Rumsfeld Makes Surprise Visit to Iraq
 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...O&SECTION=HOME

oh boy...mr man is trying to make himself good by spending his christmas with the troops. MAybe he brought them some re-enforcements like armor and strategy to get out.

A quote: '"When it looks bleak, when one worries about how it's going to come out, when one reads and hears the naysayers and the doubters who say it can't be done, and that we're in a quagmire here," one should recall that there have been such doubters "throughout every conflict in the history of the world," he said.'

Yes but how many of those conflicts could have been prevented by not going there and telling the american public and there troops the truth about what is really happening. OIL my boy...when times look bleak just think of how many men from texas are so rich and white and run america!!!!

What are your thoughts on this story?

merry x-mas to all!!!

peace!!!
mrb

My thoughts are good for him and also

Hummers weren't designed to have the armor in the first place. So I'm glad they are getting to it when they can.

I think his was an attack on rumsfeld.

But yeah it's EASY to complain about how OBVIOUS it was to put armor on humvees, and how EASY to forget the fact that they were never drawn up to have them.

Good for the SECDEF to spend x-mas with the troops.

PR and spin... that is all it is. The administration's way of trying to prove they care... one photo op at a time. As far as I am concerned, this is too little, too late.

/in best Barney voice
Yep, better give up. Nothing will ever help. Moe, pour me another!
/end

Sure, it's politics. He is the Secretary of Defense. It's a very visible position and will always be somewhere between function and appearance. I don't know if the trip was planned earlier or not (holiday troop visits are often done as a surprise) but regardless it's a positive gesture.

and gesture is all it is.

You can choose to see it as a gesture if you like. It wasn't for you, it was for the troops in Iraq. He's the Secretary of Defense, he owes it to them to be there. I'm sure they were all glad to see him, I know I would be if my SECDEF was spending his Christmas with me in Iraq instead of being safely at home. Fortunately I don't have to wonder what that's like, and neither do any of you.

-Mikey

Damned if we went, damned if he didn't. Can't please some people.

And the flip side is that you can please some people no matter what.


The hypocrisy of this is amazing. A casual read through this thread:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=79069

shows the administrations supporters saying things like "i'd rather have him doing other things besides signing letters". In this thread, of course, those same people are saying "good for him!".


You may want it both ways, but you shouldn't be allowed to have it. Either both (xmas/letter writing) is politics, or it's sincere. If it's politics, he doesn't see huge opportunity when it's in front of him (letter writing/signing), and shame on him for not being that bright. If it's sincere, then shame on him for not writing/signing letters.


To say one is ok and one isn't seems partisen and silly. Does the moon stop spinning if you critique someone you support? God help anyone that can't see the flaws in the people they support...

Put simply, there is a contingent of knee jerk support for anything. That's just silly.

Wonder if there were any more question / answer sessions? j/k

I do feel that this is probably damage control, but whatever his reason I am glad that he is over there. It is pretty discouraging when you are over in a shit hole (based only on the current situation) like Iraq over the Holidays, knowing that the men and women that sent you there are enjoying a white Christmas and a little family time around a tree in nice and cool D.C.

Hmm I'm not getting your point. Doesn't the "Good for him" work because he's doing something more then signing letters, which I believe Seavers is pointing out?

I really don't like the man....or most of his policies. But, I am quite pleased that he is putting in the effort to bolster the troops, who are in a very unfortunate situation. I am willing to accept these visits as what they seem on the surface, a morale booster , and a sign to our soldiers that the government is there for them. Should the time come when this is shown as a political move, and nothing more......I will then, and only then.....take back the little remaining respect I have for Rummy.

two qoutes that seem to go well with how this thread and most others go on this board

"Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."

"Men with the muckrake are often indispensable to the well-being of society, but only if they know when to stop raking the muck." "An epidemic in indiscriminate assault upon character does not good, but very great harm." "There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful."

Fuzy, those are good. Can you provide acknowledgements?

OR you can see it like I do, in which he has a chance to talk directly to the officers and senior npc's on the ground, to get a better feel for it.

I'm a very practical man, I would rather have him in Iraq (even if it's only a gesture) if it meant a moral boost than him signing every single letter. Soldiers think about death every day of their lives while in combat, I would rather have them think "wow it's cool that Rumsfeld visited us for x-mas instead of being home with his family" rather than "I sure hope he signs MY deathnote." I dont know, maybe that's just me.

Rumsfeld is magic.

Look how he travels to Iraq to stage his glorious fawning over the troops, providing photo after photo of cheering soldiers. He is a brave man who guides with vision.

Do not look how he is the tip of the iceberg of incompetence that is the foundation of this entire administration. The Iraqi's will greet us with flowers. You go to war with the army you have not with the army your wished you had.

Look closely at my right hand as my left reaches into your back pocket and steals your wallet.

I think that this works if you see a trip as having value, and signing letters has no value. If I understand Seaver's later post, that may be what he thinks.


I disagree. It's not a binary system. Things have greater and lessor values than each other. And those same things are in different places on the 'scale' to different people.


