Donald Rumsfeld today, speaking at the American Legion’s national convention, said that critics of the Bush administration are cowards and equal to those who wanted to appease Hitler (yes he invokes Godwin’s law) back in the 30’s.
Never mind the fact that many critics of the administration do not oppose the goals of the administration, merely its methods for doing so. Rumsfeld’s criticism, and frankly the view that I have seen repeatedly from the right and specifically the Neo-Cons is that there is One True Path to defeating terrorism and that you either support the President 100% or you must be supporting the terrorists. Which is patently absurd. This type of black and white view is so far detached from the very values they claim to be defending it’s almost laughable. Almost, if it weren’t so serious.
Rumsfeld claims we are fighting a new type of Fascism, while completely ignoring the fascist tendencies of Bush’s administration.
Now before you go accusing me of saying that Bush == Hitler, I am not saying anything of the sort. Despite his many many faults and mistakes and the disagreements I have with him, the man does not rise to the level of pure evil that Hitler, Mussolini, et al existed at.
On the other hand, some of the hallmarks of Fascism are appearing in the Neo-Cons’ modus operendi. A strong sense of Nationalism that involves putting the country ahead of individual freedoms (warrantless wiretaps, obtaining our phone records, etc) and a powerful dictatorial leader. Again I am not claiming that Bush is a dictator, but anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that this administration has done as much as it can legally and perhaps illegally to give the President as much power as possible had better have an air tight argument because the case for it is pretty solid.
Absolutely we must, MUST not give in to terrorists. We must confront this problem with all seriousness because, yes, our very lives may depend on it. That does NOT mean that we should blindly follow whatever this administration says. The idea that disagreeing with this administration means you want to give up and let the terrorists win is one of the most abhorrent positions that this administration and its strongest proponents have continued to put forth.
The problem with Rumsfeld’s argument is that the 30’s appeasers were willing to sacrifice others and to not act at all in the hopes that it would be enough to keep Hitler happy. Yes there are SOME people in this country who believe that it’s our fault for misstreating the Middle East that has led to terrorism and that if we play nice they will stop. But they are a fringe group, they do NOT represent the views of the majority of people in this country who disagree with this administration. No, instead most of us believe, as this administration does, that the terrorist threat absolutely must be taken seriously and we must take active and decisive action against them, appeasement does not now and never will work. But agreeing on the end goal does not mean you support the means to get there, especially when you believe the means currently being used are at best marginally effective and at worst actually increasing the problem.
Let me say that again, because it is very very important. Critics of Bush, including myself, do not have a problem with him because we believe that the goal of defeating terrorism is a bad one. No, on that we definitely and most certainly agree. Terrorism is a very real threat. What we DO have a problem with are the means that his administration has used in the past and are continuing to employ.
The best analogy I can think of is two doctors attempting to treat a sick patient. Bush and co. represent a doctor applying, lets say, 18th century medical techinques to the problem. Yes they want to cure the patient, and yes they may even believe that their methods are the best. Any maybe they are marginally effective. Or maybe they are making things worse. Dr. Bush not only refuses to try anything new, but he refuses to acknowledge seriously any setbacks his patient is having. If we were to follow Rumsfeld’s line of logic anyone who called into question the good Doctors methods is someone who wants the patient to recieve no treatment, that critics just want to sit back and see if the person heals themself.
On the contrary, those who oppose Bush are saying that there are other, perhaps BETTER ways to treat the patient that should, at the very least be considered, especially since the patient is not showing the promised signs of recovery.
Now, again, i want to be clear. What I am advocating is NOT the idea that we should simply replace the Bush doctrine with something different and not question that either. What I am saying is that the ability and in fact the act of questioning our leaders decisions is one of THE hallmark’s of freedom, and efforts to silence all critics by implying that they want the terrorists to win is a despicable and patently false.
