Dugger (And yes, I am willing to ‘pretend’ he meant no more than he said)

Quaker: “They re giving heart to the terrorists”
Rummy: “the steady stream of errors all seem to be of a nature to inflame the situation and to give heart to the terrorists”

Quaker: “and discouraging those who hope for our success”
Rummy: “and to discourage those who hope for success in Iraq”

Quaker: “and it s not just an accident either”
Rummy: “It isn t as though there simply have been a series of random errors on both sides of issues”

Yes, yes, I know. You’re willing to pretend that these are casual observations and that Rummy wasn’t questioning anyone’s motives.

Where did he say this?:

 They re giving heart to the terrorists and discouraging those who hope for our success, and it s not just an accident either.

I don’t see it. He said this:

“Interestingly, all of the exaggerations seem to be on one side,” he said. “It isn’t as though there simply have been a series of random errors on both sides of issues. On the contrary, the steady stream of errors all seem to be of a nature to inflame the situation and to give heart to the terrorists and to discourage those who hope for success in Iraq.”

Thats different (obviously) from your quote.

Dugger

why does Bush always sound like he’s talking to five year olds?

“He speaks to the audience as if they’re idiots. I think the reason he does that is because that’s the way these issues were explained to him.” – Graydon Carter

The funny thing is that he sounds irritated too. It has always puzzled me why he seems so inappropriately impatient in his town meetings, as if his rapt audience needs some sort of time-wasting remedial education before he can get to the subject, which he never does. (“See — social security is a program for older people. Older people like ta retire. When you retire you don’t work. When you don’t work you don’t earn money. That’s the problem.”)

Again, he’s just parroting his own tutorial.

“They’re giving heart to the terrorists and discouraging those who hope for our success, and it’s not just an accident either.”

But he didn’t actuall let slip the “T” word, so he might not have been implying treason?

If you say so.

Rumsfeld: Leave those ammo dumps alone guys, we need terrorists to seize those weapons or the invasion is all for naught. If the terrorists can only throw flowers like we keep saying will happen, they’ll lose heart and fly to Ohio. Gentlemen, those terrorists must be armed to the teeth or my brilliant plan of “kill our soldiers there, not our civilians here” will work.

Army Guys: this war will cost us billions of dollars, why don’t we just pour some of that into beefing up domestic security?

Rumsfeld: It’s just brilliant! I tell you!

I’ve always loved this bit. Which is it guys? Are we there to liberate Iraq or turn it into a permanent warzone so we can “draw out” all the bad guys?

I guess in Pedro’s view it’s better that innocent Iraqis die than innocent Americans. Because, you know, all life is precious, it’s just that some life if more precious than others.

That must be why:

They don’t have proper armor, without the ability to kill our soldiers, terrorists would soon lose interest and book flights for NY.

There aren’t enough troops to maintain order, again, booking flights comes to mind.

And it goes on! When we torture the citizens of Iraq in prisons like Abu Ghraib, we do it to incite the terrorists so they’ll be mad enough to want to kill our soldiers over there, instead of getting bored and sneaking over the border from mexico.

Nice theory, Dr Doper, nice “support” of the troops.

not wandering the streets of NYC shooting at unarmed, un body-armored civilians& .

Bands of terrorists roaming the streets of NYC? Say, you are delusional, aren’t you?

Are you saying that we’re using our soldiers to chum the waters?

Nice.

“Rummy says:  They give heart to the terrorists.

Rummy says:  They discourage those who hope for our success.

But Rummy isn t calling it treason?”

All (possibly) true and not treason.

Dugger (You assume intent of a certain kind)

Holy god. Dugger, do you know what else would explain the consistency of “the problem”: THE MEDIA IS REPORTING THE TRUTH. You remember the truth don’t you? It’s closely tied to REALITY. You guys are just gone, totally gone.

Frank, give it a rest. You cited a source who claimed that the Western and European media completely ignored the destruction of Orthodox Christian churches in Kosovo. She then put this down to anti-Christian bias. You blindly accepted this wild generalization even though it’s ludicrous on its face. I went to the NY Times website and found two articles about the very same incident in 2004 that she cites an example of an overlooked desecration. It wasn’t overlooked. The New York Times covered it. Your source is either lying or stupid and yet you cite her in an attempt to make the exact the same point: That the Western media cares more about Muslim mosques than Christian churches.

Let’s talk about arrogance Frank:

“Oh yes, no comment on the Balkan Bungle, eh? I forgot& That was a Democratic f*ck up. We don t talk about those, right?”

No Frank, we do talk about Democratic fuck ups. But we talk about them in a reasonable manner and don’t muddy the waters with irrationality, stupidity and outright dishonesty. Your source was counting on your gullibility and stupidity. Not only did she succeed in duping you, she succeeded in getting you to pass her mendacity on as fact. You do this again and again in your posts when just a little fact checking would save you from embarassing yourself. But for all the scorn you heap on the liberals here, you regular give proof here that you desperately, desperately want to believe the lies you are fed. When confronted with the facts you dig in your heels and spit:

“Oh, yes you feound a reference from 2004. That does it for me. Ass.”

But Frank, that did indeed do it for you. You had no argument after that which is born out in the fact that you have yet to actually defend your original assertion. You’ve just been attacking my for pointing how gullible and stupid you are. Now if you want to get back a discussion, so-called, please tell me how your sources thesis still holds any water. Here’s what you wrote, aping her argument:

“And this is a Civil War, that s bloodier than Iraq s media contrived Civil War, and the Media isn t covering it because it s a by product of Clinton s Kosovo / Bosnia Lewinsky Diversion”

But Frank, the media did cover it and I gave you two examples from the most important paper in the country. Do I have to go and find more?

I think your own preconceptions re Rummy are prejudicing your judgment. He does not say treason. You are saying  if he says this, then he must mean this (because you know how all those  treason accusin Rs think) .

I can t read his mind, neither can you.

Whuh?

Rummy says: “They give heart to the terrorists.”

Rummy says: “They discourage those who hope for our success.”

But Rummy isn’t calling it treason?

As I said, you should be so willing to give Mr. Durbin the benefit of so many doubts.

Pedro, I think it’s you who’ve missed the point. The acts of retaliation you referred to in post-war France were directed at defeated Nazis and those that collaborated with them. They were not directed at the Allied occupying armies.

In Iraq, the violence is directed at occupation troops by the same enemy we were fighting when we first invaded: Sadaam loyalists and deposed Sunnis. Only they have the additional assistance of crazy jihadists coming in from outside the country. There’s absolutely no comparison between post-WWII Europe and post-invasion Iraq, unless it’s a negative one.

Your sullenness and bursts of hostility are obvious signs that there is something wrong with you. And you are right about one, and only one, thing — I mght change someday.

Unfortunately, you won’t.

And the militias rule

There is no safety net, save the fantasy of a fool.

If the rule of law holds little or no sway

The body count in dispute, like a basketball score

makes the Grandstand descend into Civil War

All those killings in post wwII didn’t make the war a “failure”, anymore than the current terrorist actions in Iraq make that action a failure.