Rumsfeld Says War on Terror Sucks

[Adam D]

Click here

[bfp]

sucks? no, he's just not capable of gettting anything done at the moment within the pentagon. politics, as usual gets in the way of getting anything done around washington when it comes to security. never did he say that the war on terror "sucks". so something is harder than it seemed from the beginning, big deal. you have to adjust in certain circumstances. leave it up to you- you ignorant piece of shit to put words into his mouth.

though, why am i suprised?

[Adam D]

Despite upbeat statements by the Bush administration, the memo to Rumsfeld's top staff reveals significant doubts about progress in the struggle against terrorists.

"Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?" Rumsfeld asks in the Oct. 16 memo, which goes on to cite "mixed results" against al-Qaeda, "reasonable progress" tracking down top Iraqis and "somewhat slower progress" in apprehending Taliban leaders. "Is our current situation such that 'the harder we work, the behinder we get'? " he wrote.

The war is hugely expensive. "The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' cost of millions."

Postwar stabilization efforts are very difficult. "It is pretty clear the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog."

[bfp]

The memo is not a policy statement, but a tool for shaping internal discussion. It highlights a Rumsfeld trait that supporters say is one of his greatest strengths: a willingness to challenge subordinates to constantly reassess problems. The memo prods Rumsfeld's most senior advisers to think in new ways about the war on terrorism at a time when many are preoccupied with the 7-month-old war in Iraq.

this is a common trait when it comes to battling your enemy. you point out the weakness', and you adjust.

big deal. this piece is obviously being used as a propoganda piece.

[Adam D]

It doesn't make the statements untrue. Rumsfeld has made no move to discredit this an anything less than accurate.

[bfp]

"I asked questions, I didn't answer questions. I am a question asker, I should be sitting where you're sitting," Rumsfeld joked to reporters.

"It is not possible to change [the Department of Defense] fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror, an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem."

Originally posted by bfp
this is a common trait when it comes to battling your enemy. you point out the weakness', and you adjust.

big deal. this piece is obviously being used as a propoganda piece.

I got a challenge for you BFP, i want you to debate a forum thread without using the propaganda argument, or becoming verbally abusive and insulting.

[Adam D]

Or saying idiot, blow job, or Clinton.

[Adam D]

Don't hold your breath, though. I tried engaging him in nonthreatening, open discussion, and even that boiled down to the same insulting demeanor.

now Adam....no baiting him either please.

[bfp]

Originally posted by Dropzone
I got a challenge for you BFP, i want you to debate a forum thread without using the propaganda argument, or becoming verbally abusive and insulting.

this is a common trait when it comes to battling your enemy. you point out the weakness', and you adjust.

this is verbally abusive or insulting? this is insight as to what goes on during warfare. you attack your enemy, they respond by changing their tactics, and you have to do the same. its common. he is simply stating that there needs to be an organization other than the pentagon, that involves a leader, not an organization where politics play a role on both sides, resorting in conflict whereas nothing gets accomplished.

was this good enough for you?

[Adam D]

No, I believe he was referring to comments like this one:

leave it up to you- you ignorant piece of shit to put words into his mouth.

[bfp]

i want you to debate a forum thread without using the propaganda argument, or becoming verbally abusive and insulting.

he completely distorted my statements by saying that i never debate(which i did btw), but rather i just resort to namecalling and using the "propoganda piece" only. why dropzone do you attack me for attacking other people, when other people do the same?

[Adam D]

Because other people are willing to make detailed and argumentative points. You wisk in, make some random, baseless assertions, call our arguments propaganda, throw out some verbal assaults, and disappear.

I noticed the headlines say "Rumsfeld Questions War on Terrorsim"

as I read on it became fairly clear that his conclusion was that we are not doing enough

don't be surprised if Sec Rumsfeld issues a statement to clarify