# War on Syria- is Rumsfeld nuts? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 17, 2003, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331 "2003-04-17T15:32:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/1 "2003-04-17T15:32:52Z")
**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? Cite: > **[Bush vetoes Syria war plan](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/15/syria.usa)** > > The White House has privately ruled out suggestions that the US should go to war against Syria following its military success in Iraq, and has blocked preliminary planning for such a campaign in the Pentagon, the Guardian learned yesterday. Short Quote: > [@](#): > > The White House has privately ruled out suggestions that the US should go to war against Syria following its military success in Iraq, and has blocked preliminary planning for such a campaign in the Pentagon, the Guardian learned yesterday. > In the past few weeks, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, ordered contingency plans for a war on Syria to be reviewed following the fall of Baghdad. > > Meanwhile, his undersecretary for policy, Doug Feith, and William Luti, the head of the Pentagon’s office of special plans, were asked to put together a briefing paper on the case for war against Syria, outlining its role in supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein, its links with Middle East terrorist groups and its allegedly advanced chemical weapons programme. Mr Feith and Mr Luti were both instrumental in persuading the White House to go to war in Iraq. > > Mr Feith and other conservatives now playing important roles in the Bush administration, advised the Israeli government in 1996 that it could “shape its strategic environment… by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria”. > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/2 "2003-04-17T15:35:04Z")
So what are you trying to say… Feith no More? (sorry) Well at least Bushie is doing the right thing here. ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/3 "2003-04-17T15:38:53Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Kal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Kal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kal)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/4 "2003-04-17T15:58:56Z")
Rumsfeld scares the crap out of me too. 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. Tortoise faced git. ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/5 "2003-04-17T15:59:42Z")
More information: [http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&sid=aQsgewCpKHC8&refer=columnist\_derosa](http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&sid=aQsgewCpKHC8&refer=columnist_derosa) > [@](#): > > Bloomberg Columnists > > ``` > David DeRosa , president of DeRosa Research & Trading, is an adjunct finance professor at the Yale School of Management and the author of "In Defense of Free Capital Markets." The opinions expressed are his own. > > ``` > > Talking Tough to the Tough Guys in Damascus: David DeRosa > By David DeRosa > New Canaan, Connecticut, April 16 (Bloomberg) – The Bush administration is flexing its muscles in Syria’s direction. > > Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced yesterday that U.S. forces had turned off an Iraqi pipeline that carries crude oil to Syria. Iraq sold about 200,000 barrels a day to Syria through this pipeline before the war. > > The message of U.S. displeasure was unmistakable, and President George W. Bush and some of his top aides began a war of words with the regime of Syrian President Bashar al- Assad. > > White House spokesman Ari Fleischer described Syria as a `terrorist state'' that `harbors terrorists.’’ Fleischer also said that `we have information that (Iraqi) leaders have crossed the border'' into Syria. And he warned `rogue nations need to clean up their act.’’ > > Syria Next? > > Syrian officials have rejected the U.S. accusations that it is sheltering members of Saddam Hussein’s regime, and that it has supplied Iraq with military goods, including night vision goggles. > > Potentially more serious is the accusation that Syria has weapons of mass destruction. On this count, Rumsfeld alleges Syria tested chemical weapons as recently as 12 to 15 months ago. > > This dust-up with Syria leaves the world wondering if the regime in Damascus will share the same fate as Hussein’s. > > In an apparent effort to calm the waters, Powell told foreign journalists at a news conference yesterday: ``There is no list, there is no war plan right now to go attack someone else, either for the purpose of overthrowing their leadership or for the purpose of imposing democratic values.’’ > > Note the words ``right now.’’ [http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak17.html](http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak17.html) > [@](#): > > That is the goal of prominent Pentagon civilian officials who see virtual identity between U.S. and Israeli interests. Sharon’s hopes for his agenda are buoyed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s emergence. Vindicated by the spectacular success of American arms, Rumsfeld is the strongman of the Bush Cabinet who is directing the postwar transformation of the Middle East. > > Gen. Mofaz, a career officer before becoming defense minister last October, is a plain-spoken paratrooper who has now revealed his country’s grand design of riding American power to reach old goals. While Israel’s military is the region’s strongest, it has been unable to achieve Mofaz’s long, unspecified wish list: removal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, ending Syrian support of anti-Israeli terrorist groups and effective Syrian disarmament. The biggest political-military failure in Israel’s brief history was its Lebanese intervention. > > Israel’s goals conceivably can be ‘‘done through the Americans’’ in the wake of the awesome U.S. military performance. Syria’s Bashar Assad is unlikely to follow Saddam Hussein’s suicidal course of confrontation with Washington. Not supplied militarily by Moscow since the end of the Cold War, Syria’s armed forces look weaker than Iraq’s. > > The problem is how to justify pressuring Syria. If it was hard to prove Iraq a clear danger to the United States, making the case for Syria is much tougher. After the fall of Baghdad, warnings to Damascus were based on unverified complaints that weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi leaders had crossed the porous Iraqi-Syrian border. ‘‘There is no evidence,’’ Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said last week, that such weapons were taken out of Iraq. [http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story\_page/0,5478,6295337%5E663,00.html](http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6295337%255E663,00.html) > [@](#): > > THE United States declared yesterday it had no plans to invade Syria “right now” as the war of words escalated. > > But the US will not rule out diplomatic and economic sanctions against Syria, repeating claims it has chemical weapons, sponsors terrorism and is harbouring members of the old Iraqi regime. > US forces in Iraq yesterday shut down a pipeline that carried 200,000 barrels of oil a day to Syria. > > US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the oil flows were illegal. > > “I cannot assure you that all illegal oil flowing from Iraq into Syria is shut off; I just hope it is,” he said. > > US Secretary of State Colin Powell sought to defuse tensions over Syria, but the aggressive US approach has increased tensions in neighbouring Arab countries. > > The six Gulf Arab states, many of which are US allies, rejected the allegations at a meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, yesterday. [http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~1331992,00.html](http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87~11268~1331992,00.html) > [@](#): > > “We