Cheney and Rumsfeld heckled by activists

JollyRoger

Slippin' Jimmy
Supporter
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
43,898
Location
Chicago Sunroofing
Conservatives join the party about 8 years too late:

First, a word about hecklers: It's awful that they get so much attention. A few bad apples in a room of thousands can create the impression of massive dissent, when it really isn't there.

That said, boy, was there a lot of heckling when Donald Rumsfeld arrived at CPAC to accept the Defender of the Constitution Award. The ballroom for big events fills up many minutes in advance. In this instance, the people who wanted to hear Rand Paul speak at 3:45 had to arrive around 2:30, and stay there. If they did, they sat through a speech from Donald Trump (a surprise to attendees who weren't checking the news frequently), and used every possible moment to yell "RON PAUL" at the Donald. When Trump responded to one of the heckles, and said that Paul "can't win" the presidency, there were loud and righteous boos.

It takes a while to exit the ballroom. This means that hundreds of Paul fans -- recognizably younger and sometimes beardier than the median CPAC attendee -- are in the room or in lines as Donald Rumsfeld is introduced.

"I am pleased to recognize our chairman, David Keene, to recognize Donald Rumsfeld," says emcee Ted Cruz.

There are loud boos.

Keene mentions that this is the "Defender of the Constitution Award." More boos; also, shouts of "RON PAUL! RON PAUL!"

When Rumsfeld takes the stage, the boos keep going, because some anti-war conservatives have stuck around to heckle. When it sees Dick Cheney, the crowd's din drowns out the boos... for a while. I find a place on the floor next to several activists wearing Ron Paul gear.

"Bringing in Cheney made it worse," says Nathan Cox, a Richmond, Va. activist and member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. "I kinda feel like yelling something."

He doesn't yell, but another activist yells "Show us the shekels, Dick! Show us the shekels!" It's a not-so-veiled critique of Israel that gets him immediately kicked out. Another anti-war conservative yells "Draft dodger!" and he's kicked out.

By this point, enough supporters of the last Republican administration are in the room to fill it with cheers of "Cheney 2012!" and to drown out a heckler who yells "Where's bin Laden?"
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/02/10/cpac-2011-whose-bright-idea-was-it-to-put-rumsfeld-and-cheney-in-front-of-screaming-libertarians.aspx
 
My first thought as well.

What's with the Ron Paul fanbois though?
 
Donald Rumsfield armed for a future war with China or North Korea and ignored Afghanistan/iraq Wars.

Thats all I know for about the guy (he was replaced by Robert Gates?).

What did he do?
 
Irony much?
If Henry Kissinger can get the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to dump on Vietnam as many bombs as were dropped in all of WWII, anything is possible.

At least both Rumsfeld and Cheney can still apparently travel to Europe. I sure hope the European authorities are working on closing that loophole.
 
Donald Rumsfield armed for a future war with China or North Korea and ignored Afghanistan/iraq Wars.
:lol:

Warmongering (which in this case not only means to advocate and fight for (illegal) wars to be waged which some don't mind, it also means to lie, mislead and trick others (especially Americans, naturally) in supporting it), torture and concealment of torture - are things I can tell you without much thinking or further research.
 
What did he do?

Lets just say he was incompetent, arrogant, petty and delusional.

Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation. "I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.
 
WTH??? :crazyeye:
 
Ron Oaul still exists?
 
It's probably only about the budget deficit.
 
"Anti-war" conservatives typically support a strong national defense while thinking it should not typically be used for any other purpose. Ironically, non-interventionism used to be a matter of general advocacy amongst conservative Republicans.

Dr. Paul is the current champion of this position. There aren't many left:

Imagine an Occupied America

Imagine for a moment that somewhere in the middle of Texas there was a large foreign military base, say Chinese or Russian. Imagine that thousands of armed foreign troops were constantly patrolling American streets in military vehicles. Imagine they were here under the auspices of "keeping us safe" or "promoting democracy" or "protecting their strategic interests."

Imagine that they operated outside of U.S. law, and that the Constitution did not apply to them. Imagine that every now and then they made mistakes or acted on bad information and accidentally killed or terrorized innocent Americans, including women and children, most of the time with little to no repercussions or consequences. Imagine that they set up checkpoints on our soil and routinely searched and ransacked entire neighborhoods of homes. Imagine if Americans were fearful of these foreign troops and overwhelmingly thought America would be better off without their presence.

Imagine if some Americans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actually joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sovereignty, because leadership in government refused or were unable to do so. Imagine that those Americans were labeled terrorists or insurgents for their defensive actions, and routinely killed or captured and tortured by the foreign troops on our land. Imagine that the occupiers' attitude was that if they just killed enough Americans, the resistance would stop, but instead, for every American killed, 10 more would take up arms against them, resulting in perpetual bloodshed. Imagine if most of the citizens of the foreign land also wanted these troops to return home. Imagine if they elected a leader who promised to bring them home and put an end to this horror.

Imagine if that leader changed his mind once he took office.

The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. We would not stand for it here, but we have had a globe-straddling empire and a very intrusive foreign policy for decades that incites a lot of hatred and resentment toward us.

According to our own CIA, our meddling in the Middle East was the prime motivation for the horrific attacks on 9/11. But instead of reevaluating our foreign policy, we have simply escalated it. We had a right to go after those responsible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Americans feel as if we have a right to a military presence in some 160 countries when we wouldn't stand for even one foreign base on our soil, for any reason? These are not embassies, mind you, these are military installations. The new administration is not materially changing anything about this. Shuffling troops around and playing with semantics does not accomplish the goals of the American people, who simply want our men and women to come home. Fifty thousand troops left behind in Iraq is not conducive to peace any more than 50,000 Russian soldiers would be in the United States.

Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade, and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity. It is the only foreign policy that will not bankrupt us in short order, as our current actions most definitely will. I share the disappointment of the American people in the foreign policy rhetoric coming from the administration. The sad thing is, our foreign policy will change eventually, as Rome's did, when all budgetary and monetary tricks to fund it are exhausted.


Link to video.
 
That actually sounds quite good.

I thought Ron Paul was a bit "out there"?

Oh, he is. But a case can be made for a great deal of non-intervention. And he was right about Iraq, and had the guts to say so. But I don't think you can make the case for isolationism. Once the US became strong enough, isolationism didn't serve our interests. But by the same token, imperialism really didn't serve our interests in the long run either. So I tend to think there's a happy medium out there someplace.

But Paul on domestic, and particularly economic, policy is a runaway train on the way to a train wreck near you. Not that you can't make a case for his policies on some points. But it is ultra-extreme conservatism.
 
As Ron Paul clearly states above, he is not in any way an isolationist.

Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats and violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade, and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity.

That is a frequently used strawman for a non-interventionist.

But Paul on domestic, and particularly economic, policy is a runaway train on the way to a train wreck near you. Not that you can't make a case for his policies on some points. But it is ultra-extreme conservatism.
Right. Because everybody knows that a currency based on actual commodities can't possibly work, as it did for millenia.

That is certainly not to say that I agree with many of Dr Paul's economic views. Just that characterizing him as some sort of extremist nut whose ideas can't possibly work is ad hominem at its best. After all, he is currently the head of the House Banking committee and his general knowledge of economics is well-respected.
 
Right. Because everybody knows that a currency based on actual commodities can't possibly work, as it did for millenia.

It definitely can't. What's more, there's no excuse for it at all. It worked extremely poorly then. But there was no alternatives. An economist on the radio the other day made the point: In the Great Depression, the less a country had to do with the gold standard, the better off it was. And there's no question that the gold standard in 2008 would have caused a Great Depression as well.
 
That actually sounds quite good.

I thought Ron Paul was a bit "out there"?

Ron Paul can be either the sanest man in the room, or the craziest man in the room, depending on the issue. Unfortunately, he's usually the latter. I do hope he runs again though so he can force discussion on certain issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom