GQ: Secret 2003 Iraq intel reports began with Bible quotes
posted at 2:30 pm on May 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
That’s just the sexiest detail in a devastating profile of Rumsfeld assembled by Robert Draper, but since it fits the left’s narrative that the Iraq war must have been conceived with an ulterior motive — war for oil, war for Israel, war because Bush heard God’s voice in his head — it’s the detail the media will focus on. You can view a slideshow of the reports here. Proof that Don Rumsfeld was actually a closet crusader? No, more like proof that Rumsfeld tried to speak Bush’s language in the early days of the war to give him strength as the first casualties were taken.
These cover sheets were the brainchild of Major General Glen Shaffer, a director for intelligence serving both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense. In the days before the Iraq war, Shaffer’s staff had created humorous covers in an attempt to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle. Then, as the body counting began, Shaffer, a Christian, deemed the biblical passages more suitable. Several others in the Pentagon disagreed. At least one Muslim analyst in the building had been greatly offended; others privately worried that if these covers were leaked during a war conducted in an Islamic nation, the fallout—as one Pentagon staffer would later say—“would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.”
But the Pentagon’s top officials were apparently unconcerned about the effect such a disclosure might have on the conduct of the war or on Bush’s public standing. When colleagues complained to Shaffer that including a religious message with an intelligence briefing seemed inappropriate, Shaffer politely informed them that the practice would continue, because “my seniors”—JCS chairman Richard Myers, Rumsfeld, and the commander in chief himself—appreciated the cover pages…
The Scripture-adorned cover sheets illustrate one specific complaint I heard again and again: that Rumsfeld’s tactics—such as playing a religious angle with the president—often ran counter to sound decision-making and could, occasionally, compromise the administration’s best interests. In the case of the sheets, publicly flaunting his own religious views was not at all the SecDef’s style—“Rumsfeld was old-fashioned that way,” Shaffer acknowledged when I contacted him about the briefings—but it was decidedly Bush’s style, and Rumsfeld likely saw the Scriptures as a way of making a personal connection with a president who frequently quoted the Bible. No matter that, if leaked, the images would reinforce impressions that the administration was embarking on a religious war and could escalate tensions with the Muslim world. The sheets were not Rumsfeld’s direct invention—and he could thus distance himself from them, should that prove necessary.
Still, the sheer cunning of pairing unsentimental intelligence with religious righteousness bore the signature of one man: Donald Rumsfeld. And as historians slog through the smoke and mirrors of his tenure, they may find that Rumsfeld’s most enduring legacy will be the damage he did to Bush’s.
That’s the jumping-off point for a long, gossipy, engrossing analysis of how Rumsfeld (almost) ruined everything, from Iraq to U.S./Russia relations to even the feds’ Katrina response. So damning is it that it’s almost self-discrediting: He simply couldn’t have been that bad for that long and stayed on the job, Bush’s famous reputation for loyalty notwithstanding, so we’re left to puzzle out how much of the dish is simple scapegoating by other anonymous Bush officials eager to push blame onto the media’s favorite whipping boy. Draper’s not some nutroots hack, though, having written a book about Bush’s administration for which Dubya himself agreed to be interviewed several times. Either way, believe me when I tell you you’ll want to read the whole thing. As for the intel reports, the intent seems innocuous enough but it’s bizarre to me that they’d have gone ahead with religious messages on war documents — secret war documents no less, buttressing the “ulterior motive” meme — knowing what a PR disaster it would have been had these leaked at the time. In a way, it reminds me of Rush saying he wants Obama to fail: The motive may be noble, but surely there’s a less self-destructive way to make the point.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
I saw that.
But please do remember that Saddam praised the 9/11 hijackers and the events of 9/11 in his speechs and there are plenty of pictures of the murals painted around Iraq showing the twin towers being taken down with Saddam’s smiling face right beside of it.
Saddam supported and financed many jihadist organizations,including al-qaeda,and provided safe haven for the most wanted terrorist in the world(the mastermind of the
Akile Lauro),safe haven for Musab al-Zarqawi, before we went in (including the al-qaeda bomb makers of the 1993 Twin Towers bombing).
