Baggage, Fighting Fascism And Donald Rumsfeld
Scene: An airport where some passengers are about to embark on a trip when they’re confronted by a salesman.
A salesman from the The Decider Company holds up a big, plain bag. “Trust us. This’ll be great for your trip! It an amazing product that will help you complete your difficult trip in a wise, learned, and secure manner! It guarantees your safety — you your family’s lives. Trust us.”
Some Republicans look at it and say: “Yes, you can trust this company! We have stock in this and believe everything they say so we have no axe to grind when we tell you that they know what they’re talking about. Why, just look at their great track record…”
Some Democrats say: “Don’t believe a word he says! He is not considered a successful manager of his division. We have stock in another company that also offers Reid instruments. The Decider’s promises and predictions about its products in the past haven’t held up and they later then pretend they never made promises or predictions at all. Don’t trust them trust us.”
Some of the other passengers who aren’t Republicans and Democrats look…and what do they see?
A salesman with baggage — just, lots of baggage. Baggage being pitched by someone who is not considered by people who do not already have a vested interest in his company to be highly successful.
The salesman named Donald Rumsfeld then tells the crowd: “Those who don’t use our bags are putting everyone’s lives at risk on the flight! They don’t understand the importance and success of our product to their very existence. If they don’t use our product they are appeasing those who would bring you and your family harm.”
And there you have it. As America celebrates Labor Day — a holiday where national unity is traditionally coupled with the official start of political campaigns marked by Americans debating freely without being accused of being traitors — the country has again witnessed the spectacle of an administration that seemingly does not have the word “unity” in its political vocabulary.
The attempt to demonize Americans who differ as basically fellow travelers of terrorists and modern day enablers of fascism came from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld and the Bush administration seemingly believe “unity” signifies weakness, something that only empty-headed, naive political wannabees talk about — a concept reflecting a misunderstanding about how politics and retaining power really works (you must demonize and divide to retain power).
Even a bell pepper at Stop & Shop in Woodbridge, Connecticut could read the newspapers, watch TV or (better yet) read a weblog and realize that the administration has quickly shifted its political mantra as we’re heading into an election season.
The “T” word (for traitors) isn’t being used. Nor is the “E” word (for enablers). But the implication is quite clear:
Those who dare question the administration’s war in Iraq — not just going into it but the way it is being administered and whether there is a long range goal and end-game plan — are basically being painted as being like those who were dumb and/or weak enough not to stand up to Adolph Hitler, and to pre-World War II fascism in general.
Rumsfeld faced a firestorm of criticism from Democrats (who are reportedly thinking of a no confidence vote in Congress) so he has now backtracked. And guess who he blames? The news media:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reached out to Democrats late Friday, opening up the door for them to retract their stinging indictment of him as Pentagon chief.In a letter to Congress’s top Democrats, Rumsfeld said recent remarks he made during a speech in Salt Lake City were misrepresented by the media, including by the Associated Press. Rumsfeld said he was “concerned” by the reaction of Democrats, many of whom called for his resignation and said he was treading on dangerous territory.
“I know you agree that with America under attack and U.S. troops in the field, our national debate on this should be constructive,” Rumsfeld wrote Friday.
During his speech before thousands of veterans Tuesday, Rumsfeld said the world faces “a new type of fascism” and warned against repeating the pre-World War II mistake of appeasement. He alluded to critics of the Bush administration’s war policies in terms associated with the failure to stop Nazism in the 1930s, “a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the Western democracies.”
Without explicitly citing Bush critics at home or abroad, he said “it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons.” Aides to Rumsfeld said later he was not accusing the administration’s critics of trying to appease the terrorists but was cautioning against a repeat of errors made in earlier eras.
“Thought and careful preparation went into what I said,” Rumsfeld wrote in the letter. “It is absolutely essential for us to look at lessons of history in this critical moment in the war on terror.” I was honored by the reception my statements received from our veterans.
The Democrats remain outraged and unplacated — as they…and ALL Americans who don’t march lockstep to attempts to demonize other Americans who engage in spirited questioning RIGHTFULLY should.
