Secretary Rumsfeld held his daily press conference today, as usual. One of the more insightful tidbits was his interpretation of the current state of riots, looting, and general anarchy. He stated, "This is simply a period of untidiness."

You got to have faith in a man who is so insightful. Perhaps he can find some brooms and mops and get the military to "tidy up" the country.

As the candy-shop owner said to Dennis the Menace

"You break it, you own it". Or was that some other show?

We may not have found WMD's yet, or evidence of terrorist plots against us. But we've certainly managed to eliminate what little law and order existed in Iraq.

How long will they be kissing our soldiers if they start enforcing civility?

Rumsfeld....where do I begin?

I don't like him from what I have seen of him!

He is the WORSE thing about the BUSH ADMIN and the WAR!

he NEVER answers a question. AND he ALWAYS blames the media!

If we would have lost this war...I am sure he would have blamed the media for it!

We've just destroyed the most brutal dictatorship on this planet. We are uncovering evidence of unfathomable terror and horror -- like the children's prison.

And you are whining about a loss of "law and order"? What was the "law and order" of which you are mourning the loss? The law and order was a holocaust against the Kurds, the Shi'ites. Environmental terrorism against the Marsh Arabs. It was murdering children in order to conscript fathers into Saddam's army. You simply cannot imagine the horrors suffered by the Iraqi people under this now-deceased evil regime.

Saddam Hussein was running a smaller scale version of Nazi Germany. Do you realize you are mourning the loss of Nazi-style repression?

The U.S. should be proud of destroying what passed for "law and order."

Haaawwwnnnkkkkkkk!!! Godwin's Law invoked. Thread over.

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/God...dwin_s_Law.html

1 - I'm not mourning the loss of power by Saddam Hussein. You have over-interpreted what I wrote.

2 - The horrors you speak of are duplicated in one form or another in at least a dozen other places around the world (central Africa and southeast asia for instance) yet we don't seem to be in any hurry to relieve the perpertrators there of power or to assist the victums.

3 - Law and order in the form of a World Court has already been effectively ruled out by our current leaders in Washington. That they have eliminated it in Iraq without taking responsibility for the consequences is in line with their overall behvior. I wont even go into Enron and Worldcom as examples of lawlessness since noone will want to connect those dots.

4 - The current looting of priceless artifacts of human history was not instigated by Saddam Hussein. Is that defending him or merely stating a fact that some of us do not wish to have mentioned at the moment? Iraqis have thus far gone from dependency on a violent despot to dependency on a foreign occupier. The untidy transition has no time limit and noone has a good plan for how people will acquire the basics of life during said transition. The cultural loss to humanity due to looting of Iraq's museums pales in comparison to the destruction of the giant Bhuddas in Afghanistan by the Taliban.

As I stated in my previous post "We broke it, now we own it." There is no responsible authority in Iraq at the moment other than us, the conquerors. We will ultimately be held responsible whether we like it or not.

Instead of enthusiastically collecting mementos US soldiers should be stabilizing the areas they have taken. Or is it showing lack of support for the troops to suggest that they show the same morality that every kid in the US is exposed to if not taught?

[ April 12, 2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

It continues to frustrate me that those people who do not agree with the general views of these threads respond in such a totalitarian way. (Much like the administration they are supporting.) If you are concerned about the attitude and approach of the US leadership in regard to law and order, then you are a Saddam supporter. If you point out the many failings of the administration, then you are a leftie Clinton lover. If you do not enthusiastically cheer on our armed forces for beating up on what is the equivalent of a third world power, then you are unpatriotic because you don't support the troops. (Would everyone be cheering so loudly if the Lakers took on a talented high school team and beat them 142-10? Not quite the right analogy, but wanting to intertwine some sports in a thread here.)

It is totally appropriate to ask questions and expect more thorough information from our nation's leaders. How can people so completely lose sight of why our country was founded. It was founded so that the PEOPLE of the US did not have to accept being governed by a unilateral leadership that did what they wanted no matter what. It was also founded on the principle that all people are created equally and should be treated with the same dignity and respect. It was not founded on the principle that killing thousands of innocent people was acceptable collateral damage for removing one despot from power.

I can die a complete man....someone used the expression "Henny Penny" in the middle of an internationally televised news conference.

