just a heads up guys jvd70 actually lives in Europe so he just didn't write it down correctly but feel free to disregard his posts on account of them.

Truth addict, I think you will find popular support for NATO in most if not all NATO members in Eastern Europe. You presuppose there is an ideal kind of planet in which peace reigns but you can't explain how to get there from here. What I mean to say is that capitalist liberal democracy isn't ideal and certainly there's enough that goes wrong but I'll sign up to any alternative that would work better. There don't appear to be any and the far left really does not have any alternatives in store for the political economy of the world in which we live. Study the party programs of the far left parties in Europe and they don't even seem to have a grasp on what it takes to create employment.

Posted by: jvd at December 29, 2006 08:00 AM

as posted by jvd

"The US defeated Germany and Europe and allowed those two countries to become the 2nd and 3rd largest economy on the planet "

For your information, europe is not a country, please try and remember

Posted by: phriar at December 27, 2006 09:40 AM

jingoe joe,

your comments remind me of what David Sirota recently wrote about Thomas Friedman and his apologetic articles on the "global economy":

"He doesn't want us wondering why the global economy has been integrated with complex intellectual, patent and copyright protections, but no similar protections for wages, human rights, or environmental concerns. Because, you see, if we asked those questions, his entire premise would collapse like a house of cards."

Your comments remind me alot of that and Sirota's comment in response has a logic that is important in addressing it. Without putting my finger squarely on it can you see it; can you understand it? If not, then youre helpless. If you can then you are on the road to recovery.

Posted by: truth addict at December 15, 2006 12:17 PM

"Corruption is nothing new but at least democracies have checks and balances to balance the interests of society."

What good are the "checks and balances" if they are not implemented? If they were implemented then Bush and every president before him since the end of WW2 would be behind bars? If they were implemented then our government policies would be radically different.

What good are they if policymakers continue to make decisions opposite of what the public - even with lack of information on the topics - wants?

How healthy is our "democracy" if the political system is heavily flawed and the media is "embedded" with them?

"The US defeated Germany and Europe and allowed those two countries to become the 2nd and 3rd largest economy on the planet n direct competition with itself."

First, I am sure you meant Japan and that you know that Europe is a continent and not a country.

Second, the comment is full of inaccuracies and bullshit propaganda that is nothing but nationalistic nonsense; and to go over the strings tied to the Marshall plan, integration under US auspices, etc would be too much for this forum.

"The US has been such a positive example that all Eastern European nations formerly occupied by the Soviet Union chose to join up with the way the US has organized the world."

Not their people. The governments and they got aid-with-strings-attached. Available internal government docs and related groups like RAND have shown that the grouping their economies and military systems under our umbrella of power is for hegemonic purposes that are not bringing prosperity and freedom to the people itself.

Again, the predisposition of your comments would require too much time to expose as fraudulent, so I will stick with pointing out that government relations are not necessarily representation of peoples opinions and choices.

I wouldnt say that our hegemonic policies are "positive" unless you ask: positive for whom?

"As democracies and members of NATO they look for and want US leadership."

Again, who is they and what is your evidence? You are making all these empty statements with no supporting evidence. The predispositions are so absurd, but typical of jingoists, that the time needed to expose them is beyond what I am willing to committ too. You have your bullshit agenda so I could care less about trying to change your views and if anyone reading wants to look deeper into it then I am confident in their ability to see through the crap your pratteling on about.

"After the cold war, South Korea, Chile, Indonesia and other allies against the Soviet Union started to turn towards democracy. Aren't those great things? The US has achieved amazing results."

What interesting examples to choose. A closer look at them during the Cold War shows some interesting observations, especially Chile (which can be summed up with one date: 09/11/1973).

Indonesia tried democracy too and the US made damn sure to stop Sukarno.

South Korea was a pretty ugly government, especially during the Cold War.

What exactly is it that you are trying to prove? What did the US achieve with supporting the oppressive South Korean governments, killing Chilean democracy and mass-murder in Indonesia and East Timor?

"You focus on the negative; if you want negative look to Russia or China where human rights are routinely trampled and where the 'hegemony of interests' cuts of the gas to millions of people in midwinter and poisons them with polonium if they don't dance to the Kremlin's tunes."

