Rumsfeld reaches out to Democrats...

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
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
 

CharlestonChad

Baller Deluxe
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,845
Reaction score
126
Points
48
Location
Charleston, SC
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?
 
OP
Stephanie

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
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?
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:
 

CharlestonChad

Baller Deluxe
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,845
Reaction score
126
Points
48
Location
Charleston, SC
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:
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.
 
OP
Stephanie

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
=CharlestonChad;473789]
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.
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:







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 under attack 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 consistent, we should not be wasting time in an area (Iraq) that will not effect our safety in America.

Huh....What.....Are you even sure I just ask you about this?????:rolleyes:
 

Abbey Normal

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
4,825
Reaction score
393
Points
48
Location
Mid-Atlantic region
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.
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:
 

nt250

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
72
Points
48
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.
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.


Dems hate how we were lied to, by Rumsfeld and Bush, so that we would agree to go into Iraq.
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...





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.
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.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
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.
Try having an idependant thought for once.
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.
 

Mr.Conley

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
115
Points
48
Location
New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
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.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
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.


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
 

CharlestonChad

Baller Deluxe
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,845
Reaction score
126
Points
48
Location
Charleston, SC
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
Do you work for FOX news? If not, someone should let them know that such an in depth and knowledgeable political commentator is on the loose.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
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.

Pure CRAP, in caps.


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.
Nobody was lied to except apparently you libs. If Saddam wasn't a threat, how come I spent more than one Christmas babysitting his ass instead of with my family?

This Monday morning QB-ing is unacceptable. You libs, and most of the rest of the world believed Saddam was a threat to any-and-everyone. The biggest mistake of the invasion was taking so long to build up forces and telegraph our intentions Saddam had enough time to move the Russian nuclear aresenal in and out of Iraq several times.

You libs just jump on a bunch of after-the-fact evidence and start pointing fingers, and making accusations for no more reason that political hackery.

I truly hope at some point that the realization comes that no one that counts is listening.
 
A

archangel

Guest
It appears as if Donalds writers have borrowed from Michael Savage...he has been on the warpath about comparing this issue to WWII...Having said that I have no real issues with Donald except his not listening and acting on the advice of his field Generals...and as for the vote of 'no confidence' presented by Boxer,Pelosi and Harry Reid...I say this I am no fan of Harry and the word on the street in Nevada is... he is on his last term...unknown to him and his alter ego...so I suggest a vote of 'no confidence' by the California voters be issued for the two queens of Drama...Boxer and Pelosi...cause' in Nevada Harry is not getting another vote of confidence!
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Do you work for FOX news? If not, someone should let them know that such an in depth and knowledgeable political commentator is on the loose.


After the London bombing plot was foiled, President Bush ruffled the feathers of the liberal media when he said, "This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."

President Bush called the terrorists what they are, and it is about time we start terrorist profiling. So far all those arrested in the London plot were 17 to 35 male Muslims.

Then why are TSA officials still pulling 80-year-old grandmothers, U.S. Congressmen and senators out of lines at airports?

The terrorists are very smart, and as long as the U.S. tries to fight a PC war, we look weak and stupid.

It is also interesting to know the methods the British used to capture the terrorists in London are the same methods the liberals are opposing here -- wiretaps, listening devices in the terrorists' homes, staking out mosques and inspecting bank records. Now a Carter-appointed judge has ruled the terrorists have a Constitutional right to plot their attacks in private.

Also, now the liberal media are questioning what interrogation methods were used to obtain the vital information to stop the slaughter of thousands of people over the ocean.

The Democratic Party leaders were giddy over the decision that struck down a vital component in fighting terrorists, despite the fact the decision was based on the personal beliefs of the judge and not the law.

It seems the liberals want to follow Marquees of Queensbury rules and try to score cheap political points before an election.

In November, Americans will go to the polls and decide who they want to control Congress. Ask yourself, "Who would Al-Qaida vote for?" "Do your want Nancy Pelosi third in line for president?" "Do you want Dems to start impeachment proceedings instead of combating Al-Qaida?

I am confident OBL would be happy to send a check to the DNC
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top