Rumsfeld needles media as troops bemoan bad press

[DC09]

MOSUL, Dec 24 (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Friday took a delighted dig at the media after troops he was visiting in Iraq complained their good works were ignored by the press while disasters grabbed the headlines.

A soldier at his first stop in Mosul asked Rumsfeld how the "propaganda" worked?

Rumsfeld, under attack since he appeared to brush aside a question about poor equipment from a U.S. soldier in Kuwait that later turned out to have been composed with help from a reporter, jumped at the opportunity to turn the tables.

"That doesn't sound like a question placed by the press," he told his audience to loud applause.

A few hours later in Tikrit, the same frustration surfaced with another soldier complaining that she had a hard time explaining what they were doing in Iraq when she got back home and asking what could be done to get past the bad press.

Rumsfeld said the message was getting through anyway.

"I think the country does understand that we lost 3,000 people on September 11th and the fact that those people were operating in this part of the world ... You've seen the evil up close and personal, you know the danger that this poses.

"What you're doing is important. I think the American people get it."

Article

Transcript of Questions

[Mad Manfred]

"I think the country does understand that we lost 3,000 people on September 11th and the fact that those people were operating in this part of the world ... You've seen the evil up close and personal, you know the danger that this poses.

Saudi Arabian terrorists attack America. America attacks Afghanistan and Iraq. Okay, makes sense.

[bathory]

Saudi Arabian terrorists attack America. America attacks Afghanistan and Iraq. Okay, makes sense.

you've got to be kidding, hell i could understand you questioning Iraq, but afghanistan? stop posting, PLEASE

are you really that stupid? or are you just joking around?

[Mad Manfred]

you've got to be kidding, hell i could understand you questioning Iraq, but afghanistan? stop posting, PLEASE

Glad you could get back to me...I've been waiting on baited breath for your response.

I questioned your governments involvment in Afghanistan due to the fact that they directly attacked another country in response to a Saudi terrorist attack.

To this day there is no concrete evidence that the man they were after (Osama) was even there.

Please get back to me on this...I'm so interested in your point of view...I find you both insightful and constructive in your posts.

are you really that stupid? or are you just joking around?

I'm really that stupid.

Have a nice day.

[bathory]

I questioned your governments involvment in Afghanistan due to the fact that they directly attacked another country in response to a Saudi terrorist attack.

whether or not the people were saudi means jack sh** i'm afraid

Afghanistan said they had Bin Laden - FACT

Al Queda were using Afghanistan as a base of operations - FACT

Afghanistan refused to hand bin Laden over - FACT

of course Al Queda is in Saudi, and yes i do believe its likely they do have support from members in the government (they wouldn't have royal family support, because the Royal Family stands to lose huge amounts of money if it were to screw over the US in such a manner.

To this day there is no concrete evidence that the man they were after (Osama) was even there.

other than Taliban confirmation that he was indeed in Afghanistan, and practically every single bit of intelligence saying he's in afghanistan?

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[bathory]

if thats your opinion then why arent the good ole US soldiers in Saudi Arabia??? can you think of any good reason why the US chose not to attack Saudi Arabia if there is strong suspicion they are involved?

BECAUSE IT MAKES ZERO TACTICAL SENSE FFS

are you that thick?

[Removed flame]

Iraq is part of the problem, however at this point in time, the Saudi government is cooperating ( i do think there are people in the saudi government that are sympathetic to the jihadist cause, but at the same time, thats my opinion and based on ZERO evidence, i admit that)

Edited December 26, 2004 by SaRuMaN

[+joc]

Bathory,

The more you post ...

....the more I like you.....

[Mad Manfred]

Bathory, you're going to stress yourself out if you keep letting things get you angry

[bathory]

i know:( but it gets annoying repeating something for the millionth time

[Saru]

Can we have less of the insults and swearing please ?

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

Edited December 26, 2004 by morpheas

[bathory]

are you that unintelligent that you have to resort to hate speech such as this??

btw im not the stupid one bombing for peace.