The fact that in the resolution to go to war and the build up to war there was care not to try and connect the two,the two are definitely connected in the overall reasoning of the War on Terror that liberals can’t seem to grasp in the pathetic pursuit of trying to take Bush down.
This is a war against radical jihadist that are using a religion to further their power.
This has been the overall goal and Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Somali/Iran/Palistine/Lebanon/Syria/Saudia
Arabia/Yemen/Eygpt…..are all involved one way or another.
If they choose state sponsored terrorism,war by proxy,or God forbid, the acquiring of nuclear weapons to destroy people who do not practice sharia law and believe the way they do in their quest for the new Caliphate,then they have to be stopped.
So it seems to me pissing around about “scriptures” in memos and still ranting “did Saddam help with 9/11″ is to ignore the overall picture that the Islamic jihadist have to be stopped because they have no intentions of putting caterpillars in our beds or pouring water on our faces,they want all of us dead.
Baxter Greene on May 17, 2009 at 5:39 PM
I come from a military family, and a friend of mine was KIA in 2008 in Afghanistan. Please don’t question my patriotism, it makes you look shallower than you already appear to be.
Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2009 at 5:39 PM
I AM PROUD TO HAVE SERVED WITH DONALD RUMSFELD AS MY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
Rumsfeld was, has always been, and still is – a GOOD MAN. He’s done a lot for this country. He’s sacrificed – and he’s never let politics get in front of protecting this nation.
Bible quotes are cool too. Whatever.
HondaV65 on May 17, 2009 at 5:40 PM
If they want to take this tack (as some used to talk about the Saudis as the real threat over at Powerline) then I have no problem with having gone after the Sunni problem, first. That would have been fine with me, though hitting the secular enemy was the easiest first step. Sadly, they are quick to blame Saudi Arabia (which I also blame) but refuse to consider taking any actions against them.
My dealings with jukebox (if you remember that character) is that they always want to shift the point to some other place, any other place, but then won’t recommend doing anything there, either. The juke used to like to cry about Iraq not being involved and Saudi Arabia being the problem, but then would never advocate taking the Saudi fields or any sort of move on them. It was all just a feint to build an argument against the Iraq invasion.
If they wanted to go after Iran first and hit the Shiite head, I have no problem with that – but they wouldn’t do that either. In the end they tend to come up with the same idiocy that The Precedent used to scream about, that the whole problem came down to nothing but Al Quaeda. It’s foolishness and a total denial of history, but that’s how they like to do it.
The funniest part, to me, has been that after Saddam dumped 40,000,000 barrels of oil into the gulf and lit every oil well in Kuwait on fire, one would think that the eco-nuts would have wanted his head on a platter (as they wanted for Exxon execs who had a much smaller spill, and totally unintentionally), but we never heard a peep from the eco-freaks. Unreal.
Meanwhile, none of them ever mentions the fact that Iraq invasion ended up yielding more WMD than anyone ever imagined, in that we scared the living piss out of Qadaffi and got Libya to puke up their whole nuke industry, which led to the innards of the AQ Khan network and shut down the most dangerous muke market in the world. But they never talk about that. They just bleat on about not finding some nerve gas in Iraq. It’s just crazy.
progressoverpeace on May 17, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Del Dolemonte
Also if you are just trying to rile me when I was having a honest discussion with yuo.
Shame on you.
How can we learn from one another if you are just trying to poke me in the eye,and taunt like a child instead of have a dialogue.
No wonder the two sides can’t find common ground with people like you about.
You are quite simply a jerk. I have been nothing but forthright and honest in my discussion and you just admitted to pruposely trying to screw with me just because qe don’t agree. Well if you are so weak in your position you can’t even talk respectfully with someone who has a different point of view
YOU ARE A VERY VARY SAD PERSON AND I CAN ONLY PITY YOU.
I am off to teh gym now, I don’t waste my time with people who can’t master common place respect in a dialogue
DustyGreen on May 17, 2009 at 5:41 PM
In the 2002 Authorization of Force Resolution, the only mention of al Qaeda is that AQ was in Iraq at the time. Which is totally correct.
Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2009 at 5:42 PM
You “come” from a military family? Maybe you can elaborate a bit there – because Cindy Sheehan came from a military family also.
What service were YOU in and what actions? Theaters?
HondaV65 on May 17, 2009 at 5:42 PM
That means about as much as Obama whining about the unsustainability of debt.
ddrintn on May 17, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Wow, Dusty. That’s quite an accusation. Have you not heard the saying? Here’s a little history (admittedly from Wiki but still somewhat valid I think):
To say I was insulting our troops with this could not be further from the truth, however, I did expect people to know it was a famous saying. I guess those writers and movie makers were insulting our troops too, right Dusty? (Hollywood may do that now, but they certainly did not during World War II!)
Christian Conservative on May 17, 2009 at 5:43 PM
That was a joke, son. Like most Leftists, you have no sense of humor.
Now tell us again why Iraq, and only Iraq, is automatically free of suspiciom re. the 9/11 attacks.
Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Geez.. Talk about sour grapes, I couldn’t help noticing it was a disgruntled Arab Muslim, or Islam which might take offense to these quotes. Good, that means it was the right thing to do.
‘Muslim sensitivities’, pls spare me or I am going to vomit like Shuster. No Christmas lights, no pledge of allegiance, now no awesome biblical war quotes!? What’s next, for the endless Islamic erosion of American institutions in the Global Jihad?
This is out of control these attacks on Christians in the USA. In a religious war you kill everyone, including their cattle – Instead you went house to house to hunt the bad guys, this put soldiers in mortal danger every day to save Iraqis. To call this sacrifice afterward ‘a religious war’ is insulting to soldiers everywhere.
Incidentally this is the guy running away from his secret service detail INTO the burning Pentagon to save people while in his suit & late sixties. This guy who had been serving America for most of his life, I wonder.. What on earth could anybody see in a man like that?
saus on May 17, 2009 at 5:44 PM
My response wasn’t directed at you. What are you trying to prove?
Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Well if you post here … it’s kind of silly not to expect that others can critique your statements.
What am I trying to prove? I’m trying to prove that coming from a military family doesn’t mean you necessarily empathize with the military. Therefore – the Cindy Sheehan example – there a tu
HondaV65 on May 17, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Well if you post here … it’s kind of silly not to expect that others can critique your statements.
What am I trying to prove? I’m trying to prove that coming from a military family doesn’t mean you necessarily empathize with the military. Therefore – the Cindy Sheehan example – there a thousands of others.
HondaV65 on May 17, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Obama tells Notre Dame graduates we should stop demonizing those we disagree with
William Amos on May 17, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Hilarious.
That is what he and his people do for a living.
When will Asselrod apologize to Ms. CA?
artist on May 17, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Military service is voluntary.
The vast majority that are in their now probably joined up after 2001 so I would guess they knew they were going to war.
This bogus line about creating 2 terrorist for everyone we kill makes no sense.
I am sure we created many more people to the fight in Germany,Italy,and Japan by going to war with them.
Should we have just not gone after them because we feared they might rally and want to fight back?
You do know that many jihadist were being created well before the Iraq war.
The fact that their recruitment went up is no reason not to fight.
Recruitment went up in Afghanistan when we attacked there.
Should we have not responded with an attack after 9/11?
This 2 for 1 logic is just stupid.
Besides,if what Bush was doing is so bad,
Why is Obama using his playbook:
and :
Obama’s Military Tribunals
Another Friday, another bow to Bush’s antiterror legacy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124242595415225131.html#printMode
It is hilarious to watch the same people who criticize Bush
stay on bended knee to Obama while he uses Bush’s same policies.
Baxter Greene on May 17, 2009 at 5:56 PM
My reaction to the quoted piece of Robert Draper’s “profile” of Donald Rumsfeld is that Draper has written garbage. I don’t agree — and one does not need to agree — with everything that Rumsfeld said and did to recognize that Donald Rumsfeld was and is a patriot who deserves far more respect.
