Views on Donald Rumsfeld are doubtless strongly held, but only in certain quarters are they fully settled. The BBC presents a round up of bad news for Donald with one of those emotionalised and opportunistic items basically whining that, at the end of the day, he ‘just doesn’t care’. It is, I suppose, Christmas- so a present was in order for the Secretary, which should sink in by about Christmas day on the present schedule.
No place is found to mention this story of anti-Rummy coordination as they wax lyrical about disgruntled troops and roll out old favourite and Michael Moore cheerleader, ‘To me it’s an insult’Ivan Medina. I may be heartless but I feel that just because a man has lost his brother does not mean that I should be made to listen to his every complaint. The Beeb considers otherwise when the target is Rummy.
Meanwhile, regarding that story about the unarmoured vehicles, this from Powerline was interesting.
Comparing WWII with GWII isn’t really appropriate. Hitler invading Poland kind of forced the issue in WWII. In contrast the coalition could attack Iraq at their leisure.
Logistical failings apart, the main criticism of Rumsfeld is his hopeless underestimate of post occupation insurgency. Given that any idiot could forsee that Iraqis would’t be universally ecstatic to live under US occupation this suggests that he was letting ideological fervour affect his judgement.
On the plus side, obviously the invasion and ousting of Saddam went as smoothly as anyone could have hoped – he’s far from awful, just not impervious to criticism.
Could the Ghost and the Knowing One explain to this simple soul when, in the BBC’s lexicon, is the murderer of innocent people a ‘militant’ and when is he/she a ‘terrorist’?
Cockney,
I completely agree with you re: Rumsfeld. I think (to put it simply) he was so ideologically convinced of US military superiority, that he second-guessed the generals when scoping out the mission post occupation.
The least he could have done was to pretend to fall on his sword and proffer resignation. That way Bush could refuse his resignation on the basis of changing horses mid-stream. Everyone wins…
Regards,
James
Not really OT, since this thread concerns both “manure” and “dump”:
Koffee Kup’s chief of staff at the UN just quit, shortly after computer hard drives and files were taken for examination by investigators working for Volker. Many others — including the UN controller, the UN special representative to the middle east, the head of the UN relief and works agency, and the undersecretary-general of the UN department of management — are variously described as unhappy and about to undergo a change of status.
Some detail here: http://www.nysun.com/article/6697
All this on a slow pre-Xmas news day, too.
As for prominent coverage from the BBC, uhm, well…
And speaking of basted turkeys, where’s Frei?
Waiting, we’re waiting…
Just saw this on the Radio Five message board:-
Radio Right On
Ernold Kovacs – 699th post – 19 Dec 2004 16:27
Whilst in the car last night I caught • much as one catches flu or a finger in the door – part of Richard Bacon’s show, during which there was a phone-in on the Birmingham Rep play Bezthi that’s caused such offence to the Sikh community. True to form, Radio Right On in its wisdom chose two studio guests who were both anti the play, a state of affairs that accorded nicely with the hosts own views (“This freedom of speech argument doesn’t really stand up, does it?”).
Imagine a programme maker at 5Live saying, “We’ve got a topic about conflict between minority sensibilities and freedom of expression • let’s get two guests, but we must make sure that both of them are more in favour of the latter.” Simply wouldn’t happen, would it?
It was mentioned in the programme that the playwright, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, has had death threats. She is in fear for her life because
[continued] … she wrote a play, but that’s not the important point, obviously. As with so much of the sickening liberal hand wringing over Theo van Gogh’s murder, the religious sensibilities of ethnic minorities take precedence. Well, I have sensibilities too, based on my upbringing in a western democratic society that allows people to express themselves free from fear of death. Perhaps my views could be reflected in the make-up of guests on future BBC discussions.
[End]
Yes, that’s about right.
From a man that has an opinion on almost everything (and is right on, most of the time, in MHO.
Victor Davis Hanson has a few words about Rummy.
This is my post
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Re: VDH article
One for all the armchair Generals I think.
Yoy,
Having spent 6 years in the US Navy, (with Cheney as SecDef when I first started), I know the changes that can occur almost over night when there is a change at the top. (For instance, within about one month of a change of Chief of Naval Operations, under Clinton, I might add, we finally had heating in our barracks in New England after two winters without.) The boys at the top can make a difference, if they choose, almost immediately, by rejiggering budgets and refocusing priorities.
Blaming Clinton and Congress for not having enough troops for Iraq is a bit of a red herring, much like that infamous grilling about the Humvees. I think Rumsfeld has done a decent job under difficult conditions. I just think that he miscalculated when scoping out the way forward in Iraq. Perhaps a good way out for all, as I said, is for him to offer his resignation, but for Bush to refuse. It may disarm a lot of critics.
