Do you think we could get Rumsfeld to run in 'o8?

Dear, dear Spiegel. There is no equal. Except maybe LeMonde. Maybe Guardian, too. And the Toronto Star.

Just think, only 60 years ago the Germans were incinerating Joos by the millions. Now they are lecturing (with unabashed righteousness) the US.

You've come a long way, baby.

Gee, didn't I see that a day or two ago? In somebody's post maybe?

I thought the next lines were particularly funny:

Rumsfeld: I'm not talking about sanctions. I thought you, and the U.K. and France were.

SPIEGEL: You aren't?

Rumsfeld: I'm not talking about sanctions. You've got the lead. Well, lead!

SPIEGEL: You mean the Europeans.

Rumsfeld: Sure. My Goodness, Iran is your neighbour. We don't have to do everything!

SPIEGEL: We are in the middle of regime change in Germany...

Rumsfeld: ... that's hardly the phrase I would have selected.

Completely cracked me up.

When Rummy retires from running the military, maybe he could host the Tonight Show?

Rummy as the next James Bond!

Rummy as the next James Bond!

You just outed him in advance. Traitor.

"Rumsfeld: ... that's hardly the phrase I would have selected."

Oh, man, I missed that too the first time around! Just hilarious - there's a man who can think on his feet!

I don't know what to make of this. The current admin has been quite vocal in criticizing the EU nations for taking the diplomatic lead --without the US-- in dealing with Iran.

Now Rumsfeld is criticizing them for not taking ENOUGH of a lead.

And all some blogger has to do is quote an interview in which the German interviewer is understandably baffled by Rumsfeld's inconsistency (to put it very nicely) or incoherence (to put it more honestly), and there is a rightwing readership who forgets the past couple years and cheers Rummy on?!?

Rumsfeld: I'm not talking about sanctions. You've got the lead. Well, lead!

WTF *is* Rumsfeld talking about?!?

It's no wonder the interviewer left it there. Rumsfeld has just discounted diplomacy and sanctions as qualifying as leadership, so what's left? Rumsfeld doesn't say, but I guess we all know the Clausewitz line.

He is asked, what is the purpose of US nuclear bombs on German territory. His answer? Not to address PURPOSE, but vague interest - of the Euros:

Rumsfeld: I think I'll leave that to the Germans and to NATO. Some countries in Europe made the decision to allow them to be on the continent. It was seen to be in their interest and is still seen that way today as it persists. So one would assume it continues being in their interest.

SPIEGEL: That's hardly an answer.

Rumsfeld: That was a very good answer.
-------------------
It was an answer, but ignores the question of purpose, and pretends as though the US is merely a provider without an interest, strategy, or purpose. Rumsfeld thinks we are idiots.

He is another one of Bush's deluded team members.

So tubbs, -
How exactly should Rummy have answered the nuke question?
"We keep them in Europe just to remind the Russians to keep hands off the new democracies that those same nukes helped make possible"?
Now that may address purpose, but I hardly think that a card-carrying member of the nuanced community such as yourself would give him credit for honesty. In fact, you would be shitting your pants and babbling about NEOCONS! and COWBOYS! etc.
Why don't you just admit you don't like my country, or it's citizens and be done with it? Don't waste everyones' time trying to scrape up justifications for your hatred for us, just go with it. Trust me, you'll feel better.
I've learned to accept the fact that I hate cocksuckers like you, and I'm very comfortable with controlling my urge to kick you in the crotch.
Just relax, and stop acting the tool.

As tubby so clearly misses, the US gov't. has let the Europeans take the lead on Iran. We nasty cowboys have backed off and let them do their best. Now that Iran has said No to the European's diplomatic proposals, they're standing around waiting for us to do something. Rumsfeld is just reminding them, in that un-nuanced way of his, that they wanted to solve this problem on their own, so get on with it and solve it. You said you didn't need our help, so get on with it and show us what you can do.

No inconsistancy there at all, nope, none. Unless it is the inconsistancy of calling someone's bluff, which, when you come to think of it, is all the the Iranians did.

Rumsfeld thinks we are idiots.

If he does, its only because you are.

Don't want nukes on euro-soil? Just officially ask for them to be gone and they will be.

Its that simple.

what is the purpose of US nuclear bombs on German territory.

We forgot them, ok? Hell, we had thousands of the damn things, you can't expect us to remember where we left every single solitary thermonuclear device we had.

Tubesteak, don't you have somewhere else you need to be? Those cocks aren't going to suck themselves, you know.

I have no problem with honest dissent on issues. It's a crucial element in any healthy democracy. The give and take on policy and direction usually provides for a distilled course of action, often removing the extremes both right and left.

That being said I have no idea what value you think you are providing Tubino. You are reflexively against anything that this administration proposes or does. Your criticism, and I am being generous by calling it that, belies an immaturity of thought and/or an inability to frame your argument in a way that makes for a compelling case.

Anyone who has even remotely been following what Rumsfeld has said over the last 5 years can see a consistency in his statements and policy. The EU nations were very insistent on negotiating with Iran and pushed this case hard at the UN. Bush was dubious about negotiating with the country that dubbed us "The Great Satan" and preferred a more aggressive stance. Well the EU countries got their way. All Rumsfeld said in that interview was, you wanted to do things your way, then do it and don't try to make it look like the US is taking the lead on demanding sanctions. How was that unclear?

As to what the nukes are doing in Europe, I would hope you would agree that while Rumsfeld does not necessarily think everyone is stupid, its probably not in the best security interests of the US or Europe for that matter, to disclose all our military strategy in a German newspaper. If our European partners wanted them gone they would be gone. Again, what's the mystery?

I'm pretty new here so I was unsure if you were a serious critic or a serious clown. You are rapidly making the case for bozo.

Tubino,

"The current admin has been quite vocal in criticizing the EU nations for taking the diplomatic lead --without the US-- in dealing with Iran."

Any links to support this? I don't watch TV, so I've probably missed something, but I've never heard anything of the sort.

Also, while you're at it, do you have any links to support the claim that the CIA has said that Plame was a covert agent? And I mean non-anonymous quotes from CIA brass. I made a similar request in the thread several posts back on this topic, but I guess it was after you last checked the comments.

Mine is a mind that can be changed - if I am convinced that Plame was covert, I'll say that Rove should be fired. If you can come up with a couple of links to Administration bigwigs saying that EU nations should be sitting on their hands with regard to Iran, I'll agree with your confusion at Rumsfeld's comments. But I need some evidence to convince me I'm wrong - I'm not going to just take your word for it.

Rummy for President? I don't think he'd make a particularly good one. But if you're just talking about getting a win for (R), driving the left insane(r) with rage seems to have proven a successful strategy so far.

Rumsfeld has just discounted diplomacy and sanctions as qualifying as leadership, so what's left?

Uh, no he didn't. He just discounted the assumption that the US was leading the charge for diplomacy and santions. He told the interviewer that the Euros are running that show (and just maybe reminding him that this is what they wanted).

If the interviewer were "baffled" by Rummy's "inconsistency" rather than, say, the inconsistency of the Euros calling to lead and then asking the US what it's going to do to solve the problem, it would hardly provoke that flustered "regime change" excuse.

WTF *is* Rumsfeld talking about?!?

Been listening to that line from the left for a long time. It's the sound of the world passing them by.

As for our nukes, think there might be bases those nukes are on? I wonder what would happen with the Germans if we announced a bunch of those bases were closing ... oh, wait. I think we already know that.

Tubino,

Saw your last comment on older thread re the Plame stuff - I'll give it some thought.

"The current admin has been quite vocal in criticizing the EU nations for taking the diplomatic lead --without the US-- in dealing with Iran."

No, it hasn't.

That's it. I'm taking the pledge.

Typical.

Blame us for taking the lead, then blame us when we back off to let Europe take the lead. Then blame us when the left gets confused. Then blame us when the Europeans can't seem to find their ass with either hand.

Can't liberals do anything other than blame the US and Bush? How cliche.

What's worse, these narcissistic imbeciles don't even understand their intellectual inconsistency - one of the detriments of narcissism - which is why they can't seem to understand debate. You can never win a point with a liberal, they'll just change the subject or call you names.

That's it. I'm taking the pledge.

Welcome to the hallowed ranks of those who have gone before. Now we just need to keep lauraw from falling off the wagon again.

We don't want Rummy for President.

Secretary of State.
Or maybe head of the CIA.

Both of those would cause a _lot_ of conniptions. (And one would probably cause a couple of purely accidental house fires, car fires, stripper-found-dead-in-house, and fake-but-accurate videotape.)

I'm staying on the wagon.

We need joeindc44 to join us. That guy is wasting all his precious energy. Unless he's quit since I last peeked.

I feel like I missed a very basic point somewhere in this discussion. Although, lauraw, my energy is kinda low right now, I just did a quick 3 miles and need carbs.

But if you want me to get on a wagon, it better not be a "dry" wagon.

which wagon?

The one where we don't bother arguing with that repetitive liar.

The one where we don't bother arguing with that repetitive liar

oh, hell yeah. what a complete waste of oxygen. I'm with you.

So, you're telling me that you have stopped responding to tubino? Hmm, maybe I am still too much of a newbie, enjoying chasing my tail to notice.

No, my puppets. You mustn't quit now.
I have lots and lots useless links to feed you.

Rules check: does the pledge include ignoring false-flag tubino impersonators (tofubeanos?)

I see that none of you fuckers has the balls to just answer a simple question. Why do you suppose that is?? ANSWER ME!!! You can't do it, can you??

Did you follow the link I posted?

Did you read my four-page comment full of innuendos and insults, which was as exciting as reading the instructions on a tubino of preparation H?

Apply to inflamed area. Apply to inflamed area. Apply to inflamed area. Apply to inflamed area.

NOW is any of this SINKING IN???

Can ANY OF YOU defend yourselves from my stupidity??

I didn't think so. What a surprise.

lauraw. -
Oh shit, I liked that last one. BAM!
Goodonya.

Thanks rick!
Stupid is my speciality.

Wait.
-what?

That is too funny, lauraw.

There are three favorites of mine right now.

"the good guys won"
"spin this, bitches"
and
when someone complained that we were clogging up the thread congratulating each other.

Congrats, all.

i meant comments of the crazy tube

Okay, a quick one: What is the purpose of US nukes?

Rumsfeld: I think I'll leave that to the Germans and to NATO.

Then Rick asks: How exactly should Rummy have answered the nuke question?

Is it impossible for the sec def to give an answer about purpose? Sheesh, any of us could make one up. To pretend that the US just parks nukes without any capacity to explain a purpose is not to project strength.

Anyway, you all like to call me nuts, yet only Weasel has actually backed up his words with a bet.

On topics like the projected annual deficit, outcome of Fitz investigation, likelihood of an investigation into a GOP leak etc., how many of you have any courage in your convictions? That's why my new line is, Wanna bet? So far, no takers.

Why is the post titled, "Rumsfeld threatens Germany"? Just asking.

to kill communists

Pitiful nonresponse, tubby.

OK. Count me in with the "starve the troll" set.

Yes tubby, it is impossible for Rummy to give an honest answer about purpose. I showed you what the actual purpose of these things is.
Now tell me something. In your dimension, what would be the consequence of SecDef actually telling you lefty bed wetters the truth regarding nukes?
Here in Realityland, we know that there would follow many pointless demenstrations, much hyperventilating and gnashing of teeth, and so much ever-so-earnest concerned commentary. Which wouldn't bother me so much, except that people like you insist on doing shit like that in the middle of the street instead of in your basement or therapists office.
So, stop asking stupid questions.
And try not to be such a tool.