Right, focusing on our negatives is harmful to the narcissist traits you are demonstrating. Look at the positive in us and the negatives in them. Right. Thanks for making that point so eloquently.

We can take a closer look at the so-called "positives" you mentioned, but even if they are absolutely true and accurate that would have no impact on the negatives. What value do you get by ignoring the negatives; the skeletons in your closet? If you are a worker that is production based, do you focus on your accuracies and ignore your mistakes or do you focus on your errors in order to correct them? You are coming off as the typical narcissist who wants positive attention all the time and gets super defensive when any constructive criticisms are mentioned.

"You focus on the 'hegemony of interests' that fuel your car and the vast armies of supplies and logistics that supply stores and keep billions of people alive in densely populated areas around the world. What would you replace it with while keeping all those people fed, clothed, employed..."

Wow, what a pathetic way to distract the comments into a direction you want it to head. So if we focused more of resources in funding a better and more productive education and health care system as opposed to arms industries and oil companies that would be bad? You are asserting that global hegemony is the only way to have jobs and security. Again, to expose the predispositions one by one and then point out a more rational approach is beyond what im willing to commit too. At the most I have provided you enough rope to hang yourself in the eyes of others.

If we utilized wind, solar, hydrogen and agricultural products for fuel and energy would that be bad? What if we used land fills like South Korea is now doing? If we did something that would be better for the enviornment, provide more domestic jobs and conserved our use of petroleum what would be wrong with that? Furthermore, would it really bad if our government did not inact policies that make us less secure and wasted our resources on military dominance?

Your comment comes down to you asserting that we should ignore our flaws but if we do look at them we should come to the absurd conclusion that they are helping us and not hurting us. Too bad that most dont buy that and understand that you can cover cow shit in strawberries but were not going to eat it.

Addressing our problems is not hatred or unpatriotic.

Addressing our over-consumption of materials and resources is not a bad thing.

Addressing the problems of our governmental policies that are anti-democratic, run counter to sovereignty, independence, justice, etc is not a bad thing.

Saying we should not wage wars to control vast oil supplies in order to have political influence on others is not a bad thing.

Again, the unwillingness or inability to apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others - aka hypocrisy - is a chief problem in the arguments you are poorly trying to advance. Not only do you intentionally misrepresent reality to make our government look better but dissecting the rhetoric and applying to others would only highlight that youre a hypocrite.

Robert Trivers made the observation that people and some animals have a group mentality. That people in particular social groups will generalize the positives about themselves and generalize the negatives of others. Your comment clearly demonstrated that to a tee. Spouting lies and myths to justify our crimes and flaws is not a sign of nobility; its a sign of intentional ignorance and callousness.

Whether the problem is global warming, other enviornmental issues, prospects of nuclear annhilation, economic injustice, an array of social justice issues, wars, imperialism, racism, sexism we should be decent enough to be honest with ourselves and others. Making excuses to protect the status quo or ongoing injustices may be something you want to dabble in but not me and apparently not too many others either.

The far left has a pretty clear understanding of what is wrong and the solutions for them. I am not going to trap myself in discussing them with you. For those who are interested they can easily find them by doing simple research.

Posted by: truth addict at December 15, 2006 12:06 PM

"truth addict" you seem to have a fundamental problem with the world and humanity, Churchill said 'it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.'. Corruption is nothing new but at least democracies have checks and balances to balance the interests of society. The US defeated Germany and Europe and allowed those two countries to become the 2nd and 3rd largest economy on the planet n direct competition with itself. Is having Toyota become the largest car manufacturer really in the US best interest? The US has been such a positive example that all Eastern European nations formerly occupied by the Soviet Union chose to join up with the way the US has organized the world. As democracies and members of NATO they look for and want US leadership. After the cold war, South Korea, Chile, Indonesia and other allies against the Soviet Union started to turn towards democracy. Aren't those great things? The US has achieved amazing results.

You focus on the negative; if you want negative look to Russia or China where human rights are routinely trampled and where the 'hegemony of interests' cuts of the gas to millions of people in midwinter and poisons them with polonium if they don't dance to the Kremlin's tunes.