Is it my mistake, or was the allusion Rummy was looking for actually "Chicken Little?"

The difference is, of course, I'm using it as a statement of fact, not as rhetorical hyperbole.

(Just like it's not McCarthyism to call a genuine communist, like A.N.S.W.E.R., "communist.")

Hey as soon as law and order are restored you guys can move onto the "you'll never be able to set up a govt" thread... Once that happens you can start the "the govt will never stand thread"... only to be proven wrong.

There's also the "they're just doing it for the money thread" to rehash and the "desire for world power thread" hasn't even gotten a shot yet.

What we will probably never see from anyone serious about understanding this war is the "How the US unselfishly eliminated tyranny and set up a democracy emulated by it's neighbors, facilitating peace in the middle east and throughout the world" thread.

When and if it happens, and I pray it does some day, I hope to be the first to start it.

In the meantime I would rather we work on perfecting (implementing?) our own democracy first - then proving that it is the best system for promoting human welfare, even for the least among it's citizens.

[ April 12, 2003, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

I thought that too. And why not use the Little Red Hen story to illustrate why France, Russia and the U.N. Security Council shouldn't be allowed a role in the rebuilding of Iraq? Perfect analogy.

So that's two poultry involved here. Who is Henny Penny and what's her story? Anyone?

Henny Penny is the first fowl that Chicken Little encounters on his way to tell the king the sky is falling. Next they meet Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey and Turkey Lurkey. I don't want to spoil the ending, but they meet up with Foxy Loxy, who apparently has a taste for fowl! wink

The Story of Chicken Little

[ April 12, 2003, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: George_vikingfan ]

Thanks George_viking(and twins)fan.

Turns out Henny Penny is just some sort of sidekick.

I googled Henny Penny and got some Australian cookware manufacturer. I love Google, but it's not perfect.

[ April 12, 2003, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

AND Henny Penny was gay. You read it here first. eek! wink

Turkey Lurky...that's funny.

Personally, I'm kinda hoping that Attila the Rum continues to analogize every current event to childhood nursery tales. It sure makes these press conferences hella funny.

Donna Rumsfeld's operatic emotions are starting to convince me that he's come unhinged. You'd think he'd be able to respond calmly to reporters, but he can't hold back. I thought Republicans were supposed to have better control over their emotions (unlike old weepy-eyes empathizer Billybob Clinton, or sad sack Jimmy Carter), but this man really could use some psychotherapy. Or Zoloft, which is probably cheaper.

I know you're thinking this is an insult of some sort, to replace Secretary Rumsfeld's first name with the feminine equivalent. But, ever since the 8th grade, I've not been sure of the utility of this practice. If Rumself were feminized, does that make him less effective of a defense secretary? And what's gender got to do with it anyways? President Bush is getting great advise on security matters from Rumsfeld and Colin Powell (male) as well as Condi Rice (female). So I don't understand the point (if there is one) of the gender switch.

It seems a kind of Bill Parcells thing to do.

A nice editorial piece from the LA Times discussing Secretary Rumsfeld and his views on "untidiness".

It's US Policy That Is Untidy

A couple of blurbs from the piece:

and

That was the killer for me. I hope Rumbo keeps that in mind in case Dubya Caesar "wins" the election next year, and we invoke the Secretary of War's words to remove the crew "by any means necessary"...

What a bloodthirsty, Strangelovian sonofabitch he is. If he'd been born in central Asia, he'd be in Al Qaeda.

[ April 16, 2003, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

Or running Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan or Kyrzygstan, some of the bloody dictatorships ("untidiness") that are imprisoning and killing people that we currently support.

But let's not quibble, people. SADDAM IS...at least no longer able to spit in our faces, wherever he is!

[In campy/nelly voice with hand gestures to match:]You never do, Charlene! [Seeing mutual friend enter bar:] And would you look at her! Honey, she's got to find a new salon! That hair is so last week! wink [/campy voice and hand gestures]

Just kidding, dude. Really. Now set me back down on the floor, and I'll tell the nice man with the "Security" T-shirt that it's all a misunderstanding ...

[ April 16, 2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: danimal ]

No, I think it sounds more operatic, mellifluous, better. "Nutty" Rumsfeld would be an insult. So read my mind again, from those upper branches.

BTW, unlike Parcells, I'm neither blond nor fat. But I did like when he had the Jets winning!