The press in general hate Rummy because every time one of them asks a stupid question he has little mercy on them. When they try to put words in his mouth he hands them their ass. He’s smarter than any of them and they despise him for it. The man doesn’t need the job, the job needs him. He gave up a lucrative position in private industry to take the job for the second time.
At this very moment (I’m watching him on Fox) he’s in Iraq facing the people he sent there and is still taking questions from them and having discussions with the ground pounders rather than the brass.
No wonder the troops love him.
The T word
BBC Online are prepared to regard those who shot their staff as “terrorists”
“Six months ago BBC Security Correspondent Frank Gardner and his cameraman, Simon Cumbers, were attacked by terrorists while filming in Saudi Arabia.”
Frank himself sticks to “militants” when telling his story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4123145.stm
$ decline
BBC report the whinging of the French with little counter comment.
“Meanwhile, France’s finance minister has said the world faced “economic catastrophe” unless the US worked with Europe and Asia on currency controls.”
Of course he means catastrophe for France & its euro chums, because the $ decline is hurting them
“Ministers from European and Asian governments have recently called on the US to strengthen the dollar, saying the excessively high value of the euro was starting to hurt their export-driven economies.”
The BBC do not point out that the $ decline matters little to the US authorities unless inflation climbs. Neither does the BBC suggest how slowing the US economy to support the $ (raise interest rates/taxes, cut public spending) would help the feeble euro zone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4121555.stm
Yes, Mr Dan, all that and more, much more.
The BBC also omit, and will never get round to, one or two other aspects of economic life in this europaradise — needed, as they would say but never do, for “context” — including the EU’s rancid stew of low growth, high unemployment, low productivity, over regulation, punitive tax rates, phoney-baloney statistics and pitiful pinko public-sector feather-bedding — along w/ a deep bench of charmless el-stupido-pero-tinto ideologues ready to deny it all on demand.
You think any of this will ever get through to Something That Sucks and clones? Gottabekiddingme.
John Humphrys interviewed Frank Gardner this morning on Radio 4 and suggested to him that he was attacked by terrorists and right on Frank very reluctantly agreed.
JH goes up in my estimation but I don’t expect the BBC to follow his lead.
R4 “Today”, 23 Dec
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/thursday.shtml
“0753 UN High Commissioner for refugees, Ruud Lubbers, on whether Palestinian refugees will ever have the right to return home.”
Not so – he doesn’t comment on this.
He is asked a question only on the possibility of peace process being advanced by the Blair arranged talks with the Palestinian leadership.
Obviously the person writing the Today website thinks that the agenda must be the right for the offspring of 1948 refugees to live in Israel.
There wasn’t a whisper from the BBC about Van Gogh’s horrendous murder being a blatant racist attack and a an act of political intimidation rivalling the Nazis.
Oh,by the way Rumsfeld has arthritis of the hands.
Millitant = One who kills soldiers, civilians, men, women, children
Terrorist = One who kills journalists
I see I was not the only one whose eyebrow raised when Frank Gardner’s attackers were called “terrorists”.
I am appalled the BBC did not address the “root causes”, why was Gardner not asked whether his behaviour had incited and provoked the “terrorists”?
I’ve seen some conjecture about Rumsfield’s hands. We’ll never know for sure because you won’t hear it from him either as an excuse or a reason. He’ll sign the farking letters now if it kills him and wait for the next bull$hit attack. There will be one, I’m sure. Perhaps they’ll find out he uses a non-dairy creamer in his coffee and the dairy farmers will be enlisted against him. It’s always something with the LLLMSM.
You think Rummy actually gives a toss what the BBC think of him? I rather doubt it.
He went to see the troops and they were all very happy to see him. I think that is what he really cares about.
Rumsfeld has to please one man, his boss. The boss thinks he’s doing OK. So all the rest is the nise of dogs barking at the caravan as it passes.
Make that noise
“Rebel blitz on Iraq police posts”
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4129361.stm
“US-backed Iraqi security forces have lost hundreds of men in attacks by rebels opposed to US troops in Iraq.”
Are these rebels killing fellow Iraqis because of their opposition to the presence of US troops? Or do they oppose democracy & the end of Sunni minority rule?
I was listening to Radio 4 at 17.30 UK time and they were trailing a forthcoming review of the year.
The most important event of 2004?????
Abu Ghraib
The BBC’s bias stretches credulity. Not even the Guardian or the biggest haters of the US would consider the abuses at Abu Ghraib to be the milestone of 2004 – unless, of course, you are THE biggest hater of the US.
I only heard the end of their review of the year, the programme ended with the passing of J. Peel, A. Cooke and others.
Apparently, even the Tsunami is Bush’s fault, with accusations that the US is being stingey with it’s aid.
