Rumsfeld gets Bashed

[rotorgun]

Simply look the information up online. It is there for all to see. Type Strategic Defense Planning Guide, look for the one authored by Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, and then Caspian Sea Oil Pipeline Project or Afghanistan Oil Pipeline Project and it will amaze you. After this, look at a map, watch Micheal Moore's movie Farenheit 911 (I hate the Liberal b _ _ _ _ _ d myself, but I try to keep an open mind), and then "connect the dots" as so many so called intelligence people like to say. Whalla!

It's not rocket science my boy!

Have a nice day.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Simply look the information up online. It is there for all to see. Type Strategic Defense Planning Guide, look for the one authored by Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, and then Caspian Sea Oil Pipeline Project or Afghanistan Oil Pipeline Project and it will amaze you. After this, look at a map, watch Micheal Moore's movie Farenheit 911 (I hate the Liberal b _ _ _ _ _ d myself, but I try to keep an open mind), and then "connect the dots" as so many so called intelligence people like to say. Whalla!

It's not rocket science my boy!

Have a nice day.

I've got some conspiracy theory movies if you want them (on an other topic)

[Papewaio]

877 Active Duty Generals or Equivalent.

How long do they last as a General... they have to climb the command ladder and if they don't pass each rung timely enough I take it they will never get to General... but even going up at each stage would take at least 15 years? So say they get to General at between 40 and 45... how many years left of service do they have 10/15 years?

After that say the majority do retire at 55 after 10 to 15 years as a general. I assume most of them will get to 80 or 85 as they will have access to good mediciene, plenty of money and have an above average lifestyle. That is 25-30 years as a retired general... compared with 10 to 15 years as an Active Duty one... so you can expect about 2 retired generals for every active one if not a larger ration.

So there should be 1500 or so retired Generals.

So 1 out of 250 have publically made their feelings known on the issue. I wonder how many more haven't?

[Redleg]

877 Active Duty Generals or Equivalent.

How long do they last as a General... they have to climb the command ladder and if they don't pass each rung timely enough I take it they will never get to General... but even going up at each stage would take at least 15 years? So say they get to General at between 40 and 45... how many years left of service do they have 10/15 years?

15 years is a tad early. That is the normal range for promotion to Lietuant Colonel. Most officers that I know of that make General using do so after 20 years in the service. Not always since promotion to General is not dependent upon normal promotion schemes.

After that say the majority do retire at 55 after 10 to 15 years as a general. I assume most of them will get to 80 or 85 as they will have access to good mediciene, plenty of money and have an above average lifestyle. That is 25-30 years as a retired general... compared with 10 to 15 years as an Active Duty one... so you can expect about 2 retired generals for every active one if not a larger ration.

This sounds about right though.

So there should be 1500 or so retired Generals.

So 1 out of 250 have publically made their feelings known on the issue. I wonder how many more haven't?

Most I have come to beleive. Especially those who decide to stay the hell out of the political arenea.

[Hurin_Rules]

So, to sum up: Rumsfeld was exaggerating/misleading again?

[Major Robert Dump]

Yeah I'm getting all high 8s in the number of generals and admirals on active duty, I would still like to get an exact number on how many are retired, since the mandatory retirement age is soemthing like 62-64. I'm gonna go peruse some VA hospitals sites and see if I can find anything, I'm real curious if it really is thousands upon thousands.

[BigTex]

“ Personally I say anything that doesnt physically harm them is ok. Covering the face with cellyphane and pouring water over them was quiet creative,” Yep, all these methods that was used by the Gestapo (S.D.) (included the dog’s one). If you don’t want to be compared with the Nazi, don’t use NAZI techniques.

Yep they sure did. So has every other country in the world at some point. The Nazi's also used handcuffs to arrest people, guess we shouldnt use those. The nazi's had speed limits, guess we shouldnt use that technique to control highways. Nazi's fed cats out of bowls, I guess I should be compared to a nazi for that one. Nazi's made films, bad hollywood bad. Nazi's also drank lots of beer, damn you Samuel Adams you've condemned us with them.

