Donald Rumsfeld Is Mad As a Hatter

By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real. December 6, 2005.

We now have a certifiable loon in charge of the most powerful military on the face of the earth. Shouldn't someone do something?

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is mad. No, I mean seriously ill. Mentally ill. Demonstrably so.

I can't say whether or not he was mad from the start, but I can tell you with some degree of certainty that he is now. And he's getting worse. Each successive news conference he sounds more and more like the character, Dr. Charles Montague, who was head of "The Place for the Very, Very Nervous" in the 1977 Mel Brooks flick, High Anxiety.

Don got so nutty during his weekly news conference last week that Joint Chiefs head, General Pace, had to reel him in; not once, but twice. The first time was when Pace used the accepted term, "insurgents," to describe the indigenous fighters in Iraq.

Rumsfeld interrupted, waving both hands over his head, to announce that over the weekend he had had an epiphany. We've been using the wrong term entirely to describe the Iraqis killing our troops over there, he pronounced from on high. They are not "insurgents," they are "Enemies of the Legally Elected Iraqi Government," or EOLEIGs. (Guess we know now why Donald never made it as a corporate jingle writer.)

Now ask yourself, what kind of person but a nut, would make such a pronouncement at a time when American kids are being blown up by the dozen each week? And to do so with such pompous grandiosity, on TV, and to cynical, hard-boiled reporters! Only a madman, a person so deeply confused in his own mind that he thinks his absurd ruling actually is contributing to a solution.

What on earth was he thinking? Actually, nothing new. Renaming fighters in Iraq has become a veritable hobby for Don. He's been re-branding the Iraqi fighters since the day we arrived there. Before the war even started he didn't even have a term for them because, he assured us, there would be no opposition to a U.S. attack on their country. But after Saddam was gone and U.S. troops started dying, Don told the same TV cameras to pay them no attention because, he said then, they were just a handful of "Dead-Enders" (D.E.'s).

As conditions in Rumsfeld's newly liberated Iraq deteriorated further, he renamed them again. No longer Dead Enders, they were now "Foreign Terrorist Fighters." And better yet, he said, they had been reduced to a rag-tag bunch that were "in their last throes."

Once Rumsfeld was done revealing his renaming epiphany he gave the microphone back to a clearly embarrassed General Pace. The general was faced with the choice of joining his boss in Looneyland, or using the now banned term, insurgents. Instead he said, Yeah, what he just said.

If Rumsfeld says such nutty things right on TV, you can imagine the thoughts he shares with subordinates back in the privacy of his office at the Pentagon. Where Yeah, what he just said becomes the day's marching orders.

The second time General Pace had to reel Rumsfeld in was when Pace was asked by reporters if U.S. troops in Iraq were supposed to step in and stop Iraqi troops from abusing fellow Iraqis. Pace was in the process of giving the right answer (yes), when Don-in-the-Box popped up again. "But I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it; it's to report it," he corrected the general.

Pace had no choice. "If they are physically present when inhumane treatment is taking place, sir, they have an obligation to try to stop it."

The look on Rumsfeld's face was the same look parents get when they tell their teenagers, "If your friends start drinking or using drugs you leave that party and come straight home!" You know the look -- the eyeballs rollup as the head jerks dismissively to one side.

From that look it was clear that Rumsfeld believes that, while U.S. troops had the right to invade Iraq, topple its government and occupy the country, they have no business telling Iraqis not to beat, torture or kill their own folks. Not our job, he says. (Administration vice-enabler, Dick Cheney, appears to agree.)

So we now have a certifiable loon in charge of the most powerful military on the face of the earth. Shouldn't someone do something? I mean, if Bush insists on having a nut in this post, at least hire a harmless nut. The world is full of them. He could find less nutty nuts downtown in any major city. Pick one with less dangerous notions than Don has. That way the weekly Pentagon news conferences would continue being ever so entertaining, but fewer people would get killed.

It's time for someone to tell Donald Rumsfeld, "No more fruit cup for you!" ____Stephen Pizzo

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://alternet.org/waroniraq/29101/



Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including "Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," which was nominated for a Pulitzer.

