Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Donald Rumsfeld says Obama hasn't adequately made the case for use of force in Syria. YOUR IRONY METER ASPLODE   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 240
    More: Ironic, Donald Rumsfeld, Obama, u.s. national  
•       •       •

1140 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Aug 2013 at 7:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



240 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-29 06:29:47 AM  
I don't know what's more offensive:  The fact that he's right, or the fact that this kind of admonition is coming from Donald Rumsfeld.
 
2013-08-29 06:33:17 AM  

Lucky LaRue: I don't know what's more offensive:  The fact that he's right, or the fact that this kind of admonition is coming from Donald Rumsfeld.


He's right, but for the wrong reasons.  If the other party was in power, he wouldn't give a fark.
 
2013-08-29 06:42:36 AM  
RUMSFELD!
 
2013-08-29 06:43:28 AM  
Well, that settles it. If Rummy is again' it, I'm for it.
 
2013-08-29 06:47:01 AM  
HOLD ON!

/It's old Daily Show, but still spot on relevant
 
2013-08-29 07:14:18 AM  
So this is one of them "known knowns", then?
 
2013-08-29 07:27:44 AM  

PainInTheASP: So this is one of them "known knowns", then?


I think the real issue is that there are a lot of known unknowns. Last I checked, we were having a hard time actually confirming the use of chemical weapons. If they were used, we have no idea  who triggered them.

We are currently at a point where pretty much any action is going to escalate the conflict.
 
2013-08-29 07:30:50 AM  
I don't take advice from convicted war criminals.
 
2013-08-29 07:31:29 AM  
"One thing that is very interesting, it seems to me, is that there really hasn't been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation," Rumsfeld said in an interview with Fox News's Neil Cavuto scheduled to air later Wednesday.

Going by similar comments in the past, that usually translates as 'I don't know how to personally profit off of it.'
 
2013-08-29 07:32:14 AM  
In fairness, Rumsfeld told innumerable lies to make his case and Obama has really failed in that regard.
 
2013-08-29 07:34:45 AM  
Oh yes, Mr. Rumsfeld, do please spend the next week putting your mug up on the news so that the Democratic Party can spend the next two weeks explaining you are, what you did and why you're going to Hell when you die.
 
2013-08-29 07:35:47 AM  
Obama should make stuff up, torture people for false intelligence, and then fabricate any other needed information.
 
2013-08-29 07:36:26 AM  

Alphax: "One thing that is very interesting, it seems to me, is that there really hasn't been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation," Rumsfeld said in an interview with Fox News's Neil Cavuto scheduled to air later Wednesday.

Going by similar comments in the past, that usually translates as 'I don't know how to personally profit off of it.'


As far as I can tell, our only national concern in this whole Syria mess is making sure that the rest of the world understands that the use of CWs in warfare is NOT a legitimate military option, not for them, not for anyone else.
 
2013-08-29 07:36:52 AM  
I bet this is what is going to happen.

Obama launches a strike.  Assad thinks he's got nothing to lose and launches an all out attack on Israel to kill as many of them as he can before he dies using every thing including chemical weapons.  All the other arab countries see this and piles in on Israel wiping them out leaving no one behind.

Obama goes "oops, my bad but let's go back to what's important, Justice for Trayvon!!!"
 
2013-08-29 07:37:19 AM  
I'm just hearing Yosemite Sam again.
 
2013-08-29 07:37:40 AM  

FullMetalPanda: I bet this is what is going to happen.

Obama launches a strike.  Assad thinks he's got nothing to lose and launches an all out attack on Israel to kill as many of them as he can before he dies using every thing including chemical weapons.  All the other arab countries see this and piles in on Israel wiping them out leaving no one behind.

Obama goes "oops, my bad but let's go back to what's important, Justice for Trayvon!!!"


all played out with 'yakkity sax' playing in the background.
 
2013-08-29 07:38:06 AM  

FullMetalPanda: I bet this is what is going to happen.