Using what the nazi's did as a reason to compare the USA to evil is ridiculous. Sometimes coercion of the psychological kind is needed. Often times it has saved many peoples lives, we shouldn't be getting rid of these useful interrogation techniques because some bleeding heart liberal finds them to harsh for their thin skin. We've used them effectively for hundreds of years, not since now have they been deemned evil.

[Hurin_Rules]

We've used them effectively for hundreds of years, not since now have they been deemned evil.

The same was said of slaves prior to 1865.

If you're going to critique someone else's line of argument, you better use pretty airtight ones yourself

[Redleg]

The same was said of slaves prior to 1865.

If you're going to critique someone else's line of argument, you better use pretty airtight ones yourself

Oh but Hurin that has never stopped anyone in the Traven to include yourself. (nor me either)

[Brenus]

“The nazi's had speed limits, guess we shouldnt use that technique to control highways. Nazi's fed cats out of bowls, I guess I should be compared to a nazi for that one. Nazi's made films, bad hollywood bad. Nazi's also drank lots of beer, damn you Samuel Adams you've condemned us with them.”

Yep, and their loved their children too… And their dogs, Heinrich was a talented pianist etc… We speak here of method of interrogation on people allegedly innocent… Now, if you want to create enemy, just do what you proposed. Big Tex, the Nazi killed 10% of the population of the village where I born, later. Did that stop my Grand-Father to sabotage their trains? No. It just was the biggest recruitment tools given by the Germans to the Partisans

[Alexanderofmacedon]

“The nazi's had speed limits, guess we shouldnt use that technique to control highways. Nazi's fed cats out of bowls, I guess I should be compared to a nazi for that one. Nazi's made films, bad hollywood bad. Nazi's also drank lots of beer, damn you Samuel Adams you've condemned us with them.”

Yep, and their loved their children too… And their dogs, Heinrich was a talented pianist etc… We speak here of method of interrogation on people allegedly innocent… Now, if you want to create enemy, just do what you proposed. Big Tex, the Nazi killed 10% of the population of the village where I born, later. Did that stop my Grand-Father to sabotage their trains? No. It just was the biggest recruitment tools given by the Germans to the Partisans

You say your city was defestated? Sorry to hear that.

[KafirChobee]

First, Rotorgun, good post on page one - well put.

Second, Redleg, seems I get overly sarcastic at times and this can lead to misconceptions about what I am actually attempting to say. So, sorry. In fact it seems we have similar responses to this issue - but, our approaches come from radically different points. Yet, still arrive at similar conclusions. BTW, I have a great deal of respect for anyone serving in the military and have stated on numerous occassions that my own service was a saving grace for me in many ways. As for my work with the MICC (Military Industrial Congressional Complex - as it is being called today), I've never felt any guilt about it. One feeds their family the best way they can, and there never was a conflict of conscience or hypocracy. Some of the projects, however, were no better than pork (though, even they are being used in different forms today - like some of the armor killing warheads). Note, I don't oppose war, if necessary to protect our (or an ally's) nation from a real threat. But, when we go to war it must not be on a whim, it must be thought out and argued openly (not behind closed doors). Iraq, was just wrong.

Now, basically, on topic. Rumsfeld, threw out 10 years of military planning on re-invading Iraq. He ignored his generals, and even publicly castigated Gen. Eric Shineski (former Chief of staff, Army) in 2003 for going before congress and saying that "several hundred-thousand troops" would be needed in the occupation of Iraq (what the administration still calls a war). Shineski, was the lone voice in the wilderness, all the other Generals were silent. For his forth rightness, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (then deputy secretary DoD) publicly mocked and shunned him. Tommy Franks, just did his "can do" and went about trying to do as best he could - knowing he did not have enough boots on the ground to secure Iraq after the last shots were fired - he did what he was suppose to do. Unfortunately, he didn't have the manpower to do it (we still don't).

