Difference between revisions of "Donald Rumsfeld"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(more references, filed links, internal links for Brin quote)
(→‎Quotes: fixed munged punctuation; put quote in blockquotes; added comment)
Line 29: Line 29:
  
 
==Quotes==
 
==Quotes==
“There’s something about the body politic in the United States that they can accept the enemy killing innocent men, women and children and cutting off people’s heads, but have zero tolerance for some soldier who does something he shouldn’t do.– Donald Rumsfeld, July, 2006 [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15075326/site/newsweek/page/12/]
+
<blockquote>There's something about the body politic in the United States that they can accept the enemy killing innocent men, women and children and cutting off people's heads, but have zero tolerance for some soldier who does something he shouldn't do.</blockquote><div align=right>&ndash; Donald Rumsfeld, July, 2006 [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15075326/site/newsweek/page/12/]</div>
  
 
This idea, i.e. that it's somehow biased or unfair to hold our own forces accountable to any higher standards than those to which we hold the enemy, has been widely propagated in [[neocon]] circles. The obvious answer is something like "Well of ''course'' people can accept that in the enemy and not in our own troops &ndash; '''that's why they're the enemy!''' We're supposed to be the [[good]] guys! If we're no better than they are, then why does it even matter which side wins?" Claiming or implying that the US shouldn't be held to higher standards than those of our enemies is basically an immoral stance; it denies any moral grounds for doing battle other than an "Us vs. Them" mentality, and implies that we should continue to do battle even if we are not clearly in the right. (I mean, is this not blindingly obvious to anyone except a politician? Do we need a [[moral standards in wartime|page for further discussion]] of this idea?)
 
This idea, i.e. that it's somehow biased or unfair to hold our own forces accountable to any higher standards than those to which we hold the enemy, has been widely propagated in [[neocon]] circles. The obvious answer is something like "Well of ''course'' people can accept that in the enemy and not in our own troops &ndash; '''that's why they're the enemy!''' We're supposed to be the [[good]] guys! If we're no better than they are, then why does it even matter which side wins?" Claiming or implying that the US shouldn't be held to higher standards than those of our enemies is basically an immoral stance; it denies any moral grounds for doing battle other than an "Us vs. Them" mentality, and implies that we should continue to do battle even if we are not clearly in the right. (I mean, is this not blindingly obvious to anyone except a politician? Do we need a [[moral standards in wartime|page for further discussion]] of this idea?)
 +
 +
'''Addendum''': This is an example of the more general statement "[[don't criticize the good guys]]": don't criticize Christianity, criticize Islam! Don't criticize the US when we act barbaric; criticize our barbaric enemies! And so on.
  
 
==Articles==
 
==Articles==

Revision as of 10:58, 25 March 2009

Overview

Donald Rumsfeld was the 21st United States Secretary of Defense from January 20, 2001 to November 8, 2006, under President George W. Bush" [W], and as such was a member of the 2000-2007 US Presidential Administration.

He also served in this same capacity under President Gerald Ford in 1975-77.

Links

Reference

Filed Links

  1. redirect template:links/smw

Historical

News & Views

Quotes

There's something about the body politic in the United States that they can accept the enemy killing innocent men, women and children and cutting off people's heads, but have zero tolerance for some soldier who does something he shouldn't do.

– Donald Rumsfeld, July, 2006 [1]

This idea, i.e. that it's somehow biased or unfair to hold our own forces accountable to any higher standards than those to which we hold the enemy, has been widely propagated in neocon circles. The obvious answer is something like "Well of course people can accept that in the enemy and not in our own troops – that's why they're the enemy! We're supposed to be the good guys! If we're no better than they are, then why does it even matter which side wins?" Claiming or implying that the US shouldn't be held to higher standards than those of our enemies is basically an immoral stance; it denies any moral grounds for doing battle other than an "Us vs. Them" mentality, and implies that we should continue to do battle even if we are not clearly in the right. (I mean, is this not blindingly obvious to anyone except a politician? Do we need a page for further discussion of this idea?)

Addendum: This is an example of the more general statement "don't criticize the good guys": don't criticize Christianity, criticize Islam! Don't criticize the US when we act barbaric; criticize our barbaric enemies! And so on.

Articles

Opinion

The man who oversaw our humiliation in not one but two catastrophic Asian land wars, who supported Saddam for decades till the maniac slipped his leash, who participated in the incredible Blunder of 1991, who later perceived Saddam bulging with hair-trigger WMDs, who suppressed military counsel about troop levels, who confidently predicted we would be greeted by the Iraqi people with "kisses and flowers," who sanctioned torture, who declared "mission accomplished" while predicting a short happy transition to peace and democracy in Iraq, who oversaw the worst decline in our state of readiness in generations and has alienated most of the Officer Corps and most of our allies...

...now appears to be claiming (without offering a scintilla of evidence) that he is such a superior manager of our nation's defense that there are no possible replacements. None at all. Not even from the pool of experienced and well-respected conservatives.