Rumsfeld gets Bashed

[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!

[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/