BOMBING FOR PEACE IS LIKE ****ING FOR VIRGINITY!!!!!

lets ignore the point i made, as i said, taking out Saudi would make zero tactical sense

Bombing for peace does work fool, history will attest to that, oh right i forgot about the part where the jewish girl hugged hitler, told him she forgives him, and made him cry and packup. Or the part where the Japanese after getting hugs from the POWs they were using for bayonet practice, decided that it would be better for the world if they stop such trivial things as conquest of the pacific. I'll resort to hate speech because it makes me feel better:)

Check Mate, Sir.

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[bathory]

people like you are sick, you thrive on bloodshed and killing, all in the name of peace

you mean i'm a realist?

well show me where killing thousands of innocent people has brought peace before??

Japan 1945

it has only divided people and given the local undertaker more business in my opinion,

unfortunately your opinion is just that, it isn't fact.

bathory is the expert

indeed i am:)

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[bathory]

1) Saudi isn't tactically advantageous, your thoughts?

2) japan 1945? do you concede that bombing lead to peace?

so you consider using nukes ok

i don't remember taking a stance on nukes, i think they should be a last resort where all alternatives would be far more costly

which is why i emphasised it was my opinion, but judging by your double standard views, your deranged opinions should be gospel!!!

context fool

you are crying about bombing for peace, sorry but history has shown thats pretty much THE way to go about getting peace, thats not my opinion (bombing for peace being the idea of violence to achieve peace)

do yourself a favour and join the army to get rid of some of that anger of yours, ive read a lot of your posts, and you are all talk, why is it the mouthy war loving s**m are always mouth, and not much else

always mouth? listen kiddo, i don't have to be a soldier to see that peace is more often than not achieved through warfare, interesting how you call me war loving, i don't love war, i would love nothing more than if we could all just get along, unfortunately i'm not living in the land of suger plum fairies and rainbow clouds which you seem to inhabit.

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[bathory]

double standards for the first, Japan, yes, eventually it did lead to some sort of peace, however, if you do a little reseach on the effects of the hiroshima bombing, i dont think even you would advocate the use of them, not on your family anyway!

how is it double standards? its tactically stupid to attack Saudi? where the crap are the double standards?

if you did some research, you'd find that they lost more people in firebombing than both of the atomic bombs, however as you have conceded, it did lead to peace /gg

since we have such a large record of history i would like you to show me a war without the use of nukes which brought about peace since 'nukes should be a last resort', and have only been used in war the once, by the USA though im sure you dont need reminding.

? wtf are you talking about? i even made my position clear on how i assumed you meant bombing for peace? this has nothing to do with nukes...i never even brought nukes up, you did, and now you are applying your nukes to comments in which they had nothing to do with.

are you normally this incoherrant, kiddo?

bedtime for me, the real world says its 4:21am, and my body says, sleepy time

Edited December 26, 2004 by bathory

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[bathory]

its double standards cos its not profitable to attack Saudi Arabia, simple!!! Plus its a larger country, so lets go after easier targets.

its not profitable to attack Iraq either....i think you will find that contractors are making very little profit compared to expenditure over there, and the US is pumping billions into the war. But lets follow this line of thought, what makes attacking Saudi any less profitable than attacking Iraq?

ok lets get facts straight regarding Saudi Arabia

1) the Royal Family is pro-us

2) the Saudi government is as a whole cooperating, why would we need to invade?

3) attacking Saudi would cripple the world economy

so lets go after easier targets? is there something wrong with that?

you mentioned Japan 1945 didnt you??

in response to your comment asking me to say where bombing for peace has worked (after you had already ignored my examples), the use of the two atomic bombs (there is a difference between a nuke and an atomic bomb) is highly irrelevant, especially when you realise that the fire bombing of japan killed a far greater number of people.

are you normally this rude?? (reads a couple more of bathorys posts to confirm he is)

yes:(

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[bathory]

yes there is in my opinion, when people such as yourselves get on your high horse and say this war is a war against terror, when 15 out of 19 of the hijackers of 9/11 were saudi, and you yourself admit your own suspicions regarding saudi arabia's involvement with al queda.

because it doesn't make any sense to go straight for saudi, when you have other threats, which can be dealt with easily, and your exagerating what i said regarding Saudi involvement, i said it is likely that there are members in the government that support them, the government as a whole don't, because as things are, they have a huge amount of money invested in the US, you also forget they went into Afghanistan first and dealt with the alqueda supporting government and infrastructure in place there.