You're Doing a Heckuva Job, Rummy!
OK, so Dubya didn't say that, but I think it is pretty clear that Rummy is, in fact, doing a heckuva job... comparing Iraq War dissenters to Nazi appeasers.
Ugh.
I have noted before on this blog that I don't like people comparing each other to Nazis, terrorists, etc. in political debate. Even if there is a good point to be made, using these emotionally loaded terms pretty much turn a rational debate into a name-calling contest.
Even so, I have to say that the planned resolution demanding Rumsfeld's resignation in the Senate is just a waste of time. Worse yet, it looks like more political grandstanding by the Democrats at a time when American voters need to see the Dems as the party of reason and unity.
If Rummy had an ounce (how the hell is that spelled!?) gram of self-respect, he would resign, both for his gross incompetence and his audacity in comparing 70% of the country (or whatever the latest figure is for those who do not approve of the war) to Nazis, but I don't think this is a battle worth fighting by the Dems, since any resolution they pass would not be binding anyway.
posted by Josh Glover @ 9/03/2006 08:35:00 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Well, technically he's comparing 70% of Americans to Prime Minister Chamberlain. :)
Having searched the news sites for this quote by Rummy, I can't find anything other than the Democrats' interpretation of his comments as comparing Iraq war detractors to Nazi sympathizers. Can you please link me/us to the quote where Rumsfeld made this comparison?
There are loads of links. Go to Google News and search "rumsfeld nazi speech" (or something similar). Like here: "On Tuesday, Rumsfeld told the American Legion that war opponents displayed the kind of thinking that delayed military action against Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany."
I guess what I'm asking for is where Rummy actually says, in his own spoken words, that anti war activists are similar to Nazi appeasers. Like Josh and Sean, I'm not a fan of the hyperbole of comparing everything to Nazism, but it seems to me that this comparison, at least on this occassion, is rhetoric created by the Left in their interpretation of Rumfeld's comments. In short, I have found no transcript in which he made a direct reference to Nazism at all.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Apparently, Rumsfeld is doing a careful job of dancing right up to the line of accusing the Administration's critics of appeasing the terrorists as Chamberlain et al appeased the Nazis prior to WWII. Here is an example of the tightrope walk from the New York Times (Aug. 30, 2006):
On the one hand:
"Comparing terrorist groups to a 'new type of fascism,' Mr. Rumsfeld said, 'With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?'"
On the other hand:
"While he did not directly compare current critics of the war in Iraq to those who sought to appease Hitler, his juxtaposition of the themes led Democrats to say that he was leveling an unfair charge."
Of course, Rumsfeld and the Admin have began calling Muslim extremism and terrorists "Fascist", and the only famous time fascism was "appeased" was the Chamberlain-led appeasement re: the Sudetenland prior to WWII, but Rumsfeld hasn't EXPLICITLY said it, word for word (that I've seen).
Apparently, the Administration thought that this PR strategy (making it obvious what they are saying and what they mean by it, but not ACTUALLY saying the words) worked so well in connecting Saddam Hussein and Iraq to 9-11, that they've decided to go back to the well.
Todd's point is very well taken. It appears this controversy has less to do with what Rummy actually said than what his detractors *wished* him to have said (namely, that critics of the Bush WH who oppose the war in Iraq are the same as those who attempted to appease Hitler prior to WWII).
Well, while I agree with Todd that people are not directly quoting Rumsfeld on this, I think Rumsfeld is being clear as day in "implying" (sorry, would like to write this in italics, not quotes, but can't figure out how) what people are accusing him of "saying".
That is:
1. Terrorists are the new fascists.
2. History has taught us you cannot produce positive results by "appeasing" (quotes meant here) fascists.
3. Therfore, we cannot "appease" terrorists and expect positive results.
and here's the jump people are making, and that I believe Rumsfeld intends them to make
4. What our opponents favor amounts to appeasing the terrorists, while what we are doing is NOT appeasing the terrorists.
5. Therefore, we're right and they are wrong (this part is not an anti-Rumsfeld bit, all political speeches like this end in #5).
You do argue your point effectively, Pete. I guess what I feel is it's undertandable for people who already detested Rummy -- myself included -- to have their panties in a bunch over this latest implication (nice italics, huh?) of his. Those that weren't already critical of him probably won't find this latest incident much of a reason to begin (BOLD!) hating him.
True, its just more of the same from the Admin in general. Nothing qualitatively new. My guess is the "new" outrage is based on the fact that the most recent denunciation by implication includes "new" people that weren't harmed by previous versions.
Post a Comment
<< Home