Rumsfeld doesn't think we're getting the message out.

[Art Sandusky 0]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/17/sec...reut/index.html

 

Rumsfeld: Al Qaeda has better PR

Says U.S. government still functions as 'five and dime' store

 

Friday, February 17, 2006; Posted: 4:05 p.m. EST (21:05 GMT)

 

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday al Qaeda is winning media war over the United States.

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The United States lags dangerously behind al Qaeda and other enemies in getting out information in the digital media age and must update its old-fashioned methods, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday.

 

Modernization is crucial to winning the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide who are bombarded with negative images of the West, Rumsfeld told the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

The Pentagon chief said today's weapons of war included e-mail, Blackberries, instant messaging, digital cameras and Web logs, or blogs.

 

"Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but ... our country has not adapted," Rumsfeld said.

 

"For the most part, the U.S. government still functions as a 'five and dime' store in an eBay world," Rumsfeld said, referring to old-fashioned U.S. retail stores and the online auction house respectively.

 

U.S. military public affairs officers must learn to anticipate news and respond faster, and good public affairs officers should be rewarded with promotions, he said.

 

The Pentagon's propaganda machine still operates mostly eight hours a day, five or six days a week while the challenges it faces occur 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Rumsfeld called that a "dangerous deficiency."

 

He lamented that vast media attention about U.S. abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq outweighed that given to the discovery of "Saddam Hussein's mass graves."

 

On satellite television and other media not under Arab state control, he said, "While al Qaeda and extremist movements have utilized this forum for many years ... we in the government have barely even begun to compete in reaching their audiences."

 

Rumsfeld also cited the methodical U.S. response to a Newsweek magazine report that interrogators at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had placed the Koran, Islam's holy book, on toilets and flushed one down.

 

After riots around the world killed 16 people, Newsweek retracted the story.

 

"It was posted on Web sites, sent in e-mails, repeated on satellite television, radio stations for days, before the facts could be discovered," Rumsfeld said.

See, this is what I meant in that other thread when I said that it was dangerous to think of our enemies as backwards.

 

Of course, he also ignores that there are other things that contribute to the Muslim world embracing radicalism more, like a far more conservative society and a lack of free public discourse. In the ideal world of anyone with any cause, they'd be able to make everyone stand up and notice their point of view. I don't know how exactly you'd fix something like this though.

 

In my super pinko brain, this translates as "we're not as good at brainwashing our population," but he's really quite correct on the basic point, even if it's predicated on the beef he's got with our media.

[NoCalMike 0]

We're not as good at brainwashing our society? Ahem, excuse me, you do realize at one time 70%+ of this nation was supporting pre-emminetly striking Iraq, right?

 

Maybe we should get this message out about Rumsfield & Cheney.....

 

Rumsfeld and Cheney Revive Their 70's Terror Playbook

by Thom Hartmann

 

Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are at it again.

Last week, Rumsfeld told the press we should be preparing for "the Long War," saying of the war this administration has stirred up with its attack on Iraq that, "Just as the Cold War lasted a long time, this war is something that is not going to go away."

 

The last time Rumsfeld talked like this was in the 1970s, in response to the danger of peace presented by Richard Nixon.

 

In 1972, President Richard Nixon returned from the Soviet Union with a treaty worked out by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the beginning of a process Kissinger called "détente." On June 1, 1972, Nixon gave a speech in which he said:

 

"Last Friday, in Moscow, we witnessed the beginning of the end of that era which began in 1945. With this step, we have enhanced the security of both nations. We have begun to reduce the level of fear, by reducing the causes of fear—for our two peoples, and for all peoples in the world."

But Nixon left amid scandal and Ford came in, and Ford's Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and Chief of Staff (Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans might no longer be bound by fear. Without fear, how could Americans be manipulated? And how could billions of dollars taken as taxes from average working people be transferred to the companies that Rumsfeld and Cheney - and their cronies - would soon work for and/or run?

 

Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort - first secretly and then openly - to undermine Nixon's treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear.

 

They did it by claiming that the Soviets had a new secret weapon of mass destruction that the president didn't know about, that the CIA didn't know about, that nobody knew about but them. It was a nuclear submarine technology that was undetectable by current American technology. And, they said, because of this and related-undetectable-technology weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work or have businesses relationships with.

 

The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld's position a "complete fiction" and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone.

