Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
(UPDATED) AP takes the hatchet to Rumsfeld speech
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, August 29, 2006

****UPDATED: AP has apparently edited the original article. See update below.****

Interesting little side by side here. Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech to the American Legion. You can read it here. Robert Burns from AP reported on the speech. You can read it here. Below are some comparisons from the story and the speech.

1. What AP says Rumsfeld said:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."
What Rumsfeld said:
I recount this history because once again we face the same kind of challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism.

Today, another enemy — a different kind of enemy — has also made clear its intentions — in places like New York, Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, and Moscow. But it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons.

We need to face the following questions:

* With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?
* Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
* Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply “law enforcement” problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?
* And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world’s trouble?

These are central questions of our time. And we must face them.
2. What AP says Rumsfeld said:
In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.
What Rumsfeld said:
Over the next decades, a sentiment took root that contended that if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be appeased, then the carnage and destruction of then-recent memory of World War I might be avoided. It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis — the rise of fascism and Nazism — were ridiculed and ignored.

Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated — or that it was someone else’s problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace — even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear.

It was, as Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.

There was a strange innocence in views of the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. Senator’s reaction in September 1939, upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:

"Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided.”

Think of that!

[...]

And in every army, there are occasionally bad actors — the ones who dominate the headlines today — who don’t live up to the standards of their oath and of our country.

But you also know that they are a small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of honorable men and women in all theaters in this struggle who are serving with humanity and decency in the face of constant provocation.

And that is important in this “long war,” where any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.
3. What AP says Rumsfeld said:
Rumsfeld recalled a string of recent terrorist attacks, from 9/11 to bombings in Bali, London and Madrid, and said it should be obvious to anyone that terrorists must be confronted, not appeased.
What Rumsfeld said:
Today, another enemy — a different kind of enemy — has also made clear its intentions — in places like New York, Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, and Moscow. But it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons.

We need to face the following questions:

* With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?
4. What AP says Rumsfeld said:
"But some seem not to have learned history's lessons," he said, adding that part of the problem is that the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive.
What Rumsfeld said:
But this is still — in 2006 — not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there is more of a focus on dividing our country, than acting with unity against the gathering threats.

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 was 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 lies, and distortions being told about our troops and our country.

The struggle we are in is too important — the consequences too severe — to have the luxury of returning to the old mentality of “Blame America First.”
In example one, it is apparent, at least to me, that Rumsfeld wasn't at all accusing anyone of anything. He was instead saying these questions need to be asked and answered by everyone, to include those who disagree with the administration. But there isn't an accusation against anyone within that portion of his speech.

Example two shows no "accusation" with the phrase "moral and intellectual confusion." In fact he's talking about our military when he uses the phrase. "Moral confusion" is also found in the speech where he discussed the history leading up to WWII. However it is never addressed to the administration's critics.

Additionally, "courage" is found one time in the speech and it is addressing something completely different ("And one day, a future speaker may reflect back on this time of historic choice — remembering the questions raised as to our country’s courage, dedication, and willingness to continue this fight until we have prevailed.". Nowhere is anyone "accused" of "lacking the courage to fight back."

Example three again puts words in Rumsfeld's mouth. He never said it should be obvious that confrontation was preferable to appeasement. He instead asked a question for others to answer for themselves.

Example four is the least egregious of the four. Emphasis is mine. While he never comes right out and says "the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive" that message could be taken from his presentation. But as presented by AP, it sounds like a specific accusation, when it wasn't at all. So at best it is an exaggeration and at worst a mischaracterization of what Rumsfeld said.

I'm not sure why I felt compelled to compare the speech with the story, but for some reason the story just didn't sound right. And, as you can see, it wasn't. "Infer" does not mean the same as "accuse" especially when the inference wasn't really at all evident. When you say someone accuses another, it means something to most of us. I defy anyone to find an accusation within that speech which fits the descriptions found in Mr. Burns' article.

UPDATE: CNN repeats the story unedited and obviously, unchecked. Forbes as well. Ditto for ABC and Fox. And you wonder how myths and memes get started?

UPDATE II: AP has edited the original story. Yesterday the story had the following lead paragraph:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."
Now the lead paragraph says:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the world faces "a new type of fascism" and warned against repeating the pre-World War II mistake of appeasement.
Additionally this paragraph has gone missing as well:
In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.
To be replaced by these:
Rumsfeld 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.
Well imagine that.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
What? the old school MSM shows a bias and plays fast and loose with quotes?
Next you will be telling me that most people in the press are hostile to the current administration. Awww go on!
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Starting thirteen paragraphs from the end:

And that is important in this “long war,” where any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.

Our enemy knows this well. They frequently invoke the names of Beirut and Somalia — places they see as examples of American retreat and weakness. And as we have seen most recently — indeed, this month — in Lebanon, they design attacks and manipulate the media to try to demoralize public opinion. They doctor photographs of casualties, use civilians as human shields and then provoke an outcry when civilians are accidentally killed in their midst.

The good news is that most of the American people, though understandably influenced by what they read and see in the media, have inner gyroscopes and good centers of gravity.
Heard the italicized part this morning on local talk radio (KOA - Denver with a Fox news national wire) before breifly glancing at the AP version - I figured AP was just emphasizing other aspects and didnt read on. Not surprised that they would ignore their own screw-ups and/or culpibilities.

But it does appear that Mr. Burns of AP was trying to portrait SecDef Rumsfeld in a most negative and adversarial light.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://

Now that is funny. Rummy talking about Facism and Nazis....the Old false flag trick.

This administration has been,is and will be next week a joke.

The fight was in Tora Bora boys. But keep drinking your Kool-Aid
 
Written By: Me in Austin
URL: http://
The fight was in Tora Bora boys. But keep drinking your Kool-Aid
And we won there "me"...or have you forgotten that the Taliban and Al-Quaida forces are NOT in control in Afghanistan? Or is this going to be a "We’ve ignored Afghanistan" tirade....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
The fight was in Tora Bora boys. But keep drinking your Kool-Aid
I feel a "brutal Afghan winter" tirade coming on. Or is it the "spring Taliban offensive?" I always get them confused.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
We, as a nation, have a job to do - a task to accomplish. We know by now how the media operates,
but we also know that we must devote our attention to the mission at hand - and to continue on with it until victory.
"It matters not how strait the gate
How charged with punishments the scroll
I am the master of my fate
I am the captain ofmy soul.
 
Written By: David Adams
URL: http://
An excellent exercise, McQ. It is interesting how often such unexceptionable and accurate analytical statements coming from Secy Rumsfeld end up transposedto sound like unfounded accusations and scolding.

When you see Rumsfeld in action in a press conference in its entirety, he is almost as good as John F. Kennedy, who I believe was the master of the genre. Using biting humor and an acute intellect, he generally calls it like he sees it and takes few prisoners. No wonder the press hates it. They cannot let him speak for himself directly to the public, lest their inferiority be exposed.

 
Written By: vnjagvet
URL: http://www.yargb.blogspot.com
The fight was in Tora Bora boys.
Yeah, that was obviously where ALL the terrorists were.

But what is interesting is how the left wing critics think we can magically convert, say, the 1 ID into a 10th Mountain Division so that it could have played a part at Tora Bora. It’s the lefty version of the mythical man-month myth, where human resources are interchangable.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
And this would be why I stopped trusting the mainstream media, and started seeking the raw source...
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Although, dam it, I was hoping to hear someone spout off in rightous indignation over this...
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
In example one, it is apparent, at least to me, that Rumsfeld wasn’t at all accusing anyone of anything.

cf:Police Chief Wiggum: "You wouldn’t happen to know anything about a cigarette truck that got hijacked on Route 401?"
Fat Tony: "What’s a truck?"
Police Chief Wiggum: "Don’t play dumb with me..."

I should say that Fat Tony’s response was considerably more convincing.

 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
I should say that Fat Tony’s response was considerably more convincing.
Er, ok. Do you suppose anyone is surprised you feel that way?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Certainly you don’t think that his decision to bring up appeasement had nothing to do with the current debates, do you? And do you really think that his questions were in earnest, rather than being rhetorical (as if someone would say, "yeah, I do think appeasement is the way to go..."). Your interpretation was just bizarre: it requires we think he just threw a bunch of historical events in a hat and picked some at random, as if he didn’t think there was a direct parallel between Chamberlain and those that think terrorism is best attacked as a law enforcement problem.
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
The most frightening fascist I saw was Rumsfeld.
 
Written By: Tom
URL: http://
Certainly you don’t think that his decision to bring up appeasement had nothing to do with the current debates, do you?
Show me the accusation, jpe. That’s what this is about.

Show me.
Your interpretation was just bizarre:
Given that you’ve decided what wasn’t said actually was said, you’ll have to excuse me if I laugh a bit at your definition of "bizarre".

Again, not surprising, but certainly bizarre ... much like your example.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The most frightening fascist I saw was Rumsfeld.
Thank allah for this super-super-secret conduit for super-secret patriots such as us to communicate...

The fascist Rumsfeld, operating under, and at the behest of, his illegal and immoral evil capitalist cabal, would have our heads cut off, if they only knew what we say in these super-super-secret communications.

Or in other words, Tom...

You are an idiot. Or a blind partisan...
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Rummy just isn’t a politician who makes non commital remarks. He just puts the facts out there for the viewer to consume as they choose so along comes a talking head who get’s more publicity than the actual speach to tell America what he really meant.
 
Written By: Mac
URL: http://
Show me the accusation, jpe. That’s what this is about.
Ya know, in the 1930s, the German people became complacent about their civil rights, and started to become a war-mongering people who practically worshipped a cynical dictator-in-waiting that was all too eager to take advantage of their latent fascism.

Fast forward 70 years.....blahblahblah the rest writes itself. (and I’m sure it has been written plenty of times the last few years) That’s the exact same rhetorical structure at work in the Rumsfeld piece. If you don’t think the above in any way compares Bush to Hitler, or their oeuvre to ours, then I find your reasoning in the original post at least consistent, and will happily shut my yap.
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
"And one day, a future speaker may reflect back on this time of historic choice — remembering the questions raised as to our country’s courage, dedication, and willingness to continue this fight until we have prevailed.".
Someday, people will look back and wonder if people had the intelligence and the willingness to improve the country to vote for the Democratic Party.

While I never said the words that GOP voters are dullards, the negative inference is pretty clear, isn’t it?
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
Someday, people will look back and wonder if people had the intelligence and the willingness to improve the country to vote for the Democratic Party.
Does that coolaid come in other flavors?
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Does that coolaid come in other flavors?
Forget voting; I’m curious if you have the intelligence to tie your own shoes.
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
Well, smart guy, at least we on the right still have our guns.

As for the Rummy as fascist thread: History will credit Rummy with helping to take down both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, you know real fascists. So, er, JPE and Tom, uh, what have you guys been up to lately? Just askin’ is all....
 
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
Rumsfeld recalled a string of recent terrorist attacks, from 9/11 to bombings in Bali, London and Madrid, and said it should be obvious to anyone that terrorists must be confronted, not appeased.

"But some seem not to have learned history’s lessons," he said, adding that part of the problem is that the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive.
Even if he is not saying these things, they are correct anyway. It’s like the media is trying to interpret it’s own worst motives into sound bytes.
 
Written By: Josh
URL: http://
"Any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere."

-Donald Rumsfeld

Here’s what I hear: "If you question the policies of this administration and choose to decide for yourself what is right and wrong, you will kill America and Democratic (free) Societies." In other words, by choosing to exersize your freedom to speak, you risk destroying that very freedom.

Quite a conundrum, isn’t it?

What is a free society to do? Of course, we’re encouraged to be critical of our government, this much has never really been in doubt. As a matter of fact, the Declaration of Independence cites the People’s right to hold the government accountable if they feel their rights are hindered or in danger.

"..whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,..."

So - I guess what we take away from this speech is, you’re free to speak, you’re just not encouraged to do so in any form that is contrary to the Administration’s.

Help me out here. I’m sorry... maybe I’m missing something.
 
Written By: Bryan
URL: http://
Instalanche.

Take cover.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Ok, after the republicans again control the house after this mid-term. A real fascist, a dyed in the wool fascist would seek to repeal the 2 term law. When this does not happen, will they still be considered fascists?

I am just wondering. While in Canada the Liberal party tries to shut down a dissenting web-site voice. Has this Administration tried to shut down any voice? Have they tried to shut down those stupid 9/11 websites? A real fascist would have, jeez, had the web been around in Hitler’s time, I would imagine a lot of people being carted off to the camps.

But here in America, you can say what you want. And noone busts down your door and arrests you. If people do not agree with you, and call you a traitor, that is their opinion. If people say that the majority of Americans are stupid it is their opinion. It would be wrong, but it is their opinion. Which they are welcome too. If Rummy says that the talk is a comfort to the enemy, that the enemy would love to see us run from Iraq, how is that putting down the truth?

Because, guess what, until Afghanistan, OBL’s best recruiting tool was the fact that Americans do not have the will to fight in the Middle East. Well, guess what, when you call for a pull out of Iraq, you are falling right into his hands. Come to my web, says the spider. And by God you do, hook, line and sinker.

You want some true Fascist tendencies, lets look at the Clinton years, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Elian just to name three. Those people had the Federal government bust down their doors in the name of the State. Name one American who has had that happen in Bush’s terms?
 
Written By: James Stephenson
URL: http://
Apparently DoD agrees with you. I quote a release from DoD public affairs, full text since I can’t find an easy link:
Defense Department
August 30, 2006

DoD Statement On Inaccurate Mischaracterization


Secretary Rumsfeld spoke Tuesday to the American Legion Convention in Salt Lake City. The complete text can be found at www.defenselink.mil.

The AP report of the speech seriously mischaracterized Secretary Rumsfeld’s remarks. Relevant portions of the Secretary’s remarks are as follows:

“1919 was the beginning of period where, over time, a very different set of views would come to dominate public discourse and thinking in the West.

“Over the next decades, a sentiment took root that contended that — if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be accommodated, then the carnage and destruction of then-recent memory of World War I could be avoided. It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the western democracies. . . .

“I recount this history because we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the threat of a new type of fascism. Today another enemy — a different kind of enemy — has also made clear its intentions — with attacks in places like New York, Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, and Moscow. But some seem not to have learned history’s lessons.

“We need to consider the following questions:

*With the growing lethality and increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?

*Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?

*Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply “law enforcement” problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches? And

*Can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America – not the enemy – is the real source of the world’s troubles?

“These are central questions of our time. And we must face them honestly. . . .

“In every army, there are occasionally bad actors – the ones who dominate the headlines today – who don’t live up to the standards of their oath and of our country.

“But you also know that they are a very, very small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of honorable men and women in all theaters in this struggle who are serving with humanity, and decency and courage in the face of continuous provocation.

“And that is important in this “long war,” where any moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere. . . . ”

The Associated Press reported as follows in part:

“Rumsfeld Lashes Out at Bush’s Critics” by Robert Burns, AP Military Reporter.

“Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the world faces ‘a new type of fascism’ and likened critics of the Bush administration’s war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis in the 1930’s.”

“In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration’s critics as suffering from ‘moral and intellectual confusion’ about what threatens the nation’s security.”

Clearly the AP report misrepresented the Secretary’s remarks. The Department has asked for a correction from the Associated Press.

The full text of Secretary Rumsfeld’s entire speech is available on the Defense Department web site at www.defenselink.mil. More information is available at the DoD Office of Public Affairs at 703-697-5131.
 
Written By: Chap
URL: http://www.gmapalumni.org/chapomatic
The original story has been edited but the original one is still up at the ABC link.
 
Written By: rutty
URL: http://
He may just be "asking questions", but he isn’t looking for an honest debate on the subject. He throws up idiot things like "can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?". Seriously, at what time EVER, has anyone suggest we appease "vicious extremists"? He may have just asked, "can we truly afford to think that jumping off of a 60-story building won’t kill us?" Rumsfeld is an idiot.

Having said that, I actually agree more with the AP’s version of his speech than the actual speech itself. The President’s critics ARE suffering from a moral confusion, and the media DOES focus too much on the negative. And while the Libs may be confused, I think the recent spate of questioning their patriotism is ill-advised and quite divisive.
 
Written By: Howard Cronin
URL: http://
The AP story linked to at the top of the blog seems to be a watered down version of the stories at CNN, ABC, and Forbes. What you say is the original story actually lacks the quote "In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration’s critics as suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation’s security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back" and instead contains the sentence
"Without explicitly citing Bush critics at home or abroad, he said "it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons."

Has the story been edited since you posted your critique or am I missing something?

Good work!
 
Written By: Capster
URL: dontknowwhattoputhere.com
Howard,

"Having said that, I actually agree more with the AP’s version of his speech than the actual speech itself."


You obviously don’t get it. The fact that you may "agree" more with what the AP reported DOES NOT mean that what the AP reported is accurate or truthful or even an honest interpretation.

The AP report is misrepresentational, misquoting, and intentionally deceptive with regard to the reporting of events. Do you disagree?

If you don’t, the great, no more to say, if you do disagree, please explain to me how misquotes, misrepresentations, and blatent lies are good reporting or valid items upon which to base your worldview.

If you base your opinons on someone else’s lies, misquotes and misrepresentations, then your opinion itself becomes seriously, if not fatally flawed.

—Jason
 
Written By: Jason Coleman
URL: http://www.jasoncoleman.com/MT
Ok jpe - let us grant that Rumsfeld was obliquely referring to the MSM and the Democrats when he referred to the appeasement of earlier times. He is characterizing them, as near as I can see, as engaging in wishful thinking. But the point seems to be to convince them they are wrong and that a real threat exists. This seems different from just blindly "lashing out" or "accusing" them of anything un-American.

What strikes me is that, in the face of this considered and reasonable plea to look the threat squarely in the eye, all we get from you and Bryan is giggles, threats and accusations of "fascism" against the administration. Do you wonder why you aren’t take seriously?
 
Written By: wildmonk
URL: http://
Reminds me of the infamous "armor" question Rumsfeld was asked in Kuwait. He gave a cogent, detailed answer lasting for several minutes, and got considerably more applause for his answer than the soldier got for asking the "tough" question (i.e., the question planted by the journalist who was sitting next to the soldier). But the only clip of the speech you saw on the news for the next month was "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had," making it seem like Rumsfeld brushed the question off. And journalists, commentators, and opportunistic politicians (**cough** McCain **cough**) who knew better tore Rumsfeld to shreds over the cherrypicked quote. Standard press bs.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://
JPE, there is only one minor point of fact amiss in your attempt to compare Nazi Germany and Hitler to the US under Bush:

When Hitler took power, France, England, The Netherlands, Poland, Austria, Belgium were not all plotting and scheming to kill Germans and destroy Berlin.

Oops, forgot that minor fact difference on your pattern? Your case is destroyed because you missed the minor point of who was the attackor and who was the attackee.

 
Written By: ccc
URL: http://
What strikes me is that, in the face of this considered and reasonable plea to look the threat squarely in the eye, all we get from you and Bryan is giggles, threats and accusations of "fascism" against the administration. Do you wonder why you aren’t take seriously?

Excellent! The root of the debate.
 
Written By: Gary
URL: http://
Bryan -

It is simply wrong to conflate honest criticism of the administration with the actual dishonest criticism that has become all too common.

Your language is quite mild and reasonable in comparison with, say, DU. Nonetheless, is Rumsfeld’s point not obvious to you? If you characterize Gitmo as a "Gulag", hold up Abu Ghraib as more representative of America than Paul Ray Smith, and decry the "slaughter of innocent civilians" without any recognition that we try our best to avoid such casualties then you are not being honest. You are cherry-picking facts in order to harm this country for your own personal gain. This is Rumsfeld’s message and he is being almost timid and retiring in delivering it.

Your government is making an argument to you - trying to convince you of its case. You don’t buy it? Fine, but your attempts to characterize yourself as a victim because they won’t change their mind - because they disagree with you - appear vapid and self-serving.

You want to encourage humane treatment at Gitmo? Go for it...I’m with you. You want policies and procedures in place to ensure that Abu Ghraib never happens again? Me too! You want America to learn a lesson from Iraq about the limits of military power? Quite respectable.

You want freedom to side with the enemy by spreading false and malicious propaganda - exploiting the first amendment to cover your betrayal? Don’t be surprised when you are vilified and despised by the people that you’ve betrayed.
 
Written By: wildmonk
URL: http://
Capster ... you’re right. The AP story has been edited. Thanks for the head’s up. I’ve included that in a new update to the story.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Some posters are missing the point: The AP presents this as a news story, a factual rendition of an event. It is not, and the consistent misreporting demonstrates that this is not through ineptitude or the occasional (and inevitable) mistake, but a deliberate fakery intended to defame Secretary Rumsfeld and further opposing political interests the fabricator champions. Furthermore, AP, by not immediately disciplining the fabricator and publicly apologizing and correcting its error, supports this activity, both its intent and its duplicity.

If AP were a car company engaging in congruent behavior in that industry, would you buy its stock?
 
Written By: Joe Y
URL: http://
The AP presents this as a news story, a factual rendition of an event.
Key point.
Furthermore, AP, by not immediately disciplining the fabricator and publicly apologizing and correcting its error, supports this activity, both its intent and its duplicity.
No, but they did drastically edit the original story, that much is obvious.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The people who advocate appeasement are:

Kofi Annan
Senator Ted Kennedy
Senator Kerry
Representitive Murtha
Representitive Pelosi
Ex-President Carter
Ex VP Al Gore
 
Written By: don Meaker
URL: http://
The ABC story has been updated, too, but in a rather weird way.

"In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld was expected to portray the administration’s critics as suffering from "moral and intellectual confusion".

"Rumsfeld was to recite what he will describe as the lessons of history, including the failed efforts to appease the regime of Adolf Hitler in Germany in the 1930s."

In other words, it’s no longer news, but gibberish.
 
Written By: Jim C.
URL: http://
McQ,

Perhaps the AP reporter was a little too cavalier, describing Rumseld’s obvious implications as if they were explicit accusations, but let’s not kid ourselves. Rumsfeld was not simply asking questions. He was posing strawman rhetoric questions that were, quite clearly, implied accusations regarding the views of his critics.

Reporters, of course, should be careful about describing implied accusations as if they were explicit ones, but it’s not as if the readers of this article came away wildly misled about the substance of Rumseld’s speech. An implied accusation is still an accusation.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
Everyone seems pretty matter-of-fact about this chain of events. I believe that this is a very important first in our political wars. The DOD accused AP of misrepresenting the content of an important political speech by a member of the current administration - and the inaccurate report is subsequently corrected! Will I read the full story of this very significant event in the MSM? Hell no.
The speech, although containing significant truths, is not as meaningful as the dynamic of the DOD acting to correct a wire service on their reporter’s deliberately biased reporting. The only other similar case I remember concerned a reporter stating that an audience booed President Bush. An audio of the event being mis-reported disclosed that the boos were in the mind of the reporter. There was no attempt by the administration to force a correction in that case.
Although the Liberal Narrative [AKA "The Big Lie"] maintains that the press is a lackey to corporate interests, any thinking person has known for years that there is a clear liberal bias in the MSM. Common sense and journalistic ethics would dictate that this bias, having become so blatant, would be corrected. For whatever reason, that logical correction has not taken place.
My personal theory is that the reason it has not has very much to do with the fact that a Republican administration [including both houses of Congress] is still in charge. That makes it easy for liberal editors to rationalize that they are only providing "balance" in mis-reporting the news. "Hey, balance is good. Nobody ever said how much "balance" is appropriate; we’re just going the extra mile, as it were."
Maybe actions like the DOD memo have been taken before and therefore this is a dog bites man story. I don’t recall many similar memos.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Annonymous Liberal is being disengenuous with us. He clearly knows that, in politics, there is a large difference between an "implied" accuasation and a blatant one. Political careers rise and fall on differences like these. AL, please reserve that type of comment for sites like Mr. Greenwald’s where the choir will lap it up.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
"We recognized, once again, that we can’t love our country and hate our government."

The President of the United States
 
Written By: Anonymous Coward
URL: http://
Perhaps the AP reporter was a little too cavalier, describing Rumseld’s obvious implications as if they were explicit accusations, but let’s not kid ourselves.
Did you read the update, AL? At best, the original story mischaracterized what was said and did so badly. Obviously badly enough that APs editors decided the story needed to be heavily edited.

Personally, I think that speaks for itself.

Is it too much to ask the media to give a fair rendition of something they proffer as news?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The MSM - our motto is
"We distort, you...don’t know the difference (wink)"
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Anonymous Liberal,

"He was posing strawman rhetoric questions that were, quite clearly, implied accusations regarding the views of his critics."

If someone is using a strawman argument against you, isn’t the best response to say, "Fortunately, I don’t believe that, so we agree on something"? I find that the people tend to overuse the "strawman" accusation. Worse still, some people use the "strawman" accusation as a defensive tactic when their views are shown to be non-factual and/or illogical.
 
Written By: MnZ
URL: http://
"We recognized, once again, that we can’t love our country and hate our government."
And this has what to do with the AP story about the Rumsfeld speech?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"Rumsfeld was not simply asking questions. He was posing strawman rhetoric questions " A.L.

Here are the statements by Rumsfeld:

* 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 was 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.”

A.L. so are you saying these stories/ issues are all strawmen(misrepresentation of an opponent’s position) and don’t represent the feelings of the media and many liberials? Which do you feel is a mispresentation?
 
Written By: ptr
URL: http://
"Any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere."

-Donald Rumsfeld

Here’s what I hear: "If you question the policies of this administration and choose to decide for yourself what is right and wrong, you will kill America and Democratic (free) Societies." In other words, by choosing to exersize your freedom to speak, you risk destroying that very freedom.

. . .

Help me out here. I’m sorry... maybe I’m missing something.

Written By: Bryan


There is a significant difference between "moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong" and support or opposition to administarion policies, so I’d say you are missing quite a bit.

The problem is, however, that the Bush-Chimp-Hitler types go beyond opposition to administration policy, into true "moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong".
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I’m still trying to figure out what’s wrong if Rumsfeld was (and I think he was) comparing people who got Hitler and the threat of Nazism wrong with those today who he thinks are getting the threat of Islam wrong.
How is that somehow now off limits? He made a case and it’s up to each individdle to agree or disagree but to question whether or not he could even make such a statement seems absurd. Why can’t he?
And something else, Rumsfeld’s criticism extends beyond the Dems and the MSM because there are clearly those on the right side of things (George Will, e.g.,) who disagree vehemently with the administration.
Rumsfeld was just making the case that many of these critics just don’t get it. The problem I have with the AP "version" is that it characterized Rumsfeld’s remarks as much less reasoned, careful and even polite as they were and more an emotional lashing out at anyone that disagreed with him.
 
Written By: Stephen D Oliver
URL: http://soliver.typepad.com
where’s your donation link?
I pay people who do good work.
 
Written By: richard
URL: http://
Something for Mr. Cronin and Anon Lib to consider:

If there is really no meaningful difference between Rumsfeld’s supposed implied accusations and actual accusations, then people who disagree with you on issues free to disregard what you actually say in favor of making an inference from your arguments. Orwell apologized for making that type of argument in calling his opponents objectively pro-fascist, but by your logic, it’s entirely valid.
 
Written By: Karl
URL: http://www.claudepate.com
"Any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere."

-Donald Rumsfeld

Here’s what I hear: "If you question the policies of this administration and choose to decide for yourself what is right and wrong, you will kill America and Democratic (free) Societies." In other words, by choosing to exersize your freedom to speak, you risk destroying that very freedom.
Then you need to "hear" the speech and the context in which that sentence was used:
And in every army, there are occasionally bad actors — the ones who dominate the headlines today — who don’t live up to the standards of their oath and of our country.

But you also know that they are a small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of honorable men and women in all theaters in this struggle who are serving with humanity and decency in the face of constant provocation.

And that is important in this “long war,” where any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.
He was talking about the military.

Now what do you "hear"?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Here’s what I mean. Take McQ’s first example:

The AP article said this:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."
After recapping what happened just before WWII, Rumsfeld said "once again" we are facing "a new type of fascism." He then asked the following rhetorical questions:
But it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons....
With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?
Now is it really unclear to anyone with a pulse what Rumself is implying? Do you really think he’s suggesting that this is an open question and he’s just throwing it out there for discussion? Of course not. He’s saying that those who oppose the administration’s approach to fighting this "new fascism" are appeasers who "have not learned history’s lessons." That’s clear as day. All the AP reporter did was put 1 and 1 together.

Now I think there’s some room to criticize the reporter for not showing his work, so to speak, but that’s a nitpick. He got the substance right. I think the press should be held accountable for even small errors, so I’m not defending the reporter, but this post seems to suggest that the AP reporter badly misled his readers. He didn’t. Rumsfeld’s implications were crystal clear.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
Now is it really unclear to anyone with a pulse what Rumself is implying?
And when did that morph into "accused"? I always though "implied" had a specific meaning and "accused" had a specfic meaning, didn’t you?
Now I think there’s some room to criticize the reporter for not showing his work, so to speak, but that’s a nitpick. He got the substance right. I think the press should be held accountable for even small errors, so I’m not defending the reporter, but this post seems to suggest that the AP reporter badly misled his readers.
Then you’ll have to explain to me why his editors apparently agree with me and not you. And why they rewrote the story to reflect something much closer to what Rumsfeld actually said (as would be understood by any reasonable person hearing or reading the speech) than what was originially written.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
He’s saying that those who oppose the administration’s approach to fighting this "new fascism" are appeasers who "have not learned history’s lessons." That’s clear as day.
I will humbly disagree here. Rumsfeld is pointing out that those who don’t take the threat of Islamofascism seriously are dangerously undermining the effort to eradicate that threat. He mentions nothing about any single "approach" and does not call out any critics.

IOW, just because you oppose the Administration’s method of combating terrorism, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you don’t take the thereat of Islamofascism seriously. If, however, you advocate an approach that is tantamount to appeasement, as some have done, you are not taking that threat seriously, and you are undermining the war effort.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
You know, the real culprits here are the other news outlets that print AP garbage verbatim.

If I had some time or willpower or wasn’t completely passive-aggressive I’d call out those news outlets and demand to know that they are doing about the AP’s shoddy output.

Perhaps someone else can take up the challenge- maybe an "AP Watch" website ridiculing AP and its customers.

This would eventually hit the AP in the wallet, which is the only way to stop this stuff.
 
Written By: Uncle Fester
URL: http://
The problem I have with the AP "version" is that it characterized Rumsfeld’s remarks as much less reasoned, careful and even polite as they were and more an emotional lashing out at anyone that disagreed with him.
That’s what people do (the characterization) who are basically ignorant and don’t -understand- what’s going on around them. I don’t really believe the MSM has any intent to do damage, I just think they’re bad at their jobs and we’re losing the art of "reporting" to the art of "entertainment". Their careers go up and down based on how popular and entertaining they are, not how accurate or insightful. That change in job requirements has to attract a different kind of person into the field of journalism and I think we’re seeing its effects.

"I have no idea how to verify this story and don’t really have any factual or historical context for this situation, but I know how to make things sound impressive and controversial!"


 
Written By: jofny
URL: http://
Okay, I’ve been hard on liberal perspectives, and frankly, I really dig the conservative viewpoints to the extent I read a lot of conservative opinion and bloggers. To be fair, I want the liberal point of view. Well, no, I know that already. I want your ideas. What would you do in power. Exactly what would you do. Then we can (or at least I can) compare apples to apples. To be a Democrat today, all you have to do is spout anti-Bush venom, and compare the administration to Nazis. That’s just nuts, my friends. So, come on, libs—give me the plan. What would you do right now if you were in power? Lay it out. I’m listening. Do a great job and I...I will...probably will think much higher of you than I already do.

Just one more point before I go. I’m guessing that you will get onboard with the War against Islamofascism if and when we get hit harder than 9/11. You know, when Islamic fascists really do take out a city. Like my city. I don’t want to be the one who sacrifices his life so that you finally come to your senses. Matter of fact, I don’t want anyone to die just so you finally get it. It would be such a huge waste. I’d rather die taking them out.
 
Written By: timbo
URL: http://
Qando- good work- I wrote an article highlighting some of the deceit we’re seeing in the media, and my site watches the likes of the New York Times, the Boston Globe etc, for misleading articles. I’m glad to see other sites like yours doing the same as it is high time the media be held to a higher standars that they used to, but no longer do, agree to.
 
Written By: CottShop
URL: http://sacredscoop.com
And that is important in this “long war,” where any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.
He was talking about the military.


McQ, all other points aside, I have to disagree with you on this one. I had to re-read what you excerpted twice before I could figure out why you interpreted it that way. It’s pretty clear to me, at least, that Rumsfeld isn’t referring to any "confusion" on the part of the military itself, but rather on the part of those in society who are interpreting the military’s actions. In other words, the kind of "moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong" that leads to the hyper-focus on things like Abu Ghraib and Haditha; Rumsfeld is saying that those who do so are "morally confused" because they are equating the moral stain of "a few bad apples" with the unmitigated anti-morality of terrorist ideology.

This is actually, in my view, the most important point of the speech. We can talk all we want about appeasement, confusion, and even lack of courage, but until people really understand the nature of the threat, and what it is that differentiates us even at our worst from the bin Ladens and Zarqawis of the world, all that talk is going to sound like hogwash, little more than an attempt to shame people into supporting the war. As a former lefty myself, I can tell you honestly that until I really grasped that - not just in far-off theoretical terms, but really internalized the utterly unfathomable notion that these people would kill my family for no other reason that they are American, if given the chance - I thought it was hogwash too.
 
Written By: Mike C
URL: http://
Then you’ll have to explain to me why his editors apparently agree with me and not you. And why they rewrote the story to reflect something much closer to what Rumsfeld actually said (as would be understood by any reasonable person hearing or reading the speech) than what was originially written.
I think the story should have been corrected, too. That’s not our point of contention. The reporter should have tracked closer to what Rumsfeld actually said, rather than treating his clear implications as if they were explicit accusations. The corrected version of the story does that. But if you compare the corrected version to the original version, you’ll notice they are pretty much identical substantively, as they should be. The first article, though sloppily written, correctly conveyed the substance of Rumsfeld major points. Rumsfeld was using the class "some say" kind of rhetoric, but his meaning was clear. The reporter should have said Rumsfeld implied that Bush’s critics believe X, rather than Rumsfeld accused Bush’s critic of X. But, like I said, I think you’re trying to turn a stylistic error into a substantive one.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
But the point seems to be to convince them they are wrong and that a real threat exists.
By calling them appeasers? Or perhaps he was actually expecting Bush critics in the crowd (assuming they let them in w/o proof of their vote in ’04)

This was nothing but red meat for the faithful. Seriously, talking about appeasement on the right is the same as talking about ChimpyMcHitler on the left. No one will be convinced; it’s just to rile up the base.
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
McQ, all other points aside, I have to disagree with you on this one.
OK
And in every army, there are occasionally bad actors — the ones who dominate the headlines today — who don’t live up to the standards of their oath and of our country.

But you also know that they are a small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of honorable men and women in all theaters in this struggle who are serving with humanity and decency in the face of constant provocation.

And that is important in this “long war,” where any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.
And you say:
I had to re-read what you excerpted twice before I could figure out why you interpreted it that way. It’s pretty clear to me, at least, that Rumsfeld isn’t referring to any "confusion" on the part of the military itself, but rather on the part of those in society who are interpreting the military’s actions. In other words, the kind of "moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong" that leads to the hyper-focus on things like Abu Ghraib and Haditha; Rumsfeld is saying that those who do so are "morally confused" because they are equating the moral stain of "a few bad apples" with the unmitigated anti-morality of terrorist ideology.
Fair read. I wouldn’t contest it. In fact, I think your interpretion as completely reasonable and probable.

I withdraw my "it’s about the military" interpretation.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
One one side we have George Bush and Don Rumsfeld, along with the US Military, including my old outfit. They are actively fighting those who would kill or forcibly convert my grandchildren.
I may not always agree with Bush, I am not sure we are fighting the exact same batch of Islamists that I would have picked out to fight next, after Afghanistan, but at least they are fighting a batch of Islamists.
Who are the Libs fighting?
 
Written By: Peter
URL: http://shakeypete.blogspot.com
But if you compare the corrected version to the original version, you’ll notice they are pretty much identical substantively, as they should be.
No, AL, they’re not. No one is accusing "administratin critcs" in the second one. In fact there is no mention of "administration critics". Additionally there is no mention of them "lacking the courage to fight back".

Those are substantive changes, AL.
But, like I said, I think you’re trying to turn a stylistic error into a substantive one.
Well then we completely disagree.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Regarding the AP update that rephrases key points of its story, it looks as if someone there is either paying attention to blogosphere criticism or doing a bit of internal criticism on his own —- in either case a most welcome development. It’s obvious that Rumsfeld was "alluding" to the antiwar people, not directly "accusing" them of anything. The AP reporter understandably inferred that Rumsfeld’s remarks amounted to an accusation leveled at the administration’s critics, but the AP editors’ more careful rewrites are a big improvement in terms of accuracy.
 
Written By: Karl Spence
URL: http://www.fairamendment.us
I agree completely with Karl Spence.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
eh,

This is the same mainstream media that ran 100 entirely unsubstantiated stories in 2003 about the WMD programs Saddamn Hussein didn’t have.

The difference between when the MSM is sloppy in favor of a right-wing meme and when it’s sloppy in favor of a left-wing one is that there’s no backlash when the MSM is sloppy in favor of a right-wing meme.

They reproduced some quotes without reproducing the entirety of the speech - that happens in 100% of reports about speeches - and they paraphrased the rest of the content - also very standard behavior - practically unavoidable.

McQ’s right that the reporter interepreted floating questions as specific accusations, but it’s not much of a stretch. If you’d asked a question such as "Who did Rumsfield say wants to appease the terrorists?" with two possible answers "He said the Democrats want to appease the terrorists" and "he didn’t say who wanted to appease the terrorists", I think it would have been 10 to 1 for the first answer. You could take the AP’s revision as a sign that they agree with you that the reporter could have been more literal. So, good work.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_05_28.php#008619

Here’s a link to an AP reporter making order-of-magnitude more inaccuate accusations against Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid, claiming his acceptance of ringside boxing match seats from a Nevada official broke laws that they did not break. Bad? sure. Stupid? sure. But is it anything more than random statistical variance - or, in other words, random sloppy reporting?

Nah.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Great job McQ. Well done. Its in my favorites and out to many peeps I know. Screw all the Looney Lefty assclowns and trolls. The spew their worthless, unpatriotic, ant-God and anti-America vomit on a daily basis in hopes that IT is going to give them some kind of power.
They have Z-E-R-O.
 
Written By: auspatriotman
URL: http://
I agree completely with Karl Spence.
But rewriting a story to improve accuracy isn’t a "substantive" thing to you, right AL?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
It’s not fair on either side of the debate to misquote. That being said, it’s not just Rumsfield or Conservatives that get misquoted.

Nor does the fact that Rumsfield was misquoted make his position any stronger. Either Rumsfields assertions about how to conduct war and foreign policy make sense or they don’t, and ad-hominem attacks against the "mainstream" media (the definition of which is vague) have no bearing on this.

—-

In reading the full text of the speech, I think it’s fair to come to the conclusion that Rumsfield relies heavily on the following argument:

1) A comparison of the current conflicts (Iraq mostly) and Radical Islamism is very similar to WWII and the rise of Facsim.

2) Before WWII Neville Chamberlain and others wanted to attempt a peaceful settlement — appeasement. Their strategy failed, and WWII was settled sucessfully only by a determined and enorumous war effort.

3) Therefore, those criticing the current war effort are being counterproductive and recreating the same historical error as during WWII.

Frankly, I don’t buy this comparison for a number of reasons:

#1 - Iraq 2003-2006 does not compare to Europe 1936-44 (e.g. France, Germany, Belgium, Austria, etc). Take for example the simple fact that Germany had been at war for 6 years before being defeated versus 3 months in Iraq. Or the fact that Iraq has 3 distinct factions (Shiite, Sunni, Kurd) versus the singular national identity of Germany at the end of WWII. As the Cato institute states: "Iraq does not share the same economic, cultural, and legal history that over the centuries led to European prosperity and that was temporarily interrupted by Hitler’s war."

#2 - Fascism had a definitive, national face - Spain, Italy, Germany. It was fought on a national level. The attacks by Al-Quaeda and other terrorists are on the cell-level.

#3 - The Bush Administration is itself not treating this like WWII. For example, the Bush administration has

- not called up a national draft
- requisitioned the massive resources that WWII required? By 1945 we were spending 37% of our GDP and 90% of the federal budget on military spending.

There are good reasons for this, obviously. But it points to the fact that the current situation is *not* like WWII. And if it is not, then why should dissent against the current national strategy on terror be considered incorrect or counterproductive? And if it *is* like WWII, then why isn’t the Bush administration pushing a trillion dollar anti-terrorism budget and calling up a national draft?

Either way, Rumsfield cannot have his WWII analogy "cake" and eat it too. He cannot declare the situation to be like WWII (in order to silence critics) while at the same time conducting a war strategy that is nothing like the economic and military committment of WWII.

So, I’m sorry Rumsfeld was misquoted. But it doesn’t change my opinion that Rumsfeld speech was bad analysis at best and disingenuous rhetoric at the worst.


