Oct 31, 2006)

Gotta love Bush apologists, but Canadian Bush apologists.
Bush, Rummy and the rest of their cohorts deserve all the derision and more heaped upon them, as well as their defenders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/opinion/13dowd.html?ref=opinion


> The subject line reads “WMD.” Secretary Rumsfeld is sending a secret report that he received a few days earlier to Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, asking: “Please take a look at this material as to what we don’t know about WMD. It is big.”
> 
> The attachment is from Major Gen. Glen Shaffer, then the director for intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense, responding to Rummy’s request to know the “unknowns” about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> ...


Slam dunk is what supporters of the invasion heard.
The blame is solely on those that knew what the entire report said.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> But the government large enough to support you from cradle to grave is large enough to do anything it wants with your money as well--like fight ill-considered wars or chase enviro-wackiness that consumes 100s of ill-spent billions.


are you honestly lumping in environmental causes with the Bush wars as comparable costs? I'm sure next to those 2 wars every dollar of environmental spending ever spent would seem like a pittance.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

i-rui said:


> are you honestly lumping in environmental causes with the Bush wars as comparable costs? I'm sure next to those 2 wars every dollar of environmental spending ever spent would seem like a pittance.


If cap and trade, and carbon taxation are achieved then the damage to taxpayers may well be as great or greater than the Bush Wars. Combined with the Bush Wars the effect would be devastating.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> If cap and trade, and carbon taxation are achieved then the damage to taxpayers may well be as great or greater than the Bush Wars. Combined with the Bush Wars the effect would be devastating.


Hmmm. It appears one is definintely a known. And the other an unknown!

Funny this.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> are you honestly lumping in environmental causes with the Bush wars as comparable costs? I'm sure next to those 2 wars every dollar of environmental spending ever spent would seem like a pittance.


Cost of Iraq war to date has been about $775 billion. About $90 billion a year. Cost of green energy subsidies last year close to $48 billion, so quite substantial, even compared to Iraq war costs--but less. Also ridiculous is about $500 billion to subsidize oil and gas producers.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Cost of Iraq war to date has been about $775 billion. About $90 billion a year. Cost of green energy subsidies last year close to $48 billion, so quite substantial, even compared to Iraq war costs--but less. Also ridiculous is about $500 billion to subsidize oil and gas producers.


The numbers I've read put the Iraq war at a real cost of $1.5-2 Trillion. All said and done that cost is expected to be north of $3 Trillion.

(and that's not counting Afghanistan, nor the cost of the US keeping soldiers in those countries after the fact).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> The numbers I've read put the Iraq war at a real cost of $1.5-2 Trillion. All said and done that cost is expected to be north of $3 Trillion.
> 
> (and that's not counting Afghanistan, nor the cost of the US keeping soldiers in those countries after the fact).


The independent CBO worked out those figure I've used. Even if I double it, though, it still works out to 150 billion per year to date, so Green Energy subsidies would be a third of that. A large outlay, though not as much as the war, regardless of the Iraq figures used.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

i-rui said:


> The numbers I've read put the Iraq war at a real cost of $1.5-2 Trillion. All said and done that cost is expected to be north of $3 Trillion.
> 
> (and that's not counting Afghanistan, nor the cost of the US keeping soldiers in those countries after the fact).


Would have to place the combined cost of Iraq/Afghanistan at about $3.5 Trillion. The Shrub racked up an additional debt of ~ $5 Trillion. He diverted about $1.5 trillion to the Banksters. Logically the rest must be attributed to the wars as he inherited a "balanced" budget. Presumably the half trillion per year being diverted by Clinton from Social Security was used in the same manor by the Bush Bunch meaning the newly acquired debt went either to the banksters or the war fraud.


----------



## boukman2 (Apr 6, 2009)

just goofy to compare money spent in a war slaughtering innocent people and senselessly destroying things to an investment in energy which will be paid back many times over, if only by avoiding stupid wars.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

This sidetrack upon which we now find ourselves shows the inverted logic used by a loose, grisly coalition of pro-war, anti-environmental-causes, anti-science types (no names, no pack-drill, no vitriol) who bluster loudly and divert attention away, again, from the true picture - namely that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are an unmitigated disaster from any sane perspective, whether moral, political, military or economic.

