Rumsfeld: Bush foes lack courage on terror

[Canuck_Buck]

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of lacking the courage to fight terror.

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral and intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/29/rumsfeld.ap/index.html

...part of the problem is that the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive.

Rummy in 2008 ???

[USMC PMI]

Is his bean bag dragging or what? That is a pretty bold statement but it is nice to hear a direct statement come from a politician's mouth.

[Whitehorse]

I know the left will jump on him because he's Rumsfeld, but is he wrong? I think he's right, & they squirm when called out!

[Tazman]

You know, there is an awful lot about Bush I don't like, but when it comes to the war on terrorism he sure isn't going to back down. The Iraq deal is a fiasco that I hope will in the long run pay off, but we have a ways to go yet.

[boysda]

I disagree. Rumsfeld's comments (although the article has more paraphrases than direct quotes) are an example of what's wrong with the political climate in the US today. If we disagree with someone, we immediately question their motivation, their patriotism, or their courage. And believe me, this is a bipartisan problem. The right tends to question the courage or patriotism of those they oppose. The left's favorite tactic is to question intellectual acuity.

Are we to believe that those who disagree with the administration's foreign policy lack courage? Because that is the necessary implication. Only those who support Bush are true, courageous Americans?

I believe in the "war against terror". I don't believe that the war in Iraq is an effective use of our limited resources in the larger fight. That does not make me a bad american, or mean I lack the courage that Rumsfeld thinks he has.

It's a cheap BS tactic, but rhetorically, i guess it's easier than defending your position on the merits.

[Canuck_Buck]

Constructive criticism is much better than blaming a team mate for a bad play or mistakeduring a game. Teamwork....there is no " i " in team , right?

[vc1111]

Boysda nailed this one down so well there really isn't much to add. Its nice to read the words of this board's critical thinkers.

All I can say is that there are those among us that have somehow made a concious decision to either back everything going on under the hands of the present administration or simply fall silent.

Question: If I disagree with our immigration policy, does that make me lacking courage on terror?

[petasux]

its a sad state of affairs when politics in this country center so much around name calling.Election campaigns no longer focus on the issues at hand, they rely on smear campaigns and digging up dirt from peoples past to discredit them rather then talking about the here and now.Instead of concentrating on a way to actually salvage something from the war in Iraq they spend enormous amounts of energy slandering one another and refusing to work together.Its like a bunch of 10 year olds havng a pissing match in the school yard, it would almost be funny if we werent funding it and they werent supposed to be leading this country.Its Rumsfield right now but soon the other party will come back with something equally as insulting and if it isnt the war thats being criticized its something else.Theyve gotten finger pointing down to a fine art.

[Tazman]

Election campaigns no longer focus on the issues at hand, they rely on smear campaigns and digging up dirt from peoples past to discredit them rather then talking about the here and now.

One of the main reasons why many good people do not run for office, thier character and life could be perfect, so both the press and the opposing party will then start digging into the candidates families background to find some dirt to throw on them.

[boysda]

it depresses me to say this, but we get the government, and the candidates, and the campaigns, we deserve.

I have worked on many campaigns, and run several, over the years. There have been campaigns where my candidate ran on the issues, and won. and there have been campaigns where it was impossible to run on the issues and still win. in those latter instances, we nuked our opponents. surgical application of nasty negative stuff. we usually won bigger.

as a rule, MOST voters vote viscerally, rather than consciously. images and catchy sound bites make up their minds for them. they then rationalize theircandidate choice after the fact.

you can run a campaign based upon ideals, it's just aLOT harder.