Welcome to PatsFans.com

MSNBC: Audio of Rumsfeld on Iraq creates buzz

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by weswelker#83, May 14, 2008.

  1. weswelker#83

    weswelker#83 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,540
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    Why does MSNBC hate AMERICA ?



    MSNBC: Audio of Rumsfeld on Iraq creates buzz
    Audio of luncheon with media military analysts posted on Newsvine
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24629509/


    WAIT what !!!? , this isn't Huffington , it is MSNBC , hmmmm msnbc must be a terrorist news service like Huffington .
    Last edited: May 14, 2008
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,624
    Likes Received:
    214
    Ratings:
    +507 / 13 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Well MSNBC is at least as Left as Fox News is Right. And, let's face it, there's a lot of Americans who have difficulty fully comprehending meanings.
  3. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Rumsfeld suggests that the American public lacked the "maturity" to understand that the nation remained under threat from terrorists and that the only "correction" would be another attack on the U.S.

    Yes, of course, flight instructor, Nixon-disciple, chicken hawk guy... We lack the "maturity" to understand.

    So let's advocate a new attack over tea with the very bloodhounds we'll be sending out to the various media outlets with our massaged message.

    Anyhow, there's nothing to see here. It's all a "lie," and you just don't understand the "context."

    :rolleyes:
    Last edited: May 15, 2008
  4. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Well, I understand you can read it either way, though you have to admit the more likely explanation of his words is that people have become lax about security because there hasn't been another attack, rather than actually advocating another attack.
  5. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,548
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -0

    depends on what your agenda is when you read it. I agree with your position though, most normal people would, even if you think Rumfield is a dope (and I do).
  6. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Really? How how have we become 'lax,' exactly? By voting Democrats into office in '06? Or do you just mean we're 'lax' because we've all become skeptical as one lie after another has been revealed? Is that your definition of lax? Dissent is 'lax?'

    That's excellent.
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,830
    Likes Received:
    106
    Ratings:
    +227 / 8 / -13

    I would urgew all to listen to the entire talk, it sounds like it occured after the 2006 eection a going away brundh for rummy. Lots of interesting stugg there. The buzz is from clueless libs who will try to spin the quote totally out of context. the whole session is worth a listen. It raised my opinion of rummy.
  8. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    No no, not at all, I didn't mean it with respect to voting Dems in or anything like that (though now going back and reading it I can see how you might have thought that's what I was talking about). All I meant was that since it has (thankfully) been so long since 9/11 people have become inured to all the talk about national security and homeland defense. Citizens have become lax in that their focus is on other issues that in my opinion are not as important as security. I would say that I do think that lawmakers have become lax as well because they're talking about undoing the measures that were taken after 9/11, like the Patriot act, use of FISA courts etc. (And I understand that this is MY opinion here, I know many people see those things as unnecessary intrusions on our civil liberties and that's a valid viewpoint) My feeling is though that reversing what has worked (how well we can't really be sure I suppose) is a dangerous thing to do. Both lawmakers and citizens continue to ignore other huge problems with our security that aren't as controversial as say a preemptive foreign policy, like better security at our ports and rails, and better border monitoring. Anyway, should have been more specific in my previous post, but again I'm definitely not equating voting Dems into office with being lax. Same goes for questioning intelligence info from an administration that has certainly earned the lack of trust.
  9. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I'm with you on Rummy, not a big fan, but you're right, even though he's done a lot of damage to our military and world standing I still think of him as a guy that at the end of the day wants the best for our country. I can't see a guy who's devoted his life to public service rooting for another attack that kills innocent Americans, and that does affect how I interpret what he said.
  10. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You know, it gets a little tiresome, this song of yours. Rumsfeld may well have been wrong about Iraq--but "chicken hawk guy"? Come one...this from wikipedia:
    Yeah...Chickenhawk. One way or another he was in the military for 30 plus years.
  11. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,548
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -0

    The kicker for the story (and the part ignored by most libs), comes right in the first sentance of the quote, which has been selectively left off most smear attempts.

    This is patented Rumsfield. He's start off shilling for his boy George, and then goes into the quoted material. He trying to sell success with his whole answer, and to be honest, actually does make a good point.

    As time has gone on without getting attacked (which rummy puts on George, rightly so for the most part), the country as a whole has slipped back into its gin and tonic induced haze and isn't nearly as vigilant as we have been. An attack, would no doubt snap everybody back to sobriety as to our vulnerable condition. I think he used the term correction, because he honestly laments that this has occurred and that the chances for attack actually go way up as a result, not down as it does in times of extra vigilance.

    Either way, unless your have a dishonest agenda, it's tough to spin that into "Rummy call's and hopes for another attack". But that's what we've become politically in this country DISHONEST.
  12. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    What's tiresome is you playing dark to my light, just for the sake of complaining.

    The man never saw combat. When he ignores his generals and sends fighting men to die with inadequate equipment in a conflict based on lies, I have a real problem with that.

    Chickenhawk.
  13. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Republicans love to claim victory, regardless of whether the coin comes up heads (no attacks), or tails (an attack, justifying their policy). This post above is a perfect example, pointing to the absense of an attack as "proof" of Boy King's agenda to "keep us safe," but also suggesting a future attack would 'legitimize' their fear card and suspension of liberties. The truth is, there has been no concrete proof that an attack was planned inside the U.S. and stopped -- neither in the 7 years after 9/11, nor before 9/11. Meanwhile, a mountain of evidence exists that suggests that during the one successful attack, our handlers were made aware that it was imminent, and that they did nothing to thwart it. Even so far as to stall and delay NORAD from responding.

    And yet they, and their worshippers, suggest we're the ones being "dishonest." :rolleyes:
    Last edited: May 15, 2008
  14. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    So...who were we supposed to go to war with just so these guys could get combat experience?

    Dark to your light? Oh my god...the drama...I can see you, sitting at your computer, one hand to your forehead, typing away...you're the dark to my light, you're the sun to my moon, the eagle to my hawk, the cry to my laugh...oh my god.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>