Grilled Rumsfeld Anyone?

Rarely in recent years has Washington seen so dramatic a clash between the legislative and executive branches as was witnessed Thursday, when U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, D-Masschusetts, went after Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on the question of whether the Pentagon chief should resign for mismanaging the war in Iraq.

"This war has been consistently and grossly mismanaged. And we are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire. Our troops are dying. And there really is no end in sight," Kennedy said, as the Secretary of Defense sat opposite him during an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Arguing that "the American people, I believe, deserve leadership worthy of the sacrifices that our fighting forces have made, and they deserve the real facts," Kennedy told Rumsfeld, "I regret to say that I don't believe that you have provided either."

Rumsfeld was clearly shocked by the aggressiveness of the senator's comments.

"Well, that is quite a statement," huffed the Secretary of Defense, who pointedly told Kennedy, "The suggestion by you that people -- me or others -- are painting a rosy picture is false."

But the Massachusetts senator, who has been one of the most ardent Congressional critics of the war, wasn't buying the secretary's line. Nor was Kennedy cutting Rumsfeld any more slack.

"In baseball, it's three strikes you're out," Kennedy told Rumsfeld. "Isn't it time for you to resign?"

Rumsfeld, who was evidently shaken by the question, paused briefly before saying, "Senator, I've offered my resignation to the president twice."

President Bush rejected Rumsfeld's offers, which came at the height of the scandal over the abuse of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The Secretary of Defense told the committee he would defer to the president on the question of when he should step down. "That's his call," Rumseld said of Bush.

The intensity of Kennedy's questioning illustrated a shift that has begun to take place in Congress in recent weeks, as more and more Democrats, and a growing number of Republicans, have begun to bluntly challenge the administration's inflated claims about the "success" of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

In fact, even Rumsfeld distanced himself from Vice President Dick Cheney's absurd assertion that the insurgency in Iraq is in its "last throes."

After General John Abizaid, the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, told members of the committee that he believed "more foreign fighters (are) coming into Iraq than there were six months ago," Rumsfeld was asked whether it sounded to him like the insurgency has entered the "last throes" stage.

Noting that he had not uttered the "last throes" line, an obviously exasperated Rumsfeld said of Cheney's choice of words: "I didn't use them, and I might not use them."

Perhaps Kennedy should have asked Rumsfeld if Cheney ought to resign.

Alternatively, the Wisconsin Democratic Party, at its state's convention earlier this month, passed a resolution that would seem to cover all the bases.

The delegates called for immediate steps to be taken to impeach Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush.

Comments (51)

1. An interesting question is after Bush,Cheney and Rumsfeld leave office and travel to foreign countries will they face the threat of being arrested as war criminals.

   Posted by ldiamond at 06/23/2005 @ 10:50pm

2. Honestly I was surprised Rummsfeld didn't just walk over and punch Teddy in his fat face. What a vile excuse for a human being let alone a US Senator that wanker is. Most of the time I can at least allow someone the right to their opinion and it's airing. But Teddy was just rude and forced the three uniformed officers flanking Rummy to exhibit self control Teddy hadn't in not throttling him. He had no point other than Rummy bad, he make me angry. But absolutely no clue as to how to make things better.

   Cordially,

   Uncle J

   Military Matters [madison.com]

   Posted by Uncle Jimbo at 06/23/2005 @ 11:03pm

3. Thank you Mr. Nichols. I noted the Senator's comments myself in watching the testimony earlier today and posted a quick note [dailykos.com] on Daily Kos. I am now going to link to this article on my blog because you have put it most eloquently. As for "Uncle J"s comments on the Senator, I just have to shake my head. The Secretary has done a horrible job, going on six years now, and has repeatedly been caught in lies. How can you support a man who would not refute Cheney's comments that we are in "the last throes" after sitting next to General John Abizaid, the ranking officer in the Persian Gulf, as he stated that if anything, the insurgency is getting stronger [news.yahoo.com].

   Posted by galexkeene at 06/23/2005 @ 11:19pm

4. As I've often said, I served in Vietnam during the "last throes" of America's failed military intervention in that country. I know the "last throes" when I see them. Perhaps people have misunderstood Vice President Cheney's remarks. If he really meant to characterize America's failed military intervention in Iraq, and not the so-called and ever-evolving "insurgency," then his apt choice of words actually does ring true.

   No?

   Posted by mrmurry at 06/24/2005 @ 12:56am

5. http://aliberaldose.blogspot.com/

   Posted by Eric A. Smith at 06/24/2005 @ 02:36am

6. Uncle Jimbo's comments perfectly illustrate the militarist/right-wing mentality: when the facts do not support your small-minded opinions, simply sling a little mud on your opponents. Deriding the Senator for saying what the majority of Americans know is true, is childish. Immediately assuming that a resort to violence is the best course of action reveals much about Uncle J. "Most of the time I can at least allow someone the right to their opinion..." I guess the rest of the time Uncle J just punches them in the mouth.

   Posted by McGuire57 at 06/24/2005 @ 07:17am

7. To Uncle J: Rumsfeld has caused the deaths of many by his mismanagement. He wanted to do Iraq on the cheap, with minimal troops. His experiment has failed. Who should resign if not him? This Iraq misadventure will go down in military history as one of the greatest follies ever. The decision to disband Iraq's army was a huge mistake. Rumsfeld is responsible for that. If this was England, he would be gone. They have more integrity in their public officials who resign when they blunder. And this Iraq invasion-occupation is a huge blunder. It is being paid for with much blood and money.

   Posted by philbq at 06/24/2005 @ 07:29am

8. First, there was no 'huffing". Second, Kennedy looked dazed in confused after his 1-2 punch didn't knock Rumsfield down and then he was the one who took it on the chin and looked dazed and confused after Rumsfield said he tried to resign twice and then the General said he wanted to be put on record that the Senator must have not listened to the presentation. He was flat out stunned! There have certainly been trying times over there. Here is a good comparison that I would like you all to think about: Gitmo and Abu Grab to WACO. You all seem to be experts on the first two, so why don;t we talk about WACO. We invaded a religious compound, but first we cut of the water, food supplies and power. That sounds very similar doesn;t it? What about playing music all night long to keep everyone up and cause sleep deperavation? Sound familiar? What is not the same is that WACO had women and children inside. Children of all ages under the age of 18. We never heard one beep out of the "great" Senator from Mass on this, did we? But because there was a Dem in office, it was OK to invade and kill AMERICAN Citizens while Bin Ladden and the real terrorist organization were waging war on us throughout the Clinton Administration. While we are at it, it took another invasion to take on one man at Ruby Ridge? But end up killing two innocent people? WAKE UP!!! I am far from a gun carrying member, but it seems that the Dem Party is more interested in bringing down Americans who have the right to not think like liberals and to carry a gun. I want to see the investigation reopen on Kennedy when he drove his car off the road and the woman that was in the car drowned...he didn;t help because he was so drunk he left her there. To kick it off, he ended up going to breakfast instead. Teddy talks about water torture...what about that water torture Teddy...Talk about injustic. But I guess that is the law for the liberals here in America.

   Posted by Dcall at 06/24/2005 @ 08:54am

9. I think MRMURRAY is on to something. Maybe we are in the last throes after all. It is a matter of perspective.

   Posted by hollowr at 06/24/2005 @ 09:29am

10. Uncle Jimbo/DCALL - Thank you for proving, yet again, that those enamored with the fundamentalist right wing zealots will say and do almost anything to promote the agenda and ridicule the opposition. Jim, you're neanderthal responses to most situations is typical of the neocons whose answer to most problems is not to analyze and then act but just to act and lie after the fact. It also show's the tendency of radical fundamentalist right wing advocates to smear those who disagree instead of engaging them reasonable debate (maybe because your argument isn't reasonable?). And as for DCALL, thank you for exposing the absolute lack of originality and lock-step mentality of the fundamentalist right wing advocates. Funny, wasn't the Waco connection the main talking point for most of the fundamentalist right wing propaganda spin machine just the other day? Not only is the comparison offensive, it is completely irrelevant and specious. Last time I checked, the Federal government gave the inhabitants of the Waco compound several chances to comply with the rule of law (which used to be the Republican war cry until it conflicted with their agenda) and come out peacefully. It was only as a last result that the FBI stormed the compound to rescue the inhabitants. For your comparison to hold water, we must assume that the prisoners of Gitmo have been offered alternatives that comply with the rule of law (Geneva Conventions anyone?). If you're responses weren't so offensive and dangerous, they'd be downright funny in their own way.

    Posted by Turk33 at 06/24/2005 @ 10:28am

11. Why don't the senators ask Rumsfeld for all the plans the administration created before the war? My feeling is that they would show that the administration planned to occupy Iraq and split up all the oil there all along. All accounts, including the general orginally put in charge of Iraq and Richard Clarke, have said this. Common sense dictates that they have plans. How about the senators telling the administration to make those public so all America can see what they were planning before they started this quagmire of a war. If they refuse or cannot produce plans, the senators should hold Rumsfeld in contempt of congress and put the crimial in jail.

    Posted by ajcreer at 06/24/2005 @ 10:35am

12. Senator Kennedy simply had the courage to say what many Americans are thinking. However, Bush will not let Rumsfeld resign because that is an admission of the failure of this debacle.

    EFK

    Posted by edkhouri at 06/24/2005 @ 11:47am

13. Turk...Why did the FBI need to storm into the Compound? Why did they need tanks? Face it, it was stated in the 9/11 report that Bin Ladden declared war against the US in 1996. Stop trying to make excuses for imcompetence. Did I ever say I agreed with the War? I was just making a comparison. You just made my point by your self righteous response. "Lock step" Dude, it happened...Clinton said it was a grave mistake! But you seem to somehow be justifying it. I have friends that were in the seals at the time...they had Bin Ladden 3 or 4 times...Clinton would not pull the trigger. That is what I am upset about. It is excuse after excuse...It is like looking back at WWII when Winston Churchill warned the allies about Hilter...the reponse...don;t worry about it, we have him in check...10 years later and 15 million dead by either war or gas chambers, all we can say is oops? This is about learning from history and not making the same mistakes over and over again. Our CIA was gutted in the 90s and our FBI was too worried about WACO and Ruby Ridge instead of finding the people who want to kill americans by the millions...

    AJ, they did have plans from Bush Sr...but he listened to the World and UN, so those war plans were drafted 12 years prior. How come you all are not as passionate about the Oil for Food Scandal...Bush is oil, he knows where the oil is going...think about it people~

    Posted by Dcall at 06/24/2005 @ 12:10pm

14. Don't knock Bin Laden because he woke most of you up. Without Bin Laden's act (if someone sitting in a cave can do it), most of you would not have known what kind of country you were living in. Without Bin Laden exposing Amerika to the world, you would not have known of America's history (26 nations invaded over the last 60 years), the world would not have known the truth, that democracy is simply a wayside motel on the way to corporate fascism. Yes, it is terrible that 3000 people in the WTC died but they did not die in vain. They helped expose America and Americans to the whole world. They involuntarily teemed up with Bin Laden to expose the truth.

    I voted for Bush and I will again (soon as the constitution is changed to allow him a third term) because it is about time the world learned of the true America that it is seeing today instead of the bull that is being passed on for decades. Bush is just helping America come out of the closet.

    Posted by ahmedz at 06/24/2005 @ 12:28pm

15. thank you DCALL for responding to the emotionally charged, analytically challenged liberals like the Nations commentators and readers. I want to add that I watched that drunken, lecherous, murdering poor excuse for a human much less a US Senator Kennedy (and yes he is all those things, so it is not slinging mud)as he made his statement and farcical question of Secretary Rumsfeld; Secretary Rumsfeld was not in any way "shaken" by the question, but firmly and patiently (in my opinion)gave a dignified response to that idiotic question. It was just another attempt by Kennedy to show his disdain for the attributes of courage and conviction; something his brothers had but he obviously lacks.

    Posted by love liberty at 06/24/2005 @ 1:07pm

16. It's about time more people start talking about impeachment. Let Bush go down in history as one of the most disliked and disgraced presidents (with his cohort, Nixon).

    Posted by Daniel Rubin at 06/24/2005 @ 1:44pm

17. The Waco and Ruby Ridge incidents were absolute fiascos. There is no doubt about that. I do not see how those actions can be defended as the best way to handle the situation. The Clinton administration was by no means a shining beacon of hope and righteousness for this country. What is tiring is to hear comparisons between one crooked administration to another. Lets focus for now on what is leading this country to ruin. Namely the Bush administration and his disastrous environmental, foreign and domestic policies. Sen. Kennedy did the absolutely right thing by grilling Rumsfeld, and every single senator and congressman in DC, democrat and republican. And yes, Kennedy should have been grilling the Clinton administration, about their horrible decisions back in the day, as well. This is not a case of democrat vs. republican. This is a case of what is right and what is wrong. An illegal, horrific and immoral invasion of a sovereign nation. Look at all the spineless Dems and Reps that signed off on the Iraq war when they knew very well the fix was in. Any intelligent person that can follow world events and the news could tell the fix was in from day one. The American people that understand the truth about the corruptness on both the dem and rep side, need to realize that what is needed in DC is a truly alternative party to stand against these corporate whores, warmongers and power hungry sycophants that have hijacked this great country. Impeachment proceedings for the Bush administration is long overdue. I have not been so dissapointed in so many Americans than I have been in over the last 3-4 years. Dissent is Patriotic, even if that means speaking out against your parties platform and leaders. Think for yourself. Vote independently, regardless of party affiliation. Impeach Bush and do your part in running all career politicians out of office. Its time for the American people to put their foot down and demand that our employees (the US government) work for us and not for Halliburton, Shell, Exxon, trial lawyers, etc, etc. Thanks for letting me vent!!

    Posted by CLLSLP at 06/24/2005 @ 2:16pm

18. Kennedy vs Rumsfeld

    "In baseball, it's three strikes you're out," Kennedy told Rumsfeld. "Isn't it time for you to resign?"

    Senator Kennedy's brother, President Kennedy, conducted the Bay of Pigs debacle. He sought Fidel Castro's death with one foolish stratagem after another, not least exploding cigars. He instigated the assassination of Iraq's General Kassem, which eventually brought the Baath to power. He had Ngo Dinh Diem killed, precipitating America's disastrous Vietnam commitment. He inspired Khrushchev to venture the Cuban missile crisis and bring the world to the edge of Armageddon. He notoriously shared a mistress with a Chicago mafioso. Still, no one ever asked for JFK's resignation.

    Yet this Teddy, JFK's little brother, has the temerity to tell Donald Rumsfeld, three strikes and you're out.

    For what?

    For taking Afghanistan, a Taliban terror bastion, and with a handful of troops, setting it within weeks, on to the road of becoming a friendly and democratic country.

    For defeating Iraq's army and ending Saddam's tyranny, not at the predicted cost of tens of thousands of black body bags, the oil fields erupting in flames, a million refugees, a world financial meltdown, the Middle East tumbling into riot and mayhem.

    Instead it was done in less than three weeks, the loss of 121 men, with the commitment of just 150,000 troops. The US demonstrated that she can quickly, with small forces, put a lid on any number of boisterous police states. She chastened a world of rambunctious and ambitious little tyrannies. She made clear that WMD are not monkeyed with, with impunity.

    NOW America is warding off a terrorist insurgency while the Iraqi democracy struggles out of diapers and grows the muscle to defend itself.

    At this point Chappaquiddick Teddy, who never held a real job in his life, who has no accomplishment other than having been born a Kennedy, pokes his finger at Rumsfeld and says, three strikes and you're out.

    Iraq is not a slam dunk, but it is not a quagmire or a Vietnam. Those who tear out their hair over 1700 dead in over 2 years of fighting never said a word in the 1990s when NY city had over 2,000 dead in its streets per year.

    War is not a spectator sport. On one single day in June 1944 9,000 allied casualties turned the tide at Normandy pink. That winter US forces were overrun in the Battle of the Bulge and suffered 30,000 dead and missing, 47,139 wounded, plus 23,500 prisoners. Three months later Hitler killed himself and Germany surrendered.

    Should Washington senators, and NY ideologues that winter called WWII a quagmire and demanded a pull out?

    Why do they now? Are the ex Baathists and Islamists driving exploding cars into crowds of people any less fascist and fanatic and anti-progressive than were the Nazis? Why this positive hunger to have the insurgents prevail? What would be the consequences for Iraq, the Middle East and us. How would America have viewed tacit 1944/45 supporters of a Nazi victory in Germany and Europe?

    Why do heavy thinker like Kennedy and the Nation's editor's desire an American debacle in Iraq, yet grow moist eyed at the memory of JFK?

    Because Bush is inarticulate and gauche and President Kennedy was elegant and charming? What sort of froth flecked, beef witted, popinjay are you?

    Posted by nacl at 06/24/2005 @ 3:03pm

19. This is what I'm so dissapointed in. So short-sighted, mis-guided and misinformed.

    NACL wrote: For defeating Iraq's army and ending Saddam's tyranny, not at the predicted cost of tens of thousands of black body bags, the oil fields erupting in flames, a million refugees, a world financial meltdown, the Middle East tumbling into riot and mayhem.

    Have you not been paying attention? Are you serious? Have you been watching FOX news exclusively? 22,000 dead Iraqi civilians 1,734 dead US military 89 dead UK military 99 others dead from various countries (of the so-called coalition) >12,896 wounded US military approximately 245 contractors dead. (employees of Blackwater Security Consultants, Edinburgh Risk Inc, KBR (subsidiary of Halliburton), Global Risk Strategies, etc, etc) approximately 44 journalists dead (that we know of) All for the cost of protecting the US against WMD (which of course never existed) Body bags sure look like their piling up! Or don't you count body bags of non-military human beings?

    Oil fields erupting in flames? Too many times to list here. Please refer to this link: http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm

    hundreds of thousands of displaced Iraqis now living in refuge camps throughout the country, especially the hard hit town of Falluja. Growing each day, as long as the US wreaks more havoc from one offensive to the next.

    US Debt is currently at $7,773,570,880,558.82. Any questions, or do we need a crash course in ECON 101? Do I need to state the obvious lack of confidence worldwide in the US ability to sustain their economy for much longer, the loss in foreign investment, debt to other nations (yes the almighty US owes billions upon billions to other countries).

    As for the Middle East tumbling into riot and mayhem. Wow, you must have been living on another planet for the last 100 years. US military operations are already being conducted in Syria and Iran. Just a matter of time. Just a matter of time.

    Obviously there are many people like this that are oblivious to reality. To these individuals that are so proud of what the Bush administration has done in Iraq and continues to do, I would highly suggest signing up with the armed services, so they can take part in what they deem a worthy military action. If we could convince these people to walk the talk, maybe the armed forces could meet their recruitment quotas and we could avoid an inevitable draft. Yes, I can hear many of you laughing now, but I had almost my entire office laughing at me when I told them the intel was being cooked to invade Iraq.

    Posted by CLLSLP at 06/24/2005 @ 4:17pm

20. Your absolutely correct Zero. Many people post here just to stoke the fire. And it does work on me from time to time. I just relish the opportunity to tear apart everything they say.

    Peace

    Posted by CLLSLP at 06/24/2005 @ 4:23pm

21. Yeah, I know what you're saying. I'm new here and have just registered, so I'll hold back since you all probably know what I'm talking about more than I do.

    As far as WWII, goes, it was a large scale invasion of the French coast, and we were in an actual war. Every "war" since WWII has been a "police action"...Congress has never declared war even once. The whole pace of life changes when a country is actually at war, as opposed to this Iraq spiel. I think we could have easily dominated Iraq and set up things much quicker if we actually sent in a larger force than we did. Refer to the Powell Doctrine, which seemed to have worked perfectly in Dester Storm:

    1) Overwhelming support of the People before taking action 2) Use overwhelming force to achieve objective as quickly as possible 3) Clear exit strategy

    Forgive me if I missed any finer details, and feel free to correct me as this is mostly a gloss-over. Think about those three little things...Nevermind the fact that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the War on Terror. If we're going after secular "terrorists" now, why aren't we going after the Sudanese government while they "terrorize" their population. More importantly (although unrelated to the current war), why didn't we get stop Turkey from committing the first genocide of the 20th century or give back the thousands of square miles snatched from the Armenians? Why do we still not tell the Turks to recognize a genocide they have been denying for almost a century, while the Jewish Holocaust gets loads and loads of praise (not to diminish the severity of that event)?

    It simply makes good political sense not do. We might lose our Turkey bases if we don't keep the Saudis and Turks happy. :)

    And what does Hitler killing himself have to do with anything? Are 1000s of guerillas suddenly going to kill themselves? I forget who stated this during Vietnam (McNamara????), but he said to fight guerillas you need a 10:1 ratio to the enemy.

    I'm quite happy Sadaam is gone, but at the same time this whole operation was a complete blunder and going from WMD to suddenly "freeing" Iraq is ludicrous flip-flop of the Administration (Wait, isn't that Kerry's trademark?) They needed to be freed but the US has most definitely screwed up multiple times and didn't plan well at ALL. Of course, speak out, and expect to find the FBI wiretapping all your comm equipment and "visiting" your house :) I love conservatives and would definitely vote for a conservative, but I hate blind followers of Bush because he's republican and so everything he says is good...How does the GOP go from "state's rights" to being "Lets expand the FCC and increase all our government's powers!"...beats me.

    Someone said in reponse to an earlier blog that all this crap popping up is much worse than Watergate...I'd agree.

    My two cents.

    Posted by Trogdor at 06/24/2005 @ 4:28pm

22. Here [iags.org]'s another interesting thing regarding Iraq and Saudi Arabia's oil monopoly...

    Posted by Trogdor at 06/24/2005 @ 4:50pm

23. Turk 33 is so right about Jimbo.

    Fact is - Ted Kennedy has the integrity to put Rumsfeld in the headlights like some deer with no place to go. Remember Ken Starr wanted to quit going after Clinton but the Neocons and Republican inner circle just won't let it go. They want Revenge for Nixon, they want blood - everything they say about Democrats they are guilty of. What is incredible is that 37 per cent of the country is stuck in a George Romero film. Can you imagine 20 years from now people looking at tapes of Bush stumbling and fumbling with his unique thought process and seeing that 37% actually followed the pied piper? What we really want to know is how the Neocons stole those votes that belonged to Gore and Kerry? There are a LOT of Republicans who simply refused to vote because Bush is just such a bad "president" and hideous human being. Who would you rather have for a daughter? Chelsea or Jenna/Babs?

    Swift Boat Veterans for Bush had the media, but Michael Moore actually sold tickets and people got up and applauded. Which says to me the majority don't want Bush, he was shoved down our throats. Wake up America - 1984/Brave New World is here, with a nitwit at the helm. God Help Us.

    Posted by insanious at 06/24/2005 @ 8:29pm

24. This is not directed to anyone in particular, but rather an expansion on the reasoning expressed by some that I would like clarified. If military might is the answer to the problem of terrorism and waging war in Iraq, et al., is the key to success, then why are we tiptoeing through the tulips? Why not just nuke the bastards and be done with it? We've dipped so far down in world opinion that trying to maintain an aura of moral superiority or champions of human rights is a joke. What have we got to lose?

    Also, I would like to know how anyone could win against the candidate favored by the elite in this country. Bush is a moron, Cheney is a corporate greed machine, and the rest in D.C. Republicans and Democrats) are all feeding off of the carnage created by these lunatics. But, the elite have the ultimate tool in their control; the media. With the various channels pumping out the prescribed hype day after day, poll after poll, and a lack of access to the real information to form an objective opinion, we are left with a very controlled "free" society.

    The saddest part is that even if the majority of the people were smart enough to realize it, they have no way to communicate it to each other without being ridiculed on national T.V. by the "experts," harangued as traitors by the "true patriots" like the SBVFT on every news channel, and finally forced into the relative silence of blogs like this.

    Maybe Bush really did lose the election, but how could one prove it? Who would even push the question due to all of the "unbiased" polls that were done prior to, during, and after the election? Ah, but what if all those polls were not for real? What if they were all part of a rehearsed and well-planned scheme to fool and pacify the public? A public that is comfortable with compliance and equates patriotism with acceptance of the elitest groupthink. Woe to those who backlash against or, God forgive, form a credible challenge to the idea of globalization. One might find oneself screaming an amplified warhoop caught on a directional microphone and made to look like an idiot on every media channel of the world.

    Soylent Green anyone?

    Regards,

    Alias

    Posted by Alias at 06/24/2005 @ 10:15pm

25. The senator from Ill. should not have apologized for attempting to bring some sense of sanity to the situation brought about by this terrible junta in power in Washington. Perhaps comparing the prisoners at Gitmo and in Iraq and Afghanistan with prisoners in concentration camps in Nazi Germany and in Stalin`s Russia was strong lanquage, but how else can you try to explain the atrocities commited since the beginning of the illegal war in Iraq.

    Posted by sabat at 06/24/2005 @ 10:25pm

26. Ted Kennedy may not be the perfect standard-bearer for the opponents of the Bush administration's policies and/or personnel. The past has arguably laid him low for a majority of the American Public. However, none of us are measured entirely by our worst moment- including some notable members of our current Executive branch of government, whose past indiscretions are possibly overwhelmed by hemmorhages of hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives. My point is this: The Senior Senator from Massachussets' weakness in appearance may be his strength in fact. Does he need to fear re-election? What mistake can he make greater than failing to engage the members of the Bush administration in a debate on the facts about what we are doing as a country? I wish Tip O'Neill could have seen Ted Kennedy questioning Donald Rumsfeld- but I would also liked to have seen Rummy explain to Teddy why George W kept him on and passed on the opportunity to clean the slate, accept responsibility for some of the excesses of our foray into nation-building to that point, and re-invigorate our troops and populace with a new directive and Director. It smacks of fatalism and a lack of ability to re-evalute our methods of changing the Iraqi regime. Apparently there are no new ideas, even if no one at the table seems willing or able to let go of the old ones.

    Posted by hennui at 06/25/2005 @ 12:10am

27. Well now, it seems that the dignified and intelligent pages of the Nation has been invaded by rightwing zombie braindead loudmouths spouting their Waco conspiracies. I wonder if "Love Liberty" is a chickenhawk like Cheney-four deferments but full of bellicose wartalk when others are doing the fighting and dying. All you cheerleaders of this war, I say to you : ENLIST!

    Posted by philbq at 06/25/2005 @ 02:09am

28. INSANIOUS

    Ted Kennedy has the integrity to put Rumsfeld in the headlights like some deer with no place to go.

    You think Kennedy is showing integrity in grilling Rumsfeld? Isn't he simply pushing his political line, and trying to embarrass an archenemy?

    Kennedy's gist was that Rumsfeld has been continually wrong, that the US has failed in Iraq, that we are now in a quagmire, that the Defense Secretary should resign and the US should withdraw.

    You may agree with that, but where is the integrity?

    We are presently protecting a fledgling democracy against a murderous anti-democratic insurgency - until it is strong enough to defend itself.

    Kennedy wants to give up and let Iraq, only recently freed from the Baath be returned to mass murdering fascists. He is saying, let Zarqawi and his friends win, let them have the 8 million Iraqis who voted for a democratic govt. That is honorable, eh? That is integrity from a United States senator responsible for defending the interests of America?

    That is not just insanious, but inanious, insidious and asininious.

    Posted by nacl at 06/25/2005 @ 06:30am

29. American servicemen and servicewomen continue to die daily in unacceptable numbers for two reasons: (a) President George W. Bush sent them to Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place, and (b) Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld sent too few of them and sent them too ill-equipped and poorly trained to do the job. Having served in Vietnam, I always felt -- and many military experts shared my view -- that America never did have sufficient military and political capability for occupying and pacifying a hostile Arab country once we had destroyed its physical infrastructure and overthrown its governing political order. Saddam Hussein required all the instruments of political and economic control as well as an Army of 500,000 or more native-Muslim, Arabic-speaking soldier/policemen to forcibly keep the mutually hostile Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd popultions united as one "country." America never even came close to having that capability.

    So, given that the "mission" (pick whatever combination of shifting rationales you want) never had the necessary capabilities behind it in the first place, it should come as no surprise that things have only gotten worse -- for America and Iraq -- the longer America's insufficient and inadequately trained military maintains its incompetent occupation of Iraq. An Arabic-speaking Army three times the size of the one we've now got deployed in Iraq might have a chance of "succeeding" for a time, but America doesn't have such an Army. Continuing to insist, nonetheless, that our inadequate Army can somehow do a job that it can't reasonably do risks destroying our Army, a process already well underway. Vietnam almost destroyed the American Army, as well, and for precisely the same reasons. An Army can't do what an Army can't do.

    As well, the Bush administration sold the war in Iraq as a cost-free, or extremely low-cost, operation. The assumptions underlying this fantasy have now exploded in America's face, and real costs have begun to rapidly accumulate. What the hell happened?

    With Iraq now fractured and Iranian influence spreading throughout the southern Shiite majority, some part of Iraq appears destined to join up with George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" -- a completely perverse consequence of destroying a secular Baathist regime that hated and opposed the radical Islamic fundamentalism now in firm control of Iran. Frankly, I can not see why American troops should die so that the theocratic "democracy" in Shiite Iran can expand to incorporate the theocratic "democracy" of Shiite Iraq. I mean, lots of Iraqis and Iranians recently "voted" for Islamic theocracy, right? Shouldn't that "voting" business earn them the right to have it? Apparently Shiites like theocracy and will vote for it if given the chance. America loses and Iran wins "big time" here, and all thanks to "democracy." What the hell happened?

    The Kurds like Americans just fine and want Americans to protect them from Turkey and the Arabs, both Sunni and Shiite -- all while the Kurds ethnically cleanse Turkmen, Arabs, and any other non-Kurd minorities that stand between them and their dream of an independent "Kurdestan." Oh, yes, and thank you, America, for Kirkuk and its oil fields, too. They should pay for "Kurdestan" and all its requirements for some time to come. So, stick around America. Just keep those Turks, Sunnis, and Shiites off our backs, will you?

    What the hell happened?

    I think that Senator Kennedy and an increasing number of Congressmen and Senators want an answer to that question. They've heard President Bush's now-debunked threats and warnings. They've heard Secretary Rumsfeld's blithe dismissal of any experts who disputed his pollyanna theories of a "transformational" military that clearly never had the capability required to transform fantasy into reality. Something bad and totally unexpected has happened and the people now running for re-election have to answer the question: "What the hell happened?" They have a right to ask. They have an obligation to stop accepting bureaucratic bullshit instead of hard and fast answers. If any of this hurts Donald Rumfeld's tender feelings, then too damn bad. He can always resign if he really finds the heat just too intense. The men and women that he's sent to death and maiming, though, have found their world a lot hotter and definitely more deadly because of Rumsfeld's demonstrated incompetence. The troops deserve better and if they don't get it soon, Rumsfeld and his ditzy boss will get it -- and they've certainly got it coming.

    Posted by mrmurry at 06/25/2005 @ 08:48am

30. Fuck Turkey.

    :)

    Posted by Trogdor at 06/25/2005 @ 1:07pm

31. CLLSLP

    I just relish the opportunity to tear apart everything they say.

    That I'm sure is true. But don't confuse you scratching and spitting with an effective argument.

    Our casualties, compared to all past wars are tiny. And so are incidents of mismanagement, misspending and misbehavior.

    The unforeseen is the nature of war. Everything that can go wrong will. The expression SNAFU, Situation Normal, All Fucked Up, was coined by US soldiers. Compared to all our other wars, with their accumulations of endless disasters, this war has been flawless. Sixty years ago we had incidents when our heavy bombers dropped their payloads smack on our own infantry, twice on successive days. There were single days when we suffered twice the total number of dead we have now incurred in over two years of fighting. Those losses for the families affected, are of course tremendous, but for the nation as such, with a population double what it was sixty years ago, those casualties are not burdensome.

    Moreover, it is lunatic to hold America responsible for the murderous behavior of the enemy toward Iraqi civilians. It is commonly agreed that the Baath's killings, even during peace, was staggering. Iraqis are today suffering less than under Saddam in peacetime. They are still exhuming the corpses from 300 mass graves.

    And you speak of me being, "oblivious to reality." The USA is protecting a fledgling democracy against a murderous anti-democratic insurgency - which you want to win. You and your friends are hoping for the triumph of fascists and suicidal fanatics. That is what you amount to.

    That is the reality, and it won't be forgotten.

    Posted by nacl at 06/25/2005 @ 2:20pm

32. Hmmm...let's see....Rumsfeld. How this guy still has a job is beyond my comprehension. This jackass isn't fit to be town dog-catcher. As Secretary of Defense, you'd think the main component of his job description would be that he's the one responsible for national defense. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the United States suffer the biggest failure of national defense and security in it's history under his watch ? If he had any honor at all, he would have "fallen on his sword", or thrown himself off the tallest building in the country that was still standing, no later than Sept. 12, 2001. As far as I know, not ONE SINGLE PERSON has been fired or relieved of command after the 9/11 fiasco. How is this possible ? Hell, a bunch of these incompetent hacks have been given promotions ! The first word that comes to mind is: disgraceful. And this is all BEFORE they made a total mess of Iraq, for which they probably should all be jailed for violations of International law and war crimes--or at least lined up and pummelled by the surving soldiers and the families of the killed and wounded. Say what you want about Ted Kennedy, but at least his testicles have finally dropped and he seems to be one of the few Democrats finally asking some hard questions.

    Johnny Gotham

    Posted by Johnny Gotham at 06/25/2005 @ 4:42pm

33. Oops. Addendum: "surving soldiers" should have read as "surviving soldiers". Even so, the "surviving" soldiers might not survive long, due to the use of depleted uranium munitions. I wonder how many of our brave fighting men (and women now) realize that they are subject to radiation exposure from some of the very bullets that they are firing ? The hypocrisy of this criminal Bush administration knows no bounds, as the bogus reason for war was "weapons of mass destruction", as we litter Iraq with irradiated weapons of mass destruction...

    I know I shouldn't even respond to NACL, but I feel the irresistable urge to point a few things out: 1) comparisons between casualties in WWII and anything to do with Bush/Cheney's imperialistic foray into Iraq is ridiculous. 2) No decent person on earth would hope for "the triumph of fascists and suicidal fanatics", and your accusations to those on this board are inflammatory and out of line. More and more Americans actually see the hard-line right wingers as a perfect example of fascism on the march and they will have to gain their "triumph" over my dead patriotic body. Clear thinking Americans who value the truth also see a good example of a "murderous anti-democratic insurgency" right in the midst of the neo-fascist Republican party, thanks to anti-American scumbags like Karl Rove and Katherine Harris (and many more. i'll keep the names coming if you like...) So perhaps we should address our own problems before we go trying to "help" other countries with theirs.

    Posted by Johnny Gotham at 06/25/2005 @ 9:33pm

34. JOHNNY GOTHAM

    More and more Americans actually see the hard-line right wingers as a perfect example of fascism on the march . . . neo-fascist Republican party, anti-American scumbags

    You hurl the word, fascist as an aspersion at those whose politics you don't like. But fascism has a concrete meaning. It identifies ideologues who oppose democracy, who are intolerant of other people's ideas and religion, and who don't believe in the right of free speech. They are unashamedly reactionary and proudly fanatic. Their MO is to intimidate with unbridled force. And they are anti-Semites.

    People like that drive the insurgency in Iraq today, people like al Zarqawi; he is a fascist.

    The informed consensus is sure, the Iraqi govt is yet too weak to defend itself. If you are aware of that yet, nevertheless insist, the US troops leave, then you want Zarqawi to prevail. Then you are on the side of fascists: yes you. There is no way around that.

    Try to develop an "irresistible urge" for a little honesty, some common sense, and for some straight information about depleted uranium.

    Posted by nacl at 06/26/2005 @ 04:10am

35. Some rightwingnuts like NASL occasionally show the ability to put a few coherent sentences together. I do welcome a discussion that is civil, without always questioning someones loyalty because they oppose this war/occupation. But who appointed the U.S. as ruler of the world? As in Vietnam, how long should the U.S. stay to prop up a government that cannot support itself? How much blood shed? How many billions spent when our own government is deeply in the red? Old Man Bush was smart enough to avoid this quagmire. That's why he didn't go to Baghdad in 1991. I think this is an artificial nation that will never stand. The British created Iraq to exploit the oil. The Sunni,Shiite, and Kurdish people will never get along. I say start withdrawal now. Rightwingers, give me an intelligent response if you are capable.

    Posted by philbq at 06/26/2005 @ 07:59am

36. Fascism: any system of extreme right wing or authoritarian views. A system that attacks college professors that hold views contrary to the ruling party. A system that passes into law bills that allow and encourage the disintegration of personal liberties, ie., library searches, search and siezure with no reason or explanation needed or provided. A system that locks up "dissenters","traitors", and "war criminals" indefinately with no legal counsel and with no charges levied against the said party. A system that fears religous tolerance and targets religous groups that differ from the ruling class. A system that passes laws that go against the acts of freedom and free speech, ie., the flag burning ammendment. A system that has absolute control over the media(not there yet,but getting close). Among other things, this is what defines a Fascist state.

    Welcome to America.

    Posted by question! at 06/26/2005 @ 3:41pm

37. Its time these warmongers are called to answer for their murderous actions. Please just ignore the reich-wingers on here. They just get their "facts" from their propaganda stars. They are incapable of real debate anyway.

    I agree with the description of facism posted here. All criticism is always regarded as a threat. There is no facist and or Right Wing movement that can survive without a threat. Bush needed Iraq to create that threat. I grew up in a facist country and thank God their strangle hold is gone. Of course they were oh so religious and pious. The self appointed righteous right wing.

    Posted by FandB at 06/26/2005 @ 4:10pm

38. Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Rice, President Bush, former Secretary Powell have a lot to answer for for the Iraq War. Senator Kennedy's question about resignation was on point. The problem is, that Senator Kennedy and many others (including Senator Kerry) have no credibility with this issue. There were no major protests from the democrats at the Iraq War. Only Governor Dean and Congressman Kucinich (sp?) had the courage to call this adventure what it was. Now, when the time is right, the democrats come out of the woodwork to beat up the administration. This seems very convenient and well-timed for the run-ups to the 2006 elections. The current administration has continually lied or at least obfuscated the facts getting us into the war. Of that there is very litle doubt. The Downing Street memo seems to verify this was an end game strategy of the president all along. So, the Bush administration is without credibility as to the reasons for the war. No one should be allowed to sacrifice US soldiers for a lie. That being said, the democrats are no better than accomplices in this disaster. To simply sit on their hands and allow the administration to go forward and even support going forward is almost criminal in my opinion. A pox on both their houses.

    Posted by dms0627 at 06/26/2005 @ 5:44pm

39. NACL - My God, do you realize you just described the administration under Bush perfectly? According to you, the definition of fascism is: It identifies ideologues who oppose democracy, who are intolerant of other people's ideas and religion, and who don't believe in the right of free speech. They are unashamedly reactionary and proudly fanatic. Their MO is to intimidate with unbridled force. And they are anti-Semites. Except for the anti-Semite part (which I've never heard anybody include in a definition of fascism) is exactly what the administration is all about. Democracy: Bush, for all his patriotic rhetoric, seems to be deadset against democracy - "town hall" meetings that keep anybody with a dissenting view at least a mile away; reduction of personal liberties; questionable (to say the least) election results; lies to the American people and Congress. Intolerant of others' ideas and/or religions (are you kidding?): "If you're not with us, you're against us"; a refusal to even admit that those with differing viewpoints might actually have valid evidence to support their claims; the systematic vilification of any person, group or nation that dares to question or contradict the Bush doctrine (Freedom fries anyone?); the trampling of liberties of anyone whose culture or lifestyle doesn't conform to evangelical Christianity (anti-gay, anti-Muslem, anti-Democrat...ad nauseum); and your own argument - The informed consensus is sure, the Iraqi govt is yet too weak to defend itself. If you are aware of that yet, nevertheless insist, the US troops leave, then you want Zarqawi to prevail. Then you are on the side of fascists: yes you - nothing intolerant (or factual) about that statement. Right of free speech (now I know you're just f***ing with us) - since when has Bush ever allowed dissenting opinions to be treated as anything other than anti-American, tree-hugging, liberal rhetoric (and if some our leaders slip, and it definitely happens , we can admit it but you can't seem to). Reactionary and fanatic: do you know what reactionary even means? It means to radically return a country or culture to the past, which is precisely what Bush seems intent on doing. And fanatic (Merriam Webster defines it as " marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion" and gives as synonyms "zealot" and "extreme" for the noun and adjective respectively) seems to perfectly describe the admistration's actions to remake government, and America itself, in the way they think it should be, ignoring the past, the public, or the rule of law whenever it is convenient to do so (nuclear option, Terri Schiavo legislation, destruction of Social Security... I don't know, sounds fanatical to me).

    Try to develop an "irresistible urge" for a little honesty, some common sense, and for some straight information about depleted uranium. Please take your own advice, and try to influence the rest of your ilk to do the same. It would be a refreshing change of pace. Oh, by the way, the Merriam Webster definition of fascism is: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." Sounds like the campaign rhetoric for Bush/Cheney 2004. C'mon NACL, it's time to get right with yourself, stop defending the real fascists (based on your definition), and show your true love for America by demanding more from your political leaders (Republicans and Democrats).

    Posted by Turk33 at 06/26/2005 @ 9:25pm

40. Senator Kennedy had every right to chasten Donald Rumsfeld. He has failed us, miserably!

    Rumsfeld's plan of a small ground force to take Iraq has left both our troops and the Iraqi people less secure. Let us not forget that this is the same Rumsfeld who drove General Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff out of office for correctly predicting that the operation in Iraq would require more than the handful of units Rumsfeld and his staff were willing to send. As a result, there was rampant looting throughout the country, including the huge weapons caches at Al Qaqaa .What was Rumsfeld response? "Stuff happens." Sadly enough, these are the same exact weapons the insurgency is using today to kill and maim our troops and innocent people of Iraq. We went into Iraq without enough ground forces, and now I'm afraid "we've bought the pottery." It's that simple!

    And then we had Rummy telling us this: "We will win in Afghanistan and Iraq, but not without "a long, hard slog." Perhaps there are some who have forgotten about the Oct. 16, 2003 Rumsfeld memo? It was a bleak assessment of the accomplishments in Iraq.

    And then in November 2003 on Meet the Press we had Rummy the prevaricator telling us this: "It is true, we have terrific young men and women being killed and wounded today, as we did yesterday, and your heart goes out to their families and to their loved ones. But what they're doing is important. What they're doing is taking the battle to the terrorists. There are foreign terrorists coming in to Iraq. That's true. We know that." Hence, not enough ground forces!

    The American people are fed up with Rumsfeld's feckless fantasies of Iraq. Instead of him telling us "it will be a long, hard slog" why didn't he just come out and tell us the truth? That our troops will leave Iraq only when the last barrel of oil has been extracted!

    And now this morning on Meet the Press, Rumsfeld told Tim Russert: "The media is only reporting on the bad news coming out of Iraq." Hello! Earth to Donald! Time to take off those Rose Colored Glasses!

    How's that Bushism go? "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

    Posted by Munich at 06/26/2005 @ 10:14pm

41. DMS0627

    The current administration has continually lied or at least obfuscated the facts getting us into the war. Of that there is very litle doubt.

    This has been the most public, most openly debated, most closely examined war in US history.

    September 11 was the point event of a whole series of challenges to the US. At the heart of those snapping at America's heels, claiming the US was a paper tiger, suggesting the US could be outflanked, was Saddam. The Iraqi police state was the most persistent, most dangerous and most contumacious in that crowd of hyenas. Moreover, all security services, including those of Russia and France, were convinced Iraq had WMD. That this proved erroneous did not turn the admdinistration into liars. It meant they ejected a brutal tyranny on a reasonable suspicion, which proved false.

    The Downing Street memo seems to verify this was an end game strategy of the president all along. So, the Bush administration is without credibility as to the reasons for the war.

    The only thing the Downing Street minutes prove is that the Cabinet believed the facts and intelligence about Iraqi WMD and discussed them with concern.

    ... the democrats are no better than accomplices in this disaster. To simply sit on their hands and allow the administration to go forward and even support going forward is almost criminal in my opinion.

    You who are demanding an urgent US pull-out are the criminal accomplices. You would hand over a nation that voted for a representative govt, to reactionaries of the worst kind, to intolerant fanatics who hate democracy and who would return Iraq to a brutal dictatorship.

    Posted by nacl at 06/27/2005 @ 05:45am

42. QUESTION! - TURK33

    Fascism: any system of extreme right wing or authoritarian views. A system that attacks college professors that hold views contrary to the ruling party. A system that passes into law bills that allow and encourage the disintegration of personal liberties, ie., library searches,

    Turk deems the Bush administration fascist because it indulged such practices as -

    "town hall" meetings that keep anybody with a dissenting view at least a mile away; reduction of personal liberties; questionable (to say the least) election results; lies to the American people and Congress. Intolerant of others' ideas and/or religions (are you kidding?): "If you're not with us, you're against us"; a refusal to even admit that those with differing viewpoints might actually have valid evidence to support their claims; the systematic vilification of any person, group or nation that dares to question or contradict the Bush doctrine (Freedom fries anyone?); the trampling of liberties of anyone whose culture or lifestyle doesn't conform to evangelical Christianity . . .

    You two are apologists and whitewasher of fascism. You pretend it was about restrictive laws, library searches, violations of academic freedom, denying POWs legal counsel, fake town hall meetings, etc.

    Fascists hung political opponents from meat hooks. They beheaded those pamphleteering against them (the White Rose). They mass murdered vast crowds. People of the wrong religion were deserving of death. Asking for free elections meant asking to be shouted down and shot down. Fascists were not authoritarian; the pope is authoritarian. They were totalitarians. Obey in everything, or died.

    The closest example we have today, and it is very close indeed, are the insurgents in Iraq. Yes, the people you side with. The people whose victory you seek. They don't cheat in elections. They don't stage manage town hall meetings. They behead journalists, they slaughter indiscriminately to terrify and cow the masses. You agitate for an American withdrawal - which will allow such fiends to win. You are collaborating with fascists. That is not hyperbole. That is the truth. If you and those like you, succeed, you will deliver millions who voted for a democratic govt into the hands of mass killers.

    Fascists are indeed extremists, but not just of the right. The Nazis were not National Socialists by accident. (And the Baath too was a socialist and workers party.) The Brownshsirts called one another, Genosse (comrade). They despised the aristocracy and the churches. Hitler declared himself a socialist. People like Roehm, Goebbels and the Strasser brothers sneered at the bourgeois. They hated the upper classes. They distrusted the Prussian officer corps, which is why they created the Waffen SS. They wanted to push the Nazi socialist revolution much further left. Consider the extreme right today. On most issues, Iraq globalization, Palestine, the environment, hatred of the US govt, etc., they agree with you fully.

    The Nation is attracting one hell of a readership.

    Posted by nacl at 06/27/2005 @ 06:10am

43. PHILBQ

    I think this is an artificial nation that will never stand. The British created Iraq to exploit the oil. . . I say start withdrawal now. Rightwingers, give me an intelligent response if you are capable.

    What do you know about an intelligent response? You, the authority on "artificial nations."

    You pontificate on Iraq's history. Do you realize, whatever Britain's imperial motives in 1919, when she began drawing Iraq's borders, prospecting for oil was still six years in the future? Oil was only discovered in commercial quantities in 1927. Moreover, the British, in drawing Iraq's borders, failed to include a single port on the Persian Gulf. Quite an oversight for strategist intending to bringing oil to market.

    You, the judge of artificial nations, look for the big picture. Details don't interest you. You want to withdraw now. That's what counts. Unimportant that all observers are sure Iraq's govt is still too weak to defend itself. The very likely result of a US pull-out would be a bloodbath with Zarqawi coming out on top. That doesn't bother you. A small matter that is none of your business, eh? You humanitarian, you genius.

    Posted by nacl at 06/27/2005 @ 06:24am

44. NACL: Why is it that half or more of the Iraqi police trained by my tax dollars turn and run when insurgents come? Why are they unwilling to fight and die for this new nation that you support so much? Because the Iraqis do not believe in this new Iraqi government. Just like Vietnam. If you believe so much in this new Iraq, what are you doing here running your mouth? ENLIST!

    Posted by philbq at 06/27/2005 @ 09:30am

45. PHILBQ

    Why is it that half or more of the Iraqi police trained by my tax dollars turn and run when insurgents come? Why are they unwilling to fight and die for this new nation that you support so much? Because the Iraqis do not believe in this new Iraqi government. Just like Vietnam. If you believe so much in this new Iraq, what are you doing here running your mouth? ENLIST!

    Anthony Beever, in his book on Stalingrad, tells of 40,000 Red Army fatalities suffered not at the hands of the Wehrmacht, but of the Soviet gendarmerie executing Ivans trying to flee the battle.

    In short it was made impossible for the Soviet defenders of Stalingrad to flee. But that they wished to escape that terrifying assault, to get out of that hell, did not mean they supported the Nazis or wanted their country to lose. It meant merely that they were terrified human beings.

    As to your inane and cheap personal remarks, which I made the mistake of answering a while back, they identify your MOS as a condom.

    Posted by nacl at 06/27/2005 @ 11:35am

46. NACL believes what he/she believes and I cannot think of any better way to show his/her loyalty to their support of the Iraq invasion and the formation of this grand new nation, than to enlist with the military and lay your life on the line for the Bush administration and their heroic policy of nation building. The national guard upped the enlistment age cutoff to 34. Good luck with your war! By the way, Vietnam war US military casualties from 1961 to 1965: 1,864 dead, 7,337 wounded. A four year period. 466 dead per yr rate Iraq war US military casualties from March 2003 to June 2005: 1,742 dead,(DoD; updated 6-27-05) 12,855 wounded (DoD; updated 6-10-05). A two year, 3 plus month period. approx. 871 dead per yr rate.

    Posted by CLLSLP at 06/27/2005 @ 1:29pm

47. Although Rummy should resign, his resignation in the grand scheme of things, will not change the dynamic on the ground in Iraq. Until the President changes the policy in Iraq, having Rummy, Richard Perle, or any other neo-con extremist in charge of the Defense Department won't make a bit of difference.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 06/27/2005 @ 2:44pm

48. NACL: This war/occupation is being pushed by chickenhawks like Dick Cheney, George Bush, Richard Perle and yourself. People who are cheerleaders for war and killing as long as their life is not at risk. If there was a strict draft with no exemptions, elective wars like this would not happen. When the wealthy and Congress have their sons and daughters at risk, these wars of imperialism would cease. I have respect and sympathy for those solgiers in Iraq. They are risking their life ,unlike you, for something they believe in. Nonetheless, this war is failing to create a stable Iraq. And all the lives and billions will be wasted. Only the profiteers of war(Cheney's Halliburton) will win.

    Posted by philbq at 06/27/2005 @ 3:28pm

49. Soldiers (typo)

    Posted by philbq at 06/27/2005 @ 3:29pm

50. It's funny. Just by posting a definition of what a facsist state might look like, i am a sympathizer with the so called "facsist insurgents". This makes me, and all who disagree with this war and see our country headed in the wrong direction, backers of the extreme religous fringe in Iraq. I guess we are fine examples of how people who disagree with current policy are un-american, un-patriotic, treasonous traitors. So be it.

    I guess it's un-patriotic to see your all volunteer Army that was designed and intended for homeland defense march halfway around the world to invade and occupy a country under false pretenses. I guess it's un-american to want your American sons and daughters to come home. To demand that they stop dying and killing for what? Democracy? I guess democracy only matters when oil is involved. I guess democracy doesn't matter to the people of Darfur. I guess it doesn't matter to the people in Zimbabwe being "cleansed". And I guess it didn't matter to the untold thousands of people who were killed in East Timor under a dictatorship funded and supported by American Corporations and the American military.

    This occupation is unsustainable. Guerrilla warfare is something the American army cannot deal with over the long haul. It didn't work in VietNam it won't work here. Now Rumsfeld comes out and says the insurgency could last up to 12 years. And the president claims he won't pull out until the insurgency is defeated and the government can defend itself. We tried that in VietNam, for 12 years. It looks like my generation will have it's VietNam. And i'm un-american for not wishing for 50,000 dead americans and 1,000,000 dead Iraqis? Nacl, isn't that right? 1,700 dead soldiers is not burdensome. So does it take 50,000 to make a real war? Ridiculous. Perhaps us traitors want something else for America. Perhaps we feel taking care of ourselves is more important than installing doomed puppet governments. But that's just my opinion.

    Posted by question! at 06/27/2005 @ 7:00pm

51. QUESTION!

    It's funny. Just by posting a definition of what a facsist state might look like, i am a sympathizer with the so called "facsist insurgents".

    Nothing funny about redefining a fascist state so as to stick the administration with that label. That is low and dishonest, not funny.

    We don't need imagine "what a fascist state might look like," any more than what a Nazi death camp might look like. Those were realities, not hypotheticals. They existed, they were concrete. They are not subject to the manipulation of your self-serving imagination.

    Fascists are not bogy-men for you to tailor to your convenience. They were Brownshirts and hanged people from meat-hooks to cow a nation.

    And they are again rampant in Iraq, with all that unbridled brutality. And you support them. That is not funny. To be a fascist colloaborator is not funny. That is what you are, make no mistake about it, as surely as any Vichyite. The French had German guns to persuade them that they liked the Nazis. You support the Zarqawis in complete freedom. You want the scum of the earth to gain control of people who trooped to the polls by the millions.

    You support those opposed to religious toleration, free speech, gender equality, who behead journalists and drive explosive packed cars into a democratically elected govts. That is not disagreeing with current US policy or UN-America or unpatriotic, it is supporting mass murdering fascists.

    If you don't understand this you are either a yokel or a swine. You may well be both.

    Your argument about casualties is cheap and facilem, which is your style. You weep alligator tears. There were single days in WWII when we suffered twice the number of dead killed in two years in Iraq. No one wanted those deaths in the '40s either, but no one with any sense or decency used those casualties in your transparent and stupid way.

    Vietnam was a counterproductive Cold War defense of a war-lord regime resisting 60 million Vietnamese nationalists, supported by China and Russia. Iraq is a govt for which millions went to the polls at great personal risk. Some 20,000 insurgents want to undo that. And you back them.

    What do you know about what is and isn't sustainable? Zarqawi's determination to fight for decades is admirable but our supporting of the Iraqi govt for 12 years shameful? We supported Europe with hundreds of thousands of troops for 40 years. We still have 30,000 in Korea.

    Perhaps us traitors want something else for America. Perhaps we feel taking care of ourselves is more important than installing doomed puppet governments.

    You are a refutation of common sense. You represent the specter that says, Americans are jerks, too easily twisted and confused, doomed to forget their values and their interests. You are not a question. You are an answer that is wrong.

    Posted by nacl at 06/27/2005 @ 9:54pm