You focus on the 'hegemony of interests' that fuel your car and the vast armies of supplies and logistics that supply stores and keep billions of people alive in densely populated areas around the world. What would you replace it with while keeping all those people fed, clothed, employed...

Whose textbook of a better world are you reading? Karl Marx? The Koran? At least capitalism and democracy have proven themselves; your evil hegemony of interests sounds a lot like Ahmadinejad's 'global arrogances' don't you think?

Posted by: jvd at December 14, 2006 06:18 PM

"I would love to see a rational debat based on logic and facts, but Liberals seem incapable of this, so I guess i will just keep hoping to find a Patriotic Lib.
Maybe someday.

Posted by: Jon at December 13, 2006 11:49 PM"

Jon, please dont make me laugh. Talk about "people who only can hate, and have lost the ability to think rationally."

The idea that to dispise Bush, our crimes or what some see as problems of ours as "hate on America" shows you hateful you are; how you have no ability to think rational; how your "emotionaly driven hate filled rhetoric obviously shows a lack of intelligence on your part."

You want a debate? How could you possibly want to discuss facts or logic when your presumptious comments about others who dont share your ideological stripe expose that your predisposition to any relevant topic is blinded with nationalism and are completely incapable of holding ourselves to the same standards you hold to others?

This jingoistic bullshit about patriotism and equating our leaders - especially warmongering, class-based criminals - with an entire country is too primitive to even grant the privilege of discussion. What makes a country or a culture is not their leaders or the policies they make in contradiction to their peoples wishes. To support such tyranny is a sign of mental defeciency, not patriotism or anything noble.

We are talking about successive governments that are not acting with the peoples benefits or security in mind; but rather the hegemony of certain interests that radically enrich a select few at the hefty expense of an indigent majority.

When congress authorizes billions of dollars for an imperialistic war that makes us less safe and exhausts are finances (not to mention the lives of over 650,000 "liberated" souls); or when congress authorizes billions of dollars for the continued creations of planes (F-22) that are no longer needed but uphold a war economy (as opposed to pumping that money into creating jobs around the educational or healthcare sectors) then it is clear that not only our leaders but our elected representatives are equally culpable in these crimes.

Having the intelligence or courage to be aware and speak out against these things is not hateful, especially not to our country.

I would ask you, Jon, if you have children and if you do would you be silent or supportive of their sins and would you consider speaking out and punishing your child as hating them?

Also, if you have kids would you really think it is heroic to send them off to wars that have nothing to do with protecting security or freedoms? The "soldiers" going to Iraq and Afghanistan are not serving their country; they're violating their own oaths by A) participating in crimes that violate the constituion; and B) participating in acts that are exploited to attack the very freedoms their leaders and dumb parrots say they are serving to protect (ie PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, etc).

Jon, the notion that you want a serious discussion based on facts and logic is a joke. Not only has the syntax of your relatively short comment shown you to be an ignorant, hypocritical jingoist but that you lack the knowledge to have such a "debate."

I will make it real simple for you. Our government is corrupt and committed numerous crimes. These crimes are achieved and covered up by with propaganda built around nationalism and deceit. As for the latter, that can easily be demonstrated by looking at reports issued by the GAO in 2004 and 2005 that show VNR's are nothing more than illegal covert propaganda aimed at soliciting the publics perception to be "manufactured" around lies and deception.

Remove those red, white and blue tinted lenses from your eyes; take an honest re/inflection on who and what we really are and speak out. That's not being hateful; that's being an informed citizen acting out their civic duties. In your jargon, it's called patriotism.

Posted by: truth addict at December 14, 2006 03:06 PM

This is news? C'mon people.

Posted by: CJ at December 14, 2006 10:37 AM

Are you idiot? The national debt has ONLY gone up since 1940 in the Reagan and both Bush Administrations! Want the facts? Try this link - which gets its information straight from the OMB White House site!

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT (I'ms sure coincidentally that all except Nixon are Democrats) since has run a surplus. The debt from WW2 was essentially wiped out by the end of the Carter Administration, despite the inflation that was seen. By the end of H.W's last day in office, they had fully restored that debt to 85% of the GDP. Clinton reversed that trend after 14 months.

