Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Condasleezy Rice, of course. You know, Bush's other wife, or something...

Had we continued in Afghanistan and forced the issue with Pakistan, we may well have won this war. Now, with the Iraq sideshow, and antagonizing our allies, we are on our own on an expensive, losing mission.

I really resent that Bush has a) ruined the military reputation again by sanctioning torture and abuse and lying, but b) for exposing our military weakness as a nation. He has used up the bullets, used up the reserves, used up the National Guard, and sent troops to battle without training and armor. If I am China or whomever I am thinking is that all it takes?

This Bush team is a disaster for this country and I have no doubt he and his premption strategy (if one could call it a strategy) will go down as the worst leadership in this country's history. All of this with total republican control of the government - a great case for reverting to responsible democratic leadership or divided goverment at best.

You forget that the Iraq invasion has already happened. There is no longer a need for the administration to use the false pretense of Terrorism any longer as a justification for this thing.

Bush's approach may be wrong, but you can't prove it by Rumsfeld. He said we're not killing and capturing the extremists fast enough. He's not against the Bush approach; he's saying we need more of it.

Rumsfeld also implies that we should do something about the zealots and despots who are turning out newly trained terrorists. It sounds like he's suggesting that countries should ban Madrassas and other pro-extremist organizations.

I think Rumsfeld's in/out formulation should have appealed to an Economics Professor. It's like an economic model I once studied. In the model, resources are produced and consumed at certain rates. The model tests when production could grow fast enough to satisfy consumption.

me: "If I am China or whomever I am thinking is that all it takes?"

By jingo, let them try! As long as the U.S. Army & Marines don't have to hold hostile ground for months at a time, we'll be fine. The Navy & Air Force are still ready to go -- exactly the kind of firepower we'd need, say, in the Taiwan strait.

Interseting phrase:

turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them

This is almost like a cartoon. Hey, that's an idea that might get somewhere "Rummy and the terrorists"

Elmer Fudd as Rummy.

I have learned from http://rantingprofs.typepad.com/rantingprofs/2004/06/what_did_the_se.html that Rumsfeld was not criticizing the American approach against terrorism, but rather the effort of some of our allies. Brad's post can be blamed on a news report that misrepresented the meaning of Rumsfeld said.

Here's a more telling quote from Rumsfeld:

"I’m certain we have not been successful [in the war on terror]. As the Prime Minister, I forgot whether he mentioned it in his remarks or at the dinner table, but clearly, if the schools that are teaching young folks are teaching them terrorism and suicide bombing and hatred instead of mathematics or science or language or things that can help them become productive members of the society, we’ve got a problem. The world has a problem. And it’s quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this. I think it’s very difficult for people who are not part of that religion to provide the leadership because what you have is a civil war, a struggle in that religion where a small minority of people are trying to hijack it and to focus it in a way that is hostile to civil society. Not the majority, by any means, but we as free people have not developed the skills to counter that. We’re not focusing on it. We’re focusing on law enforcement, we’re focusing on terrorist networks, we’re focusing on trying to defend against terrorist attacks, but terrorism is simply a technique being used by extremists. It is not the problem in and of itself, it’s a weapon that’s being used.

The rest of the world has not successfully organized, trained, cooperated, in a way that we have put, for example, President Musharraf is trying to improve the school systems in Pakistan. It takes money. There’s lots of money flowing into the madrasas schools that are teaching terrorism, but it takes money into those schools to get them to teach mathematics or science or languages. And the rest of the world needs to participate in that. President Musharraf, in my view, has stepped forward. He’s opposed terrorism. He’s actively trying to be helpful in the global war on terror, and yet simultaneously in that part of the world we see more terrorists being trained.

It is something that’s going to take cooperation and I don’t frankly see a coalition that’s organized to do it – whether they’re reluctant or willing either one. I don’t see any existing international organization that’s organized to do it. I don’t even see very many countries that are focusing on it. And it’s worrisome. It worries me because if people talk about a global war on terror or a global insurgency or a struggle between people who want to destroy the state system and people who want to defend the state system, I don’t see an effort going into that."

By jingo, let them try! As long as the U.S. Army & Marines don't have to hold hostile ground for months at a time, we'll be fine. The Navy & Air Force are still ready to go -- exactly the kind of firepower we'd need, say, in the Taiwan strait.

I believe that old air power argument is dead now. By months at a time do you mean just level China. If Bush can't control 20 million he sure as hell can't deal with over a billion.

I do NOT feel safer after the Iraqi premptive exploit.

David, you're kidding, right?

George Bush's formulation is that the terrorists are evil; Rumsfeld notes that terrorism is a "technique" used by islamic extremist fundamentalists.

George Bush's formulation is that we are at "war;" Rumsfeld notes how useless the metrics of war are when it comes to terrorism.

George Bush's approach is to deal with terrorism as a problem of states; Rumsfeld notes that it isn't a state-based problem, it's a religious extremist problem.

George Bush's approach is the dogmatism of you're with us or against us; Rumsfeld notes that cooperation is the key.

George Bush's approach was to focus on Iraq; Rumsfeld notes that focussing on the schools in many countries with large Islamic populations would be more helpful.

I could go on, but why bother. The notion that this isn't a critique that starts with the failure of the US to develop a coherent stragegy is simply denial.

P.S. I should note that Rumsfeld also emphasizes the importance of law enforcement: why does Rumsfeld hate America?

I just cut and pasted the quote into an email, replaced "Rumsfeld" with "Kerry," titled it "Kerry's quote for the day," and sent it to some Republicans I know. Ain't I a stinker?

howard - I'm not sure I understand how your points jibe with the actual Rumfeld quote I included.

