Rumsfeld warns against ignoring history in war on terrorBreaking News
He described a new, more ruthless and lethal terrorist enemy, "with no territory to defend, no treaties to honor, that measures progress in terms of decades, not days."
"With this sort of enemy, we cannot afford — and indeed could not survive — another holiday from history," Rumsfeld said.
Contending there are those who say terrorism is "somebody else's problem, or it will go away," Rumsfeld countered that United States has no choice but to go on the offensive. And he urged patience with the Iraqi and Afghan governments as they struggle to build their democracies.
comments powered by Disqus
Jeffery Ewener - 10/21/2006
He's certainly one of the top guys to go to, if the subject is not honoring treaties.
Mary Jane VanEsselsttyn - 10/21/2006
What does Mr Rumsfield mean by ignoring history? Since when has the secretary of Defence been telling the truth about anything? The root of our problem today is lack of honesty and our willingness to believe those who have lied to us repeatedly. It seems to be a national disease that may become fatal unless sanity is restored. When have Americans learned anything from history although it has been said history is a mystery.Maybe its time for Mr Rumsfield and his cohorts in the White House to become history before it is too late and we become embroiled in more unwinnable wars our leadership brought on themselves through their own arrogance. "Those who have failed to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them"
Vernon Clayson - 10/21/2006
Ms. Kazmier, your cynicism would be more appropriate for the mad bloggers on Slate, this site is for serious commentary. Sec. Runsfeld is a functionary insofar as awarding contracts. He cannot arbitrarily expend money, there are numerous controls and channels, including the Congress, to satisfy and Congress can bring any expenditure to a screeching halt, blame them, not the messengers. Yours is the same tired screed that has been used against VP Cheney for years. The Dept. of Defense is a vast complicated business with numerous checks and balances, there are no loose cannons in the organization itself, the loose cannons are in their overseer, the Dongress.
Lisa Kazmier - 10/20/2006
Not only is Rumsfeld's version of history suspect, I wonder if his goal is to contain or defeat terrorism versus endlessly talking about it (while rewarding friends with lucrative contracts) in order to keep using it as an election issue.
Yep, I'm a cynic.
- Rubio Surges Into Second In New Hampshire
- Branstad Says Cruz Ran ‘Unethical’ Campaign
- Christie Highlights Santorum’s Endorsement of Rubio
- Portman Comes Out Against Trade Deal
- Megyn Kelly Gets a Book Deal
- A Big List of the Bad Things Clinton Has Done
- An Unambiguous Sign Sanders Won Last Night’s Debate
- Still Friends at the End
- Quote of the Day
- Trump Still Leads as Clinton Slips
- Clinton Can’t Shake Image as Wall Street’s Friend
- Maddow Doesn’t See Sanders Winning
- Why Does the Media Still Shield Chelsea Clinton?
- Bush Jokes His Mother May Have Abused Him
- Rubio Closes the Gap in New Hampshire
- Newly released interactive map shows images of destroyed monuments of Mosul
- How the Rise of the Post Office Explains American Innovation
- These Americans are reliving history and don’t mind repeating it
- Britain largest home is saved for the nation
- Shelter and the slums: capturing bleak Britain 50 years ago
- WSJ features an article by a conservative calling for the abolition of Black History Month
- Mary Beard, herself a bestselling author, wonders why more women historians aren't
- Princeton U. historian Imani Perry claims mistreatment in parking ticket arrest
- Retired historian George Dennison remains on the payroll at the U. of Montana while faculty are cut
- The Atlantic profiles exciting ways to teach history