are in a regional struggle and it is impossible to win the war on terrorism so long as the regimes in Syria and Iran remain in power,” Michael Ledeen, a neoconservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, wrote earlier this week. “The good news is that both are vulnerable to political attack.” > > Even so, most leading neoconservatives argue that the United States cannot rule out the use of force if Iran and Syria don’t reform, and critics argue that such views will eventually produce a drumbeat for more wars in the region. > > “The logic of their position suggests there will come a time where military force becomes the means to achieve the end they seek because as you threaten regimes – and we are certainly threatening the Syrians – the credibility of that threat depends on your willingness to fulfill it,” said Ivo Daalder, a national security aide under President Clinton. > > Hawks The neoconservatives are a loose, but distinctive, network of hawkish foreign policy thinkers active in Republican circles. Those outside the administration tend to cluster at the American Enterprise Institute, the Weekly Standard, a magazine edited by GOP strategist Bill Kristol, and the Project for a New American Century, another think tank Kristol organized in 1997. > > Neoconservatives with top jobs inside the administration include Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy Defense secretary; John R. Bolton, undersecretary of State; Lewis Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney; and Elliot Abrams and Zalmay Khalilzad, who have key responsibilities for Middle East policy at the National Security Council. As always, make up you own minds on this. But it doesn’t look like the first story was far from the truth as far as I can tell. ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/6 "2003-04-17T16:02:04Z")
I can’t get my head around how he is so popular in the States(I have yet to meet **one** non-American who doesn’t hate the fucker) It’s obviously a lot more than a common language that separates us 😉 ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/7 "2003-04-17T16:02:29Z")
Oh boy, this whole dealing with other countries thing is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better. ---
**Author:** ![skankweirdall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c6cbf5/32.png) [@skankweirdall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/skankweirdall)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/8 "2003-04-17T16:02:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elf6c \* > \*\ ***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 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. ---
**Author:** ![Kal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Kal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kal)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/9 "2003-04-17T16:11:55Z")
I have conclusive proof that Icke was right all along: [A tortoise](http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2002/01-31-rumsfeld.jpg) [Rumsfeld](http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/resources/species/images/tortoise.jpg) :eek: ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/10 "2003-04-17T16:19:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by skankweirdall \* > \*\*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: > [@](#): > > That’s just one of the ways the media plant’s ideas into someones head. 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. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Arden\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b487fb/32.png) [@Arden\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arden_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/11 "2003-04-17T16:24:18Z")
I don’t think Donnieever got a checkmark on his reportcard for “Plays Well With Others.” ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/12 "2003-04-17T16:26:39Z")
Shit, I better break out my tinfoil hat for this one. ---
**Author:** ![skankweirdall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c6cbf5/32.png) [@skankweirdall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/skankweirdall)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/13 "2003-04-17T16:29:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elf6c \* > \*\*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. > > :dubious: \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/14 "2003-04-17T16:50:08Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Mullinator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c2a13f/32.png) [@Mullinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mullinator)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/15 "2003-04-17T17:02:35Z")
I don’t particularly have a problem with this, because: > [@](#): > > In the past few weeks, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, ordered contingency plans for a war on Syria to be reviewed following the fall of Baghdad. > [@](#): > > were asked to put together a briefing paper on the case for war against Syria, outlining its role in supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein, its links with Middle East terrorist groups and its allegedly advanced chemical weapons programme. 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. ---
**Author:** ![skankweirdall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c6cbf5/32.png) [@skankweirdall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/skankweirdall)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/16 "2003-04-17T17:07:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elf6c \* > \*\*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. \*\* Look at this again; snip \*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. ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/17 "2003-04-17T17:31:27Z")
Actually this was the “thrust” of my OP: > [@](#): > > In the past few weeks, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, ordered contingency plans for a war on Syria to be reviewed following the fall of Baghdad. > > Meanwhile, his undersecretary for policy, Doug Feith, and William Luti, the head of the Pentagon’s office of special plans, were asked to put together a briefing paper on the case for war against Syria, outlining its role in supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein, its links with Middle East terrorist groups and its allegedly advanced chemical weapons programme. Mr Feith and Mr Luti were both instrumental in persuading the White House to go to war in Iraq. As my first sentence was: > [@](#): > > If true- Rumsfeld really needs to go, as do these moron “advisers”. 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. ---
**Author:** ![skankweirdall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c6cbf5/32.png) [@skankweirdall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/skankweirdall)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/18 "2003-04-17T17:56:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elf6c \* > \*\*Actually this was the “thrust” of my OP: > > As my first sentence was: > > 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. \*\* I must have misunderstood this then I guess. quote: _Originally posted by elf6c_ \*\* 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”\*\* ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2003, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/19 "2003-04-18T00:15:56Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![Astroboy14](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/df705f/32.png) [@Astroboy14](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astroboy14)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2003, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331/20 "2003-04-18T02:39:45Z")
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? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-on-syria-is-rumsfeld-nuts/169331.md?page=2)