The only one who thinks he has cut the deficit in half is Bush and the kool aid drinkers that follow him. "Gee Daddy - I made money last year - I only lost half as much cash as I did the year before!" Thats called C- student visits Harvard Business School and occasionally goes to class when he isn't too hung over.

Currently, the debt is going UP $1.3M per MINUTE!

Posted by: Tom at December 14, 2006 09:33 AM

There are very few BushBots left who haven't been de-programmed to some degree, (which surprisingly renders them almost human-like) - But the ones that remain fully and slavishly loyal to their "One True Overlord", Monstrous Master Bush, are among the most vicious people who have ever walked America.

Posted by: Brian Andrew Davis at December 14, 2006 09:30 AM

will the libs ever give up on the clinton surplus lie?? the national debt went up every year he was president. having a few bucks in your pocket because you didn't pay all you bills isn't a surplus!

Posted by: ken at December 14, 2006 09:00 AM

wHAT'S THE POINT? iS THIS TO SHOW THE HUMAN SIDE OF RUMSFELD? hITLER LIKED rICHARD wAGNER'S MUSIC AND WAS AN ARTIST. sO WHAT?

Posted by: Richard Quiggle at December 14, 2006 08:44 AM

Well, JVD has it right, but the overwhelming majority have their heads up their asses. News flash: The war on terror started in 1979, dumbasses. Bush is finally doing what several of his predecessors wouldn't- put troops in position to kick the shit out of the Islamic fundamentalist Revolutionary government of Iran. Read your Sun Tzu. We have them on three sides, and Europe is with us. Iran keeps shooting their mouths off to show Europe that they're on the right side, too.
Six years ago, we had to ask permission to launch attacks from Saudi soil. Today, we have to ask no-one. Not Afghanistan. Not Iraq.
Big picture, folks.
And "Joe Gibbs" (I'm guessing it's not the coach) well thought out point, shithead.

Posted by: skeeterakbar at December 14, 2006 07:31 AM

I find the comments of the dwindling number of Bush supporters rather offensive. Labelling the majority of Americans opposed to the Bush failures as "unpatriotic" is inappropriate. Calling them "lib" as a perjorative is absurd, as a large majority of those disapproving of the Bush presidency are not liberal, as is the notion that this is driven by emotion. Bush's ill-advised invasion of Iraq is probably the worst American foreign policy blunder in history. Changing Clinton's record surpluses into record deficits has been another huge blunder on the domestic side. The level of dishonesty and corruption that permeates this supposedly Christian Administration is disheartening.

Posted by: Larry at December 14, 2006 04:58 AM

Well, you see, guys this "interview" wasn't really newsworthy! That is why it is called "weird." Given the state of the Nation and Rumsfeld's recent "job move," you would think they might have something weightier to say. OK, now it occurs to me! If you are a Fox News regular I guess you really don't get it because you are weird.

Posted by: Judy at December 14, 2006 02:50 AM

I felt safe knowing Rummy was not watching movies for six years. He was a Great Sec. of Defense

Posted by: thomas at December 14, 2006 02:43 AM

I think somebody is reaching awfully hard to call this conversation "weird." There's nothing weird about a couple of guys talking about movies or women who are in them. If anything, it sounds 229to me like old Cal was trying to cozy up to Rummie so he could get a picture of the two of them together for his living room shelf.

Posted by: SFlover at December 14, 2006 02:39 AM

Not that strange. Maybe it's strange that people think the exchange was strange. Anyway, I'm not a big Rumsfeld fan, but he should be thanked for doing his best. He sounds like he's glad to be out. Now maybe he can go and enjoy a movie, who knows. I'm glad someone else is in there as Sec. of Defense. I hope they do a better job than Rums did. Nice that he can resign and go home, I bet some of the guys in Iraq wish they could.

Posted by: Rick P at December 14, 2006 01:56 AM

well, I am having a hard time seeing the Nuttiness here. I think a lot of what he said is right, so I'm not sure what the problem is really.
I do see some other wonderfully expressive posts that are showing hatred for Bush and Rummy, but no real other coherant thoughts or ideas why.
Maybe some of those people who only can hate, and have lost the ability to think rationally should start taking the time to stop and think before they open their mouth and hate on America. Lib-Dems,I'm talking to you, Emotionaly driven hate filled rhetoric obviously shows a lack of intelligence on your part. I would love to see a rational debat based on logic and facts, but Liberals seem incapable of this, so I guess i will just keep hoping to find a Patriotic Lib.
Maybe someday.