As Lt. Gen. Newbold (retired) wrote about the decision for war, "was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results."
As noted in Times (24Apr06), this is ...."not over policy or budgets but the operation of the ongoing war."
Their premise(s):
1) the disbanding of the Iraqi military and Saddam's civilians running the infra-structure), by Rummy.
2) their (admin.) ignoring the advise of peolpe with battlefield experience.
3) their (") cavalier atttude about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners (Abu Graibh, Gitmo, etc.), and authorizing it.
4) Rummy's insistance on limiting the invasion force to insuffuceint numbers to secure the peace.
5) Rummy's abandonment of the Powell Doctrine: "attack rarely and then only with overwhelming force". Rummy wanted to prove this doctrine wrong, what he proved was that it was not an axiom - but, an absolute.

Even, Powell, last week said, "We made some serious mistakes in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad. We didn't have enough troops on the ground. We didn't impose our will. And as a result, an insurgency got started and .... it got out of control."

Expect a few more men of honor to voice their opinions soon, some may even side with the administration and be able to show how we are really winning the war ..... er, occupation. We won the war, we are losing the occupation - that now seems destined for civil conflict, if not out and out war.

Still, even with all this, I doubt Rummy could ever bring himself to quit - or Bush to fire him. After all, Cheney and Rummy go back all the way to the Ford administration - and together have run the Pentagon for 12 of the last 32 years.

[Redleg]

Second, Redleg, seems I get overly sarcastic at times and this can lead to misconceptions about what I am actually attempting to say. So, sorry. In fact it seems we have similar responses to this issue - but, our approaches come from radically different points. Yet, still arrive at similar conclusions.

Accepted, and I will apologize for the two biting personal retorts toward you in my response.




I believe General Franks has begun to voice his opinion on the issue, and if I remember correctly it was not very favorable toward the adminstration. I will have to see if I can find it.

[Brenus]

You say your city was defestated” Village, village. The SS came, burned, raped and killed. It was on the list of the Martyrdom of France, long time ago.
My familly (part of) got no harm bcause they lived in a hameau (Hammel in English?), and my Grand-Father saw the ambush... Some after him were less lucky...
That is why, yes, we have to be very careful when we compare with the Nazi. They were really very specific, if not on some practise but on the goals. Their aim wasn’t to liberate people, their aim was to enslave and exterminate people.
Saying that, I stick with “if you don’t want to be compare with Nazi, don’t act like Nazi”.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

You say your city was defestated” Village, village. The SS came, burned, raped and killed. It was on the list of the Martyrdom of France, long time ago.
My familly (part of) got no harm bcause they lived in a hameau (Hammel in English?), and my Grand-Father saw the ambush... Some after him were less lucky...
That is why, yes, we have to be very careful when we compare with the Nazi. They were really very specific, if not on some practise but on the goals. Their aim wasn’t to liberate people, their aim was to enslave and exterminate people.
Saying that, I stick with “if you don’t want to be compare with Nazi, don’t act like Nazi”.

Glad your grand-father is safe.

[BigTex]

You say your city was defestated” Village, village. The SS came, burned, raped and killed. It was on the list of the Martyrdom of France, long time ago.
My familly (part of) got no harm bcause they lived in a hameau (Hammel in English?), and my Grand-Father saw the ambush... Some after him were less lucky...
That is why, yes, we have to be very careful when we compare with the Nazi. They were really very specific, if not on some practise but on the goals. Their aim wasn’t to liberate people, their aim was to enslave and exterminate people.
Saying that, I stick with “if you don’t want to be compare with Nazi, don’t act like Nazi”.