Removing Saddam was the right decision, and Rumsfeld was steadfast with respect to that decision. To be sure, the post-removal history certainly has its warts; it is unfortunate for Rumsfeld’s memory that his removal coincided with the institution of the right strategy in Iraq.
As for quoting the Christian Bible in Iraqi intell reports, so what? We are at war with radical Islam. We engage in a dangerous fantasy if we fantasize otherwise. You think otherwise? Check out, for example, Andy McCarthy’s book “Willful Blindness.”
Phil Byler on May 17, 2009 at 5:57 PM
I know,I state as much in the post:
I may have been confusing when I stated that “they tried not to connect the two”,in the next paragraph.
I was referring to being careful to not try and connect 9/11 and Saddam, not Saddam and al-qaeda.
The 2008 Senate Intelligence(chaired by a majority of democrats) report lays out those connections well.
Thanks for the heads up.
Baxter Greene on May 17, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Sheehan is the exception, rather than the norm. After all, she originally had no problem with the evil Bush, and in fact met with him and even shook his hand.
Then the Left got ahold of her, and she changed her views. Not typical at all.
And when the Left finished using her, they simply threw her overboard.
Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2009 at 6:05 PM
This is a great point.
To listen to liberals,Saddam had no lethal weapons,no ties to terrorist,no intentions of gaining nuclear weapons, was contained and poised no threat to anyone.
How in the world he committed genocide of over 1 million of his own people (by UN numbers),started two wars,had tons of yellowcake,killed hundreds of thousands with WMD’s,financed
and supported terrorist from around the world justs seems to
be an after thought to the “smart ones”.
Maybe if democrats had not spent almost a decade telling the world how dangerous Saddam was with his WMD’s,Nuclear ambitions,and ties to al-qaeda they might be a little more credible on this subject.
Baxter Greene on May 17, 2009 at 6:11 PM
It makes a very big difference what the Bible quotes say. Muslims accept the Bible as God’s Word, just that the Qur’an is more recent, and in that view, it abrogates the Bible (a view I find astonishing). Many quotes would be received by Muslims, especially since they regard Jesus as a great prophet. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that because it’s in the Bible, the Muslim will automatically reject it. They’ll have issue with the Christian’s take on a passage, of course, because they are seeing it through the lens of their prophet.
Pilgrimsarbour on May 17, 2009 at 6:12 PM
So let me get this straight…
Muslims quoting the Koran, blowing sh*t up and mass murdering people in the name of Allah = no religious motivation whatsoever = “Islam is a religion of peace”.
But, Bible quotes on the covers of some Intel reports = THE UNITED STATES IS CONDUCTING A RELIGIOUS CRUSADE TO WIPE OUT MUSLIMS!!!!!
What a bunch of horsesh*t.
Awe poor baby. Lemme guess, you were not offended in the least that Muslims across the entire world were conducting terrorist attacks and mass murders based on the Koran and teachings of Mohammad.
Michael in MI on May 17, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Can’t believe people have so much trouble with quoting Bible verses in an official letter. Our founding fathers didn’t have much trouble with that, or with prayers. Wasn’t it George Washington who appointed chaplains for the military? This is the lamest attack at Rumsfeld yet and there have been plenty of lame attacks against him. But I don’t think it bothers him one bit.
Christian Conservative on May 17, 2009 at 6:13 PM
As I said in an earlier post, “recorded history” for these idiots didn’t begin until January of 2001. Clinton was the first President to claim an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, not the evil Bush.
Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2009 at 6:16 PM
To add to that,one picture shows her kissing Bush on the cheek.
When she hated Bush,she was the MSM darling 24/7.
After the 06 elections where democrats took control,she turned on them when they continued to fund the war and not demand withdrawl.
She then tried to run against Nancy,which was the final nail in the coffin for Sheehan and her love affair with the MSM.
There is hardly a better example of how the left use people for their political agenda,then throw them under the bus when they are no longer useful,then Sheehan and Scott McClellan.
Baxter Greene on May 17, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Typical liberal selective amnesia.
