Rumsfeld

Er ....

How do you spell M-A-G-A-L-O-M-A-N-I-C
M-e-g-a-l-o-m-a-n-i-a-c.

Sorry, sorry, sorry ... I couldn't resist. I'll leave it be.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:
 
That's a funny picture, but he only says hello...

Arghh... what am I doing? I'm protecting Rumsfeld! No, no, no, sorry I have to clean my soul now if I don't want to go in hell! ;)
 
seeing Donald "where's ya troosers" inevitably leads one to neo-cons, and hence onto the Panorama special (few weeks back) on neocons.
The sad (or worrying,?) thing is that a large majority of those in Washington who are neocons today, were actually democrats, or at least left of centre a few decades back. Hell one of the neocons interviewed on Panorama said that he had been active in the civil rights movement.
 
That doesn't mean a whole lot. The center has always skewed right and the left in this country have tended to be right of center. The distinction between democans or republicrats is a trivial set of magnitude issues.

It was a Democrat that ended wellfare and a republican that ended slavery (actually the real story is more interesting). Neither were very sympathetic to the newly freed peoples. Both groups in fact replaced their archaic systems with slave wages.

That he's doing the hitler thing is unsurprising. What always characterized Hitler and the Nazi's were the pronunciations of moral superiority. In fact Hitler and Rumsfeld have much in common. Hitler proclaimed that Poland was invading Germany in order to sell a war to the public. Of course the pictures were doctored and information fabricated, an act purely of expansionism. Sound familiar?
 
I know that some neo-cons were actually communists! Perle and the gang were Trotkyists for a while:

"Most neo-conservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right." Michael Lind argues in the New Statesman and Salon magazines that many were anti-Stalinist Trotskyists who became anti-communist liberals, then shifted to a "militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history."

They call their revolutionary ideology "Wilsonianism" (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.

The final corner of the neoconservative pentagon is occupied by several right-wing media empires, with roots - odd as it seems - in the Commonwealth and South Korea. Rupert Murdoch disseminates propaganda through his Fox Television network. His magazine the Weekly Standard, edited by William Kristol, the former chief of staff of Dan Quayle (vice-president, 1989-93), acts as a mouthpiece for defence intellectuals such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and Woolsey as well as for Sharon's government. The National Interest (of which I was executive editor, 1991-94) is now funded by Conrad Black, who owns the Jerusalem Post and the Hollinger empire in Britain and Canada.




http://dupagepeace.home.att.net/bush7.html

:eek: pretty scary stuff!
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by guthrie
Brilliant at what?

at everything he does.
a great speaker, thinker, leader...
the way he carries himself with confidence...
he should be the president.
 
If I were braindead I'd vote for him as well. He has surpassed Ari Flescher as the most contradictory person on the staff of the white house.

Today Rumsfeld clarified that the bands of Iraqi marauders are not guerrillas. A journalist read the dictionary defintion: a person who engages in irregular warfare especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage (not exactly, but close enough). Rumsfeld still disagreed.

He's also disingenuous in his comparisons. He compared the deaths of U.S. soldiers following the war to death statistics of Washington. Earlier he had stated that the media was misrepresenting Iraq as being out of control.

Too many lies.
 
If thats all it takes to be president I've got some ex movie stars youd like. No hang on, havnt you had that already?
 
iraq and al-qaeda connection has been established a month ago, when an al-qaeda envoy (maybe UBL himself? i forgot) met with saddam in 99 or 97. don't remember.

WMD? powell was talking about certain mobile labs.
2 were discovered. EXACTLY the type he was talking about.

---------------
i have a feeling that nothing will be good enough as a proof for those who don't want to believe
 
iraq and al-qaeda connection has been established a month ago, when an al-qaeda envoy (maybe UBL himself? i forgot) met with saddam in 99 or 97. don't remember.


I want a link for that one, b/c if that were in the realm of reality I wouldn't be hearing this on T.V "what connection btwn Al Qaeda- Iraq?", you'll believe anything, and 99 or 97? That sounds real convincing. ;) keep it up one day you'll be a mini-rums too.

WMD? powell was talking about certain mobile labs.
2 were discovered. EXACTLY the type he was talking about.


OMG mobile labs, too bad they haven't found one inch of evidence to support that they were WMD labs. Again no WMD, and they weren't actual WMD. So sorry no somking gun. Nice try.
 
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=7636

And now, within the past few days, the London Telegraph has reported the monumentally important discovery of top-secret documents in the bombed-out Baghdad headquarters of Iraq’s intelligence service, documents that provide "evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein’s regime." The newly unearthed papers show that in March 1998, "an al Qaeda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad . . . to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al Qaeda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia." According to the Telegraph report, "[t]he meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad." Notably, this envoy’s visit took place less than five months before bin Laden’s group bombed two US embassies in Africa.

With each passing week, our understanding of Iraq’s terrorist ties continues to grow. On April 21, the New York Times reported that a scientist affiliated for more than ten years with Saddam’s chemical weapons program told an American military team that Iraq "had secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to Syria, starting in the mid-1990’s, and that more recently Iraq was cooperating with al Qaeda." According to the Times, this scientist, who revealed that Iraq had destroyed chemical and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began, "led Americans to a supply of material that proved to be the building blocks of illegal weapons, which he claimed to have buried as evidence of Iraq’s illicit weapons programs."



you'll believe anything
you don't want to believe the truth
 
This is obviously a big story yet you give me a no name source? Please give me a big news corporation, if they missed this one well there is no telling. Please a CNN,BBC,DW,etc. I am ready to believe some frontpage news, that deserves to be on the back.
 
Firstly, those two suspicious WMD trailers with canvas sides and no traces of toxins or anything were identified as most likely helium ballon launch trailers, for military use with artillery etc. A system sold to saddam by the british, if my memory serves me correctly. IE nothing to do with WMDs

Then as for the Torygraph, its funny how nobody else has picked up on its findings, and that it hasnt been able to corroborate them with anything else. It was already known that an associate of Bin Laden visited Baghdad, but there is no evidence that he met Saddam or they discussed an alliance, except that very dodgy stuff the telegraph has. There appears a complete lack of real evidence connecting the two partys.
 
i've seen this on CNN 1st time (i don't have any of the other major networks). it's really surprising this hasn't been made to be a big story. it should have.
check out their archives. i'm sure u'll find the story. i'm too lazy to look for it.

as for sources, the link i provided mentions the London Telegraph, NY Times.

i remember in the story on CNN they said that these papers were clumsily covered with white out (Osama's name and "al-qaeda") but easily restored after scraping off the white out.
 
Back
Top