For me, a gesture to the family that lost someone has more value than a trip. I respect those that feel it's the other way around.


One of my points is that a professional in that role should understand that both are important, because different people see things differently.

Because that doesn't seem to be the case, it's not a stretch to see it all as show/politics. Or to draw the conclusion that he's not doing the caliber of job he should be. That seems to me to be the binary choice here.

Lol I guess it takes a liberal to actually do the stealing ^^

I'm just poking fun Manx

those were both quotes from Theodore Roosevelt

But I do know what it is like, I spent 20 years in the navy and several christmas's away from home. I knew a gesture then when I saw one and I still do. He did not visit the troops as much as do damage control for homeland consumption.

I want to know when Michael Moore is going to Iraq. I mean he pretends to care and speak for the soliders, so when is he actually goint to go and meet them face to face?

Michael Moore is an asshole. that is not the point. The only reason for rumfeld's trip is PR and spin... "Yes....see how much I care....by the way your tour has been extended....Merry Christmas...." See how much your government cares...

what about his latest slip of the lips when said on that trip about the plane being shot down in pennsylvania on 9/11.

while i confess to fidning something surreal enough to vaguely amuse in the attempts to rope michael moore into this thread, the premise of it is pretty obvious. yes, rumsfeld went to iraq for pr purposes. yes it was pr directed both at the people whose misfortune it is to be in harms way on account of this absurd, illegal debacle and at the audience "at home," particularly those naive enough to not see any pr motives in this photo op...which probably coincides with an audience which gets most of its information from tv....which in turn concides with almost the entire population that supports this war....this particular pr stunt is relatively benign. you would expect any administration that launched an illegal and unnecessary "pre-emptive" colonial war to do the same.

PR stunt yes, benign, not really... our troops are dying in order to mantain this dog and pony show.

Why do you say "illegal" and "colonial". I assume you have evidence to support those claims.

the first term should be obvious--you might not agree with the steps of the interpretation, but that it is a legitimate reading of bushwar is not in doubt (think unsc)...

on the term colonial: this is more polemical---the "importing" of "democracy" at the end of a gun barrel by imperial powers who legitimate themselves with racist, patronizing assumptions about the nature of the people receiving the "gift" of american-style politics. again, not an other-than accurate description of bushwar in its present, sorry state.

robespierre already understood what the bush folk are unlikely to ever figure out:

http://counterpunch.org/robespierre07302004.html

I hate to ruin your fun, but going against the UN is not illegal or breaking any law. The United States, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council can veto anything the UN general assembly decides in the first place. In short, the US is not oblidged to do shit because the UN says so. If we want to invade anyone, there isn't jack-squat the UN can do about it anyway. Maybe you don't think thats right, but its not breaking any law.

my my, what a lovely sentiment.
right in line with the terribly macho line of this administration.
i am sure that yours is the only interpretation out there of the american's behaviour before the unsc.
i am sure that none others are possible.
i am sure that kofi annan was simply wrong, that the rest of the security council was wrong, and that you are correct.
glad we straightened that out.

and to all of you people ragging on Bush for going against the UN to invade Iraq, you seem to forget that Clinton went against the UN during the Kosovo crisis, but some odd reason, nobody harps on him about that....

Funny that you bring that up considering Kofi and other members of the UN were being bribed by Saddam...

try introducing some serious information, rather than the usual run of rightwing slander of annan in particular and the un in general, and maybe we could have a serious discussion. but the above is hardly worth comment.

Ironically, what you said earlier was run of the mill left wing slander about the Bush administration. As for having a serious discussion, if you would stop typing half-hearted attempts at flame-baiting (such as calling the Iraq War "illegal" and saying that it's a "colonial" war as well), I'd love to have a serious discussion with you.

actually, bodyhammer, it wasnt "left-wing slander" of the administration's conduct before the unsc, its contempt for international law in this particular case, and more generally. it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation based on a more expanded pool of information than supporters of the war are generally able to use when presenting their arguments. as for the discussion underway in this thread, if you prefer take out the terms that you find annoying in my post and the argument stands unchanged. thing is, in this case, that rumsfeld went to iraq for an extended photo op does not concern me particularly. it does not decrease the already minimal level of respect i have for this administration. anyone, from any administration, doing a parallel thing, would have been doing it for a photo op as well. i would think that the bush folk need more photo ops than most, however, given the nature of this absurd war in iraq. but any administration would do the same. it is only surprising (and this but a little) that supporters of the administration tried to argue that the visit was other than a publicity move.

Monitoring
 

I am still waiting for proof to back up claims of "illegal "and "colonialism". Those are harsh words, and so far, without any support.

illegal i dealt with above.
colonial was polemical.
see # 28. #35 was an attempt to pull into another kind of discussion, but i find my interest in this particular topic to be flagging (no offense, johnbua, its just that the question at the outset of the thread does not offer me much to work with)

either we alter the topic/conversation or defer until another occaision, when perhaps more animation is to be had?