 

As Dr. Anne Cahn, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from 1977 to 1980, told the BBC's Adam Curtis for his documentary "The Power of Nightmares":

 

"They couldn't say that the Soviets had acoustic means of picking up American submarines, because they couldn't find it. So they said, well maybe they have a non-acoustic means of making our submarine fleet vulnerable. But there was no evidence that they had a non-acoustic system. They’re saying, 'we can’t find evidence that they’re doing it the way that everyone thinks they’re doing it, so they must be doing it a different way. We don’t know what that different way is, but they must be doing it.'

"INTERVIEWER (off-camera): Even though there was no evidence.

 

"CAHN: Even though there was no evidence.

 

"INTERVIEWER: So they’re saying there, that the fact that the weapon doesn’t exist…

 

"CAHN: Doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It just means that we haven’t found it."

 

But Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted Americans to believe there was something nefarious going on, something we should be very afraid of. To this end, they convinced President Ford to appoint a commission including their old friend Paul Wolfowitz to prove that the Soviets were up to no good.

 

Wolfowitz's group, known as "Team B," came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed several terrifying new weapons of mass destruction, featuring a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that didn't depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable with our current technology. It could - within a matter of months - be off the coast of New York City with a nuclear warhead.

 

Although Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld's assertions of this powerful new Soviet WMD was unproven - they said the lack of proof proved the "undetectable" sub existed - they nonetheless used their charges to push for dramatic escalations in military spending to selected defense contractors, a process that continued through the Reagan administration.

 

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz helped re-organized a group - The Committee on the Present Danger - to promote their worldview. The Committee produced documentaries, publications, and provided guests for national talk shows and news reports. They worked hard to whip up fear and encourage increases in defense spending, particularly for sophisticated weapons systems offered by the defense contractors for whom many of these same men would later become lobbyists.

 

And they succeeded in recreating an atmosphere of fear in the United States, and making themselves and their defense contractor friends richer than most of the kingdoms of the world.

 

Trillions of dollars and years later, it was proven that they had been wrong all along, and the CIA had been right. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz lied to America in the 1970s about Soviet WMDs and the Soviet super-sub technology.

 

Not only do we now know that the Soviets didn't have any new and impressive WMDs, but we also now know that the Soviets were, in fact, decaying from within, ripe for collapse any time, regardless of what the US did - just as the CIA (and anybody who visited Soviet states - as I had - during that time could easily predict). The Soviet economic and political system wasn't working, and their military was disintegrating.

 

But the Cold War was good for business, and good for the political power of its advocates, from Rumsfeld to Wolfowitz to Cheney who have all become rich in part because of the arms industry.

 

Today, making Americans terrified with their so-called "War On Terror" is the same strategy, run for many of the same reasons, by the same people. And by hyping it - and then invading Iraq to bring it into fruition - we may well be bringing into reality forces that previously existed only on the margins and with very little power to harm us.

 

Most recently we've learned from former CIA National Intelligence Officer for the Middle East and South Asia Paul Pillar that, just like in the 1970s, the CIA disagreed in 2002 with Rumsfeld and Cheney about an WMD threat - this time posed by Iraq - even as Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz were telling America how afraid we should be of an eminent "mushroom cloud."

 

We've seen this movie before. The last time, it cost our nation hundreds of billions of dollars, vastly enriched the cronies of these men, and ultimately helped bring Ronald Reagan to power. This time they've added on top of their crony enrichment program the burden of over 2200 dead American servicemen and women, tens of thousands wounded, as many as a hundred thousand dead Iraqis, and a level of worldwide instability not seen since the run-up to World War Two.

 

When Hilary Clinton recently noted that the only political card Republicans are any longer capable of playing is the card of fear, she was spot-on right. They're now even running radio and TV commercials designed to terrorize our children ("Do you have a plan for a terrorist attack?"), the modern reincarnation of "Duck and Cover."

 

Now that former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has confessed that many of the terror alerts that continually popped up during the 2004 election campaign were, as USA Today noted on 10 May 2005, based on "flimsy evidence" or were >done over his objection at the insistence of "administration officials," it's increasingly clear that the Bush administration itself is the source of much of the "be afraid!" terror inflicted on US citizens over the past 5 years.

 

It's time for patriotic Americans of all political affiliations, and for our media, to join with Senator Clinton, former CIA official Paul Pillar, and the many others who are pointing this out, and refuse to allow the Bush administration to inflict terror on Americans - and the world - for political gain.