Pelosi is putting on a he!! of a show with it now.
Baxter Greene on May 17, 2009 at 6:18 PM
PS, the vast majority of “military people” who attack the US are from one party, and one party only. D
And the only reason they do it? Politics.
Hence, we had a guy who trashed his country after returning from Vietnam run for President in 2004, claiming that his “experience” in the war he and his party had trashed for decades somehow made him “qualified” to be President.
Shortly after losing thet election, this dim bulb said only “stupid people” join the military and go to Iraq. He also accused US troops of “terrorizing” Iraqi civilians in the dead of the night.
Another member of that party, former Marine Jack Murtha, falsely accused US soldiers of murder in Haditha.
And let’s not forget former “General” Wes Clark, who got fired by the two Bills (Cohen and Clinton) after almost starting World War 3 during Clinton’s own War of Choice in Kosovo. We’re srill there, by the way.
Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2009 at 6:22 PM
I don’t know about you folks, but if someone attacked my family (America), inside my home (America) and threatened to kill the rest of my family (America) I’m pretty sure that I’d say a few prayers before taking the right action. Crusade? No. Faith? Yes. Wanting to do the right thing at a horrible time? Yes.
Pelosi is shameful because she cannot just come out and admit that we were all afraid after 9/11; we didn’t know what was coming next. If she had any shred of decency she’d just come out and say that she thought she was doing the right thing at the right time and in that horrible place.
Key West Reader on May 17, 2009 at 6:25 PM
Well said.
myrenovations on May 17, 2009 at 6:28 PM
You don’t say!!
Dems red-faced over veteran imposter
Democrats are incensed over how a man duped the party and veterans during the ‘08 campaign.
By Michael Riley
The Denver Post
Posted: 05/15/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 05/16/2009 04:25:01 PM MDT
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12373595#
Background checking just as good as Daschle,Geithner and the rest of the “best transition evaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!
But don’t you dare question their support for the troops.
Baxter Greene on May 17, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Actually there were military chaplains in England much earlier than that-try the 8th century?
Back in 2003 when I was at Pearl I took the “deluxe” tour of the USS Missouri. Before we got to the “deluxe” part (which was going much deeper into the bowels of the ship with guides, something the “free” tourists aren’t allowed to do) we saw the Chaplain’s quarters.
He had one of the nicest cabins on the whole ship. Only the Captain had better digs.
Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Wow, that Colorado story deserves a thread of its own. Paging AP…
I saw another one of those silly yard signs yesterday
“Support Our Troops-End This War”
These idiots think it is possible to “support the troops” but not “support the mission”. But the two cannot be separated.
It’s interesting to note that the “first” JFK from Massachusetts, the one elected President in 1960, actually was of the opinion that he was not a war hero. He was also ashamed of his medals, according to some friends he confided in.
Contrast that to the second “JFK”, who ran in 2004.
Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2009 at 6:43 PM
So is the moral of the story “Praying/Invocations Helps Bush Admin” or “Praying/Invocations Hurts Bush Admin”?
Which am I supposed to **gasp** about? I’m really curious.
/
Earlg on May 17, 2009 at 7:06 PM
And yet another fake soldier turns up. But when Rush brings attention to this phenomenon, he’s publicly condemned by name by the Senate Majority Leader.
notropis on May 17, 2009 at 7:07 PM
Fact: Hussein applauded the actions.
Fact: Hussein helped AQ wounded who escaped Afghanistan.
Fact: The SOB didn’t know to keep mouth shut and it got him swinging from a rope.
Fact: Khadaffi saw the writing on the wall after 9/11 and Iraq and decided he likes living.
Fact: Aiding terrorists = being one yourself
Conclusion: Terrorists deserve nothing less than a JDAM up the a$$.
Now finish your tofu and soy latte, take off your burks, put down your copy of Marx, peel your clothes off, take your once-a-decade bath, shave, repeat, put on your moveon.org jammies and go to bed. It’s a long walk to the welfare office tomorrow and you need your rest. Oh, and before I forget, your Messiah has been upholding the Evil Bush’s national security directives including military tribunals for our “guests” at Gitmo. Pleasant dreams Libtard.
Bubba Redneck on May 17, 2009 at 7:12 PM
LOL Kettle meet pot
Jamson64 on May 17, 2009 at 7:19 PM
That President Bush wouldn’t request that Biblical quotes NOT be used to decorate official reports is telling, and not in a good way. Not to excuse Rumsfeld, but good grief – the President can say “nix” to such things and you can bet they’d be nixed. Have to wonder if Bush ever did.
starfleet_dude on May 17, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Bush was probably never told that such quotes were being used.
What’s so silly about this whole thing is that you folks on the Left simply can’t seem to let Bush, Cheney and Rummy go. We correctly predicted this would happen way back in mid November 2008.
Why is that?
Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2009 at 8:01 PM
What? As if that sort of thing would be secret. Given the flap over the used of the word “crusade”, why quote the Bible to the same effect?
starfleet_dude on May 17, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Because it just came out, I suppose. Funny, that.
starfleet_dude on May 17, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Wake up people. We ARE in a religious war!
streetglide on May 17, 2009 at 8:32 PM
To paraphrase Trotsky (allegedly), “You may not be interested in religious war, but religious war is interested in you.” I doubt many (if any) of the 9/11 victims had any religious gripe against Muslims, yet they found themselves on the receiving end of Muslim jihad.
Now, one can argue, “Oh, those 9/11 hijackers weren’t religious, they were a bunch of malcontents and some of them went to strip clubs”. Which is true, but in Islam you can do whatever you want and as long as you die in an action that can legitimately be called “jihad”, all of your past indiscretions are forgiven and you get immediate entry into Paradise.
This is definitely a war of two different philosophies of life, even if some people shy away from the term “religious war”.
venividivici on May 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM
There is a subtle brilliance to using quotes of scripture that are also accepted by Islam. When the enemy claims God to be on their side and claims we are evil and Godless, as we reach back to a common religious heritage, it sort of changes things a little in a subtle and important way. It sows the seeds of “hmmm, I wonder whose side God is really on” kinds of thoughts. As for the Taliban, I would do the same thing using the whole “…sheep’s clothing … ravening wolves” thing but the Gospels, while mentioned in the Quran, aren’t taken as highly as Psalms which are specifically endorsed as being holy.
crosspatch on May 17, 2009 at 8:58 PM
I don’t give a rat’s patudy if they started with frakkin sea-shantys as long the end result was American lead making holes where holes belong.
Limerick on May 17, 2009 at 8:59 PM
To be specific regarding the Taliban:
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves”
crosspatch on May 17, 2009 at 8:59 PM
I’m more of a “dirty limerick” man myself (I suspect you may be sympathetic to that perspective), but I’m with you in spirit.
“There once was a man from Tikrit…”
venividivici on May 17, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Rumsfeld is a good guy. Bad intel and the rest is history. I can’t stand hit jobs by unnamed insiders.
eaglesdontflock on May 17, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Neither did the Taliban, directly.
however, both the Taliban and Saddam had ties to Al-Qaeda and other like minded Jihadist groups.
jp on May 17, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Of course you can separate the two. In Germany in 1942 Sophie Scholl and the White Rose dissidents certainly supported the troops (Scholl’s brother was in the Army), but they sure as heel didn’t support the mission.
I suppose you simply demand unswerving and blind obedience for one’s military no matter what the mission, right?
Grow Fins on May 17, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Sure as hell
Oops
Grow Fins on May 17, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Al Bundy could not be reached for comment.
Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2009 at 10:44 PM
The military is all-volunteer, kid.
Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2009 at 10:46 PM
To finally put this to bed, let’s not forget that the Left had absolutely no problem with Saddam Huseein using religious phrases as a preface to all of his military memos.
They then claimed with a straight face that he was “secular” so could never work with bin Laden.
Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Why anyone would take up for that clown Rumsfeld is beyond me. He pretty much destroyed Bush’s presidency, single handedly.
Robert Gates was a welcome change.