Shame on Donald Rumsfeld and any who defend him for what is the truly un-American behavior out there.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:49:56 pm
I have a post in the pipeline (by which I mean, slowly fermenting in my brain) which will address this is some detail. But for now, let me just say that, 1) to the extent Rumsfeld or anyone else actually says “opposing Bush = supporting terrorism,” that’s obviously wrong and despicable and un-American, but 2) to the extent that what they’re actually saying is, “the Democrats’ policies, while well-meaning, would in fact strengthen the terrorists,” that is a PERFECTLY VALID ARGUMENT, whether you argee with it or not. Questioning the other side’s MOTIVES (i.e., saying they support terrorists) is unacceptable, but questioning the efficiacy of their POLICIES is absolutely fine and well within the realm of reasonable discourse. Just as Bush’s opponents are perfectly within their rights to say, “Bush policies are hurting America and helping the terrorists by encouraging radcialism, making people hate America more,” etc. so too are Bush’s supporters perfectly within their rights to say, “the Democrats’ proposed policies would hurt America and help the terrorists.” Indeed, it is absolutely essential that we have that debate, freely and openly: which party’s policy will be more effective against terrorism? But both sides play politics with this issue instead of allowing us to have that debate. Yes, BOTH sides. The Republicans play politics by sneakily implying that the Dems are really terrorist sympathizers rather than just sticking to the merits. And the Democrats play politics by demagoguing the issue — deliberately failing to distinguish between legitimate Republican criticisms and illegitimate ones, instead acting like Republicans are always questioning the Dems’ patriotism, even in those (not actually all that infrequent) cases where what the Republicans are actually doing is criticizing the Dems’ policies. Many Dems/libs are all too happy to make themselves martyrs. And yet some Republicans are all too happy to seize whatever opening they can to sneakily make the Dems look bad. Certainly no one ever specifically inserts the caveat that I did above (”while well-meaning”). Both behaviors are deeply unhelpful and dangerous because they prevent us from actually having a real discussion of this vital question.
By the way: while I instinctively am inclined agree with you that the majority of Bush’s opponents take terrorism seriously and merely disagree with the motives… it would be easier to make that case if you could point to the Democrats’ (or liberals’ or Bush opponents’) specific strategy for what THEY would do, what their proposed ALTERNATIVE method of dealing with terrorism is. Alas, there is a huge vaccum in that area; the mainstream Dems’ terror strategy seems to be “the following 37 things that Bush is doing are wrong; we wouldn’t do those things.” That isn’t a strategy at all, since it involves no alternatives (except for a laundry list of “we’d do this better, in some unspecified way, and we’d do that better, in some unspecified way”). The absence of a mainstream alternative to the Bush Doctrine thus leaves the left-wing Dems — the “fringe” who really don’t take terrorism seriously, and think it’s all a vast Rovian conspiracy to scare the masses — to “have the floor” if you will, dominating the discourse on the Left. The moderate, reasonable “silent majority” (or so one hopes) of Dems/liberals/anti-Bush folks really needs to speak up, come up with a viable anti-terror strategy, and tell us about it, if they want us to believe — which I want to believe, I really do — that they agree with Bush that “the terrorist threat absolutely must be taken seriously and we must take active and decisive action against them, appeasement does not now and never will work.”
August 29th, 2006 at 2:51:05 pm
The problem is that those who oppose Bush don’t really present their ideas of what should be done differently except to withdraw totally from the ME, which patently is not a viable option.
August 29th, 2006 at 2:51:55 pm
Mentioning Hitler in a speech is not invoking Godwin’s Law, David!
August 29th, 2006 at 3:04:04 pm
You can’t appease terrorists. Just as Britain, which had to bomb the hell out of Northern Ireland in order to achieve peace there.
That was sarcasm, in case anyone missed it.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:04:34 pm
First, lolajl, no Democrat is saying withdraw from the Middle East completely, so you are full of shit right there. Second, who says pulling our troops into Kuwait and Kurdistan and letting the Sunnis and Shi’ites fight it out or figure it out is promoting terrorism anymore than the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is? Seems to me the number of terrorist attacks in the Middle East has exploded exponentially since we invaded. I would venture to guess there are more supporters of Bin Laden today than there was in March of 2003 precisely because the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Personally, I don’t think we should withdraw. However, can the American people - 60 percent of whom think the war was a mistake - stomach what it would take to win (though success could still be in doubt). Increasing troop levels by at least 100,000. Actively going in and taking out one militia at a time, increasing the death rate for U.S. troops? That is what is required to “win” this war in Iraq.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:08:20 pm
Brendan, as usual, right on the money.
And David, it really doesn’t help your case when you include your own partisan hyperbole–i.e., Bush is a powerful dictatorial leader.
I mean, what are you saying here? He is NOT a dictator, but he IS dictatorial?!? What in the world does that mean?
And then you follow that statement up with a line about how everyone must admit that Bush has done everything he LEGALLY can to consolidate executive power. “LEGALLY” is your word. So Bush is dictatorial because he acts within the bounds of the law?!? huh? What am I missing here?
Maybe you’re focusing on the fact that “PERHAPS” he has acted illegally? Well, that PERHAPS is pretty huge…and any lawyer would tell you that there are valid arguments on both sides. It certainly isn’t as black and white as some would have you believe.
And by the way, the very fact that you have the ability to write about this subject–and the very fact that the judiciary acts independently of Bush–and the very fact that Bush complies with the judiciary’s legal determinations–overwhelmingly shows that Bush is NOT dictatorial, or even close to becoming dictatorial. He is merely an American president, for better or worse, who is actively (perhaps aggressively) utilizing the powers of the executive to the extent that the judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution allows.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:12:18 pm
David -
Caveat of not having been able to find a transcript, I will say that, frankly, I don’t have too many problems with what he said. The appeasement parallel with regards to Hezbollah and Iran is a very real comparison. And he is not the only one making it. Mentioning this in context of current history is valid.
“Speaking to several thousand veterans at the American Legion’s national convention, Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failure to confront Hitler. He quoted Winston Churchill as observing that trying to accommodate Hitler was “a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.”
“I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism,” he said.
“Can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?” he asked.”
This is pointing out the history of appeasement. How come Vietnam can be treated as a mantra by Democrats and the press, but mentioning appeasement in a historical analogy is beyond the pale. Are we suppose to ignore that it happened?
As to methods, give me a break. He IS using the methods that groups like, oh, the 9-11 Commission said should be in place. Like the wiretapping and like the bank monitoring. These methods are not backwards, they are critical. Yet in seems due to overheated partisanship in the case of the bank monitoring, and civil liberities concerns on the other, One method has been scuttled and the other diminish immeasurably.
But at least we have the freedom to send large cash donations to middle eastern countries without being tracked or call suspected terrorists without concerns of our phones being tapped.
I hear alot of bullshit about how Democrats want to fight the War on Terror and then do everything they can to obstruct it, just to shave a few poll points off of the President.
Criticism for the sake of criticism is childish. If you have a better suggestion let’s hear it.
Finally, as to what you think of Neo-Cons following the President lock-step, who are they? Most prominent conservative places I go and read have plenty of criticism for how Bush is currently handling the War on Terror.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:22:01 pm
Two excellent points that I would just like to reiterate:
This is pointing out the history of appeasement. How come Vietnam can be treated as a mantra by Democrats and the press, but mentioning appeasement in a historical analogy is beyond the pale. Are we suppose to ignore that it happened?
and
Finally, as to what you think of Neo-Cons following the President lock-step, who are they? Most prominent conservative places I go and read have plenty of criticism for how Bush is currently handling the War on Terror.
The latter is especially excellent. Unfortunately I’m afraid this is going to go nowhere, with David again explaining that he defines Neo-Cons in a way that is totally counterfactual and has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the term. But Lojo is absolutely right: the notion that conservatives are following in lockstep behind Bush right now is borne of nothing but total ignorance of the reality of what is happening. I’m not exactly well-read, but even I have read a TON of harsh criticisms of Bush and his terror strategy by Neo-Cons and Paleo-Cons alike in recent months.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:24:35 pm
One last thing, David: I hope your comment about “invoking Godwin’s Law” was in jest?
Because if not, it’s mighty hypocritical of you to say that a historical analogy to appeasement is an invocation of Godwin’s Law, whereas your comparison (note I said comparison, not equation) of Bush to Hitler and other facist dictators is somehow not an invocation of Godwin’s Law, and is a valid and legitimate contribution to the discourse, as you’ve insisted countless times? You can’t have it both ways.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:26:32 pm
That’s what I was thinking as I read his post again.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:36:02 pm
Angrier -
“Personally, I don’t think we should withdraw. However, can the American people - 60 percent of whom think the war was a mistake - stomach what it would take to win (though success could still be in doubt). Increasing troop levels by at least 100,000. Actively going in and taking out one militia at a time, increasing the death rate for U.S. troops? That is what is required to “winâ€? this war in Iraq.”
*takes a large breath*
You are right. 100%. I could frame that paragraph right there. I’m ambivalent on whether the troop levels would help, but I don’t see how it would hurt.
But the question is exactly how angry put it. Can the public swallow it?
And you know, Angrier, I think they can. So long as they know it won’t be for long. I’ve come to the conclusion that the public can swallow casualities so long as they see progress being made. And that is where the absolute collapse of the administration’s strategy has been (not to mention the press’ willingness to be manipulated by terrorist acts).
If people see we are gaining ground/killing enemy/winning hearts & minds/securing areas. They will accept it. None of that is being shown in Iraq. That from a combination of PR stupidity and media knuckleheadedness.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:43:59 pm
“The best analogy I can think of is two doctors attempting to treat a sick patient. Bush and co. represent a doctor applying, lets say, 18th century medical techinques to the problem. Yes they want to cure the patient, and yes they may even believe that their methods are the best. Any maybe they are marginally effective. Or maybe they are making things worse. Dr. Bush not only refuses to try anything new, but he refuses to acknowledge seriously any setbacks his patient is having. If we were to follow Rumsfeld’s line of logic anyone who called into question the good Doctors methods is someone who wants the patient to recieve no treatment, that critics just want to sit back and see if the person heals themself.”
Unfortunately, as Brendan has alluded to, no new “doctors” are offering an alternative prognosis, only poo-pooing the current one. And just as unfortunate is the tendency for some to barge into the operating room, see the patient splayed wide open in mid-operation, and come to the myopic conclusion that the doctor who is really trying to fix the patient must be hurting him because all they can see are blood and guts . . .
August 29th, 2006 at 3:53:25 pm
One commenter on another blog writes:
“Trying to simplify everything down to the number of troops is tantamount to suggesting that there exists a simple sollution to Iraq. We need to get it through our thick skulls that there is nothing simple about this. There is no magic bullet except for force of will. Only if we maintain the willpower to see this through will we maintain the capability to react to complex situations and eliminate the enemy’s changing tactics as they materialize. This is what got us through such American setbacks as the Battle of the Bulge, Bull Run and the Burning of Washington. It wasn’t something as simple as the number of troops.”
August 29th, 2006 at 3:59:56 pm
Criticism for the sake of criticism is childish. If you have a better suggestion let’s hear it.
First, I think critcizing a bad policy is not doing so for the sake of criticism, even if you can’t offer an explicit better alternative you can atleast point out the failed current one, especially when it is combined with a refusal to consider other options.
In a previous post i pointed to the analogy that one does not need to know how to write a symphony to know when a symphony written by someone else is terrible. Likewise one does not necessarilly need to provide a detailed alternative to the Bush plan in order to point out its gaping flaws.
But I will provide some suggestions on things I would have done different, and would be doing differently now.
The most obvious was to not be so damned eager to invade Iraq. We have learned that even before 9/11 Bush and co. wanted to invade Iraq. We have learned that the intelligence was known to be questionable yet it was treated as truth. Beyond that it drew resources away from the battle in Afghanistan, is taxing our military personnel and has lead to a great frustration with the American public towards ANY millitary action. Bush has wasted the patience of American’s on, yes a noble fight, but one that was not as key in the war on terror as others and has limited our options for future action by tying up resources in Iraq.
Beyond that, I think one need not provide an “alternative” to questionable/illegal activities such as warrantless wire taps and monitoring our phone records. The former can allready be done legally, and if it needs to be modified to make it more effective then do so within the law. As for the later, its of questionable (incredibly questionable) use as is. As I have pointed out in the past in order for tracking an individuals phone calls to be useful, you must have a starting point. If you ahve a starting point it means you ALLREADY have an inclination that someone is a terrorist, and again can legally obtain the necessary call records of that person.
But i think one of the flaws with that philosophy, that one should ONLY criticize when one has a viable alternative to offer, is that sometimes you don’t HAVE the resources to put something together. Brendan claims the Dems need to provide an alternative, but I question whether they can do that given that they don’t have all the resources at their disposal that the President does. They can’t, as far as I know, ask the Joint Chiefs for the variety of military plans that get put together, or to put together new plans. They probably don’t have as much access to CIA intelligence, or other resources either. The best you could ask are for very broad plans. Its no different than someone at Notre Dame criticizing Ty Willingham’s coaching but not having the ability to put together an alternative coaching plan.
Finally, as to what you think of Neo-Cons following the President lock-step, who are they? Most prominent conservative places I go and read have plenty of criticism for how Bush is currently handling the War on Terror.
I agree that there are conservatives who disagree with Bush, and the fact that more and mroe of them are coming out of the woodworks is a great thing in my opinion. I use the term Neo-Con specifically because it has been applied to those who have bought in to the Bush administrations policies. Perhaps I could instead say Bush loyalists if that would make it clearer, but there is a definite group of people who have promoted the positions I outlined in my above article. If you can suggest a better term i’ll gladly adopt it.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:18:19 pm
Thanks David. The bullshit was running a little thin in here lately.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:19:46 pm
One last thing, David: I hope your comment about “invoking Godwin’s Law� was in jest?
Part jest and part pre-emptive strike, because I knew (and was right) that as soon as I even mentioned Bush and Hitler in the same post someone was going to accuse me of calling him a dictator and saying Bush = Hitler.
Of course historical lessons should be used, and that has been one of my biggest pet peeves with some of the commentors on this blog. They seem to be of the opinion that we should never consider comparisons to Hitler unless its an exact equivalence. Its important to learn from those past lessons and apply them to current situations.
I have no problem with Rumsfeld pointing out that appeasement is not the answer. And applying that label to those who actually seek appeasement, as some on the left do is 100% valid. My problem is that he tries to paint ALL critics of Bush with that brush, which i have pointed out is patently false.
And David, it really doesn’t help your case when you include your own partisan hyperbole–i.e., Bush is a powerful dictatorial leader.
I mean, what are you saying here? He is NOT a dictator, but he IS dictatorial?!? What in the world does that mean?
And then you follow that statement up with a line about how everyone must admit that Bush has done everything he LEGALLY can to consolidate executive power. “LEGALLY� is your word. So Bush is dictatorial because he acts within the bounds of the law?!? huh? What am I missing here?
Maybe you’re focusing on the fact that “PERHAPS� he has acted illegally? Well, that PERHAPS is pretty huge…and any lawyer would tell you that there are valid arguments on both sides. It certainly isn’t as black and white as some would have you believe.
And by the way, the very fact that you have the ability to write about this subject–and the very fact that the judiciary acts independently of Bush–and the very fact that Bush complies with the judiciary’s legal determinations–overwhelmingly shows that Bush is NOT dictatorial, or even close to becoming dictatorial. He is merely an American president, for better or worse, who is actively (perhaps aggressively) utilizing the powers of the executive to the extent that the judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution allows.
As I suspected someone was going to jump all over this comment and completely ignore everything around it.
I am not saying Bush is a dictator, but I am saying that he has moved the Presidency strongly in that direction.
Now you may want to wait for him or a future President to actually cross some line somewhere, but I and many like me would prefer to cut him and any like him off at the pass. Your final paragraph demonstrates this black and white thinking to a t.
Just because ALL of our freedoms haven’t been taken away yet doesn’t mean that things aren’t moving in that direction. Not all instances of dictatorial power grabs are overnight situations. If you are going to wait to wake up one morning and find the Presidential Thought Police at your door before worrying about a potential dictatorship, then you are no better than (going back to the medical analogy) a doctor who waits until a patient actually has cancer to do anything about it. Frankly i’m much more of a fan of preventative medicine and doing small things to prevent a full blown dictatorship from developing.
Now you may be perfectly comfortable with the level of power Bush has, you may not feel he is close enough to a dictator or moving in that direction to worry about. That is your opinion, i disagree but that is fine.
What seems to me to be utterly ridiculous however, is this constant assertion that unless and until he behaves EXACTLY like other dictators that we shouldn’t even consider the possibility that some of his (or any future President’s) decisions aren’t worth scrutinizing and criticizing because of the amount of power they seek to consolidate in the President.
And yes, frankly we should be concerned about what he LEGALLY does as well. Just because it is LEGAL does not mean it isn’t something to worry about. You do realize, to go back to the classic example, that Hitler rose to power LEGALLY. That many dicators first gain power and start consolidating it LEGALLY.
Again, let me be crystal clear. I am not saying that you can’t believe that Bush isn’t gaining too much power. I am not saying that he is a horrible evil dictator. I am saying that being concerned about trends that are ocrruring is a perfectly valid position to hold.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:23:59 pm
Thanks David. The bullshit was running a little thin in here lately.
Luckily you were able to come in and add some then! :)
Seriously, if you have a problem with something I write, why don’t you be a man (or a woman) and come up with an intelligent comment. If you aren’t sure what that is I suggest you read what Lojo writes. I disagree with him on many issues but atleast he puts together coherent poitns and address issues rather than the pathetic ad hominems that anonymous cowards like you employ. Then again, unlike Lojo, Brendan, or myself, I imagine that you are the sort of person who blindly follows whatever your chosen party tells you to believe (be it left or right, although given that you don’t like this post, I’m fairly sure its right).
If instead of intelligent discourse you want to throw around pointless insults, i suggest you go hop on the fark forums where that sort of thing is the norm.
Go and play little child, the adults are having a conversation here.
August 29th, 2006 at 4:54:35 pm
I have an alternative policy, in fact I have been advocating a variant of it back here for several months:
1) Install, by force if necessary, a benevolent dictator to suppress dissent. Preferably a Sunni.
2) Hang around with enough force to ensure
a) that it is stable, and
b) that the country moves toward personal enfranchisement which eventually leads to democracy.
2b is the rub, friends. 2b is basically the China model, a nation that is using central control to grow from nothing to wealth, a nation that will get to enfranchisement (e.g. voting/free speech/etc) with a populace that is economically engaged, in contrast with Russia, or unfortunately, Iraq, places that had the vote first before economic participation, leading to disaster…
Perhaps someone says: that plan won’t work because it is very tricky, the 2b above requires a lot of delicate negotiation, careful prodding of a nation emerging into the modern world…
…exactly. And that’s the problem with our President.
Bush is NOT dictator bad. He is NOT Hitler bad. NOT evil bad.
He is indifferent bad.
And the best solution for intervening in the Middle East to bring it to modernity frankly requires a lot of work and involvement, neither of which suits Dubya’s tastes at all.
That’s why he is failing.
One other thing - I have argued for pulling troops out of Iraq, but now I am having second thoughts. Once you pull em out, it is virtually impossible to send em back in.
If you’re aren’t going to insert yourself in the political process there, it might be doubly bad to lose your troops too.
August 29th, 2006 at 5:03:03 pm
“Trying to simplify everything down to the number of troops is tantamount to suggesting that there exists a simple sollution to Iraq. We need to get it through our thick skulls that there is nothing simple about this. There is no magic bullet except for force of will. Only if we maintain the willpower to see this through will we maintain the capability to react to complex situations and eliminate the enemy’s changing tactics as they materialize. This is what got us through such American setbacks as the Battle of the Bulge, Bull Run and the Burning of Washington. It wasn’t something as simple as the number of troops.�
Admittedly true, its not JUST the number of troops. But its not something as simple as “staying the course” and pounding it out as we are currently doing either. There is a famous quote, i believe by Edison that says “Work smarter, not harder”.
Absolutely I think that JUST throwing troops at the problem is a mistake, but again so is simply doing the same thing like we are currently seeing by and large with this administration.
As stated above by Lojo its not about packing and leaving. Many of us who believe that Bush is fubaring this situation are upset not because we want to leave right now, but because we see the need to stay but want to actually SUCEED and not just keep throwing men and money at the problem.
If people see we are gaining ground/killing enemy/winning hearts & minds/securing areas. They will accept it. None of that is being shown in Iraq. That from a combination of PR stupidity and media knuckleheadedness
I think the biggest problem, even more than the above Lojo, is not that of PR/Media but a complete and utter lack of clearly defined goals. Bush talks about finishing the mission, etc etc, but what IS the mission? What ARE the clearly defined goals we should be shooting for (no pun intended) so that troop withdrawl/reduction makes sense. This is different than a timetable, and frankly far more important. Its been called for by both Dems and Republicans but no clear answers are being given by Bush and co.
August 29th, 2006 at 5:41:17 pm
A&A,
Your first paragraph listed an item I thought interesting. You said that terrorist attacks had increased greatly in the ME. You are of course correct. In fact, I think that if anything that GWB has been far too unaggressive in fighting this thing. But what you said highlights one of the good things about this whole terrorist situation. They have increased dramatically in the ME, but they are non-existent HERE.
That to me seems a good thing.
August 29th, 2006 at 9:18:22 pm
Lojo-
“And you know, Angrier, I think they can. So long as they know it won’t be for long.”
Well, the only person with a chance of being POTUS saying this is McCain, and he won’t be President until 2 1/2 years from now, if ever. Plus, McCain isn’t promising that it won’t be for long, so I think A&A’s premise is correct. The American people and, more importantly, American politicians don’t have the stomach OR balls to put more troops in.
JRDickens-
So you are giving credit to Bill Clinton for there being no Al Qaeda attacks in the U.S. between 1993 and 2001 then, correct? Because there weren’t.
In fact, if you look at the number of terrorist attacks outside the ME in the past three years (London Train Bombing, Madrid Train Bombing, Bali (twice), Chechen activity, etc) more has happened in the past three years around the world than happened in the entire eight years Clinton was President. That’s not me saying it. That’s the Bush Administration’s State Department.
August 29th, 2006 at 9:19:01 pm
Having traveled to more than one real honest-to-goodness dictatorship, I can tell you from first-hand experience that the U.S. is about as far from a dicatorship as it’s possible to be. NOT. EVEN. CLOSE. Comparing the U.S. to a dictatorship, no matter what qualifications one makes in order to sneak in such a comparison (e.g., “moving in that direction”), doesn’t come anywhere close to doing justice to what a dictatorship actually is. If you think warrantless wiretapping by the NSA of int’l calls to suspected terrorists is tantamount to “moving strongly in the direction of a dictatorship,” then you’re stunningly ignorant of the powers exercised by POTUS, rightly or wrongly, during wartime.
During the Civil War, Lincoln had thousands arrested for suspected disloyalty, ordered trials of civilians in military courts and barred newspapers critical of the war from the U.S. mail. During WWI, Wilson ordered the arrest of socialist leader E.V. Debs for criticizing the war, authorized the Palmer Raids (in which more than 10,000 radicals were rounded up and held without trial for an extended period of time), and ordered the interception of ALL cable communications between the U.S. and Europe. During WWII, FDR ordered accused Nazi saboteurs (two of whom were American citizens) to be tried before a military tribunal that quickly sentenced them to death, forced over 1000,000 Japanese-Americans into internment camps, and likewise authorized the interception of ALL communications traffic into and out of the U.S. Obviously, some of these more egregious acts later turned out to be illegal. Nevertheless, they make warrantless wiretapping of int’l calls to suspected terrorists look pretty benign, and reveal whining about the U.S. “moving towards a dictatorship” to be the unserious partisan silliness that it is.
Moreover, I’ve seen David even sometimes acknowledge (that is, when he’s not in “dictator” mode) that he doesn’t have a problem with the warrantless wiretapping in question, if POTUS went ahead and had the law changed to allow such surveillance. Thus, it’s not the act of warrantless wiretapping per se that has his panties in a bunch, but the fact that it’s not allowed for under current law, or at least David’s misinformed interpretation of it, which has been shot down time and again by myself and others on this blog with actual legal training). In other words, David’s perceived “dictatorship” would vanish into thin air with the NSA still doing what they’re doing, but with a few technical tweaks to the statutes here and there. Hardly a dictatorship.
August 29th, 2006 at 9:21:05 pm
*** That should read 100,000 Japanese-Americans in internment camps.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:37:51 am
So again, according to Joe Mama we should never worry about it till too late. No surprise there.
And saying that Presdients have done things in the past, again prior bad behavior or bad behavior by others does not excuse bad behavior by President Bush.
And for your last lack of a point, if you think i’d be ok with wiretapping if they made it legal, well guess what, putting words into my mouth you are yet again wrong. I have said that the right thing to do if you want to do something that is illegal is to change the law, not ignore it. That doesn’t mean i think that the proposed change is a good one. Try some critical thinking skills once and a while.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:28:45 am
MM,E
Seems like the World Trade Center was bombed the 1st time while Clinton was president.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:32:49 am
Mad Max - the State Department is just as much the “Bush Administration’s State Department” as Bill Clinton was Hillary’s faithful husband … some of the time, yes, but way too often, spectacularly, NOT !
August 30th, 2006 at 12:13:47 pm
Of course, I didn’t say anything like “we should never worry about becoming a dictatorship until it’s too late,” David What I DID say is that your quasi-comparison to a dictatorship is silly and unserious, and quite frankly insulting to dictatorships :-) Big difference, but you’re too obtuse to comprehend it. “No surprise there.”
And saying that Presdients have done things in the past, again prior bad behavior or bad behavior by others does not excuse bad behavior by President Bush.
Likewise, my pointing out the past acts of Presidents during wartime was obviously not meant to excuse “bad behavior by President Bush.” Leaving aside the notion that if David thinks it’s “bad,” it’s most likely good and effective . . . my point was to show how benign the NSA warrantless wiretapping program is in the grand scheme of things, which just goes to show how stupid rants about “dictatorships” are. I think that point was made pretty clearly.
But thanks for the tip on critical thinking skills, David!
HEH.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:41:50 pm
If you want the full text of Rumsfeld’s speech, and not David’s caricature of it, go here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1033
From the speech:
“We find ourselves in a strange time:
When a database search of America’s leading newspapers turns up 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib who were punished for misconduct, than mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror;
When a senior editor at Newsweek disparagingly refers to the brave volunteers in our Armed Forces as a “mercenary army�;
When the former head of CNN accuses the American military of deliberately targeting journalists and the former CNN Baghdad bureau chief admits he concealed reports of Saddam Hussein’s crimes when he was in power so CNN could stay in Iraq; and
It is a time when Amnesty International disgracefully refers to the military facility at Guantanamo Bay, which holds terrorists who have vowed to kill Americans and which is arguably the best run and most scrutinized detention facility in the history of warfare, as “the gulag of our times.�
Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths, and distortions being told about our troops and about our country. . . . This watchdog role is even more important today in a war that is to a great extent fought in the media on a global stage — to not allow the lies and the myths be repeated without question or challenge — so that at least the second and third draft of history will be more accurate than the quick first allegations.”
August 30th, 2006 at 2:02:20 pm
Joe beat me to the transcript link (DAMN YOU!), but after reading the transcript, I am at a loss at what is so objectionable with his words. He points out the history and folly of appeasement. He takes the media to task. And he comments on mentalities like treating terrorism as law enforcement and blaming America first.
Go ahead and read the transcript and let me know what the issues are, because as of right now, I don’t see them. I can understand DISAGREEING with his position and comments, but Godwin’s Law? Calling critics cowards?
August 30th, 2006 at 2:08:37 pm
From Powerline:
“Richardson R. Lynn, dean of Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School, had an op-ed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution the other day in which he argued against any limitations on civil liberties in the name of preventing terrorism. This passage is especially revealing of the mindset of civil-liberties absolutists:
‘Even if a totally preventive legal system did work, should we adopt it? The horror of losing friends and loved ones in the inexplicable violence of terrorism is surely one of our deepest fears. But someone has to say: There are worse things.’
“It calls to mind the famous exchange between CNN’s Bernard Shaw and Massachusetts’ Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential debate:
Shaw: Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?
Dukakis: No, I don’t, Bernard. And I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime . . .
“Dukakis’s answer was 363 words long and included a promise ‘to call a hemispheric summit’ on drug smuggling! And of course, it utterly missed the point. The question wasn’t if Dukakis favored or opposed the death penalty but whether he was capable of empathizing with the victims of crime. He came across as completely heartless.
“It is equally unfeeling to say ‘there are worse things’ than for one’s husband or wife or son or daughter to be murdered by terrorists. Lynn doesn’t say what he thinks would be ‘worse,’ but he does make clear that he is less concerned about harm to individuals than about an abstract notion of what is good for society:
‘It is entirely rational to accept some level of terrorism, crime or disorder rather than live in a police state that claims to guarantee perfect safety.’
“Like Dukakis’s arguments against the death penalty, the truth of this assertion is debatable (and never mind that no one is seriously proposing a police state). But also like Dukakis’s answer to Shaw’s question, it misses the point in a profound way. Human beings are not ‘entirely rational.’ If we were, we wouldn’t worry about losing loved ones in terrorist attacks, because we wouldn’t love anyone.
“Wisdom entails not only rationality but also due regard for human feeling. In this regard, civil-liberties absolutists seem totally oblivious. Fear is the enemy of civil liberties. If America suffers another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11, Americans will become more fearful–a reaction that is not entirely irrational–and civil liberties will become more vulnerable. Civil libertarians’ lack of concern with preventing terrorism may be ‘entirely rational,’ but it sure is foolish.”
August 30th, 2006 at 9:32:22 pm
Hi I came over from Instapundit to checkout your hurricane posts and wandered around a while finding this post. Normally I don’t do drive-by posts,but since most of us are stuck with getting our info from the MSM,and therefore coming to our conclusions about why we support/don’t support our gov’t policies I thought this might clear up your thinking on Rumsfield’s speech.
Maybe if you had read the real speech instead of the AP edit(re-write?),you wouldn’t have had to waste your time…
Comparision of un-edited speech with what AP wrote.
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4496
Enjoyed your blog by the way,many interesting things! I’ll come back again!
August 30th, 2006 at 10:45:54 pm
flicka47, thanks for the helpful links. I knew David was full of shit and was tempted to debunk him, but many of you have unloaded on him already and your link to what Rummy actually said is the icing on the cake. I’m not sure who appears more moronic to me — David Kreutz or Harry Reid.
September 12th, 2006 at 12:56:54 pm
Last weekend, I watched a Frontline/Washington Post special entitled “Rumsfeld’s War” on cable TV (can’t remember which channel) that suggested the Iraq “war” (perhaps invasion would be a better word) was very much one man’s fanatical drive to bitch-slap the uniformed military command at the Pentagon into submission and turn the U.S. military into a lighter, faster, nimbler force. You can watch the 90-minute documentary online.
November 14th, 2006 at 7:53:31 pm
Good design!
[url=http://udszottu.com/egcz/atiz.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://iyyrkcbf.com/vzey/wxnl.html]Cool site[/url]
November 14th, 2006 at 7:54:02 pm
Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit
November 14th, 2006 at 7:54:52 pm
Well done!
http://udszottu.com/egcz/atiz.html | http://brgwncrw.com/rtpx/ifwa.html