← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Zoroaster
Thread ID: 9721 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2003-09-11
2003-09-11 12:10 | User Profile
[url=http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3423033]http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=3423033[/url]
Rumsfeld Heckled, Deflects Question on Resigning Wed September 10, 2003 04:45 PM ET
By Charles Aldinger WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was heckled by protesters against the Iraq war during a speech at the National Press Club on Wednesday and brushed aside a question on whether he might resign.
Rumsfeld stood quietly at the podium while a small group of uninvited protesters unfurled a "Bloody Hands" banner from the balcony and, interrupting his speech, shouted accusations that the war was illegal, that U.S. soldiers were dying there, and that he should "bring the troops home now."
"Hey, Rumsfeld, what do you say, how many soldiers did you kill today?" they chanted before they were removed from the club. Police said no arrests were made.
One person in the audience yelled at the protesters: "Go home. Go home."
After the protesters were removed, Rumsfeld paused, then drew laughter by saying, "Well, now," and continued with his speech.
Rumsfeld has faced harsh criticism from Democrats and some Republicans in Congress, who say he misjudged the difficulty of bringing peace to Iraq after President Saddam Hussein was removed and claim he did not send enough American troops there to get the job done.
After the speech, he was asked in a question-and-answer session how he felt about a demand by Democratic Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin that both he and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz resign.
"I guess the short answer is (that) I serve at the pleasure of the president," he replied without elaborating.
Analysts have said there is little chance Rumsfeld might resign. And President Bush's chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, said on Tuesday that the secretary was doing a "terrific job."
During his remarks, Rumsfeld again rejected calls to increase the 130,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq, saying more soldiers would not improve a situation in which U.S. troops are being killed in guerrilla attacks five months after the fall of Baghdad.
"People are saying, 'Gee, if X amount (of troops) that you have there now is good, why not double it? Why not triple it? That will be better,"' he said.
"Truth is, that's not true. It really isn't. Our goal is not to create a dependency in Iraq by flooding it with Americans," Rumsfeld added.
"To the extent you are too heavy a footprint, you don't help them, you hurt them. ... To the extent they're there, people tend to rely on them, and we don't want to create a reliance or a dependency."
====================================================== Heckling is too good for the Rummy creep. In the early days of the Republic, when there was a rowdy strain in American life, the creep would have been "tarred and feathered," tied and hoisted on a pole, and paraded past cheering crowds through the streets of Washington.
-Z-
2003-09-11 13:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by Zoroaster@Sep 11 2003, 06:10 * *Heckling is too good for the Rummy creep. In the early days of the Republic, when there was a rowdy strain in American life, the creep would have been "tarred and feathered," tied and hoisted on a pole, and paraded past cheering crowds through the streets of Washington. **
Thatâââ‰â¢s true Z, but Iâââ‰â¢m afraid such simple, leftist inspired, sloganeering such as ââ∠âHey, Rumsfeld, what do you say, how many soldiers did you kill today?âââ¬Ã doesnâââ‰â¢t do any real good. If anything it provokes a âââ¬ÃÅconservativeâââ‰â¢ backlash that unites Freeper types around the ever useless GOP.
Politicians arenâââ‰â¢t frightened by hecklers but they are terrified of being ignored. Rumsfeld making a speech where no one turns up would be a delight, after all who care about the monkey? Itâââ‰â¢s the organ grinder thatâââ‰â¢s important.
2003-09-11 18:55 | User Profile
na Gaeil is gile,
What you say about lefttist sloganeering is true enough. The upcoming presedential election could turn out to be really nasty, and don't count out Hillary, who is the only candidate who'd be worse for America than Bush. She would galvanize the Christian Right to come out and vote for Bush, but the turnout would be more than offset by female and minority voters cominmg out of the woodwork to vote for her. She would get more than 50-percent of the female vote simply because she is female and 90-percent of the minority vote simply because she is not a white male.
For the American people it's like flipping a coin: heads ZOG wins, tails we lose. If Hillary and her social-engineering pals move into the White House, they will make what Stalin and his Bolshevik pals did in Russia seem like a Sunday school picnic.
-Z-
2003-09-11 19:32 | User Profile
**She would galvanize the Christian Right to come out and vote for Bush, but the turnout would be more than offset by female and minority voters cominmg out of the woodwork to vote for her. **
If the economy keeps tanking and jobs keep getting offshored, it wouldn't be inconceivable for another Perot to rise up. If that happens, Hillary could snatch the White House without much effort by taking advantage of the split conservative vote, especially if influential evangelicals like James Dobson back a third party/independent candidate and take millions of fundies with them.
2003-09-11 19:43 | User Profile
Centinel,
What you say is plausible. If another third-party movement arises, it would have my vote. I could not, in good conscience, vote Republicrat.
-Z-
2003-09-11 22:08 | User Profile
Any instances of Rummy-bashing are good enough, whatever the style. Still, I'm hoping for the day another group of hecklers bear signs that read "Join The U.S. Army--Die For Israel", and the like.
2003-09-12 08:59 | User Profile
Hillary in the White House :blink: That's make or break for the "worse is better" theorists. It also opens up the possibility of another presidential sexual scandal involving a female intern.