A more sensible take would be to compare the money wasted on these adventures with the money used on more worthwhile causes. That is the damning comparison. If the moneys had actually been spent the other way around, the lesser amount spent on the wars would still be shocking in relative terms. But we're all supposed to be gung-ho bubbas, inured to the 'hard-ass realities', and accepting of the lies and BS spun by Rummy-Dubya-Dick.

In the crematoria of history, Rummy will burn with a merry crackle. The Shrub will take a while to get going, being a bit wet. Cheney will sizzle, spit and flare.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hmmm, spending on developing greener energy, spending trillions on slaughtering people, c'mon SQ, surely there's a correlation, a reason why someone would think it's remotely sane to discuss the two in the same sentence!


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

groovetube said:


> hmmm, spending on developing greener energy, spending trillions on slaughtering people, c'mon SQ, surely there's a correlation, a reason why someone would think it's remotely sane to discuss the two in the same sentence!


Well, I suppose a green case _could_ be made for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people on the grounds that:
(a) there would be less of an environmental impact on the Earth's resources with fewer people, therefore less money would need to be diverted into these ridiculous environmental causes
(b) they could be used as a renewable resource (e.g. fertiliser) - bags of goodness in the buggers.

I'm sure that Jonathan Swift would have made a very Modest Proposal along those lines.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm not comparing the two. I'm saying that any government allowed to spend such vast sums on energy subsidies will also have the power to take your money to spend on worthless wars. If it's big enough to take care of you and big enough to take care of business, it can do pretty much whatever it wants.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> In the crematoria of history, Rummy will burn with a merry crackle. The Shrub will take a while to get going, being a bit wet. Cheney will sizzle, spit and flare.


:lmao: Well said!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

And Obama will spread over them like a big, wet blanket!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm not comparing the two. I'm saying that any government allowed to spend such vast sums on energy subsidies will also have the power to take your money to spend on worthless wars. If it's big enough to take care of you and big enough to take care of business, it can do pretty much whatever it wants.


Any actual existing government outside of some kind of Galt's Gulch fantasy realm has the power to blow our money on stupid and useless wars.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Any actual existing government outside of some kind of Galt's Gulch fantasy realm has the power to blow our money on stupid and useless wars.


Well, if that's the case then just let them get on with it, eh?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Well, if that's the case then just let them get on with it, eh?


Of course I didn't say that, oh Sidetracker-in-Chief, but you seem to be thinking that if we only limit social or environmental programs, then governments won't be able to engage in their fun little wars. You're making a false comparison. In real practice governments that spend less than most others on social and environment seem to also be the most inclined to engage in these things. What's the little place called south of here called who has a military larger than the rest of the world combined .... ?

Meanwhile, back on track for this thread, we have Donald Rumsfeld being awarded the "Defender of the Constitution" award at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Committee conference, the same conference where Ann Coulter was cheered for saying that more journalists should be jailed. Like Rumsfeld, those Washington conservatives refuse to admit to mistakes. Defender of the Constitution? Rumsfeld? Really?

Oh yes, they were also chanting "Cheney for President!" along with the ubiquitous "USA ... USA!"


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I had to like that post, despite the cries for lynchin for such an act.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

*Rummy - the unknown clown.*​


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Army Ranger's Widow Dragged Out Of Book Signing After Confronting Rumsfeld*



> This is the widow of the Army Ranger I wrote about recently. I'm glad that she got the all-too-rare opportunity to tell one of these callous warmongers to his face what she thinks of him and his enablers:
> 
> Two people were removed from Friday’s Donald Rumsfeld book signing at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, including the Yelm widow of an Army Ranger who blames the military for her husband’s suicide.
> 
> Security officers for the former secretary of defense escorted Ashley Joppa-Hagemann out by the arm, she said this evening.






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






(Crooks and Liars)


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> *Army Ranger's Widow Dragged Out Of Book Signing After Confronting Rumsfeld*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


DIsgraceful. What ever happened to her right to exercise free speech. Rumsfeld is a coward like Cheney and Bush.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Full free speech rights do not extend to military bases.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

in for the technicality!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

What else is new. Like a vulture feeding off a corpse with a penchant for chewy maggots.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Great debate on free speech rights, Jimbo. I love it when people spend some time on crafting a well-reasoned response.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Great debate on free speech rights, Jimbo. I love it when people spend some time on crafting a well-reasoned response.


And a tip of my cap to you sir.

Be seeing you.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

jimbotelecom said:


> What else is new. Like a vulture feeding off a corpse with a penchant for chewy maggots.


Slightly more descriptive than my quip, but that works too


----------