 

As Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his first inaugural address in 1932, when Americans were terrorized by the Republican Great Depression, the echoes of World War One, and the rise of Communism in Russia:

 

This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Indeed, the best hope for the growth of democracy around the world and the survival of individual liberty in the United States is for us to turn away from Rumsfeld's and Cheney's politics of terror and fear, and once again embrace the great vision of this nation, held by her great statesmen and women from 1776 to today. Indeed, they are still among us, as we saw most recently when a brave few senators stood up to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito.

 

In this election year, we must redouble our efforts to swell their ranks, to involve ourselves in local and national political groups, and to return America to her destiny as the world's beacon of courage, liberty, and light.

 

Thom Hartmann [thom (at) thomhartmann.com] is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author and host of a nationally syndicated noon-3pm Eastern Time daily progressive talk show syndicated by Air America Radio. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent book is "What Would Jefferson Do?"

 

© 2006 Thom Hartmann

[Guest InuYasha]

Your Military-Industrial Complex tax dollars at work.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Speaking of tax dollars, how about $75 million to encourage democracy in Iran?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I agree that the Bush administration has basically been playing the fear card non-stop since 9/11. It's an easy way to get people to go along with their policies.

 

We basically have to accept that there's always going to be some manageable level of terrorism we'll be faced with. We can't check every person flying in and out of the country and every piece of cargo coming in. The best way to fight terrorism is to revise our foreign policy where we pull out of any non-democratic Middle Eastern country and bolster our allies in the area. Accept that we can't make every single enemy into a democracy for the time being. Then, let's go back to letting America be America, the land of the free, and set the example for everyone else. Go back to being the nation the world admires and not the nation the world fears.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

I agree that the Bush administration has basically been playing the fear card non-stop since 9/11. It's an easy way to get people to go along with their policies.

 

We basically have to accept that there's always going to be some manageable level of terrorism we'll be faced with. We can't check every person flying in and out of the country and every piece of cargo coming in. The best way to fight terrorism is to revise our foreign policy where we pull out of any non-democratic Middle Eastern country and bolster our allies in the area. Accept that we can't make every single enemy into a democracy for the time being. Then, let's go back to letting America be America, the land of the free, and set the example for everyone else. Go back to being the nation the world admires and not the nation the world fears.

 

 

 

Well said Invader. I agree 100%. By doing that it would also do away with this "disingenous" tag that has been put on the US. So it won't be all about money. It can actually be about BEING better and actually owning the high ground.

[Karc 0]

Bullshit. Ten minutes with a dish and a digital recorder and anyone can see that we have more than enough resources to brainwash the world. It's just that silly freedom of speech thing that keeps getting in the way.

[SuperJerk 0]

Bush: Rumsfeld 'exactly what is needed'

Statement of support follows chorus of criticism from generals

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush said Friday that embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has his "full support and deepest appreciation."

 

"Earlier today I spoke with Don Rumsfeld about ongoing military operations in the Global War on Terror," Bush said in a written statement released by the White House. "I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our Nation."

 

"Upon assuming office, I asked Don to transform the largest department in our government," the president's statement continued.

 

"That kind of change is hard, but our Nation must have a military that is fully prepared to confront the dangerous threats of the 21st Century. Don and our military commanders have also been tasked to take the fight to the enemy abroad on multiple fronts."

 

Six retired generals, including three who commanded troops in Iraq under Rumsfeld's leadership, have publicly stated their criticism of Rumsfeld's leadership and called for his resignation.

 

Gen. Richard Myers, who retired about six months ago as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Friday criticized the generals for their remarks in an exclusive interview with CNN.

 

"One of the things we have to understand ... is that it's bad for the military, it's bad for civil military relations and it's potentially very bad for the country, because what we're hearing and what we're seeing is not the role the military plays in our society, under our laws or, for that matter, under our Constitution," Myers said.

 

Although he acknowledged that retired generals have the right to free speech, Myers said he feels they should not be speaking out in opposition to the president because that is not the job of any military officer, even a retired one.

 

Asked whether he supports Rumsfeld, Myers declined to answer, saying supporting Rumsfeld is not his job, but the job of the president, Congress and the American people.

 

Apparently responding to the generals' criticism, Bush's statement said, "I have seen first-hand how Don relies upon our military commanders in the field and at the Pentagon to make decisions about how best to complete these missions."