Rummy’s just a joke.
therightwinger on May 17, 2009 at 10:57 PM
Could someone please explain to me why all these lefty media hacks, who’s party now hold the Presidency, the Senate, the House, and due to a crooked election, will soon have 60 vote in the Senate, cannot bring themselves to leave the Bush Administration alone. Their continual babbling, after he has left office is unprecedented, and works only to brew more anger and hate, and divide the voters in this Country even more .
Susanboo on May 17, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Big Fu*kin Deal.
Old Hippie Vet on May 17, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Considering some of the questionable people Bush surrounded himself with during his administration (Richard Clarke or Scott McClellan anyone?), I’m not sure that the fact that Bush granted interviews to Draper, so he could write his book, says much about Draper’s nutrootiness, or lack thereof.
Wow, a lot of great responses in the comments, and I’ve only looked at the first page.
Are we so far gone as a society, what used to be a Western society, with a Western heritage, that when our leaders take solace in their religion in times of war that everyone is supposed to get all upset, and yes, self-righteous? It’s funny how Atheists have become some of the most unpleasantly self-righteous people I’ve ever run across.
Are we supposed to just throw Christianity aside, a vital part of our Western Heritage just because someone somewhere might be offended (even though it was only used in what amounted to confidential communications)? The whole thing says more about the writer than it says about Bush or Rumsfeld.
I guess that sniper in Saving Private Ryan would have to be censored if there was a comparable character in a movie about the Iraq War, huh? Wouldn’t want someone to think he was some kind of Crusader or something.
Why, of course.
They. Just. Got. Lucky.
For seven years.
That must be it.
Dreadnought on May 17, 2009 at 11:32 PM
If they had begun with quotes from the Koran and were in this administration I’m sure you would see all sorts of wrong with that. Say it with me “Separation of church and state” there I knew you could….
Bradky on May 17, 2009 at 11:42 PM
No point in arguing with nonsense
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on May 17, 2009 at 11:58 PM
Wow, the Libtards are active on this thread…no wonder the pizza I ordered took forever-and was cold.
“OUT OF THE BASEMENTS, INTO THE STREETS! OUT OF THE BASEMENTS, INTO THE STREETS!…”
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 18, 2009 at 12:07 AM
You apparently have no idea what the meaning of “separation of church and state” means.
Our forefathers instituted this as “Freedom of Religion” so that the government could not dictate our religious values.
The fact that scripture or references to God (which is on our money,our courthouses and public buildings,and even in our pledge of allegiance) was quoted in cover sheets is in no way any kind of violation of “church and state” and is not proof that religion was forced on the populace.
If invoking God is some kind of crime now,you had better get the memo to your liberal hero Obama:
That fits in real well with bombing villages and killing civilians right liberal.
How about infanticide and partial birth abortion.
No problem killing those kids either as long as you don’t pour water on their faces or stick caterpillars in their cribs.
How about gay marriage.
You know the policy that liberals have been spouting their bigotry and hatred at Miss California for having the same opinion as Obama:
The difference, Mr. Obama has told them, is religion.
As a Christian — he is a member of the United Church of Christ — Mr. Obama believes that marriage is a sacred union, a blessing from God, and one that is intended for a man and a woman exclusively, according to these supporters and Obama campaign advisers.
Dam#,Obama is some kind of a religious nut right liberal.
This stance is even better because the liberals hero here states that ..hold on now…..this is going to hurt…..God helps obama make his decisions.
As President,you liberals know that his “decisions” are concerning policy right:
Obama’s prayer
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/228/story_22894_1.html
By the way, an alert reader spotted this exchange from Barack Obama’s January interview with Beliefnet.com:
INSTRUMENT OF GOD’S WILL!!!!
CONSTANTLY TRYING TO ALIGN MYSELF TO WHAT I THINK HE CALLS ON ME TO DO !!!!!!!!
It’s like he is just some sort of puppet of the great Theocracy Conspiracy and wants to turn us all into crazy praying zombies.
Quick liberals…..run….run fast….run awayyyyyyyyyy
before he makes you say Merry Christmas or the Pledge of Allegiance.
