Today's Note From a Madman
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Quote in the Lead
The following are excerpts from the June 22, 2005 Lou Dobbs Tonight on CNN
DOBBS: Well, Congressman, I've got to say right there, no weapons
of mass destruction, the intelligence was a disaster on Iraq and frankly, what
the United Nations was doing -- in fairness to those people, I've got to say
they've got a severe complaint with the intelligence apparatus that the
administration relied upon.
REP. ROHRBACHER: Well, let me just note that, although I certainly agree with you that the president was using information that has proven -- since proven not to be provable.
DOBBS: ... the intelligence was not provable, the fact is, it was dead wrong.
REP. ROHRBACHER: Well, I will hold my judgment as to whether it was dead wrong.
MADMAN: If it was "not provable" Mr. Rohrbacher, then what are you trying to say? Was it partially wrong? Were there WMD's or not? Has it gotten to the point where the GOP can't even say the word WRONG?
REP. ROHRBACHER: (continued) By the way, I never used that argument -- I never used the argument that we should have gone against Saddam Hussein and eliminated him because of weapons of mass destruction. I thought that it was plenty fine that this man hated America and that he was -- he wanted to hurt us in the long run and that he was a despot and murdering his own people. That was good enough for us to get rid of him.
MADMAN: If we were to use Rep. Rohrbacher's "litmus test" for going to war, we would be fighting half of the countries on the planet! When are we going to invade France or Germany or North Kroea or Iran, etc? They hate US, don;t they? When are we going to help the people in Darfur? The Sudanese government is looking to "hurt" them. I sure hope Rep. Rohrbacher likes me!
"My Father Always Told Me To Think Before I Speak"
Part of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's prepared
statement before a Senate Armed Services Committee Meeting, June 23, 2005, "To receive testimony on U.S.
military strategy and operations in Iraq."
(With Madman Commentary)
Today the questions I hear are something like this:
Is the effort underway in Iraq worth the cost and the sacrifice?
How are the Coalition and the new Iraqi government really doing?
When will Iraqi security forces be able to assume full responsibility for securing their country? and
What happens next, and should Congress set a timetable to withdraw?
I will comment on each of these questions.
Isn't it nice that instead of the Senate asking the questions, Secretary Rumsfeld brought his own questions, and subsequent answers to those questions as well.
Specifically, a free, democratic and peaceful Iraq:
Will not provide aid to violent extremists; (Then what is going on there now? What exactly IS an insurgency?)
It will not plot the assassination of American presidents; (So its all about protecting President Bush? Was that really a consideration? Were we ever afraid that somehow, someone from Iraq was going to get close enough to the president that he could kill him?)
It will not invade or fire missiles at its neighbors; and (Instead, it will be invading by the Corporate Raiders and Oil Company Execs that want its oil. What is Halliburton if not an "invader?")
It will not use chemical weapons on its neighbors or its own people. (Iraq wasn't going to use those weapons on its neighbors or its people because it didn't have any. The last 2 years of the occupation are proof of that. And if you say that those weapons of mass destruction were exported to Syria, then why haven't we crossed that border and gotten them out? If you believe that Syria does have Iraq's WMD's then stop telling US all that Syria gave up its weapons because they fear US.)
But consider what has been accomplished in Iraq in 12 months time -- not 12 years, but 12 months:
More than 8 million people defied terrorists threats and voted in the January election; (Aren't there 58 million Iraqis? I thought there was something like 60 percent voter turnout in Iraq. Lets do the math. It's simple algebra, after all. If 60 percent of all voters turned out, and 8 million people voted, that means only 13.3 million people were eligible to vote! Almost 45 million Iraqis were not allowed to vote in last year's elections. If we consider that about 25 percent of the Iraqi people are children, thus not eligible to vote, than something like 43 or 44 million people in Iraq should have been rushing the polls. OVER 30 MILLION IRAQIS WERE DISENFRANCHISED LAST YEAR IN THE IRAQI VOTE. The actual Iraqi turnout was a mere 18.5 percent. Talk about "fuzzy math.")
Duly elected Iraqi leaders, are drafting a Constitution to be voted on by the Iraqi people by October 15, 2005. Under their new Constitution, a permanent government will be elected on December 15, 2005; (Shouldn't an Iraqi Constitution already have been debated, written and signed by now? Secretary Rumsfeld obviously meant to say "We're gonna give this Iraqi Constitution thing another try, maybe even sometime soon.")
Iraqis are building an economy and it is growing -- with a stock market and a stable currency; (Even in Iraq, a country that is as unstable as any on the planet, the Bush administration cares more about rich Iraqis than the rest of the people. 70 percent unemployment and Secretary Rumsfeld cares more about Iraq's Stock market than jobs or defending the Iraqi people or, more importantly, the health and well-being of out troops on the ground. 70 percent unemployment, Mr. Secretary leads to a lot of unhappiness. It's hard to care about the stock market when you can't feed your children.)
While the insurgency remains dangerous in parts of Iraq, Coalition and Iraqi operations are disrupting terrorist sanctuaries, such as Fallujah, and keeping them on the run; (Ironic that the insurgents could say the same about US.)
U.S. forces are capturing or killing hundreds of violent extremists on a daily basis and confiscating literally mountains of weapons. (Yet we still can't turn the corner and halt the "recruitment of Iraq's new home-grown terrorists. The recruiting posters should have the pictures of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld saying "We want you to join the Iraqi Insurgency.")
In the past, the performance of Iraqi security forces has been criticized for being mixed. But consider that:
Two years ago, few Iraqi forces had critical equipment such as radios, vehicles or body armor.
Today, the vast majority of Iraqi security forces have this equipment;
The Iraqis had an inexperienced military chain of command and weak ministries of Defense and
Interior. Today, both are improving, but they have a way to go;
They had weak unit cohesion and insufficient mid-level leadership. Today, leaders at all levels are
A year ago, six Iraqi Army battalions were in training. Today, dozens of trained battalions are
capable of conducting anti-insurgent operations with Coalition support;
Large sections of the country, including much of the north and south, are relatively peaceful and
essentially under the control of Iraqi security forces; and
Responsibility for what had been one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Baghdad was recently
turned over to the Iraqi security forces, and has been relatively free of serious violence.
And if you, Mr. Secretary and President Bush just listened to your man on the ground in Iraq, General Jay Garner, we would have had "ALL OF THE ABOVE" before an insurgency was ever born!
Some in Congress have suggested that deadlines be set for withdrawal. That would be a terrible mistake.
If planning an exit strategy, or determining a date to commence troop withdrawal is a "mistake", then why put a date on an Iraqi Constitution? Isn't that a "target for the insurgents" as well?
Iraq is a "quagmire" that had been "consistently and grossly mismanaged. In baseball, it's three strikes you're out. Isn't it time for you to resign?"
-Senator Edward M. Kennedy, to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"Senator, I've offered my resignation to the president twice."
Maybe the third time's the charm.
"I think they're in the last throes,"
-VP Dick "Go <F---> Yourself" Cheney on CNN's Larry King Live"
Hey Mr. Veep, how about going on Lou Dobbs or NOW, with Bill Moyers and saying that. Could you have picked a better, non-Fox-News show to strut your ridiculous remarks on?
I would not criticize the vice president, but "there's a lot of work to be done against the insurgency'"
-General John Abizaid, in response to questions by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)
"Those words, though, I didn't use them, and I might not use them,"
Does that mean that Cheney is WRONG Mr. Rumsfeld? Say it... Cheney's wrong. SAY IT!
Quotes - Big Al is Wrong Again
Imposing "punitive tariffs" on imports from China would harm U.S. consumers and protect ''few if any American jobs.''
-Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Bank Chairman
First of all, Big Al, the word "punitive" means "punish". If the tariffs are, in fact, punishment, then so be it, In reality, the tariffs would be to make trade between our 2 countries fairer. China still imposes tariffs on the few goods we export to them (such as 14 percent tariffs on Intel chips), so why shouldn't we impose tariffs on China?
Imposing a 27.5 percent tariff on a country that is devaluing their currency to keep up an unfair advantage is a "good idea" that deserves the bi-partisan support in the Senate which it's receiving. So far, 67 of 100 senators agree. The bill's sponsors are Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
However, President Bush would, more than likely, veto anything that harms his fat-cat, "hyper-rich" friends.
"Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the top Democrat on the panel, released a joint letter in which they said Portman should pay particular attention to China's piracy of American intellectual property, Chinese barriers to the sale of American agriculture and service products and China's industrial policies."
-The New York Times, June 23, 2005
Although President Bill Clinton first allowed the Chinese to become a "favored trading partner", it is something that has to be renewed year after year. Does "G"lobal "W"arming Bush think that China is being fair to US now? I guess what's good for "Wal-Mart" is good for GW.
China is a ''currency manipulator,''
-The Bush Administration
''I think they are going to move,''
-Treasury Secretary Tony Snow, assuming that China will change their "currency manipulation" policies
How can these guys be so dense?
Quotes - Rovian Philosophies
The Democrats want to "offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,"
-Karl Rove, Deputy White House Chief of Staff
The Democrats want an apology. That makes sense.
"What Karl Rove said is true."
-Ken Mehlman, Greed Over People Party Chairman
Looks like someone else owes the Democrats want an apology,
Karl Rove was "simply pointing out the different philosophies and different approaches when it comes to winning the war on terrorism."
-Press Secretary Scott McClellan
Just what are the "G"lobal "W"arming Bush's and his Greed Over People Party's "philosophies" for "winning the war on terrorism" anyway?
-Is "NO EXIT STRATEGY" one of their ""philosophies"?
-Is "NOT LISTENING TO EXPERTS LIKE GENERAL JAY GARNER" another of these "philosophies"?
-How about declaring "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"? Was that one of these brilliant "philosophies" as well?
Yes Scotty-boy (we all know that GW must be calling McClellan that by now), you're right. There are different "philosophies" involved here. The GOP "philosophy" is to "exaggerate", "bully" and "lie" whenever it suits their needs. The GOP "philosophy" involves keeping our brave young men and women in "harm's way" as "expendable commodities" in order to protect what really matters to them...
The Democrats" philosophies" (well, at least the Democrats I know) include the "need" to punish those who should be punished and GET OUR TROOPS HOME ASAP.
"We owe it to those we lost to keep partisan politics out
of the discussion and keep alive the united spirit that came out of 9/11"
-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R-NY)
If "G"lobal "W"arming Bush didn't have 9/11 to use for "partisan political purposes", he'd be reading the comics from his home in Crawford, TX now instead of from the Oval Office.
Oh... wait a minute... As much time as he spends on "vacation" or in the air pimping his Social Security Privatization scheme at $30,000 a pop, President Bush has ample opportunity to read comics in just about any place he wants.
Rove "took something that is virtually sacred to New Yorkers" the tragedy of the Sept. 11 attacks "and politicized it for political, opportunistic purposes."
-Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)
New York City and its surrounding areas don't matter to Karl Rove. It's a BLUE area that anyone Rove would work for will never be able to win. The people of the Blue States voted down George W. Bush because they are not as easily fooled as many in places like.... well... Texas, for example.
"Karl Rove is not just another political operative. He sits in the White House, a few doors down from the president."
-Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
I urge you to repudiate the "insulting comment."
-Senator Clinton to Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, June 23, 2005
It "is unfortunate when things become so polarized or so politicized."
Yeah... When are you guys at the White House and in the Greed Over People Party going to stop doing that kind of stuff Donald?
"To try to score partisan, political points at the expense of the 3,000 victims and their families was unacceptable and opportunistic."
-A letter from Senators Schumer and Clinton , Joe Lieberman and Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Frank Lautenberg and Jon Corzine (D-NJ) in a letter to Karl Rove
"We have seen pretty hot rhetoric from both sides of the aisle lately."
-Andrew Card, White House Chief of Staff, and Karl Rove's "boss"
"Rhetoric"? Maybe. But we have seen a whole lot of LYING coming from your side of the aisle, Mr. Card.
-Noah Greenberg with help from Carroll S. Rankin
Quotes - Howard Dean
"We are going to be much tougher and in-your-face with the Republicans when they say things that aren't true,"
-Howard Dean in an apparent response to criticism outside the Democratic Party that he is using over-the-top language to rally his party.
"Maybe his mother loved him, but I've never met anybody who does."
-Dean on Cheney
"I don't care if Dick Cheney likes my mother or not; we are going to fight back. I think it's great that Dick Cheney went after me. At least they know there's a Democratic Party that's not going to put up with this stuff anymore."
-Dean, to a boisterous crowd at the Boston Park Plaza Hotel
"As the head of the Democratic Party, I will not be lectured about morals by Tom DeLay and Rush Limbaugh."
-Forwarded and prepared by Robert Scardapane
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com or firstname.lastname@example.org