BBC2 programme on the history of the Secret Policemans Ball (in support of Amnesty), 1976 to 1989.
The only film clip of atrocity?
Why Guantanamo Bay, of course.
And brief shots of tyrants – Amin, Milosovic, Saddam ….. & Bush ‘n’ Blair.
When the “proper” Gulf War II war ended in success, the liberals said it was “Clinton’s millitary” wot won it.
When Abu Ghraib happened, it was suddenly “Bush’s millitary”.
One of the most repellent examples of leftist moral relativism I saw in 2004 was the twisted notion that Lynndie England and Jessica Lynch are somehow “the same”. They are totally different people…unless you think of rural Americans as all being the same (Guardian readers spring to mind).
The reason we think of Lynch as good is because she is. The reason we think of England as bad is because she is. It actually IS that simple.
We think of Islamic terrorists as bad for a very simple reason, because they are.
It is not “simplistic” to say people who love death more than life, and want to kill us, are bad.
Of all the comedians involved, Rowan Atkinson is to this day the one who most genuinely believes in, and understands what freedom of speech is.
Have your say
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4120897.stm
“BBC News: What is your pick of the year?”
Mainly praise for the BBC, but some critical comments there, eg US citizens feeling unloved. I liked the following
“Only second to Al-Jazeera. I appreciated the documentary style coverage of Islam.
Ali, Sidi Hajjaj, Morocco”
I don’t think that Ali is being sarcastic!
Zevilyn – Oh please, it doesn’t stop at “stingy”, no way!!! FYI, not only are we “stingy”, one of the pieces of toilet tissue affiliated with the UN ( his name escapes me) publicly suggested that our( Americans) taxes be raised in order to provide additional funding for the disaster relief. Thoughtfully, he did assure us that we could pay the victims directly (throw money at them from a plane? aircraft carrier? Ebay?) rather than contribute through the UN, as even he understands the contempt in which most of us hold that organization. How’s that for brass b***’s?
By the way, last I checked, France had coughed up a whopping $177,000. Stingy, anyone? Will we be hearing any lectures about their tight fistedness, or calls from UN reps for the French citizens to pony up some Euros? Sorry to hammer this, but I’m way annoyed here.
Pam,
Thanks for the number on the French. I was watching News24 last night when they named off all of the major donors, and the first thing I said was “Where are the French?”
Regards,
James
The French figure has been revised upwards naturally.
According to the Telegraph a few absurd attempts to blame America have arisen:
“Pathetic efforts have been made already to blame the Americans, for failing to equip the littoral of the Indian Ocean with adequate tsunami sensors; and as ever, in the wake of some random and pitiless disaster, there are calls for some kind of preventive action against the next one. “
Andrew – Yes, we’ve heard of those attempts, they followed quickly upon the heels of complaints about the amount of our aid. Naturally, we’re expected to outfit the world with the technology to predict these types of disasters, I saw this coming when the media started discussing the sensors we selfishly put in place after the Alaskan earthquake/tsunami. Next up – Kyoto. Wanna bet?
P.S – We didn’t receive any aid, from anyone, for our tsunami, as per usual. (in case anyone is wondering)
Don’t think there is any need to get to stressed/upset about this. There was one UN guy who suggested that western nations (U.S. was not singled out as far as I could tell) could do more and he later back-tracked on these comments anyway.
Whilst the US cash contribution currently isn’t as large as others, I would expect it to increase (up to $1 bill I’ve heard) and their help in other ways (i.e. Navy, use of other similar resources, leadership re: coalittion) will be immensely useful. France have donated around $20 mill US so far as I can tell.
I’m not surprised if you didn’t get aid for your tsunami Pam. You’re the richest country in the world! Did you even ask? Sri Lanka, Indonesia etc. are not rich and that’s why they need our help. In the end lets not bicker about this. Lets just all contribute as much as we can to help these people out.
Wonder if Radio 4 have updated ‘The most important event of 2004’?
The foot in mouth UN fool’s name is Jan Egelend.
His premise is based on some false statistical twisting of the numbers by which Bill Gates would appear to be stingy for giving you one million dollars and I would be generous for giving you one hundred dollars. That one hundred dollars would represent a greater part of my resources than Mr. Gates’ million dollars would represent of his.
His figures also exclude other aid such as food and private donations. For an example of private donations just go to Amazon.com and see what’s been donated to the American Red Cross for the tsunami relief. At this writing it’s nearly $4,480,000 and that’s just ONE site making collections.
His figures also exclude aid given by the US military. At the moment a carrier battle group as well as at least one amphibious group are enroute to the disaster area. They will provide fresh water as well as airlift capacity. At least five P-3 Orions are also enroute to assess the damage and help
“I’m not surprised if you didn’t get aid for your tsunami Pam. You’re the richest country in the world! Did you even ask?”