 

Also on Friday, retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, one of the six generals who has criticized Rumsfeld, said there is no coordinated anti-Rumsfeld effort among them and that he hasn't talked to the others.

 

On NBC's "Today" show Batiste called the timing "absolutely coincidental" and added, "I think there's a lot of people now starting to ask questions, and I think that's healthy in a democracy."

 

Batiste was asked why he had waited until now to go public with his criticism of Rumsfeld.

 

"I have nothing to gain in doing this. There is no political agenda at all," he answered. "For 31 years I was a loyal subordinate and did not tolerate dissension in the ranks. My sole motivation, pure and simple, are the service men and women and their incredible families."

 

Batiste was also interviewed on CBS's "Early Show" on Friday, and he had harsh words for Rumsfeld.

 

He said: "We went to war with a flawed plan that didn't account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who didn't build a strong team."

 

On Thursday retired Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who led the elite 82nd Airborne Division during its mission in Iraq, joined the chorus of retired generals calling on Rumsfeld to leave the Pentagon.

 

"I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him," Swannack told CNN's Barbara Starr.

 

Swannack is the second general who served in Iraq under Rumsfeld to call for him to resign.

 

Batiste, who led the 1st Infantry Division in northern Iraq in 2004-2005, called for Rumsfeld's resignation during an interview Wednesday on CNN.

 

He also suggested other changes among the top brass at the Pentagon.

 

"I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes they need to call it like it is," he told CNN.

 

Former U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton and retired Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold also have called for Rumsfeld to step down.

 

Swannack is critical of Rumsfeld's management style.

 

"Specifically, I feel he has micromanaged the generals who are leading our forces there," Swannack said in the telephone interview.

 

"And I believe he has culpability associated with the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and, so, rather than admitting these mistakes, he continually justifies them to the press ... and that really disallows him from moving our strategy forward."

 

Swannack, who served more than 30 years in the Army, also criticized the way the war was being run before he retired.

 

In May 2004, while still on active duty, Swannack told the Washington Post that he thought the United States was losing strategically in Iraq.

Calls for a fresh start

 

Batiste said this week that the United States needs "a fresh start" at the Pentagon.

 

"When decisions are made without taking into account sound military recommendations, sound military decision-making, sound planning, then we're bound to make mistakes," Batiste told "American Morning" on Wednesday.

 

"When we violate the principles of war with mass and unity of command and unity of effort, we do that at our own peril."

 

In addition to commanding the 1st Infantry in Iraq, Batiste also was a senior adviser to former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the U.S.-led invasion.(Watch how GOP feels about Rumsfeld -- 2:02)

 

"You know, it speaks volumes that guys like me are speaking out from retirement about the leadership climate in the Department of Defense," Batiste said.

 

Zinni, who also appeared Thursday on CNN, blamed Rumsfeld for "throwing away 10 years worth of planning."

 

Those plans "had taken into account what we would face in an occupation of Iraq," Zinni said.

 

"We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us," Zinni said. "When we don't see that happening it worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/14/ira...feld/index.html

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Bush never gets rid of any of his cronies, no matter how unpopular.

[snuffbox 0]

Bush never gets rid of any of his cronies, no matter how unpopular.

 

That kind of loyalty worked well for WG Harding's legacy...

[NoCalMike 0]

Something tells me the that (OMG CONSPIRACY2006LOL) Bush won't get rid of them because he wasn't the one who played a big part in putting them in their positions in the first place.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I don't know why the media bothers to even report on Bush's embarassments and fuck-ups anymore. Congress never really takes him to task on any of it, so what is the point? You can talk about all his failures all you want, but if there is no punishment, it's completely moot.

 

I really don't think history is going to be looking at this administration with rose colored glasses in 10 or 20 years.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't know why the media bothers to even report on Bush's embarassments and fuck-ups anymore. Congress never really takes him to task on any of it, so what is the point? You can talk about all his failures all you want, but if there is no punishment, it's completely moot.

 

I really don't think history is going to be looking at this administration with rose colored glasses in 10 or 20 years.

 

 

I agree in principal. The problem is that the amount that actually does want to do something about it are in the vast minority. I mean if the entire democratic party was unified, I am sure they could convince some republicans to come over to their side for Censure or more, however when hald the democrats are scared of doing something.....then nothing is going to get done.