Comparing anyone to nazi's is wrong. The nazi's used physical torcher, not so much the psycological torchers. Those technique's leave no physical harm and in war time could save untold thousands. I dont think they should be used as the norm, but only in the very neccessary situations were speed is needed. Using how the Nazi's acted as a mean for your comparisons casts a pretty large net, one I'm absolutely certain you've been caught in also.

It's horrible that your village was decimated by the Nazi's. But I find it suprising that if they hurt you so much that you compare the USA to them. You of all people should know the differences. If you don't want your insults attacked in such a way, dont compare countries to nazi's.

[Brenus]

“But I find it suprising that if they hurt you so much that you compare the USA to them” No. I don’t compare the US with the Nazi. What I said is there is a danger, if you use the same methods, to be compared with the Nazi. It give to your enemy a good weapon. Something else: the British didn’t use tortures during WW”. MI5 said that under tortures (or extreme interrogation techniques) every body talk. The only problem is you don’t know if it is true.
I experimented a long pain. Nothing compared to torture. Believe me I would have denounced all the Yellow Page books to stop it…
The French Resistance Hero, Pierre Brossolette preferred to jump from the 3rd floor (and with him 2 SS) instead to be tortured. What you thing as benign because it is no physically harming is not. Just try to stop to sleep during two days. And imagine doing so under fear.
One of the favourite tortures of the Japanese on the allies prisoners forced to build the railways (Kwai River) was to oblige them to lift a heavy stone over their head, and to slap them when they started to fail. According to your definition, it isn’t torture. Except in extreme cases the prisoners wasn’t harm. The survivors didn’t get permanent harm. However, I think it was torture.

[solypsist]

http://www.armytimes.com/static.php?f=view.php

A new Army Times poll has 64.3% wanting him out.

[Bulawayo]

Rotorgun:

Does this article sum up your information well?

I am not sure, but I think so.

[KafirChobee]

Good article, Bulawayo. I mentioned "PNAC" some time back. It was basically ignored.

Other members: Chairmen; Wm. Kristol, Thos. Donnelly, Lewis (Scooter) Libby
Members; Peter Rodman (Asst. Sec. of Def. for Int'l Sec.), Dov S. Zackheim (Comptroller in DoD), Robert B. Zoellick (Deputy Sec. of State), John R. Bolton (US Ambassador to UN), Randy Schueneman (was President of the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq", an organization funded by defense and security contractors - the committee included other PNAC members), Stephen Cambone (UnderSecretary of Defense for Intelligence), and R. James Woolsey (former CIA Director, now VP at Booz Allen Hamilton - one of the largest Iraq contractors). This but to name a few. The founders and chairmen (btw) for PNAC were Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld (beginning in 1992).

The agenda was - justifying an invasion of Iraq. It was a pre-drawn conclusion that it would occur after the Supreme Court elected GW Bush President (but, that's another story).

[rotorgun]

Rotorgun:

Does this article sum up your information well?

I am not sure, but I think so.

I am not sure if this is a double post as I sent out a reply once.(I might have clicked the wrong confounded icon) Thanks for responding with such an article. I think it clearly sheds new light on my premise that the "War on Terror" is not being fought for the reasons many are being led to believe. As for an American version of the "Pax Romana", I would think that it would apply in a sense, considering the ramifications of the article and my previously mentioned Strategic Defence Planning Guide. It is quite obviuos that the plans are quite similar.

As to the idea that the UK and US are making a grab for the dwindling oil reserves, It could be true if the statistics are accurate in the article. Another possibility is that the large oil consortiums and international finance organizations involved want to monopolize the fast growing Asian oil market. The Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussien in Iraq, and the Islamic extremist government of Iran all stand in the way of such an economic venture. While I appluade the downfall of all such dictatorial regimes, I hardly think it worth the price of a Gotterdamerung of biblical proportions in order to achieve it. As it has been said: "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Speaking of the idea that the attacks of 911 were deliberately allowed to succeed, I certainly hope that it is not the case. I cannot believe that an American administration would allow such an attack on their population to occur just to justify an offensive in the Persian Gulf. If such a thing were ever proved, God help these people, for there will be a hanging in Washington D.C. I know that many believe that F.D.R. may have knowingly allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor without sending a proper warning to the Commanders there to shock isolationist Americans into action during WWII. Even if true, this was a military target, not the World Trade Center. To allow the deaths of over 3000 civilians on your soil just to start a war would be the epitome of criminality. I hope that the article is wrong.