I hear the last time the United States was offered international aid the offer was refused by the then president, Theodore Roosevelt, on the grounds America could take care of its own.
Fair enough. It’s true we are big and rich enough to be able to fix our own disasters, of which we have had our share this year; remember those four hurricanes that hit Florida? We didn’t have anything like the mortality poor SE asia has suffered of course but the monetary losses were pretty impressive. And we’re spending a good bit of cash on our war effort too.
In short, rich as we are, we are not made of money and have good reason to be a bit short of discretionary cash at the moment.
We keep hearing how well Europe is doing financially, surely they can pick up the slack?
ocnt’d.
help find survivors who may have been swept out to sea. There are also the C-5 heavy lift aircraft enroute packed with supplies.
Then there’s the Marine Expeditionary force that just completed a humanitarian aid project in the Phillipines who are also enroute to the area.
The UN is calling for a tsunami warning network to be installed by next year. Do you want to guess who will be paying for that? Hint: it won’t be the UN.
As usual, the official aid in dollars from America will dwarf every other contribution – for 2002, for example, the S gave 4 times as much to disaster relief and to development projects as the EU – yes, the EU that is of equivalent economic and population sizeo the US.
The add in the enormous generosity of ordinary mericans giving to charities. Also far greater than the EU or Europe. (A lot of it from those dreadful religious fanatics that voted Bush back in.)
On top there is the logistical, medical and other practical aid from the US military.
Hopefully most of this assistance will NOT go via the United Nations, which would squander it or rob it.
But the US will, as usual, get little credit for its enormous contributions. Just the usual carping from the BBC about Iraq etc.
OT: I understand there’s a possibility the Cumbre Vieja volcano on La Palma could push half the island into the Atlantic causing a mega tsunami to hit all of us with coastlines on the North Atlantic, but especially the USA. Far worse would be the Yellowstone super volcano, whose eruption, based on past performance, appears to be overdue. Contemplating the possibility of these horrors certainly puts my loathing for the BBC into perspective. But even then I can imagine them indulging in anti-American schadenfreude. Not for long, though, in the case of Yellowstone – they’d be too busy worrying about their own skins.
By the way, does anyone know what the Saudis are doing to help in the latest disaster? I hear they’re not short of a bob or two.
Re: the war effort. Expect a lot of people to make the comparison with the hundreds of billions spent in Iraq with the amount currently being pledged in aid. And its a fair point. The US is just an example of this though. Countries all over the world are prepared to pay a crap load more going to war than they ever do in aid.
Re: the UN bashing.
OK, so you may not trust them on secuirty matters but surely they are the best people to co-ordinate a relief effort such as this?
Re blaming the US for the SE Asia tsu-nami, check out this site http://www.fraterslibertas.com/2004_12_01_archive.html#110429489865792829
where the deliberations in a mid-west liberal editorial are attempting to link the tsunami to Bush (see 28 Dec, Send in the clown) and imagine this happening at the BBC. It’s easy to do, after all, didn’t the CIA release the HI virus?
JohnInLondon,
Where are you getting your figures from re: aid? I came across this article in the NY Times that said the EU spends twice as much on development projects (around 30+ billion a year) than the US
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/opinion/30thu2.html?oref=login&hp
PD
The UN are about the WORST people to coordinate things – they couldn’t run a proverbial piss-up in a brewery. Look at the Congo, look at Sudan. Much of the UN’s operations are corrupt, venal, and ineffective. Current scandals – oil-for-cash as the biggest scam in history, routine sexual abuse of women and children in the Congo by N “peacekeepers”.
Cut out this UN middleman. And let people see where the huge bulk of world aid really comes from.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20041229.shtml
PD
Read the article above for actual figures of US aid. Those figures you quote for the EU must be false – no way does the UK contribute on that scale.
Well John this is the problem with the internet. I point to one source, which from what i hear here is left wing, you point to the editor of the national review, from a quick glance over their web site appears to have a right wing slant. Here’s another site that seems to backup the figures in the ny times:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=d2003#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs
Anyway. What is a little upsetting is that any of this arguing is going on anyway. The UN guy bemoans the lack of aid from the West (a fair point made at a bad time. we’ve been hearing for years that we should all aim for .7% of GDP going to aid). This gets jumped on by US media and government (who really shouldn’t have bothered with a response) as the US being stingy. Just the US mind, not everyone else in the west. And it all becomes a US vs. UN thing again. The last thing we need.
So the BBC is `biased’ because sometimes it reports on a point of view that you don’t happen to agree with? Grow up, sonny.
To whom or to what is the last comment addressed?