It seems to me that part of the confusion in the original AP article and in Brad's post result from different world views as to the cause of Islamic terrorism. Conservatives tend to believe that Islamic terrorism is caused by Islamic organizations that teach hate, such as the madrasas. Some liberals tend to believe that Islamic terrorism is a response to wrong actions by the US, by Israel, and/or by the west in general. Some believe in boths sets of causes.

Rumsfeld is a conservative. When he talked about the increase in newly-trained terrorists, he meant to blame Islamic organizations that teach hate. However, those who think of terrorism as a response to American behavior might naturally jump to the conclusion that Rumsfeld was criticizing US actions.

I'm not arguing that Rumsfeld and the conservatives are right about the root cause of terrorism (although I think we are). I'm merely explaining why Rumsfeld's comment might have been wrongly interpreted as a criticism of American actions against terror.

"If even Donald Rumsfeld believes that Al Qaeda is growing stronger..."

Hell, Bush's face might as well be on Al Qaeda recruiting posters around the world (if it isn't already) and Rumsfeld knows it.

David, i'm sorry for being obscure.

My point, in simplest form, is that of course you can and should read what Rumsfeld said exactly as a criticism of America's failures against terrorism, that Bush policy (which, of course, must, by definition, be Rumsfeld policy) is completely inconsistent with the very issues and concerns that Rumsfeld identifies....

A public official can make 1,000 statements, all of which the partisans sneer at. He then makes one statement which suits the partisans' needs and it is treated as the gilded truth.

Few things are simultaneously pathetic and amazing, but this is one.

This is not the first time Rummy has said such things. In October of last year, his "snowflake" (a little white thing that drifts down from on high) to his underlings carried some of the same ideas.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/22/sprj.irq.main/

Whatever relationship Rumsfeld may have with Bush, he has always viewed himself as a deep thinker and an iconoclast. He certainly has his own views, often different from those of his boss, on every major military issue. That's part of being a Washington mover and shaker. Yes-men share their boss's every thought. Good staffers shape their boss's thoughts. Disagreeing in public, of course, means the disagreement has taken on a new meaning. Rummy may be trying to salvage some scrap of his reputation, seeing that he has been in charge of what has turned into a real fiasco, and that his views on manpower needs in "modern" post-war situations have been shown to be complete nonsense.

speaking of pathetic, here goes am again....

For the record, if it makes you feel better, am, i believe that a responsibility administration would long ago have fired rumsfeld, and that, were rumsfeld a person of character, he would have long ago resigned, but that doesn't mean that he's incapable of having some good thoughts (i mean, hell, i actually thought he would be a good secdef).

it's called nuance, a perspective admittedly alien to right-wing radicals and george bush, but still useful for adult discourse....

Substitute fundamentalist Christians for the Muslims Rummie is talking about and you get what Bush seems to be encouraging to happen in this country, i.e., "faith-based" services, breaking down the wall between church and state, etc. That includes letting evangelist Christian groups into Iraq to evangelize and try to convert. Sooo, if it's a problem when Muslims do it, why isn't it a problem when Christians in the US do it?

Substitute fundamentalist Christians for the Muslims Rummie is talking about and you get what Bush seems to be encouraging to happen in this country, i.e., "faith-based" services, breaking down the wall between church and state, etc. That includes letting evangelist Christian groups into Iraq to evangelize and try to convert. Sooo, if it's a problem when Muslims do it, why isn't it a problem when Christians in the US do it? Difficult to say that fundamentalists aren't violent--people who work at clinics that perform abortions (or MDs who perform abortions) or even that advocate family planning can testify otherwise--that is, if they're still alive. And the fundies don't think science should be talk if teaching evolution as a reasonable hypothesis is included (and who knows what else Bible-literalists think should be banned--education for women?) as well as, I suppose, any geology that includes the law of superposition, study of fossils, geologic hypotheses (based on various types of dating) of the age of the earth and so on. And I seem to recall there's quite a few groups right here in the US, Christian Patriots, etc., that have caused a fair amount of havoc, i.e. "terrorism" in the US/bombing in Oklahoma. In fact, it's not long ago that a group in Bush's very own claimed home state, TX, as discovered to be shipping around the country all sorts of hazardous stuff in order to do who knows what kind of damage. Yet neither Rummie nor Bush seem to perceive these groups as a threat similar to those posed by fundamentalist Muslim groups outside the nation. Why do Bush/Rummie/Cheney pander to one type?

Dulce bellum inexpertis - War is sweet for those who haven't experienced it. (Pindaros)

Respice, adspice, prospice - Examine the past, examine the present, examine the future (look to the past, the present, the future)

Graeca sunt, non leguntur - It is Greek, you don't read that

Absit omen may the omen be absent - May this not be an omen

Non omnis moriar - Not all of me will die. (Horace)

Amantium irae amoris integratio est - The quarrels of lovers are the renewal of love. (Terence)

Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas - Although the power is lacking, the will is commendable. (Ovid)

Raptus regaliter - Royally screwed

Crescit amor nummi, quantum ipsa pecunia crevit - The love of wealth grows as the wealth itself grew. (Juvenalis)

Crescit amor nummi, quantum ipsa pecunia crevit - The love of wealth grows as the wealth itself grew. (Juvenalis)

Crescit amor nummi, quantum ipsa pecunia crevit - The love of wealth grows as the wealth itself grew. (Juvenalis)

Crescit amor nummi, quantum ipsa pecunia crevit - The love of wealth grows as the wealth itself grew. (Juvenalis)

Crescit amor nummi, quantum ipsa pecunia crevit - The love of wealth grows as the wealth itself grew. (Juvenalis)