Rumsfeld reaches out to Democrats...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Stephanie, Sep 4, 2006.

  1. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    But of course, nooooo is their answer...There's just no reasoning with these people...Rumsfeld didn't once refer to the DEMOCRATS in his speech, yet they run right out and accuse him of it, because the think they can score political points with it..... This type of behavior by the Democrats, is not endearing them with the voters, IMO.....

    Associated Press | September 02, 2006
    WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reached out to Democrats late Friday, opening up the door for them to retract their stinging indictment of him as Pentagon chief.

    In a letter to Congress's top Democrats, Rumsfeld said recent remarks he made during a speech in Salt Lake City were misrepresented by the media, including by the Associated Press. Rumsfeld said he was "concerned" by the reaction of Democrats, many of whom called for his resignation and said he was treading on dangerous territory.

    "I know you agree that with America under attack and U.S. troops in the field, our national debate on this should be constructive," Rumsfeld wrote Friday.

    During his speech before thousands of veterans Tuesday, Rumsfeld said the world faces "a new type of fascism" and warned against repeating the pre-World War II mistake of appeasement. He alluded to critics of the Bush administration's war policies in terms associated with the failure to stop Nazism in the 1930s, "a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the Western democracies."

    Without explicitly citing Bush critics at home or abroad
    , he said "it is apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons." Aides to Rumsfeld said later he was not accusing the administration's critics of trying to appease the terrorists but was cautioning against a repeat of errors made in earlier eras.

    "Thought and careful preparation went into what I said," Rumsfeld wrote in the letter. "It is absolutely essential for us to look at lessons of history in this critical moment in the war on terror." I was honored by the reception my statements received from our veterans.

    Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff said Rumsfeld's letter "reaffirms his Salt Lake City speech and it suggests lawmakers who have criticized his remarks move beyond politics and read it for what it is." Ruff said the "speech raises important questions about how America and free societies are going to confront the 21st Century terrorists who are serious, lethal and relentless."

    Democrats said Friday they stood by their remarks.

    "We did read the speech and he makes comparisons to World War II" that are unjustified, said Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. "He needs to explain that. We stand behind what we said."

    Pelosi, D-Calif., had said: "If Mr. Rumsfeld is so concerned with comparisons to World War II, he should explain why our troops have now been fighting in Iraq longer than it took our forces to defeat the Nazis in Europe."

    "It's always been clear what Secretary Rumsfeld said," said Rebecca Kirszner, a spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "What's not clear is that he has a strategy in Iraq and to keep America safe. This letter doesn't change that."

    Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., also "stands by his earlier comments," said spokeswoman Regan Lachapelle. "No one has misread history more than Secretary Rumsfeld, especially when it comes to Iraq."

    Senate Democrats were expected to meet Wednesday to discuss several issues, including whether they will try to force a vote of no confidence on Rumsfeld. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has vowed to push legislation next week calling for Rumsfeld to resign.

    "Nothing can change the fact that Secretary Rumsfeld insulted the patriotism of the American people, and he needs to be held accountable for it," Boxer said Friday.

    :lame2:
    http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,112262,00.html
     
  2. CharlestonChad
    Offline

    CharlestonChad Baller Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,845
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +128
    Giving your opinion before the article is posted is a great tactic. Well done
    Stephy.




    Relating to the article: If America is under attack (which is a valid statement), then why the hell are we wasting troops and $$$ in Iraq?
     
  3. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    Giving my opinion before the post has always been the way I've posted...You can look that up and see...I do that because I've already read the article...Not sure I get your drift there......

    And I didn't get your second half of the post....The article was talking about Rumsfeld and the Democrats....:huh:
     
  4. CharlestonChad
    Offline

    CharlestonChad Baller Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,845
    Thanks Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +128
    I know that's always the way you post. It lets the reader develop a bias based on your opinion of the article before they read it. The reader will naturally look for the elements of the article that agree with your opinion. It's good psychological tactics to do that when you want someone to agree with your side of the debate.


    Dems hate how we were lied to, by Rumsfeld and Bush, so that we would agree to go into Iraq. Rumsfeld said that America is underattack and we should not sit back and let the war come to us, which is a valid statement, yet we sent our resources and American soldiers into Iraq, which was not a threat to us as we now know. If Rumsfeld wants to stay consistant, we should not be wasting time in an area (Iraq) that will not effect our safety in America.
     
  5. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    =CharlestonChad;473789]
    Wow......I'm so glad everyone on this board, had no idea that I was using a psychological brainwashing of sorts on them...
    No one before this, in 2 1/2 yrs I've been a member here, ever had a problem understanding, that it was my opinion posted above the article.
    They never had a problem reading the article for themselves, and then replying to my opinion above it....

    Until you came along and pointed it out.
    Damn it..
    I was getting away with it all this time.....
    You have to admit.
    I'm a genius........
    :tng:








    Huh....What.....Are you even sure I just ask you about this?????:rolleyes:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Abbey Normal
    Offline

    Abbey Normal Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    4,825
    Thanks Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic region
    Ratings:
    +391
    This is a message board, Chad, not a news site. If you don't want people's opinions about news they are posting, you are simply in the wrong place. And where anyone 'places' those opinions is their prerogative. :rolleyes:
     
  7. nt250
    Offline

    nt250 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,013
    Thanks Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +72
    Do you Democrats and liberals all go to the same meetings or something? You all sure as hell post like you do. Try having an idependant thought for once. Try responding to what some actually posts instead of responding to who posted it and the way they post. You can take this tactic back to the next meeting. It might catch on.


    Who lied to you? I just love this "they lied to us" argument because it shows there are two possibilites that cover those who make them: 1) they are incredibly uninformed. 2) they are stupid.

    ANYBODY who read the news in mid 2002, right up until the invasion, would have to be an absolute moron to NOT know the Bush administration was hell bent on invading Iraq and nothing was going to stop them. Right up until that last ultimatum (you DO remember that one, don't you? The one where Bush told Saddam he had to leave his own country?) it was very clear that the invasion of Iraq was a foregone conclusion. For anybody to turn around after the fact and claim they were "lied" to makes them dumber than bricks.

    But we are talking Democrats here, so...





    I agree that Iraq was a mistake. Bush wanted to invade Iraq because he wanted to show the world that he was a better man than his father.

    But it's a done deal. And if you had watched Rumsfeld's speech you would know that the media's reaction to it was totally bogus, as it almost always is when it comes to anything a Republican says or does.

    But to you, it isn't. You like your news with the right spin. Er, I mean the left spin.
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    How about ANY thought--ANY plan --ANYTHING of any substance that is viable enough for sane public debate. They either don't have one or if they actually told people what the real agenda was, the exposure would kill them.
     
  9. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    I've said it before and I'll say it again: fire Rumsfeld. He's the right man for the wrong job. He'd serve better at DARPA or on another Force Transformation Committee.
     
  10. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572


    Libs will not join the war on terror -they are to busy fighting their war on Bush.

    The oNLY thing libs care about is getting their political power back, and national secuirty be damed
     

Share This Page