Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Out with the Neo-Con We Say!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Out with the Neo-Con We Say!

    I just love the surge of negative press for the incompetent ideologue, Rumsfeld...

    After Outcry, Rumsfeld Says He Will Sign Condolences
    Report Reveals His Signature Was Stamped on Letters to Dead Soldiers' Families
    By GENARO C. ARMAS, AP

    WASHINGTON (Dec. 19) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has decided to personally sign condolence letters to the family members of U.S. troops killed in action rather than letting a machine affix his signature.

    Republican and Democratic members of Congress criticized the embattled Pentagon chief on Sunday for not signing the letters himself all along.

    ''My goodness, that's the least that we could expect of the secretary of defense, is having some personal attention paid by him,'' said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., nothing that President Bush signs such letters himself.

    ''If the president of the United States can find time to do that, why can't the Secretary of Defense?'' Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, asked on CBS' ''Face the Nation.''

    In a statement Friday, Rumsfeld announced the change in policy and said more than 1,000 condolence letters had gone out to relatives of Americans killed in military action during the global fight against terrorism.

    ''While I have not individually signed each one, in the interest of ensuring expeditious contact with grieving family members, I have directed that in the future I sign each letter,'' Rumsfeld said in the statement.

    ''I am deeply grateful for the many letters I have received from the families of those who have been killed in the service of our country, and I recognize and honor their personal loss,'' he said.

    The statement, which was reported Friday by the military newspaper, Stars & Stripes, did not specifically refer to troops killed in Iraq, though family members of soldiers who died there told the newspaper they were angry with Rumsfeld's apparent stamped signature. More than 1,300 American troops have died since the war began in March 2003.

    Messages left with the Pentagon about the criticism from lawmakers were not immediately returned Sunday.

    Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., a West Point graduate, said Rumsfeld's failure to sign letters himself until now displayed ''his lack of leadership styles that are appropriate for the military.''

    Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri, the third-ranking Republican in the House said on CNN's ''Late Edition'' that ''signing the letter is a mechanical but an important thing.''

    ''It's better for him to do it and he's acknowledged that. It was a mistake and it was a mistake that he's now said he will rectify,'' Blunt said.

    The signature flap was the latest in a stinging string of criticism in recent weeks of the defense secretary's handling of the war in Iraq.

    Several leading Republicans, including Hagel and Sens. Trent Lott of Mississippi and John McCain of Arizona have said they have lost confidence in Rumsfeld. Lott last week said he thought Bush should replace Rumsfeld in the next year.

    But Rumsfeld, who agreed to Bush's request earlier this month to remain in the Cabinet during the president's second term, won a vote of confidence from Bush chief of staff Andrew Card on Sunday.

    ''Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a spectacular job,'' Card told ABC's ''This Week.''
    \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
    Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

  • #2
    I'd like to sign his condolences... :twisted:
    \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

    Comment


    • #3
      And if he just can't write? ... and read? Wouldn't surprise me in those Bushovique circles...

      X X
      Google ergo sum

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by LEtranger
        And if he just can't write? ... and read? Wouldn't surprise me in those Bushovique circles...

        X X
        It's not his mind that's missing, just his conscience. :x

        Comment


        • #5
          His letter should read something like this:

          Dear Mr. and Mrs. American,

          I regret to inform you that due to my utter lack of competence, unbending desire to kill Muslims, and absolute refusal to equip US troops with the proper weapons and armor, your son/daughter has been killed in the line of duty. I hope that you will be able to see the big picture and not hold me and the rest of the Bush Administration accountable for this tragedy. Your son/daughter was just fodder, anyway. He/she knew that going in. After all, you fight with the Army you have, not the one you wish you had.

          God Bless,

          Defense Secretary Donald "Don't Call Me Rummy" Rumsfeld
          "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
          --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

          Comment


          • #6
            Let me preface my greater point by saying that I think that Rummy deserves all of the criticism that any and all give him.

            Now that I have that out of the way...

            My only problem with the Rummy bashing is that I fear he is going to be the eventual scapegoat for W's war. The war was certainly planned and executed poorly, but, more importantly, it was ill-conceived by W's closest circle. I want them to be held accountable for some of the mess that is sure to result.

            As a pessimistic addition...

            It pisses me off that people want to take a critical look at the war in Iraq after the election, rather than before it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Doc
              I fear [Rummy] is going to be the eventual scapegoat for W's war... It pisses me off that people want to take a critical look at the war in Iraq after the election, rather than before it.
              Oh man, don't even get me started! I'm so with you, Doc!
              "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
              --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                Sometimes I wonder if this stuff is fake. In the Art of War is says that you should make your army look disorganized and confused. This will make the enemy believe that you are incompetent and easily attacked. Then, in the final moments you organize and then strike. It makes me wonder if what we are seeing is misinformation.
                I beg forgiveness if not entirely convinced ...!
                Google ergo sum

                Comment


                • #9
                  Adlerian, it's a good thought, but I think you give Bush and his boys waaaaaaayyyy too much credit. Sun Tzu is spinning like a lathe in his grave if he's watching the US military at work in Iraq. If his centuries-dead palm can slap his decomposed forehead, then it is definitely doing so... repeatedly.

                  Hell, I'm betting George W. Bush can't even spell "Sun Tzu."
                  "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                  --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There was this joke about Nasser after the "Six Days' War" ...it could be adapted to what you came up with, Adlerian.

                    Like this:
                    Who were the three greatest military geniuses in History?

                    a) Russian Csar Alexander - he lured Napoleon as far as Moscow and let Winter finish him off !
                    b) Stalin - he lured Hitler's armies to the outskirts of Moscow and let Winter finish them off!
                    c) Rumsfeld - he lured AL Quaida and the Sarkawi Gang to attack the US forces in Iraq, and now he's just waiting for Winter to come.
                    (in the original it was Nasser who lured the Israelis to the Suez Canal and was waiting for Winter to come)

                    Bit corny, I guess, but it was prompted by your suggestion there might be a strategy behind this disastrous "handling" of the occupation and, haha, "Liberation of Iraq".
                    Google ergo sum

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sort of the battlefield equivalent of Drunken Monkey Kung-Fu... :lol:
                      "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                      --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Inviting the attack, as such apparent weakness and confusion does,
                        is a really fundamental strategy of combat at either the personal
                        or large scale levels.

                        Problem is, you've got to counter the invited attack with the appropriate
                        response. Otherwise, it's simply pointless activity, tinged with violence.
                        Inviting the attack, then kicking a bystander instead of one's opponent
                        doesn't inspire confidence that you belong in the arena. A slapstick
                        comedy stage is more like it. Shades of the Three Stooges.

                        LSN

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                          Yes "might be" is the best way to put it.

                          The idea of looking like a fool does come from Chinese strategy though. It refers to the army not being seen as affective. This can make the enemy bold and foolish.
                          Don't know about them reading Sun Tzu, but the way they dumped the standing Iraqi army and security forces at the end ot the March On Baghdad, without pay, shows that they don't appear to have read their Machiavelli.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I don't see any other possibility of the Iraq War being anything but a big blunder. That's puttling it lightly. The only thing that can be said is Hussein was removed from power. Everything else falls into the FUBAR category.
                            Having an election next month seems to be a big deal. Is it really?
                            \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                            Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TheAdlerian
                              The big blunder is not knowing that muslim people can't stand having infidels in their country. It's like you are soiling their soil by even being there. So, they won't stop fighting until we leave.
                              No, until their dignity is restored!
                              And remember, the whole thing is based on lies. The trouble is that lying has been approved by the election outcome.
                              Google ergo sum

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X