Posted by: Jon at December 13, 2006 11:49 PM

Hey...don't like either one, but that didn't sound all that wierd to me. Whats the matter with likeing a movie and telling a friend about it? I do it all the time..bet you do to...

Posted by: Mike at December 13, 2006 11:18 PM

It is inevitable, the fate/s...the destinies of this thing called "man". Blinders formed of "purpose and task" or from full scale committment in a direction that one has been sold on by other's (plus by lifelong committments) can make a man a consecrated fool, or a concentrating tool towards and in future directives (understood by all piers)which surely will effect us all. No insulation exists for man caught in the path of grand scale decision. No movie could depict truly the life of this "Rumsfield" gentleman. Complex beyond a doubt, very closed mouthed; a man with decency in his heart and a love for his country that knows fully well we are headed into a great future. "Out of chaos comes birth, creation as it were" I say, and the men caught up in the immense action of natinal decision today have engineered our tomorrows. Thank you, "Rumsfield" for your sincere efforts. Merry Christmas to you, and yours.

Posted by: C. Engle at December 13, 2006 10:29 PM

Fark's headline: "The hills are alive with the sounds of douchebags."

C'mon, Rummy-istas. You gotta admit that's funny.

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at December 13, 2006 09:00 PM

THIS JUST IN; AND NOW, BACK TO REALITY.
CHEVY CHASE MUST BE TURNING GREEN WITH ENVY.
LORD!

Posted by: CASEY at December 13, 2006 08:05 PM

fuck bush

Posted by: joe gibbs at December 13, 2006 07:27 PM

Before you little liberal perfectionists go gaga over some percieved wierdness in Donald Rumsfeld, I sugggest you look in your own mirror, I bet there's plenty of wierdness staring you in your own face, so to speak..

Posted by: Dave K at December 13, 2006 07:09 PM

Can nobody here -- either the transcriber or the responders -- correctly spell the word "bawl"? If Mr. Thomas were indeed "balling" during the movie instead of "bawling," that would be something else entirely!

Posted by: George at December 13, 2006 06:55 PM

Whomever wrote this piece not only chose the most meaningless part of the interview, he or she also failed to address the rest of the interview in which Rumsfeld reveals a sharp understanding of the situation in the world today. Very few if any of us here in this discussion forum can go eye to eye in debate with Rummy on any subject and expect to have a better grasp of understanding of the subject matter.

Most people that experienced world war 2 have died of old age and suddenly we seem to be awash in a sea of moral relativism in which the US is not morally superior to its adversaries. To my parents and grandparents generation however (I write this from the Netherlands and both generations were liberated by the Americans and their allies) the moral superiority of the US was self evident, when the Germans were beaten nobody for one second was afraid the allies would occupy us instead. Has anything changed fundamentally in the US since then? Does anyone doubt that an overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans want the Iraqis to be free and at peace?

The US is morally superior to its adversaries by any set of moral values you can possibly come up with, people that think differently ought to come visit the gravesites of world war two and really pause to think about history and how so many people died to preserve a liberty that so many so take for granted today.

Posted by: jvd at December 13, 2006 06:46 PM

but he was dead on on one thing, Akelah and the Bee made me ball my eyes out, one of the best movies I've ever seen.

Posted by: Miles at December 13, 2006 06:25 PM

Yeah, You are right, could, or can you do a better job?. No but you can wite about it but if you had to stand up for what you bleieve in would you do it?.

P. S. Vote for Hillary (rumor has it she is bi.

H

Posted by: hunter at December 13, 2006 05:33 PM

A very telling exchange between an old man with little heart, compassion,or competence and a racist moron. Just think how much this one little seemingly meaningless exchange says about the Bush administration and the right wing press. Sad but really not all that surprising, at least to me.