Obama launches a strike.  Assad thinks he's got nothing to lose and launches an all out attack on Israel to kill as many of them as he can before he dies using every thing including chemical weapons.  All the other arab countries see this and piles in on Israel wiping them out leaving no one behind.

Obama goes "oops, my bad but let's go back to what's important, Justice for Trayvon!!!"


Dare to dream.
 
2013-08-29 07:38:16 AM  
You're not wrong, Donny, you're just an asshole.
 
2013-08-29 07:38:19 AM  

FullMetalPanda: I bet this is what is going to happen.

Obama launches a strike.  Assad thinks he's got nothing to lose and launches an all out attack on Israel to kill as many of them as he can before he dies using every thing including chemical weapons.  All the other arab countries see this and piles in on Israel wiping them out leaving no one behind.

Obama goes "oops, my bad but let's go back to what's important, Justice for Trayvon!!!"



You are a sad little person.
 
2013-08-29 07:38:42 AM  

gadian: I'm just hearing Yosemite Sam again.


yosemite-sam.net

No doubt.
 
2013-08-29 07:39:06 AM  
Sadly, Rumsfeld wasn't interviewed from his prison cell.
 
2013-08-29 07:39:21 AM  

Lucky LaRue: I don't know what's more offensive:  The fact that he's right, or the fact that this kind of admonition is coming from Donald Rumsfeld.


There is no American interest in Syria, so you can't really make an argument based on those grounds.  I suppose you could make the argument that they are a threat to Israel, an ally, but you could make that about fark anything in the Middle East.

Where you can make the argument is that International law an treaty clearly says, "You can't use chemical weapons, period."  So if the US stands for anything, when a country breaks that rule, they must face punishment.  I'm not personally sure if that justifies our involvement, as I fear escalation into a conflict that we should not be involved in, but it still is a justification for taking action.

In summary, fark Rumsfeld.  If Romney were in power, he'd be singing an entirely different tune.
 
2013-08-29 07:40:34 AM  

Close2TheEdge: Lucky LaRue: I don't know what's more offensive:  The fact that he's right, or the fact that this kind of admonition is coming from Donald Rumsfeld.

There is no American interest in Syria, so you can't really make an argument based on those grounds.  I suppose you could make the argument that they are a threat to Israel, an ally, but you could make that about fark anything in the Middle East.

Where you can make the argument is that International law an treaty clearly says, "You can't use chemical weapons, period."  So if the US stands for anything, when a country breaks that rule, they must face punishment.  I'm not personally sure if that justifies our involvement, as I fear escalation into a conflict that we should not be involved in, but it still is a justification for taking action.

In summary, fark Rumsfeld.  If Romney were in power, he'd be singing an entirely different tune.


war would pay for itself, done in six months, greeted as liberators, etc etc etc etc...
 
2013-08-29 07:42:53 AM  

bulldg4life: Obama should make stuff up, torture people for false intelligence, and then fabricate any other needed information.


For the win.
 
2013-08-29 07:44:39 AM  

RedPhoenix122: Lucky LaRue: I don't know what's more offensive:  The fact that he's right, or the fact that this kind of admonition is coming from Donald Rumsfeld.

He's right, but for the wrong reasons.  If the other party was in power, he wouldn't give a fark.


Kinda like Joe Biden threatening to impeach Bush if he bombed Iran without congressional approval back in 2007?
 
2013-08-29 07:45:38 AM  

FullMetalPanda: I bet this is what is going to happen.

Obama launches a strike.  Assad thinks he's got nothing to lose and launches an all out attack on Israel to kill as many of them as he can before he dies using every thing including chemical weapons.  All the other arab countries see this and piles in on Israel wiping them out leaving no one behind.

Obama goes "oops, my bad but let's go back to what's important, Justice for Trayvon!!!"


Well done. Got a few bites too.
 
2013-08-29 07:45:53 AM  
It's a loose, loose situation. United States looses some nice $780,000 cruise missiles, and Syria looses a bunch of lives and infrastructure.
 
2013-08-29 07:46:25 AM  
NOT ENOUGH OIL.

