lostfan Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 18, 2009 -> 08:45 AM) This was simply a politically stupid move, one which Bush should have stopped as soon as he saw it. It just adds fuel to the fire, as was pointed out earlier, and accomplishes zero. What's actually more disturbing than the printing of the document, is that Rumsfeld seemed to see the war in those terms. So forget just adding fuel to the fire of perception in the Middle East that we were on a crusade... this tells me that Rummy may in fact have BEEN on one. Pretty much. Just another example, out of the many that I've already seen, about how the previous administration simply did not know how to fight this war strategically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ May 18, 2009 -> 07:47 AM) Good lord Tex, you are all over the place with the slippery slopes and the straw men. Different posters have made different points with different points of view, for me to stay in one place I will have to ignore some posts. It's a simple point, he's quoting from literature. Not a big deal. And the initial post mentioned that we have to stop because that is why some people hate us. So I've pointed out several ways that that does not make a difference in some people hating us. Some people will allow him to quote from some works of literature, but not others. That would require a government sanctioned list of approved books that can be quoted from. Telling someone of faith to check their beliefs at the door, would be the same as telling the atheists to check their beliefs at the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Tex, you're mixing up secularism and atheism again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 18, 2009 -> 07:26 AM) I believe the word you're looking for is "secular". The Supreme Court hasn't ruled that the 1st means "establishing an official religion" ever. It's always taken a much broader (and more accurate, if you read the revisions of the 1st and the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, etc.) interpretation. Also, fwiw, "In God We Trust" was tacked on to money in the late 1800's. "In God We Trust" was actually put on the money in the 1950's during the Red Scare years. And I beg to differ re: "establishing an official religion" part of the Constitution. Every one of you are confusing the "stupidity" of doing this in briefings and whether or not it is constitutional. I have never once said I thought it was "ok" but only from a LEGAL standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 18, 2009 -> 09:27 AM) "In God We Trust" was actually put on the money in the 1950's during the Red Scare years. And I beg to differ re: "establishing an official religion" part of the Constitution. Every one of you are confusing the "stupidity" of doing this in briefings and whether or not it is constitutional. I have never once said I thought it was "ok" but only from a LEGAL standpoint. It looks like we're both right--"In god we trust" was first on money during the Civil War (1864), but it did not become our national motto until 1956. "under God" was added to the pledge during the Red Scare (godless commies!). But I do think you're correct on this topic. This isn't a Constitutional issue. Just a stupidity one. And we all know Rumsfeld had ample amounts of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 18, 2009 -> 09:35 AM) It looks like we're both right--"In god we trust" was first on money during the Civil War (1864), but it did not become our national motto until 1956. "under God" was added to the pledge during the Red Scare (godless commies!). But I do think you're correct on this topic. This isn't a Constitutional issue. Just a stupidity one. And we all know Rumsfeld had ample amounts of that. Ah, right - I did get the "under God" provision on the Allegiance messed up in my head with the money. Exactly, on the last point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 18, 2009 -> 09:35 AM) It looks like we're both right--"In god we trust" was first on money during the Civil War (1864), but it did not become our national motto until 1956. "under God" was added to the pledge during the Red Scare (godless commies!). But I do think you're correct on this topic. This isn't a Constitutional issue. Just a stupidity one. And we all know Rumsfeld had ample amounts of that. Rumsfeld is actually a very smart man. He's just also one of those very smart men who is willing to overanalyze (read: delude) himself into finding a logical reason for whatever he wants to see happen. That gives you a leader who manipulates their surroundings until everything appears to fit nicely into their model. Ironically, Rummy calls himself a realist, but this habit makes him the opposite - he is an idealogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 18, 2009 -> 10:37 AM) Rumsfeld is actually a very smart man. He's just also one of those very smart men who is willing to overanalyze (read: delude) himself into finding a logical reason for whatever he wants to see happen. That gives you a leader who manipulates their surroundings until everything appears to fit nicely into their model. Ironically, Rummy calls himself a realist, but this habit makes him the opposite - he is an idealogue. Gates is a realist, and everything Rumsfeld wasn't as far as that goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ May 18, 2009 -> 07:22 AM) I would suggest when people are dying, that is a good place and time for religion. Perhaps it would have been better if he just photocopied some of our currency instead. In God We Trust. Funny when we send US dollars to these countries, with In God We Trust emblazon across the face, they do not find that as a reason to hate us. My only wish is Rumsfeld invoked other religions as well in his memos. The Eastern religions especially have some great stuff on war and peace. Those that believe the country has now endorsed a religion, which one? Catholic, Lutheran, LDS, ??? When will we start shutting down the other Churches? GMAB. Like many of our rights, we are protected from the government stopping citizens from practicing their freely choosed religion. We did not write the Constitution to stop people from praying, we wrote that into the Constitution to ensure that we can continue to pray in the way that we want to. In all facets of life. BUT HE DIDN'T! And THEREIN lies the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ May 18, 2009 -> 07:54 AM) Different posters have made different points with different points of view, for me to stay in one place I will have to ignore some posts. It's a simple point, he's quoting from literature. Not a big deal. And the initial post mentioned that we have to stop because that is why some people hate us. So I've pointed out several ways that that does not make a difference in some people hating us. Some people will allow him to quote from some works of literature, but not others. That would require a government sanctioned list of approved books that can be quoted from. Telling someone of faith to check their beliefs at the door, would be the same as telling the atheists to check their beliefs at the door. but he's not using it as LITERATURE, but as a sacred religious text as a basis for military action! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ May 17, 2009 -> 01:50 PM) Holy s***, who released those with classification markings on them? An anonymous source, who else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (Reddy @ May 18, 2009 -> 01:07 PM) but he's not using it as LITERATURE, but as a sacred religious text as a basis for military action! Not to be all over the map here but, IIRC Congress, the President, Colon Powell, CNN, Fox News, and a few others decided the basis for military action. Again, IIRC there was concerns about weapons of mass destruction, mass executions, and perhaps torture and mass killings. I must has missed where Rumsfeld used religious text as a basis for "military action!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 A few of you guys have scratched the surface here, but after reading that article, it seems to be more about a completely dysfunctional administration more than anything else. A bunch of administration goofs going around screwing around with cover pages to toy with their less than intellectually capable President. Rather than just giving him the straight goods. It took President Bush way too long to realize just how destructive some of the members of his administration were (ie Cheney, Rumsfeld, Addington, Libby, Gonzalez). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ May 18, 2009 -> 02:39 PM) Not to be all over the map here but, IIRC Congress, the President, Colon Powell, CNN, Fox News, and a few others decided the basis for military action. Again, IIRC there was concerns about weapons of mass destruction, mass executions, and perhaps torture and mass killings. I must has missed where Rumsfeld used religious text as a basis for "military action!" Go read Woodward's books. And Curveball. Then let us know if you still think that Rumsfeld wasn't a major guy promoting engineering the Iraq war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (Reddy @ May 18, 2009 -> 01:04 PM) BUT HE DIDN'T! And THEREIN lies the problem. He's the AntiChrist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 18, 2009 -> 02:56 PM) Go read Woodward's books. And Curveball. Then let us know if you still think that Rumsfeld wasn't a major guy promoting engineering the Iraq war. The previous post made it seem as if Rumssssfeld single handily did it based on his faith. And of course it was Rumsfeld's quotes from the Bible that had everyone lined up perfectly behind him. Once that Christian endorsement from the government was shown, Congress and everyone else just lined up like hogs to slaughter. I think people are giving just a little too much credit for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ May 18, 2009 -> 02:58 PM) The previous post made it seem as if Rumssssfeld single handily did it based on his faith. Tex, I think you are the only one going to the extremities on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ May 18, 2009 -> 12:58 PM) The previous post made it seem as if Rumssssfeld single handily did it based on his faith. And of course it was Rumsfeld's quotes from the Bible that had everyone lined up perfectly behind him. Once that Christian endorsement from the government was shown, Congress and everyone else just lined up like hogs to slaughter. I think people are giving just a little too much credit for this. Was anyone actually under the impression that Rumsfeld was a big time Christian believer type guy? Or big time religious? He certainly never struck me as such. I read those more as Rumsfeld's folks thinking..."We need to keep the President on our side and not listening to idiots like that Powell...how can we do that...Bible quotes! Remind him that God is on our side and he'll be more likely to listen to us even if things go badly!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (Reddy @ May 18, 2009 -> 01:04 PM) BUT HE DIDN'T! And THEREIN lies the problem. QUOTE (Reddy @ May 18, 2009 -> 01:07 PM) but he's not using it as LITERATURE, but as a sacred religious text as a basis for military action! QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 18, 2009 -> 03:01 PM) Tex, I think you are the only one going to the extremities on this one. CAPS EXCLAMATIONS!! I was just responding to his posts. I believe I responded directly, and point on, to his statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 18, 2009 -> 04:16 PM) Was anyone actually under the impression that Rumsfeld was a big time Christian believer type guy? Or big time religious? He certainly never struck me as such. I read those more as Rumsfeld's folks thinking..."We need to keep the President on our side and not listening to idiots like that Powell...how can we do that...Bible quotes! Remind him that God is on our side and he'll be more likely to listen to us even if things go badly!" Some days, your biases and drivel are just over the top Kaperbole ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 18, 2009 -> 02:56 PM) Some days, your biases and drivel are just over the top Kaperbole ... Was it your impression that Donald Rumsfeld was a born-again Christian of the sort who would be quoting various Bible verses at length? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 18, 2009 -> 05:06 PM) Was it your impression that Donald Rumsfeld was a born-again Christian of the sort who would be quoting various Bible verses at length? My cousin has spent time with Rumsfeld. Based on her account, my short answer: yes. And not to create this illusion of a "crusade" that some of you want to paint it as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 18, 2009 -> 03:20 PM) My cousin has spent time with Rumsfeld. Based on her account, my short answer: yes. And not to create this illusion of a "crusade" that some of you want to paint it as. Interesting. Never got that impression from him, but in this case I'll defer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 18, 2009 -> 05:25 PM) Interesting. Never got that impression from him, but in this case I'll defer. I wasn't specifically saying you - because you asked at least. Some people want to just assume the worst. It's not like she spent enormous amounts of time, but what time she did spend she said that he seems to be a man of tremendous faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 18, 2009 -> 05:25 PM) Interesting. Never got that impression from him, but in this case I'll defer. Not everyone who quotes the Bible is a born again, over the top, always ministering, Bible thumper, like me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts