Thursday, September 05, 2013

naw boo-boo, go sitchyass down somewhere...,

maddowblog | If there's anyone in America who should go enjoy a little quiet time right about now, it's failed former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld. Nevertheless, he just keeps talking, appearing this morning on Fox News (thanks to my colleague Tricia McKinney for the heads-up).
...Rumsfeld, who earned public scorn for his leadership of the Pentagon during the Iraq War, said Obama didn't need to ask Congress for authorization and may have made a mistake in doing so.

"Now, did he need to go to Congress? No. Presidents as commander in chief have authority, but they have to behave like a commander in chief."

He referred to Obama as "the so-called commander in chief," and questioned whether a strike on Syria would be effective given the way Obama has handled it.
Rumsfeld, who seemed generally supportive of intervention in Syria, added that President Obama "doesn't have the kind of support that President Bush had in respect to his military actions."
Yep, he really said that.

Part of me continues to wonder why Rumsfeld is still allowed to speak in polite company. Lance Armstrong isn't asked for his opinions about athletes and performance-enhancing drugs; Miley Cyrus isn't sought out for analysis on public modesty; so why should anyone take seriously what Donald Rumsfeld has to say foreign policy and the use of military force abroad?

And yet ol' Rummy just can't seem to help himself -- he's talking about the incomplete justifications for military intervention; he casually attacks the president's patriotism; and he routinely makes incoherent, self-defeating observations about national security.

Don't go away mad, Rumsfeld. Just go away.


John Kurman said...

Nothin' about Runny that an ice pick can't cure....

ken said...

So Rachael thinks it's Bush's fault that Obama can't make the same argument, perhaps she should look in the mirror. I mean really, saying Sadaam never had weapons of mass destruction, and it was never a threat he would use them, how knowingly deceptive can you get? She must know he did use them to a much greater extent then Syria ever has, and with that she is on the bubble with "punishing" Syria a month a week or a year from now.

As President Obama makes the claim that Syria has the biggest chemical weapon stash in the world, not one little inkling of curiosity rises up to wonder how he Syria got the weapons. Is Maddow really ignorant enough not to remember that 1991 Sadaam moved his planes to Iran, one of his enemy's to preserve them? Instead of being so partisan to the point of avoiding information, what would be the harm of her looking into the idea that these chemical weapons came from Iraq except that it would ruin her narrative she has maintained for years.

This link will be considered equally as partisan, however this is from 2007,

ken said...

Or possibly at the very least, when Obama says , "hey I was against the Iraq war".. couldn't she at least have enough curiosity as a news person or a journalist or opinionist to pose the question or at least wonder what Obama considers Syria has done that is beyond what Sadaam did.

CNu said...

rotflmbao..., wha'choo talkin bout Willis? This thing was a wrap long before anybody started spinning just so stories

CNu said...

We KNEW that Saddam had weapons because we still had the receipts

None of this information is relevant to the longterm plan of getting at Iran through this proxy.

John Kurman said...

You meant Steve Benen, not Rachael, right? The guy who wrote the editorial? And Steve is just mad that Rummy didn't fall on his sword after fucking up so badly, which might have happened in a less insane and more competent society, but instead he gets a nice wind-down. Jesus, people are fucking terrible at noticing things anymore.

ken said...

If true, do you think the final goal is a to create countries of chaos?

Or is Libya a failure?

CNu said...

The goal is oil and maintenance of the petrodollar.

Constructive_Feedback said...

Brother CNu:

Here is the change that I have experienced after watching back to back American Commanders In Chief execute the same basic strategy - using slightly different techniques (boots on the ground that risked American lives vs air bombing campaigns):

The Goal Of The American President Is To Carry Out American Imperialism and then compel their respective American Base to SELL IT internally using the tricks of the "Malcolm X Political Football Game".

The AMERICAN WAR ACTIONS serve as a set of transactions for the combatants in this fight to pound each other.

They both care about their IDEOLOGICAL/POLITICAL interests inside of America than they GIVE A DAMN about any human life outside of America.

The Right-Wing forces are consistent in their call for American Imperialism to fight the "Terrorist Threat" and retain respect. These threats just always seem to come from "Nations Of Color"

The Left-Wing forces use their claims of "Care For Humanity" to ensure that no Americans are killed in war. They then selectively champion American cover for "Vulnerable People". Its just that these protected people - also - always just happen to be in line with "American Interests".

In the domestic battle they look past the adversaries that AGREE WITH THEIR POSITION, instead targeting adversaries that disagree and focus upon their "crazy words".

For those who love the TRANSACTIONAL BATTLE - without looking at the CONSTRUCTS OF THE SCHEME - they are drawn into the fraudulent diversion - without realizing that they are debating over "Techniques" of their leadership and not from PRINCIPLED POSITIONS - as they claim.

CNu said...

Since there are no jobs available for quite a few million Americans, "boots on the ground" for full employment keeps looking better all the time.

CNu said...

lol, I'm not sure I could de-dupe the concentrated layers of projection embodied in this comment Bro. Feed. All's I can say about this is that game recognize game...,