Baxter Greene on May 18, 2009 at 12:39 AM
If you think separation of church and state means that government documents can’t carry quotes from the Bible (a rather important piece of Western leterature, yes?) you really need to go back and read the First Amendment.
All of it.
Dreadnought on May 18, 2009 at 12:44 AM
In case some of you doubters have not noticed, Al Queda is not the only terrorist group in the world. After Saddam Hussein was run out of Bagdad, and his sons and henchmen captured or killed, the daily suicide bombings in Israel all but stopped. Hussein was paying the Palestinian bomber’s families money to kill Israelis remember? Oh, how soon we forget!
Susanboo on May 18, 2009 at 12:47 AM
hardly
Of all the stupid people in the Bush administration, not counting Bush, which included Powell, McClellan, Clarke, a slew of secretaries, Brownie, Bush’s ecumenical buddies, Bushes open border supporters, Bush’s no child left behind buddies, we cannot include Rumsfeld who was anything but stupid.
Powell entered the State department like a king entering a kingdom and he ran it with a mission to protect it from Bush. That was not to the advantage of the country. He has spent most of his time since taking down that Presidency as if he had no part in undermining it
I would say Rumsfeld had as much to do with ‘destroying’ the Bush administration as the other really smart guy in the Bush crowd: Cheney. If there were more like those two, the GOP would still be a party today
Why a pack of clowns needs erase Runsfeld from the history books is a question worth pondering. The sudden and growing attack on Rumsfeld as idiot, manipulator, and liar has smowballed as the real idiots in the Bush camp begin to devour their tails. The left plays background music to this game, since the left hated and feared Rumsfeld because of his talent, not because he lacked talent.
entagor on May 18, 2009 at 4:27 AM
Nice dodge but if a quote from the Koran were on any of Obama’s briefings – no matter how benign the quote I’m sure you would find a conspiracy in it and your love of mixing religion with intell documents would screech to a halt – at least for Obama.
Bradky on May 18, 2009 at 4:58 AM
If all we ever had to lead us or run the government was Bush, Rumsfeld and Bible quotes,,,, I will take them any day of the week over this current mess we have in DC.
Bill Clinton stands to this day accused of rape. And what of Obama???
I read the slide show. These were purely inspirational quotes from the Bible. A Presidential meeting uses Bible quotes in a slide show for inspiration at a time of war is more controversial to the press than anything Obama is doing or has said or has done?
The average guy on the street would be more bothered by Bill Ayers relationship to Obama than Rumsfeld using Bible quotes for inspiration in a meeting. This bothers the press.
It’s a scandal to them. Not to Americans. But they may try to make it one. They need made up scandals to distract from all the real scandals going on in this administration.
JellyToast on May 18, 2009 at 7:39 AM
wtf?
We are still at war.
There are men and women still out there fighting.
bridgetown on May 18, 2009 at 8:38 AM
It’s a religious war, allah. I’m glad that Rummy has a religious foundation.
Devastating? Please.
Can’t remember a “devastating” biography of Lincoln and his religious remarks during the Civil war. Oh well.
Randy
williars on May 18, 2009 at 8:53 AM
I would have felt better if he would have added other quotes from other sources…but quite frankly, the bible is so well documented and quotes so easy to apply, that it makes it easy to quote.
And since he used both OT and NT, he covered Christians and Jews, which is about 96% of whom he was talking to.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 9:09 AM
Well, yeah, because we are 99.9% more Christian, Jewish, Mormon, then Islamic.
There are probably as many “satanists” then people who read the Koran in America, I wouldn’t think the President would include a verse from some “Book of Satan”.
I would expect the Middle East countries to do the same with the Koran, quote the Koran and not the Bible.
Nothing wrong with quoting from the book that has inspired millions, from the founding fathers to the current leaders. No other book has outsold, been “out quoted”, and read by so many for inspiration.
right2bright on May 18, 2009 at 9:15 AM
That’s an awfully nice way to say “…proof that Rumsfeld was willing to cynically manipulate the President’s religiosity for his own purposes.”
orange on May 18, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3