Thanks again for your thoughtfulness in posting this site for us. I am glad that there are many people in the Org. that are first class thinkers who can make an intelligent arguement when discussing something that is so volatile.

God save us all from corporate greed.

PS edit: I apologize Kafir, I must have missed your reference to the PNAC. It was very astute of you to bring it up. INteresting list of members, don't you think?

[rotorgun]

Sorry to be a little late out of the barn with these. Here are some sites that have information concerning this ongoing debate over the morality of the current Anglo/American strategy in SW Asia. While off topic concerning Rumsfeld's bashing, I think that they might be of interest to the inquiring minds among us. They are related in some ways to the thread.

http://www.alternet.org/story/12525/

http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm

http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/HOMEP...SAZERB/412.htm

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspgrph.html

I hope these are helpful in helping one to make an informed decision. I think that all will see just how much is at stake for the key players. I also read a great book, Crude Politics, which exposes the truth about how the Bush administration's oil cronny buddies have manipulated the polocies and strategies taken in Afghanistan to rid it of the Taliban-all because of a desire to build a pipeline there to dominate the Asian oil market with Caspian Sea oil.

[KafirChobee]

Gah! Rotorgun! Gah! Rotorgun unfair to us ranters, Rototgun have facts. Gah!

Good post. Not light reading, however. Or, for the faint hearted that intend to support a policy regardless of the evidence provided by others (those outside the FOX news netquirk, that is).

Scary stuff that. Do you really believe that oilmen (Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Rice - well, Rice is as much of a man as she can be) would really take their nation to war to profit a few? Oh, never mind .... the answer is in the question.

Regardless, a well thought out post (versus mine of course),

[rotorgun]

Gah! Rotorgun! Gah! Rotorgun unfair to us ranters, Rototgun have facts. Gah!

Good post. Not light reading, however. Or, for the faint hearted that intend to support a policy regardless of the evidence provided by others (those outside the FOX news netquirk, that is).

Scary stuff that. Do you really believe that oilmen (Bush, Rummy, Cheney, Rice - well, Rice is as much of a man as she can be) would really take their nation to war to profit a few? Oh, never mind .... the answer is in the question.

Regardless, a well thought out post (versus mine of course),

Thank you. I know it was a little off the thread topic, but it is all part and parcel of "Rumsfeld gets bashed, the complete story" IMHO. Seriously, the main reasons that Herr Rumsfeld needs to be dethroned are that he is nothing more than the sycophant of the Republican party and has always been. He has put the wishes of his Republican masters before the needs of the soldiers that he commands. That is a cardinal sin in the playbook of an old sodier like me. In my view, he has lost the confidence of the Army (63.4% according to a recent Army times poll), and the American people as well. As for my personal opinion of him, he is a complete hypocrite that I would never willingly follow to a rock fight. Despite that, I will pray for his rotten soul, so that my poor consciense can get some relief. Rummy dear....Read my signature text!

[solypsist]

http://www.voltairenet.org/article136827.html

i didnt want to start another thread but felt the images on this page needed to be seen. when discussing how many coalition soldiers died, etc. one tends to forget the other casualties.

[Redleg]

Sorry to be a little late out of the barn with these. Here are some sites that have informationconcerning this ongoing debate over the morality of the current Anglo/American strategy in SE Asia. While off topic concerning Rumsfeld's bashing, I think that they might be of interest to the inquiring minds among us. They are related in some ways to the thread.

http://www.alternet.org/story/12525/

http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm

http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/HOMEP...SAZERB/412.htm

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspgrph.html

I hope these are helpful in helping one to make an informed decision. I think that all will see just how much is at stake for the key players. I also read a great book, Crude Politics, which exposes the truth about how the Bush administration's oil cronny buddies have manipulated the polocies and strategies taken in Afghanistan to rid it of the Taliban-all because of a desire to build a pipeline there to dominate the Asian oil market with Caspian Sea oil.

What this seems to be ignoring on the surface is that AQ launched an attack into the Towers.

One could easily believe this information to be completely correct if they are willing to accept that the Administration helped to plan the attack on the Towers, or at best knew it was going to happen and decided not to act.

Finally if this information is true, how does one explain that no-one in congress has attempted to impeach the president for such activity?

[rotorgun]

What this seems to be ignoring on the surface is that AQ launched an attack into the Towers.

That's what the one article from the UK source claims, that they deliberately ignored the warning signs of a coming attack. No, I haven't forgot that AQ attacked us. The fact is that how the Bush administration reacted to the attack was to let the Afghan Warlords deal with the Taliban with limited support from our special forces. I am implying that Osama and crew were really in no danger of being captured, as everyone knows that there were many Al Quieda sympathizers in the ranks of the Warlords. If it wasn't for Colin Powell insisting that we respond in Afghanistan, the Bush administration wouldn't have even bothered to send what forces it did, being content to let the Afghans do all the fighting. At the first meeting, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were already trying to make the case for Iraq............Amazing.

One could easily believe this information to be completely correct if they are willing to accept that the Administration helped to plan the attack on the Towers, or at best knew it was going to happen and decided not to act.

I am not ready to make that assertion, but the thought has crossed my mind. I can only pray that is not the case, but it is awfully strange when one considers the fact that one of Osama Bin Laden's relatives was actually visiting at the White house just a few days before the attack (brought to light in Farenhiet 911 by Micheal Moore). It is also a fact that the only plane allowed to fly in the days immediately following the attack was a Suadi Plane with 13 Suadi nationals, of which some were Bin Ladenfamily members. They all beat feet out of the US as fast as they could. The FBI was not allowed to detain any of them for questioning. Now, don't you think that is rather odd? This is a documenetd fact.

Finally if this information is true, how does one explain that no-one in congress has attempted to impeach the president for such activity?

I have no idea. Perhaps they don't know. Perhaps, if they do, they really can't believe it. Heck, even I don't want to. There are many Senators and Congessmen that voted for allowing the President to carry on the way he has. Perhaps they feel that there is too much blame to be cast their way as well. Maybe I should send these articles to some of them. I wonder what could be made of such information. I am not some kind of conspiracy nut, but does it really make sense to attack Iraq when the people that directly attacked us are still breathing? It would be like the US attacking Mexico one week after Pearl Harbor by making some claim that they were somehow harboring Japanese insurgents without any real proof. Rumsfeld deserves to be fired just for advising such an action to begin with. Rest assured, he and Vice President Cheney both had a hard on for Iraq from the beginning. If I had my way, I would fire the whole lot of them.

[Redleg]

That's what the one article from the UK source claims, that they deliberately ignored the warning signs of a coming attack. No, I haven't forgot that AQ attacked us. The fact is that how the Bush administration reacted to the attack was to let the Afghan Warlords deal with the Taliban with limited support from our special forces. I am implying that Osama and crew were really in no danger of being captured, as everyone knows that there were many Al Quieda sympathizers in the ranks of the Warlords. If it wasn't for Colin Powell insisting that we respond in Afghanistan, the Bush administration wouldn't have even bothered to send what forces it did, being content to let the Afghans do all the fighting. At the first meeting, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were already trying to make the case for Iraq............Amazing.