"Now ask yourself, what kind of person but a nut, would make such a pronouncement at a time when American kids are being blown up by the dozen each week? And to do so with such pompous grandiosity, on TV, and to cynical, hard-boiled reporters! "


Try cindy sheehan and that idiot Murtha

I don't understand ...how Rumsfeld use of the term ..........."Enemies of the Legally Elected Iraqi Government" ................as the author states .......implies that he thinks it's use is "actually is contributing to a solution" .....??

Linking those two thoughts .....is the absurdity.


Slim

No one in the Bush regime is insane.

God told me to say that.

Originally posted by slim
I don't understand.....

Of that, I have ZERO doubt.

I humbly suggest that you use those three words ---"I don't understand"---as your holy mantra and as a preface to every response you make to these boards from this day forward.

Originally posted by slim
...how Rumsfeld use of the term ..........."Enemies of the Legally Elected Iraqi Government" ................as the author states .......implies that he thinks it's use is "actually is contributing to a solution" .....??

Let me try to break this down to junior high school level.

The fact that during the weekly news conference being run by the head of the Joint Chiefs, General Pace, Rumsfled loudly interrupted Pace's comments by waving both hands over his head and proclaiming that he'd had a revelation, that we must from that point forward use this NEW term that Rumsfeld had concieved ---"""Enemies of the Legally Elected Iraqi Government," or EOLEIGs."" -- would indicate to most thinking people that in Rumsfeld's mind it was a very important distinction, worthy of an arm waving interruption, and one that would make a meaningful contribution to our activities there.

Actually that's not what he said. If you read the the transcript he is asked what they should be called in lieu of 'insurgents'.

Death squads and rejectionists more accurately describe them.

This fight is over. That military battle is won. All that's left is the narrative and guys like murtha, dean, pelosi and kerry are trying to get their two cents in.

Elections next week, the secular parties are looking much stronger. Much to be optimistic about.

Originally posted by waldo
Actually that's not what he said.

Who are you refering to; Pace or Rumsfeld??

Because Pace was the person at the podium, and was the person who would have been asked such a question, and this discussion has ZERO to do with anything General Pace said.

If you're refering to Rumsfeld, i'd like a link to whatever transcript you're talking about, (?!?!?!) because Rumsfeld was NOT the person speaking and taking questions.

Originally posted by waldo
If you read the the transcript he is asked what they should be called in lieu of 'insurgents'.

In the link i provided, neither Pace NOR Rumsfeld is responding after being questioned as to what they should be called.

General Pace used a term (insurgent) as he was speaking about something, and Rumsfeld wildly interupted him to interject what he claims is to be THE new term.

Originally posted by waldo
Death squads and rejectionists more accurately describe them.

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with what we are specifically discussing; i.e., Rumsfeld's nuttiness in thinking that only HE gets to determine the nomenclature, AND that said nomenclature it is extremely important to the military efforts there.

Originally posted by waldo
This fight is over. That military battle is won.

Oh goody!!!

Let's just tell every parent in the US who has a son or daughter over there and who is worried to the point of exhaustion that ---"Hey, don't worry. The fight is over. The military battle is won. "

I'm sure there'l be no more fatalities, if "the fighting is over."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Freethinker and the author has lost me.............so Rumsfield said .............."Enemies of the Legally Elected Iraqi Government " ..........I am not denying this .....but ...where does Freethinker and the author ......come to the conclusion that Rumsfield thinks this is a solution to winning the Battle in Iraq or the War On Terror.

Did Rumsfield say this is the solution to the battle in iraq ........???

It is ridiculous that this is the whole crux of the authors article ......and .......I don't know how he draws the connection. I think the author has formed an opinion of his own in the article. ....and ....The Freethinker has swallowed it.......*L*.

Seems like a waste of ink.


Slim

Death squads and rejectionists more accurately describe them. Actually "the Iraqi Resistance" is far more accurate.

This fight is over. That military battle is won. Bwahahhaaaa. You sound like you should go and join Donny in Loony land. You obviously have no grasp on reality.