Posted by: Richard von Zerneck at December 13, 2006 05:20 PM

Rumsfield proved again that he is shallow, and also infantile, putting a woman down for showing her age. Has he looked in the mirror lately? This mealy-mouthed man looks like just what he is, a smug, uncaring tyrant, who led our sons and daughters into war, not caring how many of them would die, not caring how many would come home with parts of their bodies missing, never mind their spirits, who encouraged our soldiers to abuse prisoners and then acted shocked when they did, and who is now wahing his hands of the whole debacle by blaming George Bush. What a wuss!

Posted by: Gail Goetz at December 13, 2006 04:50 PM

Rummy is wierd and not very much of a team person. When asked a number of years ago if he could help usher at church because we were one short that Sunday (he was a long time member) he refused saying that he didn't have the time. Hello, you are already there and you can't help with the offering? Guess Rummy puts himself in a class above everyone else. Didn't like him then and not a fan now.

Posted by: Peter Van Veen at December 13, 2006 04:33 PM

well, maybe this is not news, but it's very telling of these two. I'm so happy for Mr. Thomas that he saw a movie with only one white man in it. No, really I think it's disgusting that he has to make such a point of that. It screams, "see, I'm really not a racist, honestly!" And as for Rumsfeld, he's a mass murderer who, not suprisingly, is anti-social and very stingey with his money. I hope they enjoy watching movies together at Mr. Thomas' house this Christmas. That's more conversation I don't want to hear. Ew...

Posted by: jelico at December 13, 2006 03:56 PM

Don't like Rumsfeld's handling of the war, but always liked his candor. I think he responded as rationally as he could and that Cal Thomas is, in my opinion, a MORON !

PS: Akeela and the Bee sucked !

Posted by: Joe Turner at December 13, 2006 03:49 PM

Well, regardless of whether one thinks this article or exchange is weird or not, Rummy IS weird, very weird indeed. Everything he says creeps me out. I also think the fact that he points out the Julie Andrews is "looking her years" says else something about him. She looks great (not that it's even relevant) and she's had a heck of a lot more positive influence on our country than Rumsfeld ever did. See ya, Rum-Rum. Oh, and in your retirment, enjoy all the money you've earned since you don't plan to share it with your family.

Posted by: violet at December 13, 2006 03:47 PM

What's strange about this is that Fox filmed it AND AOL is reporting it.
So what if he hasn't been to a theater in 6 years...... he has been kind of busy, and who in the hell wants to sit in a dark theater with Secret Service agents all around you.... Rumsfield wouldn't have been able to see over his security to view the screen. Makes sense to me.
Sounds like 2 people having a discussion about nothing, and should have been nothing, but dunderheaded media was short a gossip piece. Whatever it is, it's certainly NOT news.

Posted by: Jim at December 13, 2006 03:32 PM

There are unknown knowns and known unknowns and I wish this whole Julie Andrews thing just stayed unknown.

Posted by: monkeyrotica at December 13, 2006 01:48 PM

What will you do Noah do when - you won't have Rumsfeld to kick around anymore.

Posted by: David at December 13, 2006 11:38 AM

Personally, I believe, in his eyes, he is making the wisest choice. The Global War on Terror and Iraq are not his problem. These are issues on the "table" waiting for Dr. Robert Gates. Rumsfeld has a few last details he wants to finish up and then just go home.

Posted by: Grumpy at December 13, 2006 10:51 AM

I wonder if Rumsfeld is aware that whenever he is telling a big fat lie that he uses the phrase "goodness gracious".

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer at December 13, 2006 10:30 AM

I concur.

Where's the beef? How does this prove he's an "odd" man? I went 6 years without watching a movie in a theater once, and I see maybe 1-2 in a year that there's something really worth watching. What the heck are you folks snorting?

And the "stalking" joke--I bet some of you writers have more pictures of yourselves with famous or important people on your wall than I do.

Posted by: Big D at December 13, 2006 09:30 AM

What is wrong with this interview? SO he hasn't seen a movie. So what. He's been the freakin Secretary of Defense there were probably more important things to do then see The Breakup or Saw. I know I had more important things to do. You people need to get over yourselves.

Posted by: Walter Shields at December 13, 2006 08:57 AM

I'm wondering if the fact he hasn't seen a movie in six years might explain anything...

Posted by: Adrian Forest at December 13, 2006 07:17 AM