Charlie it's ok for a liberal to call people names, but when you do it to them, it's sqashing their right to speak...

Who you calling a liberal? :mad: wink

I prefer to think of myself as an equal-opportunity cynic. I scoff, therefore I am! Just don't hold me to any quotas.

As a republican, i dont believe in quotas, the bleenin heart liberals like um, just like they like unions.

Philly Fan is right. Quotas are wrong. The Blacks, Mexicans, and Asians must stop relying on these.

Davidbeck,

What are you talking about? Asians are NEVER the beneficiaries of racial quotas. In fact, if anything, asians in college admissions (to use the most recent national example) are held to HIGHER standards than any other group. Higher standards even than those for rich whites.
Why? We study and therefore do well on grades, tests, SAT etc etc. So if you have enough qualified asians applying to fill 50% of the incoming class, what happens..... Those would be 50% have to fight against other asians for the 5%-10% of the class allotted for asians.

I guarantee you that when I was applying to Yale, Brown and Georgetown, I was definitely NOT competing against the entire applicant pool for my slot.

Don't believe me? just look at what has happened in states that have removed racial quotas for college admission. Most of them show figures around 50% for incoming freshmen.

[ April 17, 2003, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

What does "bleenin" mean?

This is such pure ignorance it doesn't really merit a response, yet I can't not let it go unremarked. I'm not sure what QUOTAS you're talking about; in university admissions QUOTAS, in terms of fixed amounts that were actually codified, came under considerable attack in the 1980s and were REMOVED. Affirmative action and quotas are two different things. Perhaps if most universities, like the University of Virginia, to take one example, or Princeton, to take another, that blacks HELPED TO BUILD and subsidized for years had NOT discriminated against them in admissions--that is BARRED THEM FROM ADMISSION, we'd not need to talk about redress. But that's a parallel world we don't live in.

Another thing: if it weren't for the push by Black Americans to open up admissions at state and local universities from the 1950s onwards, many women, POOR WHITES, Asians and other folks would not have had the opportunities they have as SOON as they did. While some universities--UCLA, USC, Berkeley, Oberlin, etc.--have good track records, a vast many DO NOT. Some Asians DO qualify for affirmative action; the largest Asian group in California is...Filipinos. Filipino activists, like Asian activists across the country, recently spoke out IN FAVOR OF affirmative action with regard to the University of Michigan case, not because they were being PC, but because in some areas, especially among some Asian groups (Filipinos, Hmong, Khmer, etc.), they benefit from affirmative action.

Lastly, Ung, the majority of most of the classes at the Ivy League (I'll use that since you mentioned Yale and Brown) is white; and students who are athletes or legacies (again, the majority of these at the Ivy League institutions are white) receive far higher preferential treatment than any racial category. (George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Barbara P. Bush (the other half of the Bush twins), etc.) This is as true of Yale as it is of Penn or Cornell or Brown. You should read Louis Menand's excellent long piece on Ivy League admissions that appeared in the New Yorker, and also the book on preferential admissions that Harvard's and Princeton's former presidents (Derek Curtis Bok and William Bowen, respectively) wrote a few years ago as well.

No state universities as of 2003 have legally codified RACIAL QUOTAS in their admissions with the exception of HBCUs in some of the southern states, which are required by law to aim for admitting a certain percentage of white students to qualify for state funds. The states you are obviously talking about--Texas, and California--did not have quotas as of the change in their policies; they had affirmative action programs that were done away with. The results have differed between the two states. And Texas's racial history is considerably different from California's.

well this is where you and I differ on this topic the most.... to me affirmative action and racial quotas are one and the same.

and despite the differing racial histories of California and Texas, the results in college admissions have been the same.

Topic's car in ditch, wheel off.

And now we take you back to our live coverage of Attila the Rums' oratory skills.

yeah . so what has old foot-in-mouth Rummy been up to lately.

It's interesting to see what (if any) weapons of mass destructions are found. We have no barriers to doing as much searching as we want. We should come up with something. How will Colonel what's his name on FoxNews' morning news and Rummy explain away staking their reputations on it if we don't find anything?