All that's left is the narrative and guys like murtha, dean, pelosi and kerry are trying to get their two cents in. Yup they are oppurtunistic assholes who are trying to ride the anti-war wave.

There are only133 in the House and 23 in the Senate that can actually say they were against this war.

Pelosi was one of them so she has a legitimate claim to this. Murtha, Kerry and Dean all voted for it and are nothing but whores.

I really just can't understand this...

Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601707_pf.html

Originally posted by slim
Freethinker and the author has lost me.............

Wait.

Your holy mantra was to be ---I don't understand!

Never mind.

In --""You has lost me""-- you're saying pretty much the same thing, so lets continue.

Originally posted by slim
so Rumsfield said .............."Enemies of the Legally Elected Iraqi Government " ..........I am not denying this .....but ...where does Freethinker and the author ......come to the conclusion that Rumsfield thinks this is a solution to winning the Battle in Iraq or the War On Terror.

Did Rumsfield say this is the solution to the battle in iraq ........???

Once more, read the relevant portion of the article, and try to comprehend what point the author is making.

He said, in talking about Rumsfeld waving both of his arms over his head and interrupting the head of the Joint Chiefs as he was giving a news conference---

""Now ask yourself, what kind of person but a nut, would make such a pronouncement at a time when American kids are being blown up by the dozen each week? And to do so with such pompous grandiosity, on TV, and to cynical, hard-boiled reporters! Only a madman, a person so deeply confused in his own mind that he (Donald Rumsfeld) thinks that HIS absurd ruling (on what the insurgents/Dead Enders/Foreign Terrorist Fighters/rag-tag-bunch-in-their-last-throes/Enemies of the Legally Elected Iraqi Government/EOLEIGs are to be refered to this week) actually is contributing to a solution.

Please pay a bit of attention to the last, slim---- the operative point is ***that in making a seemingly meaningless distinction over what we will CALL a certain group of people there Rumsfeld obviously THINKS, as revealed by his bizarre actions, that he is CONTRIBUTING in some way to a solution to the problems faced there***.

Got it now?!?!?!?

Originally posted by slim
I think the author has formed an opinion of his own in the article.

Yes, slim, he *formed an opinion*.

And he gave a detailed explanantion as to why and how he came to that opinion.

But you --"don't understand it".

I can't figure out if your intent is obfuscation or if you're honestly that incapable of seeing the point.

The author makes that conclusion .....Rumsfield does not say anything about it being a solution to the Battle in Iraq.


Slim

Originally posted by slim
The author makes that conclusion .....Rumsfield does not say anything about it being a solution to the Battle in Iraq.
Slim

And neither does the author say that ""Rumsfeld thinks it will be a solution to the war in Iraq".

You REALLY need to get someone who has English as a first language read the article to you and explain what it means when someone says --[i]""only a deeply confused person would imagine that such an absurd ruling is contributing to a solution"".

Obviously, by his actions , Rumsfeld believes that all this --"what shall we call them now?!?!?!" bullshit is in some way making a contribution.

PLEASE take the time to look up the word **contributing**, and stop your inane commentary.

Correctimundo ....so only you and him have come to that conclusion ......Lunatics ........*L* ..........you two are probably brothers.

Your author reports it as Rumsfields justification for using the term ............"Enemies of the Legally Elected Iraqi Government ".

It clearly wasn't brought forward by Rumsfiled and it clearly is only yours and the authors conclusions .......*L*

Look in the mirror.


Slim

Originally posted by slim
Correctimundo ....so only you and him have come to that conclusion ......Lunatics ........*L* ..........you two are probably brothers.

Your author reports it as Rumsfields justification for using the term ............"Enemies of the Legally Elected Iraqi Government ".

It clearly wasn't brought forward by Rumsfiled and it clearly is only yours and the authors conclusions .......*L*

Look in the mirror.


Slim

You win slim.

I fucking give up.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Who are you refering to; Pace or Rumsfeld??

Because Pace was the person at the podium, and was the person who would have been asked such a question, and this discussion has ZERO to do with anything General Pace said.

If you're refering to Rumsfeld, i'd like a link to whatever transcript you're talking about, (?!?!?!) because Rumsfeld was NOT the person speaking and taking questions.



