The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack.

seemslikeadream

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-13-08 11:44 PM
Original message

The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/13/rumsfeld-on-2006-election_n_101537.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv0-SpMkhwc

RUMSFELD: "That's what I was just going to say. This President's pretty much a victim of success. We haven't had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another period"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MinM

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-14-08 09:45 AM
Response to Original message

1. So we now have both Bush and Rummy proposing False Flag...

Operations on the record. Good stuff, SLaD

FalseFlag: Bush Considered Flying US Spy Planes in UN Colors :kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bolo Boffin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-14-08 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #1

2. That isn't Rumsfeld suggesting a false flag operation.

Edited on Wed May-14-08 10:15 AM by boloboffin

You've got information about Bush considering a false flag operation (disguising U.S. planes as U.N. planes) to draw Iraqi fire. But all Rumsfeld says is that another attack is required. He doesn't say he's contempleting pretending one happened or causing one to happen by making Americans appear to be from another country or group.

ETA: By the way, that false flag operation that Bush talked about, was it a success or a failure?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seemslikeadream

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-14-08 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #2

3. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bolo Boffin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-14-08 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #3

4. Nice.

Edited on Wed May-14-08 11:41 AM by boloboffin

"False flag operation" is an apt way of describing that freaking debacle, but it's not the kind of attack Rumsfeld was trotting out his Cassandra dress about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Realityhack

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Feb-28-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #3

11. Repeating your interpretation does not improve its quality.

As much as I hate to agree with Rumsfeld what he is saying (in a rather inept way) is a truism of security.
If you do a good job at security behind the scenes people start thinking there is no danger. They call for reducing security and adopt more and more lax attitudes about security, eventually this results in an insecure situation, something happens (an 'attack', incident, shooting, whatever) and all of a sudden people over-react and go all super security again. Time passes and the process repeats.

Talking about that does not mean anyone WANTS another attack, never mind that they are planning on carrying out such an attack.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rollingrock

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Mar-01-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #11

13. How very Orwellian

by that twisted logic, then, the 9/11 attackers (even if the attackers were Cheney and Rummy himself) did us a favor. So periodic terrorist attacks are really a necessary part of our security strategy because that's the only way to motivate our defense and intelligence personnel who are too stupid to do their jobs otherwise. And you 'hate to agree with Rumsfeld' on that? How truly Rovian of you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MinM

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-14-08 12:18 PM
Response to Original message

5. Rumsfeld's Mind: If 9/11 Worked, Why Not Try it Again

Rumsfeld's Mind: If 9/11 Worked, Why Not Try it Again :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MinM

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-16-08 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #5

8. Rumsfeld: Why not another 9/11?

Rumsfeld: Why not another 9/11? :shrug: :kick:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sweet Pea

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-14-08 12:25 PM
Response to Original message

6. That's the lunacy of the Twoofers

Edited on Wed May-14-08 01:01 PM by Sweet Pea

They tend to take everything literally.

"It sounded like an EXPLOSION!"

Ergo, it was an explosion

What is the most likely thing to galvanize people into action? An attack!

Problem is its the truth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seemslikeadream

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-14-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rollingrock

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Mar-01-09 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #7

12. And those are the key words

Rummy proclaims outright that 9/11 was actually a good thing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MinM

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-31-08 06:15 PM
Response to Original message

9. Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them

Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them

HERSH: There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.

Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.

Hersh argued that one of the things the Bush administration learned during the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz was that, “if you get the right incident, the American public will support” it.

“Look, is it high school? Yeah,” Hersh said. “Are we playing high school with you know 5,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal? Yeah we are. We’re playing, you know, who’s the first guy to run off the highway with us and Iran.”...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/31/cheney-proposal-for-iran-war/

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MinM

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Feb-28-09 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #9

10. John Bolton at CPAC: The Benefits of Nuking Chicago

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/02/john-bolton-cpac-benefits-nuking-chicago

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MinM/165
:nuke: :wtf:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sun May 05th 2024, 06:26 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.