Rumsfeld’s implication was quite clear, particularly if you stack this against earlier comments by White House political guru Karl Rove, Majority Leader Bill Frist, the head of the RNC, Vice President Dick Cheney and others. There is a consistency and cohesiveness in what is being said (and echoed repeatedly on conservative talk shows).
The not-so-subtle attempt has begun to paint Democrats as potential appeasers of terrorism that could kill Americans on American soil. It is being done a way without anyone coming out and bluntly saying it. So the implication is made in varying forms and strengths. Repeatedly. And we’ll hear it lots more of it this season.
How is all of this latest attempt at polarization from an administration that makes Richard Nixon’s divisive administration now look like a 1960s love-in playing with many Americans?
If you visit the Unity08 website you can see it already. People are disgusted with frenzied partisan battles that jettison national unity – a quality ESSENTIAL in any successful battle against terrorism. President George Bush, who ran in 2000 as “a uniter not a divider,” had an unprecedented opportunity to nurture unity in the immediate aftermath of 911. Instead, he and his political operatives seemingly interpreted the Democrats’ cooperation as weakness and began to use terrorism policy and national security as a political bludgeon.
There are some voters like yours truly who have been all over the place politically and been in both parties. We now don’t belong to any party and will vote for a candidate based on ideas an policies — not just because they have a D or an R in front of them. And we vote every single time. In every single election. And, noooo, because we are independents doesn’t mean we aren’t passionate about issues.
We went along with the administration on the war, giving them the benefit of the doubt, but have since seen them discard a line, earlier justification or argument and when it turned out to be false or didn’t work, then offered new one and then insist like what was said before or implied wasn’t said or implied. Problems: (a) a lot of the earlier comments are immortalized on video (b) we’re not bell peppers at Stop & Shop.
Many of us have do not agree with those who seek an immediate pullout but we have serious questions about the way the war is being run and what kind of plan there is in place to achieve goals and eventually leave. The administration gives us few if any answers — except more slash and burn demonization of those who ask questions and don’t pledge total loyalty to place their trust in The People In Charge.
When we see those on the left or right who have questions about policies…and us also us, by implication …being told that if we were adults in the 1940s would have let Hitler have his way, we then begin to write off the words of those whose mouths seemingly cannot debate issues without sneeringly discrediting those in a democracy who have every RIGHT to DEMAND answers or changes in policies.
Accusing opponents of being isolationists (even if they’re not) or being soft on fascism (even if they’re not) has worked before. And so it’s being used as an election year tool again — to once again divide the United States in order to arouse passions of hate and concern in the GOP base so the base will go to the polls in droves 2006 to checkmate the portrayal and characterization of the administration’s critics. The portrayal offered by the administration.
But this year many independents, independent-minded Democrats and even independent-minded Repubicans may think: Divided government is what’s needed. And maybe votes cast in 2006 should be towards that end.
Donald Rumsfeld has been in high White House posts for many years in various administrations. He KNOWS how to put a sentence together.
He KNOWS what he said and what he meant. The political technique of taking some of it back later and letting the original allegation hang out there is older than Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones (well, perhaps not that old..).
Many of us independent voters — even many of us who supported the war — know what Rumsfeld really meant.
And. come November, many of us independent voters will likely vote accordingly.
Share This
Excellent post Joe.
Thanks Joe! I am grateful not to be a Bell Pepper at Stop &Shop!
Joe,
Yesterday I commented on your other post, asking you to justify your position. I don’t see any justification here, just more of the same (oh, and now I guess I’m a bell pepper…well, I guess I’ve been called worse.)
What did he take back? I don’t think he retracted anything, just restated it because some people were twisting his original message, and were attacking him for the meaning that they attributed to his words rather than the actual words.
What bothers me the most here, is that if you really want to dissent and give constructive criticism about how you would like to see policy enacted now, why don’t you talk about that instead of ranting about how the administration won’t let people talk about it? What you are doing, too, is bad rhetoric. And if you accuse Rumsfeld’s tactics of being older than Mick Jagger, I’d liken yours to Keith Richards…not only old but it never really was too attractive.
One of the key myths disseminated by the White House about Iraq, is that it is the central front of the war on terror. We now know that al queda is a widely diffuse organization that has many copy cats that have formed cells all over the world. The central front, if there is such a thing, is in Afghanistan, where warlords growing opium help to finance a regrouping Taliban, and Karzai implores us for more aid to try to rebuild infrastructure and regain control. Why is this war no longer the administration’s key focus? The nation was, by and large, unified in its effort to win there, as the connection with OSB and the GWOT was clear as a bell (not a bell pepper, LOL).
I believe we made a grave error by removing Saddam, not because I question whether he was a brutal tyrant who used WMD’s on his own people, but because he was in a weakened state by 2003. The previous policy of containment was working, and by not continuing that policy, we have wasted thousands of lives and billions of tax revenue that could have more wisely been spent elsewhere on our national defense. We now have a country on the verge of civil war, and no one can seem to come up with a solution that doesn’t have major drawbacks to it. What’s worse is that the myth that when they stand up, we will stand down prevails, and those who question that myth are now viewed in the same light as the weak Europeans who brought about genocide by their inaction in the ’30′s, by ignoring a brutal dictator with ambitions for global domination.
For years we’ve heard rosy reports about the readiness of the Iraqi army and police force. We have been retraining them for three years, which seems more than adequate if they have the true intention of preserving the national unity government. The end result of these reports, however, has been rearming of private militias, who act as death squads, bringing the level of sectarian violence ever higher, so that today, Iraq remains on the edge of civil war.
We have not stepped down- we have stepped up- increasing our forces around the capital and elsewhere to 140,000, in order to prop up a weak Maliki. The government has not made much progress in the key issues of security, revenue-sharing of oil profits, disarming the militias, or political power sharing among the three main sects. Is that because they know our policy of stay the course is due to the administration’s belief that a loss in Iraq would embolden the terrorists , and so is impossible to accept?
The terrorists must be emboldened when they see that our government considers 60% of its citizens appeasers. Or when they realize that our best intelligence led us to a totally inaccurate conclusion about WMD’s. Or when their cells already in the U.S. go undetected, because the focus is on Iraq. Or when their recruiting of heretofore moderates, who have been radicalized by our actions there, goes through the roof. They must just love the way we are daily losing our best and brightest and bleeding cash.
One of the reasons OSB kept attacking us -our embassies , the Khobar towers, the World Trade Center, was he wanted us to respond in a way that would bog down our very powerful military. He’s not crazy-he’s smart-very smart. He learned in Afghanistan that you could defeat a well-armed superpower by engaging them in a long, expensive war that seemingly had no end. That superpower was the Soviet Union, and the long unwinnable war during the 80′s was key in leading to their breakup and defeat at the end of the Cold War. Yes, Reagan, was a great Cold Warrior, and yes he knew which buttons to push and when. But it is doubtful that without the USSR’s loss in Afghanistan, he would have succeeded. Well, Osama’s dreams have come true, as we did respond, and we are bogged down in a long endless war-not in Afghanistan- in Iraq.
As long as we are talking about emboldening our enemies, at least lets be honest and admit that it is not only critics of this administration, but also its own inept policies that are doing so.
For those interested, the actual text of Rumsfeld’s speech is available at http://www.defenselink.mil.
Neither I nor any other writer of this or any other weblog is obligated to “justify” their conclusions, opinons or analyses. People who hold differing views (especially those who support someone who is coming under criticism) hold just that — differing views. The posts on this site more than explain how all of this is being perceived and opinion polls also show a loss of support of this administration among independents and down to (the last one I saw) 17 percent or so among Democrats. Due to my travel schedule and limited writing time, I can’t “justify” each post I do and frankly have no intention of doing so. You can agree or disagree and if you disagree there is this space where you are free to give you take on it. If this is the way the administration’s supporters react to people reacting to it (“defend or justify your disagreement over what we said or did”) then it explains why its poll numbers are so poor among among voters who are not registered Republicans. I think the post makes it very clear that I don’t buy at all the assertion that it was that big, bee-ad press twisting precise and non-pejorative his words around and that Rumsfeld is the victim in this controversy. Mr. Rumsfeld is a BIG BOY who has held top posts in SEVERAL Republican presidential administrations and politics for a long time and he knows how to put a sentence together and say what he means…and how to try to back away from it just enough if he comes under fire. And he is not the first member of the administration or the first Republican to make this kind of suggestion or insuation. I’m not going to cut and paste my two posts and put them here or write my posts all over again. Probably 99.999 percent of the readers to this site need no clarification or justification, even those who regularly disagree with me in comments or on their weblogs. You’ll also notice that I regularly link to people of all views and quote them and I don’t insist that they justify or defend their conclusions…because those are their conclusions they’ve arrived at after thinking about an issue. And if Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove have never meant to imply that those who are asking tough questions about their policies or opposing them are potential appeasers of terrorists or fellow travelers of terrorists, then they need to say so. News stories are now making clear what the 2006 GOP strategy is. I’ll make sure to link to as many of these stories over the next few weeks as I see them and then you can email the reporters of these news stories to “justify” or “defend” their reporting about how the GOP is trying to paint Democrats in particular. I’ll even use the phrase CAMPAIGN WATCH so these posts will be easy to spot.
Joe,
Asking you to justify is my way of saying that I believe you are on shaky grounds (in terms of logic, not emotion) in your opinion. You keep pointing out that even though the administration says one thing, it actually means another. I am pointing out legitimate reasons that I disagree with you, yet you wish to paint me as a kneejerk, partisan apologist for the Bush administration (and call me a vegetable). OK, if that is the best you can do…
If you don’t have time to defend your positions, fine, but then you might expect that if someone finds holes in your logic they will point them out. If you put your position out there, then it will be open to fair criticism. Isn’t that what you are demanding of the Bush administration?
Mr. Gandelman, I fail to see what is your grand objection to Rumsfeld’s statement, unless you think it is somehow beyond the pale to compare those who would demand “peace” in the face of Islamic onslaught to those who likewise demanded “peace” and abhorred Western “imperialism” and “aggression” in the face of Germany’s all-too-successful assault on Europe. Considering today’s constant shrieking about our putative “lost civil liberties” and the subtle (and not-so-subtle) threats of fascism, the draft, etc., even if your alarmist condemnation of Rumsfeld held water, his criticism would still be quite mild compared to that perpetrated by his opposition.
Were Democrats (or whoever you imagine Rumsfeld is trying to “demonize”) merely arguing that there is a better way to conduct the Iraq war… well, that would be a pretty useless argument, seeing how there is always a better way to do something. Were they suggesting specific improvements, the argument may or may not have been interesting. But instead, what we generally have is political opportunism, intended to demonstrate that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake to begin with — that really, it would have been better to leave in place the most powerful dictator in the region, with a known WMD and nuclear weapons program, and a history of gassing villages and invading neighboring countries. All based on the notion that fighting terrorism requires the attention span of a goldfish: fight only the most recent threat hiding out in caves and getting lucky with a few plane hijackings, not the long-term strategic threat with weak restraints that were about to come apart thanks to bought-and-paid-for UNSC members with capitals in Moscow and Paris.
Added to that, we have the imbecilic claim that Iraq would never cooperate with al-Qaeda because they had some diverging interests or “hated” each other. Right. Because no organizations with conflicting interests ever collaborate. (Only someone who thinks the world is run by 12-year-old girls would be dumb enough to make that mistake, yet it was — and still is! — an accepted idea amongst many anti-Iraq “dissidents.”) The best way to fight terrorism is to destroy governments that sponsor and protect it: the Taliban were the most obvious example, but so was Saddam Hussein (just ask a few Palestinian terrorists), so is Syria, and so is Iran. And no matter how much the “peace, love, and the UN” crowd would like to think otherwise, the only way to stop terrorism is to stop its support from these countries, which means either having a credible threat against their governments, or else removing their governments altogether. Iraq was both, but the post-war peace-whining and defeatism have undermined the success of that deterrent, and emboldened the likes of Ahmadinejad — who right now doesn’t seem unreasonable in thinking himself safe from U.S. interference in his plans to build a nuclear weapon.
Rumsfeld’s parallel is exactly on point: just as in the 1930s, those who cling to moronic idealism based on “international law,” “our common humanity,” and “peace” are little more than overgrown children, who serve to delay any response to an aggressive, homicidal, and genocidal political force that is not hampered by similar idiocy. In the 1930s, they prevented an easy defeat of Nazi Germany, until it became so powerful that the combined might of its three opponents nearly came too late. It is crucial that they not be allowed to repeat this crime again, and Rumsfeld is entirely right in pointing out the rather well-drawn parallels. If anything comparing today’s “peace” and “international legitimacy” crowd to the Chamberlains of yesterday is unfair to the latter: after all, they didn’t have an example of industrial-age genocide to look back on.
Your new comment above is precisely why many people who write weblogs don’t bother to answer in comments. There’s nothing I could have written that had any impact. Yes, you can point to what you feel are points in my logic all you want because that’s what comments are for. No, I don’t have the time or obligation to explain every single conclusion I reach. And the last time I looked I, unlike the Bush administration, wasn’t holding an elective office supported by the taxes of ALL Americans of ALL or NO parties — including some who are being accused of being appeasers if they ask tough questions or seek policy changes from an admnistration that manages the government that these taxpayers fund. I’ll leave it to other readers to further explain the above post’s logic. Maybe some of the independent voters and even Republicans who read this site see it the same way.
Joe,
I can see that I’ve offended you and I apologize for that because whether you believe my sincerity or not, I truly don’t want to drive more wedges.
You mention the futility of responding to comments. But recently, David S. posted about his “centrist anger” and I felt his reasons had validity. That is not to say that I came around to agreeing with him on all points, but because he backed up his reasoning with logic, I could understand his position better.
In this case, I don’t see the same from you. I don’t doubt the sincerity of your feelings, but I don’t see a basis in logic when your position is based on analysis of inferrences rather than actual statements by this administration. I felt the need to comment on it because I can see how many independents, moderates and centrists could agree with you but similarly not have a firm foundation for this other than their anger. I honestly feel that this type of reaction to the administration will be a deterrent to healing the partisan divide. I think that the ultimate solution for bitter partisanship can come from the center, if centrists decide to take the high road and avoid acting out of anger (regardless of whether or not the anger is justified.)
Why don’t you just give this a REST? It seems to me that what you’re trying to do is to divert the topic off of what Joe wrote about totally by going on offense against someone who you disagree with. This is sort of the way the game is played these days and not usually by people who are centrists. I think the posts speak for themselves for (almost) all readers fully understand what was said and the rationale behind the conclusions…even if they disagree with it.
E Nough, I hope you will make a point of being very active and making your case as explained above to everyone you come into contact with. Spread the mantra, far and wide, please–”RUMSFELD WAS RIGHT!!!”
Our side needs as many opponents like you as we can have.
E Nough, “over grown children� engage in name calling. Grown ups can express a view without using words like ‘morons� and “imbecilic “.
Baggage indeed!
Thanks for the common sense.
Grognard, I don’t need your explanation as to what “grownups” do.
In case it wasn’t clear, I was not — and am not — implying that what Joe said was either moronic or imbecilic. By contrast, the simplistic belief in “peace” and “the UN” — is both.
Much of what is presented as the “progressive” position is based on the unfounded belief that conflict can always be resolved through negotiation and some kind of quasi-governmental assembly of “right-thinking people” who only care about the greater good. This is absurd, as it flies in the face of human history in its entirety. It is nothing more than a cheesy moral borrowed from an after-school special and applied to a complex and ugly environment.
Were such absurdity confined to pure conjecture, I’d be happy to ignore it. When fully-grown people try to apply it to the real world where it clearly doesn’t fit, I’m happy to call them what they are: morons, or if you prefer a “grownup,” historical term, useful idiots. It’s not name-calling for effect (somehow I doubt it would work), but rather stating the obvious.
Again, just to be crystal clear: I don’t think that everyone who disagrees with Bush is any of those things. I happen to think he got a lot of this conflict wrong. I do think this of people who object to the Iraq War or any other American action because it was counter to “global opinion” or violated some sanctified principle of “peace.” It just so happens that Rumsfeld was targeting the same subset of people who disagreed with the Administration — and he was precisely right.
“But this year many independents, independent-minded Democrats and even independent-minded Repubicans may think: Divided government is what’s needed. And maybe votes cast in 2006 should be towards that end.” – mod
I could not agree more. In fact I was pre-agreeing when I wrote this last May:
In fact, by achieving the result of divided government through the support of Democratic candidates in 2006, independents will have a stronger foundation for supporting the Republican or Democratic or 3rd party presidential candidate in 2008, as a divided congress is by definition a divided government.
The benefits of divided government is more than theory. It is historical fact. Niskanen and Ritter show that spending is always greater and budgets grow faster when you have single party control of the legislative and executive branch. This adminstration proved it with the Bush administration single party Republican control over the last five years blowing away even the LBJ Great Society/Vietnam single party Democratic control.
The dynamic of divided government accomplishes the desired objective of better governance, not the individuals or parties that make up that divided government state, or even what they say or believe. Democrats (or Republicans) do not create the result. Divided government does.
Republican vs. Democrat is a false choice. Single Party vs. Divided Government is the real choice. – mw
E Nough, “useful idiots� isn’t that the term the left uses to describe the people that listen to Rush Limbaugh every day? LOL The low derogatory “opinion� you have of the left is shared by the low derogatory “opinion� they have of you. Both side are shouting their derogatory “opinions� at each other with the adults caught in the middle.
I would suggest that the Democrats take a play from the McCain game plan…and keep repeating the line that Rumsfeld serves at the request of the President…thereby forcing voters to question the administration’s ability to successfully prosecute not only the Iraq war, but also the war on terror. Essentially, the Democrats need voters to doubt the President’s overall handling of national security and the war on terror…demonstrated by the fact that he continues to proceed with Rumsfeld as his operative…more than they need to push for the firing of Donald Rumsfeld.
The goal would be to take the accusation that Democrats are defeatists and shift the discussion to point out that so long as the President refuses to make much needed changes, we are already being defeated. If voters accept that the Bush administration is losing the war on terror or is unable to adjust in order to win it, they will be less apprehensive to give Democrats an opportunity.
Voters need to see the GOP plan as an open wound unlikely to get better without a new prescription and they need to be convinced that the President is unwilling to administer the necessary medication to make that happen. My own preference would have been for Democrats to offer a more concrete alternative plan for Iraq and the war on terror…but that is now unlikely…so it seems clear to me that they must now convince voters that keeping Republicans in power will not lead to success in Iraq and more importantly in the war on terror.
Read full text here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
Daniel DiRito- I agree. The Democrats may face defeat yet again if they allow their candidates to be defined by this type of rhetoric- as appeasers or defeatists. Only if they go on the offensive and stay there will they outsmart Karl Rove. You are right to suggest that an unwillingness to question or change a failed strategy is what is putting us at the most risk in the GWOT, and that can be easily tied to the Republican Party’s support of Bush’s policies.
One thing that should be pointed out is that if we do start pulling troops out of Iraq, they need to go to Afghanistan if their government would like the help with the Taliban problem we left them with.
There have been many situations in the last six years where Bush has grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory. He had a majority in Congress that provided little oversight to the executive, a passionate united populace after 9/11 along with the sympathy of the world, an enormous budget surplus left by Clinton which turned into an enormous deficit, and corporate backing up the wazoo. He had experience on foreign policy from his father’s administration, and achieved quick victory with the help of an allied effort over the Taliban after invading Afghanistan. I’m just glad the 22nd amendment prevents him from running for a 3rd term!
If Rumsfels won’t resign, and Bush wwon’t fire him, lets promote him to Minister of Propaganda… or should I say…..Secretary