 
Written By: aricusmax
URL: http://
I have a standing bet among my liberal friends which I shall repeat here:

I wager that few, if any, of the leftists who like to throw out the word "fascist" to describe Bush could offer an intelligible definition of the word without resorting to the use of a dictionary, online or otherwise. Nor could they offer concrete examples of ’fascism’ by the Bush administration.

The few who have taken my bet (at 3-to-1 and 5-to-1 odds respectively) have lost.

 
Written By: Stevie Nichts
URL: http://
Good catch by McQ. Good response by DoD. Always good (and very rare) to see AP et.al. backpedal on hyperbole and bias. AnonLib honorable, clear, and interesting as loyal opposition, per usual.

But too late: Ho. Dean is on ABC as I type (10:30 p.m. edt) pushing (shrieking) the "Rummy questioned our patriotism" meme.
 
Written By: stevesh
URL: http://
"I may not always agree with Bush...but at least they are fighting a batch of Islamists.
Who are the Libs fighting?"

A bunch of people who have no idea who they are fighting? Why don’t you just say "Crusade" and "Final Solution"? It will be honest and cathartic at the same time.
 
Written By: Morpheus
URL: http://
Anon. Lib.— The point is simple. The AP story was written in a way to over-simplify, cheapen, and make more crude Sec. Rumsfeld’s speech. Words matter. Surely you would agree that the same point can be made in a crass and offensive manner or in a more concilliatory and thoughtful manner. I thought the speech was clearly an appeal to those who oppose the administration to think about what the consequences of that opposition might be. Rumsfeld was consise and politic, NOT belligerent, divisive or belittling. Over and over, lefties on this thread want to substitute a crude strawman for the real Sec of Def.

Sorry. You have to report the news with the Secretary of Defense you have, not the one you wish you had!!
 
Written By: Mike
URL: http://
Michael makes a fair point. Trying to make the speech more offensive than it already was, and it was clearly intended to offend, should not have been done.

However, Rumsfield has been playing the press for chumps forever. I could write a term paper on all the spin and gloss he has applied to the Iraq debacle. Like Slick Willie though, he ducks and weaves his way through the press sessions, couching his language in terms that mean nothing to him except another excuse to hide behind. When the spin gets removed, his jabs and accusations are revealed as the cheap shots that they are.
 
Written By: Morpheus
URL: http://
But don’t you see? The reason the TRUE and HONEST story was changed was because the DoD made them change it! We have no free media in this country — they can never print anything with honest criticism of the administration without threat of government action against them! Right?
 
Written By: Adrianne Truett
URL: http://atruett.typepad.com
But rewriting a story to improve accuracy isn’t a "substantive" thing to you, right AL?
Perhaps "substantive" isn’t the right word. My point is that the revisions to the story were minor because the inaccuracies in the story were minor. The reporter conveyed exactly the point Mr. Rumsfeld was trying to make, just in a more direct way than Rumsfeld himself made it. Rumsfeld chose to make an accusation in the way politicians often do, by phrasing it in the form of a rhetorical question. It’s more diplomatic that way. The reporter should have made it clearer that Rumsfeld’s point was implied, not explicit, but that’s hardly an egregious error. Mainstream journalists produce far more inaccurate stories routinely. Glasnost above cites a good recent example from the AP: it’s almost pathologically dishonest coverage of the Harry Reid/boxing tickets mini-scandal.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
It seems that those who think the original AP story accurately conveys what Rumsfeld was saying are missing a key point. This was a news story, not an editiorial. A news story is supposed to be a neutral unbiased reporting of what happened. This was an editorial posing as a news article in that what it conveyed was this reporter’s interpretation of what was said. If Molly Ivans wants to rip Rumsfeld on the editorial page, fine...be my guest. The issue to conservatives is opinion masquerading as news.
 
Written By: gd
URL: http://
Anon. Lib:
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy the notion that press has the right (or responsibility) to "make more explicit" the "implicit" points of politicians, especially when they destroy the concilliatory or thoughtful way in which those thoughts were made. Imagine if right-leaning partisans got to "restate" liberal policians calls to end our involvement in Iraq. Why... they may call it "quitting" or "cutting and running."

There’s no end to the damage you could do to someone’s reputation, and effectiveness as a leader if you allowed their enemies to deconstruct their statements, and discover their hidden meanings and motives. Just ask George Bush.
 
Written By: Mike
URL: http://
"... if you compare the corrected version to the original version, you’ll notice they are pretty much identical substantively..."




With a shifty campaigner like AL, one must be quick.
First, a few ground rules applicable when a liberal goes for "substantive". When a liberal is out of ideas, he charges that his critic is not being "substantive". When he wants to change his position, he claims that his new position is "substantively" the same as the one he is bailing out of in the face of irrefutable criticism, but it is different enough that he hopes to defend the newer version. The ploy used here is the little-used [because no one with any sense ever buys it] "reverse substantive move". This ploy is mainly used to bolster a colleague who is in trouble, but AL is throwing it into the mix here in order to extricate himself.
Unfortunately, that did not work either.
Having been handed his *ss, he then attempts to disavow the entire "substantive reverse" ploy.
"Perhaps "substantive" isn’t the right word."
Give it up, AL; it was b*llsh*t in the first iteration and it is b*llsh*t in your "substantively equal" second attempt.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Robert, you have proven yourself insatiably ignorant by trying to villify AL. Your opportunistic, self-serving flip-flopping rhetoric is inappropriate here. We must allow for the malleability of thought in order to evolve. Otherwise, we lack a substrate for allowing opinions to change and resort to killing or breeding to change the public sentiment.

Had you read this thread in its entirety you would have witnessed the healthy evolution of ideas as evidenced by McQ’s responce to Mike C. There is a difference between modifying the accuracy of a statement and modifying the precision of a statement, which is the crux of the discussion above. Whereas the AP story was factually inaccurate, AL’s position was merely imprecise. Appropriate action was taken in the former case. AL need not provide justification about improving the precision of his statement, much less feel guilty.

The key assumption that has not yet been challenged (and would be a worthwhile pursuit for a decent journalist, given the opportunity) is Donald Rumsfeld’s true intent: to accuse his critics or to foster honest debate about the nature of our new enemy. Rhetorical questions are by their nature imprecise, as is metaphor, simile and the other beautiful devices that language afford english speechwriters. Would he regard this particular debate as evidence that his message was successful? I don’t know.

As stated earlier, journalists and traditional media outlets are increasingly influenced by phenomena that place a premium on speed and sensationalism, resulting in hasty reporting that is increasingly imprecise and inaccurate. As Malcom Gladwell has brilliantly described, that which is interpreted in a short amount of time is most prone to influence by our subconscious biases. Hence the spin often found in these articles. We likely have our ADD-driven culture and technology to thank or blame, depending on your particular point of view.

If you don’t like the way it works, either destroy it or build another economic model that promotes accuracy and precision. Just remember to vote with your wallet or your eyeballs (in an advertisement-funded marketplace) or move to Canada.
 
Written By: Centrist Watchdog
URL: http://
Well, Centrist, I think I can smell the substrate you are working with. I was with you until the "insatiably ignorant". One does not desire ignorance. Therefore, although the English is precisely correct, the thinking ...
The balance of your offering indicates that your smoking is adequate.
"Your opportunistic, self-serving flip-flopping rhetoric is inappropriate here."
I could not have come up with a more accurate description of AL’s presentation.

Focus, Centrist, focus.

 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
It’s been about 12 hours now, and I still do not see any ideas of what liberals would do if they were in power. Please, libs, I really am open to entertaining your ideas. This silence is deafening.
 
Written By: timbo
URL: http://
When he asks those questions, why does everyone assume it’s aimed at all critics? I don’t believe he said the word "critic" once throughout the whole speech. Arent there many different critics of the administration and the war? It seems the questions were pretty tailored to specific sets of critics, not some monolithic group or all democrats.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
I think Mike is right.

Liberal journalists want Rumsfeld’s speech to match their mental image of him as a brutal and uncompromising man. When he makes a thoughtful point it must be tweaked in reporting.

I just wanted to mention an example from Swedish radio news (Ekot), from the same Kuwait visit referred to by John.

Rummy, faced by soldiers asking tough questions, said "Now, settle down, settle down. Hell, I’m an old man. It’s early in the morning and I’m gathering my thoughts here."

English is not my first language but to me it was said jokingly, in a kind of "C’mon kids, play nice" way, to cool things down.

The correspondent chose a literal translation of and emphasis on "hell". Now, the word is not used in this way in Swedish so the English equivalent of Ekot’s quote would be "GODDAMIT, I’m an old man. Calm the f*ck down".

