Rumsfeld Likens Iraq War Opponents to Those Who Appeased Hitler
I've got ample amounts of contempt for the Bush administration to go around, but there seems to be just that little bit extra reserved for this son of a bitch. I think it's his combination of willful arrogance combined with apparent incompetence.
While I'm sure that there are things that have happened in Iraq that no one could have expected, I'm thinking that the blissful ignorance expressed prior to our invasion might have more than a little to do with the difficulties we're facing right now. ("The Iraqi people will greet us with flowers in one hand, waving American flags in the other" was one moronic statement I heard expressed in the ramp-up to war.)
But I'm not really interested in debating policy here. I hate the fact that we went to war in Iraq, I hate the fact that we trampled international law with the flimsy notion of "preventive war" and I despise the loss of life on both sides of the conflict thanks to said preventive war. But we're stuck with it, and there's no way we can pull out of Iraq now that we've managed to destabilize the region and push it to the brink of civil war. Nice job, Donald.
The irony here is in listening to Rumsfeld trumpet out allegations of fascist sympathies (for how else are we to interpret the concept of appeasement in this situation?), using techniques endemic to totalitarian states and fascist regimes the world over. One of the first and foremost techniques of these regimes is to attempt to undermine ANY opposition with the arrogant "if you're not with us, you're siding with the enemy" notion. And here we get it as a bald faced, arrogant declamation. (Makes me wonder if he's reading Anne Coulter before he goes to bed. It's the same kind of simple-minded arrogance I expect from her.) Not that I'm suggesting we've become a police state, or that our leaders are themselves fascists. But I somehow feel that Rumsfeld, Rove and Cheney wouldn't be all that bothered by said police state. (Bush probably figures a fascist is someone driving too fast for the road, so his opinion on this doesn't concern us. For that matter, his opinion on most things… well, you know where that's headed.)
I'm not some pollyanna idealist who thinks we can appease terrorists, nor do I think that we are "to blame" for all that's wrong with the world today. I do, however, question the notion that killing people who've elevated suicide to the level of personal martyrdom accomplishes much. And I'm pretty sure that anyone who doesn't realize that every civilian casualty in the Middle East is another recruitment ad for Al Queda has their head firmly planted in their ass.
So don't give me crap that "we're not looking on the bright side" or that criticizing this administration is somehow wrong, naive or, dare I say it (since he's obviously implied it) treasonous. In a democratic republic such as ours, with the notion of government for the people, by the people, it's our fucking duty to question the government. And if that's naive and idealistic, then so be it. It's what I learned in countless hours of US History and Civics in school, and I'll take those ideals every time over trusting meaningless "stay the course" BS from an administration that's obviously out of any better ideas.
(I've been reading Tim Rutten's excellent "Regarding Media" column in the LA Times lately. Today's column addresses the real problems with the Bush administration's trotting out the "appeasement" notion, and it's well worth a read, if for no other reason than the balanced, rational manner in which he makes his case. Not that I don't stand behind everything I've said here… but I do have to acknowledge I've got a bit of foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric working here.)
I've got ample amounts of contempt for the Bush administration to go around, but there seems to be just that little bit extra reserved for this son of a bitch. I think it's his combination of willful arrogance combined with apparent incompetence.
While I'm sure that there are things that have happened in Iraq that no one could have expected, I'm thinking that the blissful ignorance expressed prior to our invasion might have more than a little to do with the difficulties we're facing right now. ("The Iraqi people will greet us with flowers in one hand, waving American flags in the other" was one moronic statement I heard expressed in the ramp-up to war.)
But I'm not really interested in debating policy here. I hate the fact that we went to war in Iraq, I hate the fact that we trampled international law with the flimsy notion of "preventive war" and I despise the loss of life on both sides of the conflict thanks to said preventive war. But we're stuck with it, and there's no way we can pull out of Iraq now that we've managed to destabilize the region and push it to the brink of civil war. Nice job, Donald.
The irony here is in listening to Rumsfeld trumpet out allegations of fascist sympathies (for how else are we to interpret the concept of appeasement in this situation?), using techniques endemic to totalitarian states and fascist regimes the world over. One of the first and foremost techniques of these regimes is to attempt to undermine ANY opposition with the arrogant "if you're not with us, you're siding with the enemy" notion. And here we get it as a bald faced, arrogant declamation. (Makes me wonder if he's reading Anne Coulter before he goes to bed. It's the same kind of simple-minded arrogance I expect from her.) Not that I'm suggesting we've become a police state, or that our leaders are themselves fascists. But I somehow feel that Rumsfeld, Rove and Cheney wouldn't be all that bothered by said police state. (Bush probably figures a fascist is someone driving too fast for the road, so his opinion on this doesn't concern us. For that matter, his opinion on most things… well, you know where that's headed.)
I'm not some pollyanna idealist who thinks we can appease terrorists, nor do I think that we are "to blame" for all that's wrong with the world today. I do, however, question the notion that killing people who've elevated suicide to the level of personal martyrdom accomplishes much. And I'm pretty sure that anyone who doesn't realize that every civilian casualty in the Middle East is another recruitment ad for Al Queda has their head firmly planted in their ass.
So don't give me crap that "we're not looking on the bright side" or that criticizing this administration is somehow wrong, naive or, dare I say it (since he's obviously implied it) treasonous. In a democratic republic such as ours, with the notion of government for the people, by the people, it's our fucking duty to question the government. And if that's naive and idealistic, then so be it. It's what I learned in countless hours of US History and Civics in school, and I'll take those ideals every time over trusting meaningless "stay the course" BS from an administration that's obviously out of any better ideas.
(I've been reading Tim Rutten's excellent "Regarding Media" column in the LA Times lately. Today's column addresses the real problems with the Bush administration's trotting out the "appeasement" notion, and it's well worth a read, if for no other reason than the balanced, rational manner in which he makes his case. Not that I don't stand behind everything I've said here… but I do have to acknowledge I've got a bit of foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric working here.)
Comments
Well then, I suppose my head is about as far up my rectum as it can go. Because I think anyone who buys into the notion that "terrorist recruitment" (as if there were an office or something) has anything to do with U.S. policy or economics in the third world has THEIR head so far up their ass they can't tell right from wrong. Yes, I think that's you and 70% of most hardcore democrats (note, I don't say liberals - many liberals understand the danger of extreme Islam, such as Christopher Hitchens and, yes, Joe Lieberman).
I love the denial mindset that allows people to watch SYRIANA and actually believe that hard economic struggles put potential terrorists into a state of desperation - which is, apparently, the only state of mind from which a terrorist grows.
WRONG! Nothing the U.S. does or has done in the past 10 years has anything to do with the vast majority of 'terrorist recruits'. Do you think the kids who become terrorists care, know or understand that reasoning? No. And, how do you explain the vast number of powerful, priveleged, and incredibly rich terrorist leaders? Osama Bin Laden has more money than God. So, do most of his direct leaders.
The reason Islamic fundamentalists breed is because that is how fundamentalism works. In every mosque in every land (even in the U.S.), there are mullahs preaching hate and submission. Because, the religion itself gives a strong basis for it (read the Sunnah - that's an interesting one. The Koran has enough violence and submission to go around, but the Sunnah is a scary thing), and the mindset is generations bred. Nut cases in Seattle aren't killing pregnant women in the name of Allah because of anything the U.S. has done. They are killing them because mullahs preach Jew hatred and western hatred and the submission of ANYONE who is not of Islam.
One of these days, all of you 'appeasers' will realize this. I pray that you don't come to the realization in any tragic manner.
As for Rumsfeld, he is an ass. I've been calling for his firing for 2 years - but Bush is so loyal to a fault it won't happen. They had no plan, their 'new' plans suck, and they have bungled this war as bad as it can go.
But, that doesn't mean that people who want to pull out and who don't understand the true socio-economic world picture and the danger Iran, Syria, and others pose to it are right. They're wrong too...and leaving the situation alone is APPEASEMENT! At least Rummy is right about that.
As for any offhand comments or jokes about Bush being stupid or the Bush administration wanting a police state...well, I'll defer to Christopher Hitchens who bitch-slapped Maher when he asked Hitch "Is Bush an idiot?" Hitchens said, "I think such comments are now reserved as lame jokes for stupid people." In other words, it's old, and it was never really THAT funny to begin with. So, find new material.
Rutten's column isn't so much an idealistic opposition to Rumsfeld's comments as it is a comment on how modern politics takes these situations, blows them up far too big, and tries to run with it. He's right. I hate modern politics and politicians. But, I think the word 'appeaser' should have been brought up a year ago. It's pretty accurate.
To sum up: anyone who wants to complain about the war and how we are handling it is ok with me. It's not only our duty to question our government, but they suck right now. BUT - I'd like to hear alternatives. "Cut and run" is not viable for anyone who has a modicum of global understanding. Iran and Syria ARE a problem. Civil War in Iraq IS an issue. Islam IS dangerous the way it is being taught.
The first Democrat who has a REAL alternative just might grab my attention. I'll believe it when I see it.
I don't have any better suggestions. What I do have is a contempt for the attitude, as expressed by Mr. Rumsfeld, that everyone in this country better shut the hell up or they're traitors.
As for my "recruitment ad" comment… you really need to stop taking my comments literally. No, I don't believe there's some recruitment office somewhere, and I'm well aware of how fundamentalism works. But do you really think that those same people teaching hate and submission aren't using those images to give a reason to hate? I think they're too smart about manipulating public opinion to pass up that opportunity.
And still, I don't have any answer to that problem. I just know that killing more people to solve it isn't going to make it go away. And that shutting up and sitting back shouldn't be an option.
And I'm sorry, why should I care what Christopher Hitchens told Bill Maher? When I see signs of something other than smug cunning from that man, I'll give him credit for having some semblance of intellect. He hasn't impressed me yet, I doubt he'll manage to in the future.
For the record - yes, I also HATE the 'with us/against us; patriot/traitor' angle the war supporters preach. It is offensive. However, Rummy and Bush calling the "opposition" appeasers IS a different tack, and more accurate IMNSHO. As the Times article notes, an appeaser is not a traitor...he/she is just fatally mistaken.
As for the context of Rummy's comments, I was simply trying to defend WHY he is doing it. Maybe YOU aren't for pulling out of Iraq, but if you check out the Democrat Party platform you will see that they have made that an upfront campaigning platform. They basically ran Lieberman out of office for refusing to criticize Bush and they ran an opponent against him on ONE platform - leave Iraq. And, they won.
And, yes, I think mullahs use Abu Graib and other imagery to fan the fires of hatred. My 'recruitment office' comments were again aimed at the Democratic party and the 'Streisand liberals' who make movies like Syriana. Your attitudes and opinions seem to be much more rooted in reality!
I only quoted Hitchens because it wasn't my comeback...and, I had to give him credit. I'm not impressed by Bush either, but the jokes about his intellect and/or this administration being/wanting a police state are stale...and were never that funny to begin with. I still prefer Ralph's coke snorting Bush impressions.
It sounds like you have grounded beliefs. And, I can understand a contempt/frustration with Rummy. But, you really should listen to what your party is preaching. It's bad. And, the worst part of it is that it's all based on how bad Bush is...nothing about what SHOULD be done.
Q
And, for the record, the Democrats insistence on forcing a date for a pull-out in Iraq strikes me as the worst kind of election year politicking. I heartily believe we don't belong in Iraq. But up-and-leaving, fend for yourself is not an option and shouldn't even be under discussion. (Instead of talking about timelines and dates, we need to look at setting milestones... once this is accomplished, we can do that, etc. Yeah, I've officially been a producer too long now.)
Andrew Sullivan recently called Rummy the "true appeaser" because he had failed to win the war with a sufficient show of force. I'm afraid I agree. I'm reminded of an important quote from Vietnam, "Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." It was true then, and it is true now.
So, if the Republicans in power are appeasers because they won't use necessary force, and the Dems are appeasers because they want to cut and run, where does that leave us?
Back on common ground...