/ahem
 
2013-08-29 07:46:28 AM  
Hey, Rummy, you ass, maybe that's why we aren't using force yet?

Also, if I see you, I'm gonna kick you in the nuts. Just once and I'll be done.
Also also, when you die I plan to vacation near your grave so I can go take a whizz on your grave whenever I feel like it.
 
2013-08-29 07:47:24 AM  

Southern100: RedPhoenix122: Lucky LaRue: I don't know what's more offensive:  The fact that he's right, or the fact that this kind of admonition is coming from Donald Rumsfeld.

He's right, but for the wrong reasons.  If the other party was in power, he wouldn't give a fark.

Kinda like Joe Biden threatening to impeach Bush if he bombed Iran without congressional approval back in 2007?


So, Biden threatened Bush and Bush wimped out? Didn't know that. Way to go Joe!
 
2013-08-29 07:47:54 AM  

Southern100: RedPhoenix122: Lucky LaRue: I don't know what's more offensive:  The fact that he's right, or the fact that this kind of admonition is coming from Donald Rumsfeld.

He's right, but for the wrong reasons.  If the other party was in power, he wouldn't give a fark.

Kinda like Joe Biden threatening to impeach Bush if he bombed Iran without congressional approval back in 2007?


He was about 4 years late on that one.
 
2013-08-29 07:48:21 AM  
We're fine to go in after fictional chemical weapons, but not actual chemical weapons.
 
2013-08-29 07:48:58 AM  

Lost Thought 00: I don't take advice from convicted war criminals.


Unfortunately, he's never been convicted.
 
2013-08-29 07:48:59 AM  
Is Obama going to get the required Congressional approval, like Bush, or is he going to start an illegal war?

Looks like Nobel Peace Prize winning Obama is going to get violent because some crossed an arbitrary "red line."

All this after paying lip-service to the memory of Pacifist Dr. King Jr.
 
2013-08-29 07:50:08 AM  
Well if anyone would know......
 
2013-08-29 07:50:53 AM  

daveUSMC: FullMetalPanda: I bet this is what is going to happen.

Obama launches a strike.  Assad thinks he's got nothing to lose and launches an all out attack on Israel to kill as many of them as he can before he dies using every thing including chemical weapons.  All the other arab countries see this and piles in on Israel wiping them out leaving no one behind.

Obama goes "oops, my bad but let's go back to what's important, Justice for Trayvon!!!"

Well done. Got a few bites too.


See, this is the problem with people these days.  They're retarded.  They think that any reaction to a herpa-derpa moron pretending to be stupid is a 'bite'.

Lemme explain it a bit better for the learning impaired.  A good troll says something that is not just wrong, but so obviously wrong that you need to take the time to angrily correct them.

A bad troll just herpa-derps something stupid onto his screen.  This generally results in people simply calling him retarded, a bit of mockery and moving on.  Reacting to a bad troll is only encouraged when you want to remind him that he's being retarded and maybe making fun of him a bit for it.

In short, it only counts as a bite if he gets an angry response to his post.  Mockery, scorn, labels of 'retard' and 'moron' are not angry responses.  They are simply logical reactions to seeing unoriginal herpa-derp on the screen.
 
2013-08-29 07:51:16 AM  

Wyalt Derp: We're fine to go in after fictional chemical weapons, but not actual chemical weapons.


Fictional chemical weapons won't be used on our troops, the real ones might be.
 
2013-08-29 07:51:51 AM  

Infernalist: Alphax: "One thing that is very interesting, it seems to me, is that there really hasn't been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation," Rumsfeld said in an interview with Fox News's Neil Cavuto scheduled to air later Wednesday.

Going by similar comments in the past, that usually translates as 'I don't know how to personally profit off of it.'

As far as I can tell, our only national concern in this whole Syria mess is making sure that the rest of the world understands that the use of CWs in warfare is NOT a legitimate military option, not for them, not for anyone else.


The 'what's our national interest?' question was the same, virtually word for word, in the 90's in Kosovo.
 