It’s pretty obvious they wanted to portray him in a bad light.

Just one example in a looong line of examples.

(Not that it matters, but the correspondent happens to be Tiger Woods’ father-in-law...)
 
Written By: Sweblogger
URL: http://blog.se
A quick observation on free speech...

What free speech is: we are endowed [by our creator] with the unalienable right to say what is on our minds, without fear of censure by our various federal, state and local governments. (1)

What free speech is not: we are not guaranteed, nor is any unalienable right expressed or implied to the effect, that our stated opinions will be accepted, agreed with, applauded, repeated, defended or respected. In fact, it is perfectly okay, within the framework of the Constitution, to deride, ridicule, mock, counter, criticize, deconstruct and generally have wildly disrespectful monkey-sex with someone else’s freely spoken opinion. Now here’s the shocker—government officials (even the highest government officials) enjoy the same free speech rights as the lowliest citizen of the republic. That means that the POTUS can log on to your blog at BDS.org and throw down on you like David on the Philistines and your free speech rights will not have been infringed upon. While it is true that the degree to which you experience ownage on an ostensibly public forum may influence the likelihood of you ever showing your anonymous mug again, the First Amendment is not intended to immunize you from the right and proper consequences of expressing your opinion.

(1) There are exceptions to the right of free speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 
Written By: Immolate
URL: http://
When he makes a thoughtful point it must be tweaked in reporting.
Are you really this stupid? How many cans of paint do you huff a day? Y’know, my wife works with the mentally ill, and she’s constantly having to talk down to them to make points. She has to avoid big words, maintain a gentle tone, and ensure that they have a drool cup at all times. Responding to you is similar in some ways.

Wow, rhetorical questions and comparisons sure make my points more thoughtful. I fully expect you won’t "tweak" my words.
 
Written By: jpe
URL: http://
Heh heh. I woke the idiot up. Somehow it assumes I give a rat’s ass what it says:P

Put that shiny hat back on and run along.

 
Written By: Sweblogger
URL: http://blog.se
Chalk up another one for the blogosphere!
 
Written By: David Smudski
URL: http://
To: ’Me in Austin’

Actually,the joke is on you.I hope you will be around to get the punch line.

My father always said, "teach a person to read and you can’t keep him ignorant".I guess he was wrong in your case.
 
Written By: Maggie
URL: http://
But rewriting a story to improve accuracy isn’t a "substantive" thing to you, right AL?
Considering that the inaccuracy that was corrected involved how Rumsfeld presented his statements (accusations as opposed to insinuations), and not the substance of those statements, yeah, I’d say it’s reasonable to assert that the correction was not substantive.
Are you really this stupid? How many cans of paint do you huff a day?
Hey now, easy with the ad hominem attacks. Leave that stuff to the professionals, like Mr. Fulton.
 
Written By: Ash Plissken
URL: http://
It’s 1:33pm Thursday and I still don’t have a liberal idea or plan. Still waiting...
 
Written By: timbo
URL: http://
Since we’re speaking of inferences, what are we to infer from Rumsefeld speaking about unnamed "people" who have moral confusion and have failed to learn the lessons of appeasement, followed almost immediately by the Olbersphere and many Senate Democrats speaking up in injured and insulted tones about the speech within 24 hours? Self-identification, much? If you have resolve, moral clarity and eschew appeasement then obviously the statements don’t apply to you, do they? So have a Coke and a smile and keep your pie-hole closed for a news cycle or two, hmmm?

The irony is that if Rumsfeld had directly implicated anyone by name as an appeaser or lacking in moral clarity or patriotism (other than a pointed reference to Amnesty International on one specific point), that would have been an over-the-top, repressive statement of the type the AP reported (and subsequently retracted). It’s left to the hypersensitive and insecure to assume he was talking about them, and given their self-importance it’s inevitable that they would in essence say, "All that stuff about lack of moral clarity and ignorance of history — he’s being mean to me!"

These Rovian rope-a-dopes never get old.

McQ, bloggers should have a bar on their website where they can post logos of news agencies they have backed off of untrue stories, like the enemy flags on the side of cockpits. You’ve earned an ’AP’ from me. Four more and you’re an ace.
 
Written By: Darren
URL: http://darkadapted.blogspot.com
Underlying the pacifist left’s entire problem with what Rummy said or did not say is the their basic premise that their position is unassailable, that to argue with it is a personal affront: how dare we call their very judgement into question? Thus they railroad the debate over to their hurt feelings and indignance rather than the core problem, which that they’re just flat out wrong in not taking Islamic fascism seriously. All the tripe about substance vs. style is a diversion from Rummy’s over-arching point, that to dismiss the existential threat Islamic fascism presents is a fatal mistake, just as it was to those who got run over by the Nazis on the altar of Peace In Our Time. In that respect, this is very much like the run-up to WWII.

Bob Beckles and Howard Dean can scream all they want about having their patriotism questioned, but that’s irrelevant and they know it. Okay, so you’re patriotic, too. Feel better? Great. Now, can we get past the issue of your feelings being hurt and get on with the business of fighting the f*cking enemy?

I don’t care about how patriotic you think opposing this or supporting that makes you- I care about the anti-everything-left’s fatal irresponsibility in giving modern Nazism a pass just so your precious little world view can remain intact.

Appeasement will do to our way of life what Islamic fascists would do to appeasers’necks.
 
Written By: YFS
URL: http://abuwabu.blogspot.com
We need to face the following questions:

* With the growing lethality and chaos of the civil war in Iraq, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be democratized?
* Can we really continue to think that handing Iraq to Sadr and SCIRI was worth thousands of american lives?
* Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that there’s still any chance of success?
* And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that Rumsfeld has clue-one what he’s doing?

Accusations, what accusations?

Or maybe you’d prefer this.

We need to face the following questions:

* With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that the people who’ve failed for five years to catch Osama Bin Laden have any idea how to defeat these vicious extremists?
* Can we really continue to think that Osama will just leave us alone if we don’t kill or capture him?
* Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that destroying Iraq has in any way detered the people who actually did attack us on 9/11?
* And can we truly afford to perpetuate the destructive view that America isn’t capapble of killing the man responsible for 9/11?

Accusations, what accusations?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
If you’re gonna fake pictures, you might as well fake what was said too, right?
 
Written By: Purple Avenger
URL: http://purpleavenger.blogspot.com/
Libs: what are your ideas?

What would you do in power?

What’s the plan?

C’mon...I’m getting tired of asking these questions.
 
Written By: timbo
URL: http://
Sorry, must be the journo in me, but I also agree that the AP got the story right the first time.

The defense secretary of the U.S. said people aren’t learning history lessons. He said, in the past, people have appeased fascism. If the history lesson was that people appeased fascism, how exactly is it wrong to say, "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."


It’s good, clear writing. And accurate writing. It’s logically correct to anyone with half a brain.

 
Written By: steve
URL: http://
It’s good, clear writing. And accurate writing. It’s logically correct to anyone with half a brain.
That’s about right.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Am I missing something, or has Rumsfeld ever actually said anything that most rational people would disagree with?

Every time I hear him speak, or read his actual words, he makes total sense.

It is only the mischaracterizations that fuel the "dump Rummy" movement.

I particularly agree with this quote:

"The struggle we are in is too important — the consequences too severe — to have the luxury of returning to the old mentality of ’Blame America First.’"

The "Blame America First" doctrine, also known in England as the "Blame America First and England Second" doctrine, is as ludicrous as blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.

How can ayone disagree with the notion that appeasement of the Islamic terrorists is not just inadvisable, it is impossible? On what basis does anyone conclude that the terrorists will stop their mass murdering if we do X,Y or Z (eg., pull out of Iraq)?

These terrorists are irrational. The terrorist leaders have only destructive demands (death to the infidels), nothing in terms of what they hope to accomplish if their jihad succeeds. Worse yet, the idiots who strap bombs on themselves do so on the belief that they will be rewarded with an eternity of carnal relations with underage girls.

At least with Hitler, one could understand what he meant when he called for world domination by the Third Reich. Of course, the moral confusion greatly dissipated when the German Army rolled through France.

If the quotes were not attributed to Rumsfeld, but rather to an anonymous analyst of international current events, it would be interesting to see how many actual disagree with his points.
 
Written By: Vox Clamantis In Deserto
URL: http://
Steve and McQ:

Your assertions that "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism" constitutes "good, clear writing and accurate writing" is a sad statement on the current state of journalism.

