If true- Rumsfeld really needs to go, as do these moron “advisers”. Sounds like the right result for the wrong reasons were reached by non-insane members of the Bush administration.
There are alot better reasons then “re-election concerns”, as to why this is a really, really bad fucking idea. I would like to see multiple confirmations of this story though (hence the “if true”). Your thoughts?
My thoughts? That’s the first sensible thing GWB did since this whole war started to be staged.
And Rumsfeld… well, this IS the Pit, so why hold back. Rumsfeld is a dangerous man whose need to appear in the spotlight by far exceeds his intelligence and knowledge of foreign affairs. He scares me a SHITLOAD more than GWB does.
Hell, to look at him you could almost start to believe David Icke’s stuff about reptilian shapeshifters. 'Course, Rumsfeld obviously ain’t too good at the looking human thing.
I don’t see how you came to this conclusion. Just because the writer of the article mentioned GWB was up for re-election doesn’t mean that was GWB’s reason. That’s just one of the ways the media plant’s ideas into someones head. They mention re-election and we naturally associate that with the subject of the article.
It was the implication which I took from this section:
**However, President George Bush, who faces re-election next year with two perilous nation-building projects, in Afghanistan and Iraq, on his hands, is said to have cut off discussion among his advisers about the possibility of taking the “war on terror” to Syria. **
I can see where people could differ on that point. However, given every politician’s obsession with reelection, and the actual four corners of the article, I believe it was a logical inference.
Also:
And why would “the media” want to do that? Who is “the media” and how are they controlled? If its by the left, then who is controlling Fox News, Rush, Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard. If it is the right, who is controlling NPR et al?
Does this “planting of ideas” help raise profits or improve ratings? I am curious.
First, I never said it was strictly a one sided affair. Both sides have been known to do this. Why? to further their own bias I would guess. Will it help ratings? Probably among their target audience. That particular part could have been left out of that article and it would have been just as informative, without the inference to re-election.
The issue is, it is not clear whether that bit of analysis came from the administration source of the rest of the story, various pundits, or the writers themselves. Based on the story as a whole, I infered it came from the source. However, reasonable minds could, and have seemed to, differ on this.
Also, while there is plenty of bias in the media, “the media” as a whole has no universal bias one way or another. Its all offsetting bias to me.
I don’t particularly have a problem with this, because:
Based on those two items, which represent the opening salvo of the article, it sounds more like an administration doing due diligence in planning what to do with a possible threat. Frankly, I’d be more worried if we didn’t do that.
At the same time, while it certainly seems obvious that the administration is keeping a wary eye on Syria (as they likely do with any number of other countries), there are 11 specific mentions within the article of not attacking Syria militarily. Perhaps it is more important to focus on what is actually being said rather than what might be thought or considered.
*However, President George Bush, who faces re-election next year with two perilous nation-building projects, in Afghanistan and Iraq, on his hands, is said to have cut off discussion among his advisers about the possibility of taking the “war on terror” to Syria. *
It’s stating a fact, but it really has no relevance to the story that was being reported. Unless you inject it and thereby infer that it does. It worked too I might add as it was the thrust of your OP.
Heck the title is “war on Syria- is Rumsfeld nuts?” which I thought made it quite clear what the “thrust” of my OP was.
And while not the “thrust”, the issue certainly does have relevance IMHO. Who cut off the debate and why is hardly “irrelevant”. As the other articles clearly stated it was for “right now”, not “because its really a bad fucking idea”, which lends alot more credence to the inferences I made.
If you have support for your position other then your simple interpretation and possible “media bias”, I am happy to listen, but based on the cites provided I still think my interpretation is the most likely.
yojimbo I’m not sure Rumsfeld is as popular as you think here in the U.S. Both myself and my friend that I discuss the war most often with are both hawks, and both of us dislike Rumsfeld. If Bush gets re-elected, I really hope he replaces Rumsfeld.
Doesn’t the fact that the carriers Constellation and Kitty Hawk are currently leaving the Gulf area tend to suggest that war with Syria is NOT under consideration? Or am I missing something?
Could the US plan to attack without these two carriers in the area?