Making the case for Iraq is different then the assertion that the attack into Afganstan was for the pipeline. Again address the issue as it relates to your initial point - not the attempt at distraction by pointing to Iraq.

So are you attempting in one bold stroke to ignore the ability and limitations of the United States to transport divisions into a mountianous area with limited airstrips? Are you attempting to ignore the historical fact that the only successful invasions by outside forces into Afganstan have been done with forces from within Afganstan?

The operation into Afganstan has many failures - one being not sticking with it until fruitution of the mission goals, and the other being sending forces needed for this operation to another. However neither of these failures support the initial claim of it was about the pipeline.

Are you also implying that the 101st, 82nd, and 10th Mountain did not also particpate in Afganstan?

Address those areas that apply to the pipeline conspricy that you are bringing forward. So far it doesn't survive contact with reality.

I am not ready to make that assertion, but the thought has crossed my mind. I can only pray that is not the case, but it is awfully strange when one considers the fact that one of Osama Bin Laden's relatives was actually visiting at the White house just a few days before the attack (brought to light in Farenhiet 911 by Micheal Moore). It is also a fact that the only plane allowed to fly in the days immediately following the attack was a Suadi Plane with 13 Suadi nationals, of which some were Bin Ladenfamily members. They all beat feet out of the US as fast as they could. The FBI was not allowed to detain any of them for questioning. Now, don't you think that is rather odd? This is a documenetd fact.

To completely buy into the theory that you are advocating here - one must assume that the administration at best allowed the attack to happen, or at worst planned and assisted in the attack. No other possiblity exists that would explain your initial comment and the premise of the book Crude Politics as you pointed out in your opening line in our little exchange.

also read a great book, Crude Politics, which exposes the truth about how the Bush administration's oil cronny buddies have manipulated the polocies and strategies taken in Afghanistan to rid it of the Taliban-all because of a desire to build a pipeline there to dominate the Asian oil market with Caspian Sea oil.

I have no idea. Perhaps they don't know. Perhaps, if they do, they really can't believe it. Heck, even I don't want to. There are many Senators and Congessmen that voted for allowing the President to carry on the way he has. Perhaps they feel that there is too much blame to be cast their way as well. Maybe I should send these articles to some of them. I wonder what could be made of such information. I am not some kind of conspiracy nut, but does it really make sense to attack Iraq when the people that directly attacked us are still breathing? It would be like the US attacking Mexico one week after Pearl Harbor by making some claim that they were somehow harboring Japanese insurgents without any real proof.

Congress can not bring impeachment charges upon the president because there is no absolute proof that he or his adminstration was involved in the alledged wrong doing. Circumstancial evidence is just that. Conspricy theories always have a grain of truth in order to build their attempts at being valid, however it does not bear out as truth at this time. Maybe in some distant or near distant future one of the individuals involved in such a conspricy will have a moment of clarity and confess to such activities, but until then its only a conspricay theory with no evidence to truely support it.

Rumsfeld deserves to be fired just for advising such an action to begin with. Rest assured, he and Vice President Cheney both had a hard on for Iraq from the beginning. If I had my way, I would fire the whole lot of them.

Agreed Rumsfeld should be fired, and Cheney should be asked to resign, but that is different then your initial statements in our exchange.

[Hurin_Rules]

Rumsfeld gets bashed again today:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12632127/

[rotorgun]

Yes indeed, and this time it wasn't just from the liberal left. One of the people who fired out some telling questions was Ray McGovern, a CIA employee who made quite a scene by throwing Secretary Rumsfeld's own words back at him. It was an interesting tap dance by the "honorable" Mr. Rumsfeld. I think that he should take some lessons, because he was a bit out of step.

@ Redleg, I would like to answer your reply of 20060502, but I shall have to start a new thread. It is quite a bit off the subject I'm sure that you would agree. So, unless anyone objects, I'll talk to you about the subject of Ahganistan and Iraq there.