Rumsfeld Couches Iraq War With Religious Rhetoric

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's Iraq War memo covers to George Bush are cloaked in religious dogma, as shown on the pages of GQ by Robert Draper.

These were leaked to Draper by Bush loyalists who are only now blowing the whistle on Rumsfeld, who was intensely disliked by Bush staffers throughout his tenure as Defense Secretary.

Rumsfeld was disinterested in assisting the Texas national guard in hurricane relief efforts, and kept obstructing adminstration plans to get aid quickly to the gulf coast after Katrina, shirking defense department responsibilities.

He had no interest in committing troops for a domestic situation.

I guess if we had another terrorist attack he would have felt the same way.

What is more disturbing though, is Rumsfeld's apparent sycophantic move in writing these covers to defense reports invoking Jesus, crusades, and other inappropriate religious passages in an effort to either mock, or curry favor with our former fundamentalist president.

Not that mocking the former president is such a worry, it's this bizarre notion that only christian fundamentalists occupy our armed forces, as these were distributed to upper level military personnel as well.

Non christians were particularly offended that a secular government would take such a step.

Only more proof that we were ruled by religious extremists- Bush to this day believes the fossil record was placed on earth by the 'devil' to confuse man into believing in evolution. Scary people. :eek:

President Carter is the only president we have had recently that I would consider to be religious. I respect him for it. It helped him bridge the gap between Sadat and Begin.

If Rumsfield, Bush, and Cheney did illegal things, shouldn't President Obama's Attorney General Holder prosecute them?

The option is complicity.

Rumsfeld was not in charge of FEMA. Nor would anyone want him to be [[least of all, the man himself).

His biggest failure? not being aggressive enough on Iraq...the surge should have happened sooner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Rumsfeld was not in charge of FEMA. Nor would anyone want him to be [[least of all, the man himself).

His biggest failure? not being aggressive enough on Iraq...the surge should have happened sooner.

---

FEMA was Brown's [[your doing a heckofa job, Brownie) mess.

Rumy's biggest failer was failing to kill Osama.

Batts, FEMA had nothing to do with it. Why are you so backward?

Tush asked Rumpsmelled to deploy military to help out, since FEMA was doing such a super job, as we all know, and he hedged, privately, that he needed troops to send overseas since recruitment was at historic lows due to the nature of the illegal war, so hundreds of people died as a result, and we get the major embarrassment of Katrina.

You'd think it wouldn't have taken Tush a year and a half to fire Rumpsmelled, but that's what you get when you elect social psychopaths.

That too...unless, of course, Osama is dead/was killed, but not officially declared as such as both sides are/were not eager to make a martyr, or to demoralize the organization via the loss of the most visible and tangible leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccbatson

That too...unless, of course, Osama is dead/was killed, but not officially declared as such as both sides are/were not eager to make a martyr, or to demoralize the organization via the loss of the most visible and tangible leader.

---

Secret info, or just your usual Rightness of Opinion?

Yeah, he seems to look pretty healthy living the hard life as a dead man in the caves of Tora Bora. :eek:

Easily faked tapes of very poor quality. He isn't exactly poor, and could easily get his hands on a working camcorder/tripod.

Yeah, but he'd have to be alive to do it, don't you think?

Back to the thread topic.

One must understand that Rummy put those Bible references in because its important to cater to the fringe Christian right, who are the parties base. In truth, they are far from Christian, judging by their words and actions.

They should heed what those WWJD bracelets asked before they make decisions, since Jesus never took up arms, or called for killing others. In fact, her preached the opposite, turn the other cheek, love thy enemy as thyself, etc.

With all their thoughts and bitter bile, they might find Islam more on par with their views toward war, since Muhammad was the one who lead the troops into battle, something Christ never did.

Well said. Bravo.

So as not to create a Martyr, and also to avoid complacency that the danger has passed by his absence [[which it has not).

Certainly the Bush Administration and their calls for a "crusade" did nothing more than whack the hornet's nest of hatred for the US.

Bush presided over a party of drooling fascist jesus freaks who really need to be rebranded the American Taliban. :eek:

Right...defending our way of life after being attacked, or after an invasion of an ally and threatening our interests is the same as "whacking a hornet's nest".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Right...defending our way of life after being attacked, or after an invasion of an ally and threatening our interests is the same as "whacking a hornet's nest".

---

Using that logic, we should be fighting wars in Afganistan and Saudi Arabia, since Osama was residing in the first, and most of the high-jackers were from the second.

But, as we all know now, under Bush, finding Bin Ladin was secondary to helping his friends at Halliburton make millons in Iraq. Besides, the links between the Bin Ladin Clan and the Bush clan are well known, as they share a common business partnership.[[see Bush the Elder dinning with Osama's brother, conincidently, on the morning of Sept.11)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Right...defending our way of life after being attacked, or after an invasion of an ally and threatening our interests is the same as "whacking a hornet's nest".

---

We weren't defending our 'way of life' as you put it. That has nothing to do with it. We shouldn't have forced the Bin Sultan Air Base on the Saudi's, and built it next to their holy lands, that's why we were attacked, Einstein.

We should have invaded Saudi Arabia, since 13 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

But your warlord, George Tush is big buddies with the Saudi royal family, and indeed allowed those who were in the US on 9/12, along with the Tush's other buddies, the Bin Laden family, all fly out of the country, no questions asked, no detentions, and guess why?

Because the Tushies are traitorous, evil mother**ckers who would rather give safe harbor to the families of terrorists than defend the American people in the first place.

The Bush Crime family belongs in PRISON, or better yet, tried, convicted, and sentenced in keeping with what we do to traitors- taking a page from the fate of their friend Mussolini.

We are fighting a war in Afghanistan in case you hadn't noticed [[???). Saudi Arabia? As a nation has not committed any acts of war, or threatened to do so against our vital interests...they aren't exactly our idea of a western democracy...but that is not adequate justification for overt warfare to commence.

Can anyone believe that this is being suggested by a liberal??

Does our way of life include affordable energy, commerce, and security that our allies will not be attacked? If so...then yes, Sadaam very much threatened our way of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorax

We shouldn't have forced the Bin Sultan Air Base on the Saudi's, and built it next to their holy lands, that's why we were attacked, Einstein.

---

I think you mean the Prince Sultan Air Base which was built during the Gulf War as part of a UN sanctioned multi-national effort to repress an aggressive Iraq that had just illegitimately occupied Kuwait. When it was built, Saudi Arabia was being threatened by Iraqi claims of its land and accusations that Saudi Arabia was illegitimate and an unworthy guardian of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Mecca and Medina are on the far western edge of Saudi Arabia; the base was on the far eastern edge.

It was later kept as a location were the American military could safely consolidate forces in the face of terrorists attacks such as the 1996 Hizballah attacks on Khobar Towers that killed 19 American Air Service men. US Intelligence had received heavy criticism for not doing more to prevent it and several other terrorist attacks.

Bin Laden did cite it as a reason that he attacked on 9/11. He also cited UN peace keeping efforts in Somalia and the withdrawal from Somalia. He is a man that likes to instigate war torn areas and blames the US for every UN effort to end them. His own country revoked his citizenship years before US intelligence was even aware of terrorist ties. I may care how the world views us, but not UBL, who can burn in hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccbatson

We are fighting a war in Afghanistan in case you hadn't noticed [[???). Saudi Arabia? As a nation has not committed any acts of war, or threatened to do so against our vital interests...they aren't exactly our idea of a western democracy...but that is not adequate justification for overt warfare to commence.

Can anyone believe that this is being suggested by a liberal??

---

Yeah, and Iraq didn't attack us either. Bush just decided it was a great excuse to invade a sovereign nation, since they have so much oil ripe for the picking.

If we're suppose to go after nations that "aid, and provide safe harbor to terrorists", then Saudi Arabia is top on the list, not to mention 13 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, which you probably don't believe, since Rush didn't tell you so. But, like I stated above, that wouldn't have worked due to the cozy relationship between two princely oil kingdoms, the house of Saud, and the house of Bush.

Kuwait...Israel...Threatening Saudi Arabia....attacking our allies and/or interests. Try again.