In the link i provided, neither Pace NOR Rumsfeld is responding after being questioned as to what they should be called.

General Pace used a term (insurgent) as he was speaking about something, and Rumsfeld wildly interupted him to interject what he claims is to be THE new term.



Maybe, but that has nothing to do with what we are specifically discussing; i.e., Rumsfeld's nuttiness in thinking that only HE gets to determine the nomenclature, AND that said nomenclature it is extremely important to the military efforts there.



Oh goody!!!

Let's just tell every parent in the US who has a son or daughter over there and who is worried to the point of exhaustion that ---"Hey, don't worry. The fight is over. The military battle is won. "

I'm sure there'l be no more fatalities, if "the fighting is over."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

just for you.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20051129-secdef4361.html

If you bother to read the whole transcript of the press conference you'll see he states his objection to the use of the phrase early on(about a third of the way thru) but doesn't suggest the term until nearly 2/3 of the way thru and to much laughter, including his own.
GEN. PACE: I think what you see most recently are the examples of the operations that have been taking place in the Euphrates Valley between Baghdad and the Syrian border. You're seeing the combination of U.S., coalition and Iraqi forces working side by side, many times with the Iraqi armed forces in the lead, taking cities from the -- I have to use the word "insurgent" because I can't think of a better word right now -- (soft laughter) -- take the --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Enemies of the Iraqi -- legitimate Iraqi government. How's that? (Laughter.)

GEN. PACE: What the secretary said.

Just because the battle has been won doesn't mean fighting is over.
There are nutters who suggest/think that the death squads are actually winning. Yet they can cite no battles won, no territory held, no broad support among the population. No political agenca that receives any support fromt the populace. The only battle the enemy is winning is convincing democrats in washington and the anti-war loons that because they can set off a bomb in a mosque they must be winning. Sorry, that's not evidence of success.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Actually "the Iraqi Resistance" is far more accurate.

When the vast majority of your 'iraqi resistance' is directing their energy at killing civilians (particularly those engaged in shopping, worshipping in a mosque, or boarding a bus) one wonders what your 'iraqi resistance' think these innocents are part of.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla Bwahahhaaaa. You sound like you should go and join Donny in Loony land. You obviously have no grasp on reality.

Perhaps you could point us to some of the victories or battles they've won? Just one even. Some territory they control? A city a town something, anything. Perhaps you could point to their widespread support for some political agenda they espouse. Shold i hold my breath waiting for just one?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla Yup they are oppurtunistic assholes who are trying to ride the anti-war wave.

There are only133 in the House and 23 in the Senate that can actually say they were against this war.

Pelosi was one of them so she has a legitimate claim to this. Murtha, Kerry and Dean all voted for it and are nothing but whores.

I really just can't understand this...

Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Antiwar Remarks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601707_pf.html

You need to be open to other possibilities. The public obviously looks at it in a much different fashion than you. The politicians are aware of it as well. The d's are in a rock and a hard place. They need to say the ridiculous anti-war to appease the base but recognize that the majority of people have a much different perspective.

Originally posted by waldo
J
There are nutters who suggest/think that the death squads are actually winning. Yet they can cite no battles won, no territory held, no broad support among the population. ......Sorry, that's not evidence of success.

Well then.......sounds like you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

I guess the stunning victory over Iraq that you're describing explains why virtually every person living in America who has been asked about it is still solidly behind the forever-war against Iraq.

Congratulations on a wonderfully run, well thought out and eminently successful "war" effort.

Yewah your right Waldo. The US just kicked so much ass in Iraq and won so thuroghly that they are just there celebrating, like a running back in footnball...

Yet they can cite no battles won, no territory held, no broad support among the population. ......Sorry, that's not evidence of success. Yeah well if you can name anyplce the US controls besides the greenzone (which has still had mortors fired within it) then you may possible have a point.)

When the vast majority of your 'iraqi resistance' is directing their energy at killing civilians No. Those are terrorists. The Iraqi Resistance is the one who keeps racking up the US death toll in Iraq. They are brave people defending their homes from a vastly better equipped invading force.