2013-08-29 07:52:13 AM  

bulldg4life: Obama should make stuff up, torture people for false intelligence, and then fabricate any other needed information.


He is
 
2013-08-29 07:52:27 AM  

Close2TheEdge: Lucky LaRue: I don't know what's more offensive:  The fact that he's right, or the fact that this kind of admonition is coming from Donald Rumsfeld.

There is no American interest in Syria, so you can't really make an argument based on those grounds.  I suppose you could make the argument that they are a threat to Israel, an ally, but you could make that about fark anything in the Middle East.

Where you can make the argument is that International law an treaty clearly says, "You can't use chemical weapons, period."  So if the US stands for anything, when a country breaks that rule, they must face punishment.  I'm not personally sure if that justifies our involvement, as I fear escalation into a conflict that we should not be involved in, but it still is a justification for taking action.

In summary, fark Rumsfeld.  If Romney were in power, he'd be singing an entirely different tune.


This - Rumsfeld aside, this is one of those clearly complex issues. On the one hand, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons exists but shouldn't be used and when someone does use them the whole world needs to gang up and show other countries that such action will not be tolerated. On the other hand the whole world (Russia, and China most notably) is not ganging up, only America and Europe are. The clear message "across this line you do not" probably isn't going to get heard here, instead it'll look more like America bullying the rest of the world around again.

There's no right answer here, or perhaps the window when there was a right answer (NATO peacekeeping force perhaps) has long since past and there's nothing really left but a bunch of bad choices none of which will stop the killing.
 
2013-08-29 07:53:54 AM  

Alphax: Infernalist: Alphax: "One thing that is very interesting, it seems to me, is that there really hasn't been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation," Rumsfeld said in an interview with Fox News's Neil Cavuto scheduled to air later Wednesday.

Going by similar comments in the past, that usually translates as 'I don't know how to personally profit off of it.'

As far as I can tell, our only national concern in this whole Syria mess is making sure that the rest of the world understands that the use of CWs in warfare is NOT a legitimate military option, not for them, not for anyone else.

The 'what's our national interest?' question was the same, virtually word for word, in the 90's in Kosovo.


As near as I can tell, the Republicans are just pissed off that Obama can wage war better and cheaper than they can.
 
2013-08-29 07:56:58 AM  

hobberwickey: Close2TheEdge: Lucky LaRue: I don't know what's more offensive:  The fact that he's right, or the fact that this kind of admonition is coming from Donald Rumsfeld.

There is no American interest in Syria, so you can't really make an argument based on those grounds.  I suppose you could make the argument that they are a threat to Israel, an ally, but you could make that about fark anything in the Middle East.

Where you can make the argument is that International law an treaty clearly says, "You can't use chemical weapons, period."  So if the US stands for anything, when a country breaks that rule, they must face punishment.  I'm not personally sure if that justifies our involvement, as I fear escalation into a conflict that we should not be involved in, but it still is a justification for taking action.

In summary, fark Rumsfeld.  If Romney were in power, he'd be singing an entirely different tune.

This - Rumsfeld aside, this is one of those clearly complex issues. On the one hand, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons exists but shouldn't be used and when someone does use them the whole world needs to gang up and show other countries that such action will not be tolerated. On the other hand the whole world (Russia, and China most notably) is not ganging up, only America and Europe are. The clear message "across this line you do not" probably isn't going to get heard here, instead it'll look more like America bullying the rest of the world around again.

There's no right answer here, or perhaps the window when there was a right answer (NATO peacekeeping force perhaps) has long since past and there's nothing really left but a bunch of bad choices none of which will stop the killing.


Personally, I'm not all that concerned with stopping the killing.  I know that sounds callous and uncaring, but honestly, what can we do expect go down and put enough men on the ground to make sure that if anyone goes shooting, they'll be shooting at us, instead of each other.

We did that in Iraq, it didn't work out all that well for anyone.   Except maybe Iran.

Let's keep our distance, let them sort it out and help any civilians that we can, via Turkey.  When it's over, then we go in and find out if the winners violated international law and committed war crimes and atrocities and deal with them if they did.
 
2013-08-29 07:59:35 AM  

Pick: It's a loose, loose situation. United States looses some nice $780,000 cruise missiles, and Syria looses a bunch of lives and infrastructure.


Lose-lose situation.

Loose = the screw is LOOSE.
Lose = you will LOSE the bet.
 
2013-08-29 08:00:40 AM  

KeatingFive: Kinda like Joe Biden threatening to impeach Bush if he bombed Iran without congressional approval back in 2007?

So, Biden threatened Bush and Bush wimped out? Didn't know that. Way to go Joe!


????

Biden:  Bomb Iran and I'll file for impeachment

Dubya: *dammit*  uh, ok, I won't bomb Iran.

Biden: Very good. Now I don't have to impeach you.

KeatingFive: WHAT A WIMP! HE DIDN'T IMPEACH BUSH FOR SOMETHING BUSH DIDN'T DO!!!!

Dude, I get war crimes against the Bush administration. But if you want them to stick, you have to prosecute for things that he did do, not for what the voices in your head are telling you to blame him for...
 
2013-08-29 08:03:38 AM  

Infernalist: hobberwickey: Close2TheEdge: Lucky LaRue: I don't know what's more offensive:  The fact that he's right, or the fact that this kind of admonition is coming from Donald Rumsfeld.

There is no American interest in Syria, so you can't really make an argument based on those grounds.  I suppose you could make the argument that they are a threat to Israel, an ally, but you could make that about fark anything in the Middle East.

Where you can make the argument is that International law an treaty clearly says, "You can't use chemical weapons, period."  So if the US stands for anything, when a country breaks that rule, they must face punishment.  I'm not personally sure if that justifies our involvement, as I fear escalation into a conflict that we should not be involved in, but it still is a justification for taking action.

In summary, fark Rumsfeld.  If Romney were in power, he'd be singing an entirely different tune.

This - Rumsfeld aside, this is one of those clearly complex issues. On the one hand, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons exists but shouldn't be used and when someone does use them the whole world needs to gang up and show other countries that such action will not be tolerated. On the other hand the whole world (Russia, and China most notably) is not ganging up, only America and Europe are. The clear message "across this line you do not" probably isn't going to get heard here, instead it'll look more like America bullying the rest of the world around again.

There's no right answer here, or perhaps the window when there was a right answer (NATO peacekeeping force perhaps) has long since past and there's nothing really left but a bunch of bad choices none of which will stop the killing.

Personally, I'm not all that concerned with stopping the killing.  I know that sounds callous and uncaring, but honestly, what can we do expect go down and put enough men on the ground to make sure that if anyone goes shooting, they'll be shooting at us, instead of eac ...


Sadly, reality being what it is, yes that's probably the best course of action. I'd be much more for giving Turkey gobs of money to aid refugees than giving defense contractors gobs of money to blow up civilians (aka 'collateral damage').
 
2013-08-29 08:03:56 AM  
subby: Donald Rumsfeld says Obama hasn't adequately made the case for use of force in Syria

http://i43.tinypic.com/e146s9.jpg
 
2013-08-29 08:05:21 AM  
Whoops... will fix.
 
2013-08-29 08:06:26 AM  
subby: Donald Rumsfeld says Obama hasn't adequately made the case for use of force in Syria

i43.tinypic.com
 
2013-08-29 08:06:29 AM  
The GOP is literally schizophrenic. They're jumping up and down screaming that 0bammer isn't doing anything, while jumping up and down screaming that he looks like he's about to get US involved, AND hollering about how he lacks the authority to do anything.

It's almost like they want to eat the cake, have the cake, and waterboard the cake if it complains.
 
2013-08-29 08:08:06 AM  
As difficult as it is to prove that Assad ordered chemical attacks on his own people, it's even more difficult to prove that it's in the national interest of the U.S. to go to war...again.
 
Displayed 50 of 240 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report