In his usual approach of talking out of both his mouth and his ass, Rumsfeld has been trying to peddle this thing about how we will never "find" their WMD. (Apparently, our intelligence sources could tell us exactly how much existed of each thing, and where. However, the Iraqis managed to hide it all so well, that we can not find anything on our own.) Instead, we have to "wait" until we take some of the leadership into custody, and let them lead us to it.

Then yesterday there are all these articles posted about how we are sending another 1000 people to Iraq to augment the WMD forces already on the ground. These people are FBI, scientists, etc. We are even trying to hire away some of the UN inspectors we won't let back into the country.

So, logic would seem to play out that while we will never "find" anything on our own, Rumsfeld and crew certainly are trying harder and harder.

I believe that since the fighting is over, and we are in possession of all of the sites we said were factories of death, the pressure is on just a little bit. Soon we will be back to the magical convoys to Syria that our air forces and satellites never spotted.

Charlie, I read Rumsfelds words also. Somewhat funny if it wasn't somewhat scary.

his own words were.... He's right. It's not a "treasure hunt"! Treasure hunts don't have the players use sophisticated satellite systems and spying networks to find the locations of the hidden items before the search begins.

We went to war based on their sworn evidence/proof that these things did in fact exist and that we knew where they were.
We established our victory and presence in Iraq so quickly that there is no way that anything like major bioweapons labs/factories or chemical factories could be spirited away with or without detection.

Like you guys said, IF we KNEW ABSOLUTELY how much and where they had hidden these WMDs per our surveillance from the skies. Now that we have actual men on the ground should allow finding them to be a breeze.

Instead we get, "I don't think we'll discover anything." So the administration had to softly spin away the forged nuke documents thang. and now we're backing away from chemical and biological weapons too?

[ April 18, 2003, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

Nice way of summarizing it all.

I also read about a group called VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity), which is comprised of former State, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc employees. They as an organization were quoted as saying that the US should be embarrassed at its failure to turn up anything so far. They claim that the current intelligence processes would make it nearly impossible not to put your hands on the stuff if it existed in the quantities claimed by the administration, and given the specifics the administration claimed to have about the stuff.

The question will continue to be -- now that the fighting is over and we were able to "celebrate" an easy victory, will anyone care that we were misled so completely?

Having sex with an intern gets you impeached; lying to the country (and the world) to get your way has people turning their heads the other way. What kind of f**ked up thinking is that?

well... Charlie..... agains I say to you guys. What are the democrats doing in their role of the opposition?

You guys can't blame the media anymore. I mean... the information IS out there for anyone who wants to read a paper or see CNN. So what are the democrats doing? or do you guys still have your tails between the legs?

I know that I'm speaking up as a republican about this issue. What are Gephardt et al doing?

Is there someway we can make Rumsfeld the king of the world and get it over with??!!

If we could influence the Democratic leaders any better than the Republican ones, we would certainly expect a great deal more action than they have shown.

However, the Democrats control neither the White House nor the Congress. And both branches of government are supposed to represent all the people of the U.S., not just the people who support them. So, having expectations of the Republican leadership to police itself and do some ethics-checking should be the status quo. It should not be up to the Democratic leadership to make the administration sit up and fly right.

The general breakdown is more wholistic, though, I agree. Everyone has failed to do a good job of making sure that the balance of power is retained. The WH is simply running with the ball that everyone handed over. Their tactics in gaining and keeping possession of the ball, however, are rather deplorable. Especially for an administration that ran on a campaign of not interfering with other countries, no nation building, and being a "compassionate" administration. So far, it has failed on all those fronts.

AWEEEEEEEEEE, perhaps the democrats should start running better campaigns.... Or perhaps its because no one wants to hear them that they were voted out of office.

Now NO ONE IS being represented now cause the repubs took over... aint it a shame. The people of america voted in the republican congress, the republican president... now your views arent heard? pity aint it.

A tail? Oh, is that what that bulge in Clinton's pants was? wink

As for Gephardt, he's still giddy from his victory over NAFTA.

Seriously, I think most pols are doing one of two things right now: wallowing in war hysteria or waiting for it to blow over. Don't expect any rational discussion of anything (from either side of the aisle) for the next six months to a year.

My party affiliation? New Year's Eve!

The lack of a viable Democrat (complete with spine and brain) should not be used as "evidence" that the American people have all suddenly converted to Bush's ideals.

Making that type of leap in logic is foolish.