No, that sentence is certainly clear, but is by no means accurate for the following reasons. First, the sentence is overly inclusive as it falsely equates the "many" that haven’t learned histories’ lessons with just the "administration critics." It is quite possible that one is not such a critic, but disagrees with the conclusions Rumsfeld has offered concerning the lessons of history.

Secondly, and mushc more importantly, his speech did not include an accusation, but rather a veiled invitation for his opponents to publicly take a position on the politically charged assumptions he had embedded into his series of rhetorical questions. This is a rhetorical device to force those that disagree with Rumsfeld to clearly state that they oppose the use of the military forces to stifle what the administration believes are grave threats posed by the possibility that Islamist terrorists may attack with weapons of mass destruction. In other words, he wants to force them to go on the record as saying the rise of "Islamic Fascism" and the potential for terrorist attack with WMDs is matter best handled solely through the use of traditional "law enforcement" techniques.

Thus, characterizing his speech as containing "accusations" regarding admistration critics is both misleading and inaccurate. While one could make a perfectly logical and thoughtful argument for reliance on law enforcement alone in such counter-terrorism endeavors, in these times, it would be politically dangerous for any politician to explicitly say so. This is because any subsequent terrorist attack would lead to accusations that such politician lacked the resolve to do what was “necessary” to protect the public. By characterizing the speech as including an accusation against opponents, the reporter has tranformed the speech into what he would have preferred that Rumsfeld said. In this way, the reporter converts Rumsfeld’s rhetorical trap into an easily evaded accuation against critics. This type of lazy, politically biased journalism does a disservice to the public since the role of the military in any administration’s counter-terrorism strategy should be a topic of robust public debate.
 
Written By: Mark
URL: http://
Your assertions that "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism" constitutes "good, clear writing and accurate writing" is a sad statement on the current state of journalism.
Mark you need to get your stuff straight. I’m the guy who wrote the post. I’m the guy who said that the AP article wasn’t "good, clear writing and accurate writing".

OK?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Sleepy...still waiting for one liberal idea that doesn’t include withdrawing from Iraq. That’s not an idea, however, but a reaction. What’s the idea after that, is what I’m looking for. Here’s a guess: reinstate the estate tax, cancel the tax cuts, reinstate the "luxury" tax (remember that one—lots of workers lost their jobs over that piece of crap idea). Rich people had less fun...while working people had less jobs and less money.

C’mon, curious liberal-passersby, what are the ideas?
 
Written By: timbo
URL: http://
Timbo has hit the nail on the head. The problem, and in my view the single biggest problem, one that on some issues afflicts Republicans as well as Democrats, is that the vast majority of political "debate" these days consists of bashing the opposition without presenting what you would do differently if in power.

The Democrats have proposed no alternative plan for combatting terrorism - save for the vague, neo-appeasement strategy on which no one is willing to go on record with specifics (ceding Czechlosovokia to the terrorists?).

The Democrats also have no alternative plan for Iraq, other than to attempt to use the MSM’s characterization of the war effort as "disastrous" for political gain.

The question that needs to be answered: what would the Democrats do?

We know that you Democrats love to criticize the President at every chance.

What we do not know is what the hell you would do if one of your candidates gets elected President.

Until you tell us that, we independent types have little choice but to support the President and the Republicans.

If the choice is between the President’s policies and appeasement, or the President’s policies and nothing, we will choose the President’s policies every time.

In other words, if you have a plan, please share it with us - even if the plan has failed historically.
 
Written By: Vox Clamantis In Deserto
URL: http://
aricusmax,

#1 "Take for example the simple fact that Germany had been at war for 6 years before being defeated versus 3 months in Iraq."

If we had flattend Iraq, Syria, Lebenon, and Iran in 3-months, killing 5-6 million, dispersing 50-70 million refugees would that make the analogy to WWII better? I mean we could have done that without nukes.

#2 "The attacks by Al-Quaeda and other terrorists are on the cell-level."

Well, only if you remove state sponsorship from your equation. Clearly, Hezbollah is anything but a cell-level-only terrorist group. They still own a country. They are much better armed and coordinated that AQ ever was.

So, the face of the enemy you seek is Iran, Pali, Paki, Syria, Saudi, Lebenon, and maybe half of Iraq. This engagement will become every bit as multi-fronted as WWII did. This conflict is about Pan-Islamic enemies, some states and their clients, plus an undetermined number of homicidal crazies (the number of which might reach hundreds of millions, we just don’t know yet).

#3 "The Bush Administration is itself not treating this like WWII"

Rummy and Bush are trying to tell us its like the late 30s, not yet WWII. Preparing the battlespace and the population for what’s in store. Get real. We don’t need a draft or 2 million boots-on-the-ground, and never will again. We have the arsenal to stop Islamism; it’s about the will to act.

After the next Muslim perpetrated atrocity against US or allied interests (except sinfully Israel), armed citizens will be prepared to burn down every mosque aross America. Maybe Canada and Mexico too. An infidel infatada, so to speak.

The moral clarity SecDef is talking about is how the authorities respond to the backlash it will create. Will Cindy shield the CAIR offices?

Dissenting is a good thing, as Rummy is wont to say. However, unless you’ve got a better prescription for fighting the war on Islam that won’t wreck the world economy, we’d all like to hear it. Otherwise, dissent about "facing this threat" acts to favor the enemy.





 
Written By: geoffgo
URL: http://
The first salvo of this war of words was "You’re either with us or against us." I think we know what Bush really meant. But for many, they inferred the meaning to be "You’re either with me, militant-imperial christio-fascist George Bush and my merry band of neo-cons, or you’re in league with Satan." The bonus of adopting the latter is that you get to tremble with righteous courage as you install a "Not in My Name" sign in your yard. Oh yeah, buddy... you know they’re reading your emails!

What Rumsfeld has done reminds me of the idea behind the new season of Survivor. It has that similiar sort of mind-f* quality. The more you rail against it, the more you expose yourself to be... um... something of which... uh, that you claim yourself to, ah, not be...

The left wants to have it both ways: endorse appeasement policies, but not be called appeasers.

If you’re not an appeaser, you have no reason to be offended by Rummy’s comments. If you are an appeaser, then you deservedly are the subject of his admonishment.

One last comment (related) about something said on the podcast. The nazi comparison is apt. On Slate’s weekly podcast about politics there’s a loosely enforced but overt rule that if you drop the "N-bomb" you have just shut yourself out of the conversation. Its an understandable rule because they claim that when ever comparisons to Nazis or Hitler comes out the conversation inevitably spirals down a predictable and meaningless rhetoric black hole.

I think this may be a case of the boy who cried wolf, and that in this case the wolf really is an islamo-nazi. In varying ways and to different degrees, extremist factions of islam have plotted with and worshipped Hitler.

A few years ago there was a UN Conference on ending racism where many islam-nazis had booths with supersized posters of Hitler, nazi paraphenalia, anti-semitic tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion etc etc. Many speeches turned into anti-zionist rants. Many jews removed or hid their name tags, or stayed in their hotel rooms or left and flew home early.

Before you jump to knock the "nazi" tag being attached to islamo-extremism, tell me what the word "iran" means in persian.
 
Written By: ddubb
URL: http://
Thank you for this outstanding web site dedicated to REALITY!!

I used this site (found via google search) in building a letter to Senator Salazar of Colorado. This was very handy.

RECALL: A few days ago, Senator Salazar wrote a letter to President Bush, calling for the Resignation of the "incompetent..." SECDEF.

The good Senator cited the SECDEF’s recent speach (VERY INCORRECTLY) as grounds for his dismissal.

I wrote to the Senator to point out the inaccuracies in his claims about the SECDEF. And I encourage everyone else to do the same. You should also send your Congressmen/other elected reps your thoughts about the performance of the SECDEF.

The political spin on this one wreaks...and I’ve personally had enough. They must be counting on a tremendous amount of ignorance amongst the voting public. I guess that’s why "they" pushed the motor-voter law....

Yep, I just got my new driver’s licence and they prompted/allowed me to register to vote without any check or inquiry as to my citizenship......funny how that works.

RMH
 
Written By: Rod Hoyle
URL: http://
Rummy is a babbling fool. It’s time to fire his ass and put someone who’s not insane in charge. I read a great article about him at Rummy Should Off Himself. Plus, there is a super hot half nekked chic on this page....
 
Written By: Jeebus
URL: http://www.constitutionalmatters.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider