I just realised that the title of the article isn’t “A Defense of Rumsfeld”, it’s actually “Leave Rumsfeld Be”. Steve Bell has a much better take on this idea.
Sam Stone
Sorry but that article is bunk in some parts and this partly undermines its credibility in onther parts where it is true, and this is always a good tactic by political spinners, include a few lies among a forest of truths.
Firstly, it neglects to mention anything about Rumsfelds role in arming Hussain, nor about the sales of chemical agents and precurser materials and support in the form of technical knowledge that he personally sold to Hussain.
Never forget that these were the supposed reasons for the whole mess in the first place and its why US troops now occupy Iraq.
Its true that resources are not unlimited, and some things are unpredictable, but on this one message board alone there were many many people posting about the likelehood of such a counter insurgency, it seems to me that the occupation planners must have much more knowledge about such affairs than them, and so those planners must have been also far more aware of this scenario.
That being the case it does seem to me that the planning for this phase of occupation is either going to their plan, and is therefore acceptable losses, or it is not going to plan and so they maybe should be replaced by competant people.
Rumfeld is one of those.
I also think that this viewpoint,
Betrays the author of the article for the stereotyping racist that he does not realise he actually is.
By not actually understanding why US is hated in much of the ME, he will never ever find a realistic solution and US troops will continue to die, the man is a DOLT, a well worded DOLT, but a DOLT nontheless.
If he’s still breatfeeding wouldn’t he be under weaned, as weaning is gradual removal from dependence upon the teat?
Or for that matter, breastfeeding.
One is reminded of Dorothy Parker’s line about Calvin Coolidge.
“He looks as though he were weaned on a pickle.”
Just how much incompetence would Rumsfeld have to display before he gets fired? There doesn’t seem to be an end to it.
We’d have better pentagon leadership if we raised Les Aspin from the dead and installed him as America’s first Zombie Secretary of Defense. There was a man who took responsibility for his screwups.
Maybe it neglects it because Rumfeld DIDN’T arm Hussein. Are you under the impression that Saddam got a lot of weaponry from the United States? He didn’t. He got billions of dollars in arms from France, Germany, China, and Russia (where have we heard those names before?). The U.S.'s total contribution to Saddam’s arsenal was less than a billion dollars, and consisted of unarmored helicopters that were supposed to be used for medevac and other purposes. By the time of the first Gulf War, Saddam’s arsenal had essentially zero American hardware in it.
As for the chemical precursors, as I recall they were unrestricted chemicals that Saddam was legally allowed to buy, and samples given to Iraq by the Department of Agriculture.
As Iraq–Kuwait relations rapidly deteriorated, Saddam was receiving conflicting information about how the U.S. would respond to the prospects of an invasion. For one, Washington had been taking measures to cultivate a constructive relationship with Iraq for roughly a decade. The Reagan administration gave Saddam roughly $40 billion in aid in the 1980s to fight Iran, nearly all of it on credit. The U.S. also sent billions of dollars to Saddam to keep him from forming a strong alliance with the Soviets. 7
Sam
We all know that military spending can be hidden in other ways such as ‘Aid’ so using monetry reasoning is not really the best way to determine who supplied whom with what.
Your point that others have helped arm Hussein, whilst absolutely true, is a straw man argument, because it does not diminsh the fact that the US did so, and you will note that it is not France, or Russia that has invaded Iraq.
You might argue the US is not as big a supplier as others, so what, it does not make the US innocent.
Volume of materials or cash value is not necessarily the best method of determining who must bear responsibility either.
Donald Rumsfeld was in charge of several companies such as Gilead Sciences and GD Searle, which supplied chemical and biological agents to Saddam, during the time that poison gas was being used by him against his Iranian enemies.
The US had its own reasons for supporting Saddams regime at the time, understandable, but you need a long spoon to sup with the devil.
Naturally you’ll recall the reasons that this war came about in the first place.
Its not easy to find cites on Rumsfeld dealings with Iraq and not come across a very partisan crowd, but, his employment CV is not in dispute, and his visits to Iraq and meetings with Saddam Hussein are also not in dispute, nor even the materials shipped, the only matters in dispute are the reasons, and the rights and wrongs.
Rummy details latest post-conquest plan:
The man doesn’t even beg well.
What would ever do if you didn’t have that picture from 1983?
Lets say you have a family friend named Bob, he was like an uncle to you. Your mom and dad likes Bob, loves him like a brother. Your dad gives him a place to live, money in the bank to start a business, treats him like family, a great friend.
Wouldn’t it just be fitting to have your grandchildren passing around a picture of grandpa shaking the hand of uncle Bob, the SOB who raped and dismembered your sister. What kind of SOB was your father, look at him HE’S SHAKING UNCLE BOBS HAND!!! HE CONDONED EVERTHING!!!
Not a pleasant thought, a bit elementary I admit. But you can’t teach a monky to play Bach so you have to stick with chopsticks. :rolleyes:
Every time I see that picture it becomes ever so clear that the argument coming from the anti american is getting weaker and weaker.
Ossama is another idiot who will ioin the list of victims when he gets his collective ass handed to him. Don’t light the candle for him just yet, it’s time to mourn Saddam now.
Rejoice in Saddams victimology, he only kills his own people, right?
But what if “father” suspected or knew what “uncle Bob” was up to? What if “father” thought in his twisted mind that the raping and dismembering of your sister was the least worst possibility?
Gee, what if there was a COLD WAR going on at the time?
You know what? I’ve got a picture of FDR sitting and having a nice chat with Stalin. They’re even joking! I take it you all hate FDR because of this, right?
Not only that, but the United States ARMED the Soviet Union! Egad. FDR should have been shot for that, right?
And by the way, if your argument is that the realpolitik of the cold war was wrong, and the U.S. shouldn’t have supported dictators just because it was in their geopolitical interest to do so, then you should like the Bush doctrine, because he explicitly denounced that type of accomodation. The Bush doctrine says that U.S. policy is to foster democracy and oppose tyranny wherever it is found. I can remember a time when this was the rallying cry of the left.
How times change.
Kind of like how they helped “foster” the democractically elected leader of Haiti right out the door in a coup? Strange how such a noble doctrine manifests itself.
Oh, and Sam, I don’t ever recall the left advocating bombing some place into democracy. I trust you have a viable and recent example to refresh my memory?
•Pakistan
•Uzbekistan
•Kazakhstan
“Fostering democracy” by force is logically contradictory not to mention illegal. The “Bush Doctrine” is self-serving, immoral, hypocritical garbage.
Osama is a single human being, not a collective.
Osama helped ensure that 9/11 was a reality, as well as many other terrorist act against the United States and other natoins.
He won’t be a victim when we catch him, he’ll be tried in a court of law and if found guilty…
Moreoever, we’ve pretty much stopped hunting him
As such it’s kinda hard to catch him
Um…
No?
I don’t plan on mourning either of them, your baseless rhetoric aside.
Moreoever, there was no security interest for this nation in getting Sadaam, indeed, we’ve made our global position less secure. As such, if you’re a good American and patriot rather than a loudmouthed kid you’d realize that ignoring Osama is not just something you can joke about on a message board. It is a serious error in policy which will most likely come to bite us in the ass.
Victimology?
How you likin’ the highschool break?
You missed out “shouldn’t have supported, armed, and trained terrorists such as the Mujaheddin inc. Bin Laden”. Just clarifying.
In rhetorical terms, perhaps, but it still gives tacit support to places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not to mention supprorting the warlords in non-Kabul Afghanistan, who are as big a bunch of bastards as anyone Bush chooses to denounce.
Well gosh, it’s falling far short isn’t it? It’s only “stood up” to tyranny twice, and both times it’s managed to fuck it up.
Merry Christmas!