Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Fire Rumsfeld Now! (part II)

I've been called a lot of things in my day, but I don't recall the word vitriol and my name being used in the same sentence. According to the dictionary, vitriolic means Bitterly scathing; caustic: vitriolic criticism or So sharp as to cause mental pain. I'm good with that.

Today, the Salt Lake City Tribune quoted an earlier blog entry of mine
Fire Rumsfeld Now!,in an article titled Downward roll: Defense boss has few friends left. They accused me of speaking with vitriol of the Secretary of Defense:
Rumsfeld's admirers adore such frankness, but it doesn't sit well with everyone. Among the immediate critics of Rumsfeld's comments about the recently extended soldiers was Karen Meredith, of Mountain View, Calif., whose son Kenneth Ballard was killed in Iraq in May 2004. "This arrogant, pathetic excuse of a man has once again disrespected and shown how little he regards the military that he supposedly leads," Meredith wrote in her blog, ''Gold Star Mom Speaks Out.'' "His comments demonstrate his feeling that since 'they' volunteered he can use them for anything he wants.' " Though few in Congress speak of Rumsfeld with such vitriol, the former representative from Illinois' troubles have carried onto Capitol Hill.

My friends tell me I was too restrained and too kind in my demand for Rumsfeld's termination, but this is a public place, so I contained myself. If my vitriolic words were "sharp as to cause mental pain", I won't apologize for that, especially if it was Rumsfeld's mental pain. He has no clue what real mental pain is and he will never know unless all of his children are killed in a war he doesn't support. Perhaps it was my words that caused him to portray those of us who do not support this war as suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security.

As Rumsfeld spoke to the American Legion, that oh, so conservative bunch of veterans at their annual meeting in Salt Lake City, he said
the world faces "a new type of fascism" and likened critics of the U.S. war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis. It is disingenous to compare the fighting in Iraq with that of WWII; this is a different kind of war that requires a much different strategy.

He also had a few choice words for the media. Rumsfeld described the war on terror as "a war that is fought in the media on the global stage." He said the media creates uncertainty that could lead to failure in the war in Iraq. That's right, blame the media for a loser policy.

Rice must be playing the good guy role against Rumsfeld tough guy routine at the convention. At least she didn't play the name calling game. She said

the security of Americans is linked to successful democratic reforms throughout the Middle East. She was optimistic about the possibilities for victory in Iraq, but, unlike Rumsfeld, acknowledged the burning questions of skeptics.

"There are unsettling questions," Rice said. "Is success possible? Is [the war in Iraq] really worth the effort? Do the Iraqi people want to live in peace and freedom, or do they desire a darker path, somehow, of violence?"

She said that the moderate majority of citizens, both in Iraq and other Middle East countries, will overcome the small minority of extremists that destabilize those countries and attack the U.S. with violent acts. She said creating stable democracies was necessary to this pursuit, and pointed to the vicious Taliban-led regime in Afghanistan that gave safe harbor to Al Qaeda.

"We must seek to remove this source of terror by helping the people of that troubled region to transform those countries and transform their lives," she said.

Where do they come up with this stuff? Why do they hate the majority of Americans who do not support this occupation in Iraq?

Two days ago, the Tribune published an article preparing for Bush's visit to their fair city, Utahns: Dissent aids enemies, 45% polled say that anti-Bush rallies more harm than good. Who did they talk to? I know SLC is as red as red can be, but 45%? I'm skeptical.

I did receive quite a few visitors here, due to the mention in the SLC Tribune, including someone from the Army & someone from the Air Force. If people in the red parts of this country know how others of us think, then we have made our point. We love our troops and we love our country; but we don't love the ill-conceived policies of this government. I haven't changed my mind; Rumsfeld needs to resign. Bush can resign too, I wouldn't mind that either.


brainhell said...

Most Bush supporters don't know what the word 'vitriol' means. It sounds like a string-and-bow instrument to them.

Chancelucky said...

it's still cool that the Salt Lake paper was quoting from this blog.

Personally, my new motto is "Blame Rumsfeld First"