MetaFilter posts tagged with Rumsfeld and terrorism

I'm not into this detail stuff. I'm more concepty

Smedleyman — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:22:52 -0800

Special operations were fully engaged in Iraq back in 2003. Since that time the mission has (officially) shifted focus a bit to hunting down high value individuals like Osama bin Laden and a cavalcade of al-Qaida stars. But if that’s the case why are we drawing down our forces in Afghanistan? Apparently a bunch of things are going on folks are hard pressed to figure out: “Nobody understands — other than the SecDef — what the hell Kearney is supposed to do,” the Pentagon source said. “Is he supposed to be the future JSOC commander, or is the intent to continue JSOC as a three-star billet? Only the SecDef, as far as I know, knows. There’s been absolutely no explanation.”

Bread and Circuses, 9/11 Style

digaman — Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:52:32 -0800

You can't make this stuff up: Rumsfeld announces that the Bush administration is planning to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks with an "America Supports You freedom walk" from the Pentagon saluting the troops deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom, followed by a show by "country music superstar" Clint Black at the National Mall. (Not to imply that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 or anything...)

raaka — Sat, 12 Oct 2002 19:00:17 -0800

“President Bush’s case against Saddam Hussein ... relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday.” Another article on the same subject says, “Rumsfeld’s recent remark that the United States has ‘bulletproof’ evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Hussein struck many in the intelligence community as an exaggerated assessment of the available evidence.” One paper explains the differences this way, “The C.I.A. has to maintain its credibility for objective estimates. The White House is mobilizing the public and preparing foreign nations for a potential American invasion of Iraq.”

sheauga — Sun, 22 Sep 2002 07:05:13 -0800

TRANSCRIPTS:
A case on Iraq - Rumsfeld's testimony to Senate Armed Services Committee, 9.19.02.
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.
GAO e-Government Proposal.
Senator Byrd on the Department of Homeland Security.
Today's bumper crop of limited audience government info links. "Maybe only 50,000 people want to know what's going on in Libya, but those 50,000 people are really important. You don't want to have more planes blow up. But maybe six million people want to watch Jerry Springer. Well, who owns the airwaves? Basically we do." Do you think that unprocessed, source texts are getting filtered effectively to the public?

tranquileye — Tue, 21 May 2002 09:50:08 -0800

I had trouble sleeping Saturday night because of a CNN story suggesting that "increased level of chatter and activity" indicated that "another al Qaeda terrorist operation could be in the works." The "warnings" have been coming ever since: Cheney said Sunday that future attacks were "almost a certainty" and FBI director Robert Mueller stated "we will not be able to stop it", with Ridge and Rumsfeld spinning similar tales today. Is there a new threat? Ridge hasn't changed the nation's security alert from "yellow," and AP reported today that "a top White House aide said last week's criticism prompted a two-pronged political response: Bush accused Democrats of playing politics with the issue as his advisers reminded voters that America is still a target."

darren — Tue, 20 Nov 2001 05:52:39 -0800

"Do you expect me to surrender?" No, Mr. Taliban, I expect you to DIE!" Allowing terrorists to surrender so they can live to kill another day? No, says Rumsfeld. Bravo. I'm sure the MeFi pacifist club will squeal, but you don't let murders go to have another crack at you.