Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rummy's gone mad: "How Would Terrorists Explain Failures to al Qaeda?"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:29 PM
Original message
Rummy's gone mad: "How Would Terrorists Explain Failures to al Qaeda?"

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2005/20050930_2897.h...

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30, 2005 Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld pointed to this week's open congressional hearings involving the two top generals in Iraq as an opportunity for the world to watch democracy in action. Had the tides been turned, he said, terrorists would have had some "awkward" explanations to make.

...

The secretary hailed the open forum as an opportunity to demonstrate the democratic process, but wondered aloud how the hearings might have gone if it had been al Qaeda leaders questioning the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"If they were called to account for the state of their strategy, consider what might have been asked of them," Rumsfeld said. He proposed several lines of questioning, including:


- Why did they fail to stop millions of Afghans and Iraqis from voting in free elections?

- Why had Iraqi Sunnis, natural allies of the insurgents, decided, "albeit belatedly, to energetically embrace the political process, registering (to vote) in large numbers?"

- Why had the terrorists failed to prevent nearly 200,000 Iraqis and 75,000 Afghans from joining their countries' security forces despite efforts to prevent them from doing so?

- And why had the vast majority of Afghans and Iraqis "rejected the terrorists' twisted ideology" to support efforts to build new societies?

Rumsfeld acknowledged that line of questioning "could be awkward," because "by every one of those measurements, the enemy is losing."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lcordero2 Donating Member (832 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. he is living in a fantasy world
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. considering Bush won't let him quit, seems like he doesn't give a shit....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qibing Zero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. So they can relate to the terrorists but not the underprivileged?
Wait, this is a 'duh' situation, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KurtNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. Trying to spin Iraq into a "success" story
producing some pretty twisted logic it seems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. If all the administration had to pack rifles and walk the streets in Iraq.
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 03:41 PM by BlueJac
We wouldn't be there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. Answers for idiot Rummy the Dummy
Take notes you lurking Freeptards!

- Why did they fail to stop millions of Afghans and Iraqis from voting in free elections?

A -They knew that the election process would be slightly less rigged than American elections...so why bother?


- Why had Iraqi Sunnis, natural allies of the insurgents, decided, "albeit belatedly, to energetically embrace the political process, registering (to vote) in large numbers?"

A -Because Sunnis and insurgents are the same thing.

- Why had the terrorists failed to prevent nearly 200,000 Iraqis and 75,000 Afghans from joining their countries' security forces despite efforts to prevent them from doing so?

A -A report just came out from an American general that states the Iraqis are losing ground on being able to 'police themselves'...so once again why bother?

- And why had the vast majority of Afghans and Iraqis "rejected the terrorists' twisted ideology" to support efforts to build new societies?

A -This is a total bullshit question, so it doesn't require a real answer. Iraqis and Afghanis AND insurgents AND the terrorists are one and the same people, so live with it Rummy you fucking idiot! You caused it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
7. Rummy thinks he's amusing.
He's wrong. He stopped being amusing when people started dying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neweurope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
8. It's insulting. But we just think they're dumb, swallowing the insult.
"an opportunity for the world to watch democracy in action"

Why, please tell me: WHY does your - in it's own words: great - nation always compare itself to the underprivileged nations of the wold? Why does it NEVER compare itself to France, Germany, Canada, Belgium, The Netherlands... it's along list, actually...?

Of course I understand that Rumsfeld & Co. don't mean US, the Western world. They don't even mean Sudan and Iraq. They only mean US-Americans. All of this is purely meant for the US population. Because they DO trumpet it all over the world though it's insulting. It insults our intelligence.


---------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
9. But, please, don't ask Rummy any tough questions like that
it would just make for an akward situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimshoes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
10. Well Don,
1. The elections mean just about squat in either place if noone obeys the law. If I recall, most folks didn't even know who they voted for.
2. Just their way of saying "fuck you", deal with us.
3. Stand in line ...get free weaponry, leave. They seem to have one ready batallion. What's that 1200 men?
4. They decided on Sharia law. That isn't exactly western style democracy.
If we left there tomorrow, would they still remember you? (Apologies to Ronnie Van Zant)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2014, 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC