Jump to content

See you in hell, Mr. Rumsfeld

Gil Bang

By Gil Bang
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

It's a play on a famous quote by Rumsfeld which was basically heard as a tacit disregard for human life.  Of his own troops, not the enemies.  

It means you don't understand plays on word, nor history.  It means I hope and pray to my Lord & Savior that Donald Trump is the next person through the door after Donald Rumsfeld.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lmao

lmao 178

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Lobo said:

It's a play on a famous quote by Rumsfeld which was basically heard as a tacit disregard for human life.  Of his own troops, not the enemies.  

It means you don't understand plays on word, nor history.  It means I hope and pray to my Lord & Savior that Donald Trump is the next person through the door after Donald Rumsfeld.  

Keep this energy for all war criminals and enablers. There are way too many Democrats who agree with Rumsfeld's foreign policy ideals and were quick to embrace neocons like Bill Kristol.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,937

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, lmao said:

Keep this energy for all war criminals and enablers. There are way too many Democrats who agree with Rumsfeld's foreign policy ideals and were quick to embrace neocons like Bill Kristol.

The current occupant of the White House aided and abetted Donald Rumsfeld and his ilk.

In before Anastasis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lmao

lmao 178

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The current occupant of the White House aided and abetted Donald Rumsfeld and his ilk.

In before Anastasis.

Yup. The cognitive dissonance involved is astounding. Yes mad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Under a Bad Sign

Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,453

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He voted for the war, errrrrr, military authorization.


Yes. He voted to allow the President to use force IF the President ascertained that a number of conditions/criteria had been met.  The President did so.  It's not Biden's fault that the President was wrong.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28,791

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He voted for the war, errrrrr, military authorization.

So what? I assume you’re referring to the Iraq war. It was necessary to go to war in Afghanistan. Good for Obama and anyone who voted against the war in Iraq but I can’t really blame anyone who went along with the Iraq war because of the political backlash that would’ve come along with opposing it and being accused of siding with the “enemy,” which Iraq wasn’t but most Americans were (and many still are) too stupid to know the difference. And you have to figure that some in Congress who went along with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld’s folly in Iraq actually believed their lies about WMD’s. Did Biden have access to foreign intelligence that Curveball wasn’t to be trusted or that American intelligence never spoke to him? Or that Iraq never actually bought yellowcake uranium from Niger? Or that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wofowitz/etc. were cherry-picking raw, unverified intelligence to support a policy they’d decided upon long before they made their case for war? It’s not that simple. The comment that, ‘Duh, he (or she, as the case may be) went along with it’ just sounds intellectually lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,937

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

So what? I assume you’re referring to the Iraq war. It was necessary to go to war in Afghanistan. Good for Obama and anyone who voted against the war in Iraq but I can’t really blame anyone who went along with the Iraq war because of the political backlash that would’ve come along with opposing it and being accused of siding with the “enemy,” which Iraq wasn’t but most Americans were (and many still are) too stupid to know the difference. And you have to figure that some in Congress who went along with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld’s folly in Iraq actually believed their lies about WMD’s. Did Biden have access to foreign intelligence that Curveball wasn’t to be trusted or that American intelligence never spoke to him? Or that Iraq never actually bought yellowcake uranium from Niger? Or that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wofowitz/etc. were cherry-picking raw, unverified intelligence to support a policy they’d decided upon long before they made their case for war? It’s not that simple. The comment that, ‘Duh, he (or she, as the case may be) went along with it’ just sounds intellectually lazy.

So a "yes" vote by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee aided and abetted Donald Rumsfeld and his ilk.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12,271

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

John Lennon got shot in the street and this piece of shit got 88 years of wealth and privilege.  Blech.

Lennon wasn’t perfect but he lived a far better life. Would rather have his shorter life than Rumsfeld’s. One made the world better. One far worse. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Degenerate Gardner

Degenerate Gardner 4,085

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:


image.gif.014886be14d203bb203de8e2a32642a1.gif

Depends on how you define necessity.

Had our best angels prevailed, America could have used 9/11 as a moment for national reflection and positive change. Instead the public was told to be afraid, angry and go shopping. I cringe for the opportunity missed.

Attacking Afghanistan was necessary because we were hurt and needed blood. Afghanistan was a promixate cause of our suffering, was not the Saudis but looked enough like them. Necessity was in large part a function of our capacity to be mature adults, which is a doomed metric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19,184

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/how-donald-rumsfeld-deserves-be-remembered/619334/

Quote

Rumsfeld was the worst secretary of defense in American history. Being newly dead shouldn’t spare him this distinction. He was worse than the closest contender, Robert McNamara, and that is not a competition to judge lightly. McNamara’s folly was that of a whole generation of Cold Warriors who believed that Indochina was a vital front in the struggle against communism. His growing realization that the Vietnam War was an unwinnable waste made him more insightful than some of his peers; his decision to keep this realization from the American public made him an unforgivable coward. 

Hmm.  I'll have to ruminate on this, but I'd say McNamara was probably worse.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19,184

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

Depends on how you define necessity.

Had our best angels prevailed, America could have used 9/11 as a moment for national reflection and positive change. Instead the public was told to be afraid, angry and go shopping. I cringe for the opportunity missed.

Attacking Afghanistan was necessary because we were hurt and needed blood. Afghanistan was a promixate cause of our suffering, was not the Saudis but looked enough like them. Necessity was in large part a function of our capacity to be mature adults, which is a doomed metric.

Wasn't it necessary because it was a terrorist training ground?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 23,560

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

So what? I assume you’re referring to the Iraq war. It was necessary to go to war in Afghanistan. Good for Obama and anyone who voted against the war in Iraq but I can’t really blame anyone who went along with the Iraq war because of the political backlash that would’ve come along with opposing it and being accused of siding with the “enemy,” which Iraq wasn’t but most Americans were (and many still are) too stupid to know the difference. And you have to figure that some in Congress who went along with Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld’s folly in Iraq actually believed their lies about WMD’s. Did Biden have access to foreign intelligence that Curveball wasn’t to be trusted or that American intelligence never spoke to him? Or that Iraq never actually bought yellowcake uranium from Niger? Or that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wofowitz/etc. were cherry-picking raw, unverified intelligence to support a policy they’d decided upon long before they made their case for war? It’s not that simple. The comment that, ‘Duh, he (or she, as the case may be) went along with it’ just sounds intellectually lazy.

Sorry, but thats a bullshit statement. Just because the majority of congress are spineless lackeys, doesnt justify it. With power comes responsibility, and I would hope that those with the power to send our troops to war would carefully weigh the incredible costs associated with the loss of life (both US lives and civilian casualties). Public blowback??? boo fucking hoo. Stand for something. Do whats right. Vote with conviction regardless of what the masses will say. 23 senators had the stones to vote "Nay".

Fear of public blowback is a horrible justification for voting to march into war. Jesus Christ. Fuck anyone in congress that voted for that war because of fear of public opinion. Yeah, the job can be rough sometimes, but not as rough as  bleeding out near some shithole village thanks to an IED. Fear of political backlash is how we end up with so many in Congress downplaying Jan 6th. 

Edited by Blotto
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 8,038

Posted
Posted

You can learn a thing or two on such occasions. TIL:

"I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure." That quote, attributed to Mark Twain, popped up in a lot of places yesterday, as some people found themselves struggling with their feelings after the death of Osama bin Laden. If you're against killing on principle, but still no great fan of bin Laden, the Twain quote might have seemed perfectly suited to the occasion.

Just one problem: Twain never said it. In fact, no one ever said it in precisely that form. Matt Blum at Wired has the fact-check: the quotation actually comes from Clarence Darrow, the lawyer of Scopes Trial fame. Here's a fuller version of the quote, which appears in Darrow's 1932 work The Story of My Life:

All men have an emotion to kill; when they strongly dislike some one they involuntarily wish he was dead. I have never killed any one, but I have read some obituary notices with great satisfaction.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28,791

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Blotto said:

Sorry, but thats a bullshit statement. Just because the majority of congress are spineless lackeys, doesnt justify it. With power comes responsibility, and I would hope that those with the power to send our troops to war would carefully weigh the incredible costs associated with the loss of life (both US lives and civilian casualties). Public blowback??? boo fucking hoo. Stand for something. Do whats right. Vote with conviction regardless of what the masses will say. 23 senators had the stones to vote "Nay".

Fear of public blowback is a horrible justification for voting to march into war. Jesus Christ. Fuck anyone in congress that voted for that war because of fear of public opinion. Yeah, the job can be rough sometimes, but not as rough as  bleeding out near some shithole village thanks to an IED. Fear of political backlash is how we end up with so many in Congress downplaying Jan 6th. 

Yeah, Republicans can get away with anything but the Democrats have to be just exactly perfect in everything they do or they suck too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28,791

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, David Dennison said:

So a "yes" vote by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee aided and abetted Donald Rumsfeld and his ilk.

 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee? So, not the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Who was the chairman of the latter and how informed were they? Why would you assume the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would know more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...