Rumsfeld gets Bashed

[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.

[Hurin_Rules]

CNN's 360 With Anderson Cooper just ran a great piece on this, when the former CIA officer confronts Rumsfeld. There are some great moments. At one point, Rumsfeld denies he ever said the evidence of Zarqawi's links to Saddam Hussein were 'bulletproof', but CNN then shows Rumsfeld saying precisely that.

The video of the actual confrontation is also at the website listed above ( http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS....ap/index.html , click on 'Donald Rumsfeld answers tough questions, in the green box to the center right of the screen), although unfortunately not the fact checks that show that Rumsfeld was flat out lying.

For those of you who can't watch, the former CIA officer catches Rumsfeld in two misleading statements, gives him a question that he cannot answer, and points out Rumsfeld's final answer is a total non sequitur.

The transcript of the CIA analyst's conversation on CNN, in which he points out that all the facts contradict Rumsfeld, is available on CNN's site here: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS...ern/index.html

Enjoy.