Disagree With Me, and You're Appeasing Fascism

[Lemur]

According to Donald Rumsfeld, people who criticise the current administration's Iraq policies are appeasing a "new type of fascism." Yes, that's right -- if you disagree with any element of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq and remaking the middle east, you're an appeasement monkey. But wait, there's more:

In some unusually blunt terms, Rumsfeld says the administration's detractors suffer from "moral and intellectual confusion" about global security threats and he says they lack the courage to fight back.

Unfortunately for the Backroom, I think everyone in here has been critical of at least some small part of the conduct of the Iraq war. I hate to say it, but we're all fascist appeasers. You heard it here first.

[Reenk Roink]

Damn, and I was just getting used to "leftist"...

Big Don R. outdid you Divinus Arma...

[Divinus Arma]

yuk yuk. You guys just dont get it. Talk about taking it out of context. There is nothing wrong with discussing policy, but have an alternative. Abandoning Iraq to the wolves will make it a terrorist playground. For now, it acts as a roach motel. The islamofascists go there to die.

[Tribesman]

For now, it acts as a roach motel. The islamofascists go there to die.

Really , I thought the Pentagon assesment was that they were going there , learning on the job terrorism and then moving on to bring terrorism to other places .
I thought it was mainly ordinary Iraqis that were getting killed , not the Islamofascists ,but hey maybe I am wrong and ever increasing monthly totals of civilians getting blown apart , kidnapped and murdered in all sorts of interesting ways are not really locals , they are IslamoFascists on holiday
You guys just dont get it.
You don't get it at all Divinus , you just repeat the same old worn out catchphrases.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Any copy of his whole speech, and not the reporter-summarized version?

Its the article that says critics of policies- it appears, from the brief quotes, than D Rumsfield is actually talking about those who want to pull out and appease the terrorists.

Crazed Rabbit

[Kanamori]

See, even if this 'roach motel' theory has grounds in reality, I wonder about the morality of bringing a war to a nation that had nothing to do w/ terrorism, and choosing their civilians to die, rather than the possiblity of ours dying...

[Xiahou]

Any copy of his whole speech, and not the reporter-summarized version?

Its the article that says critics of policies- it appears, from the brief quotes, than D Rumsfield is actually talking about those who want to pull out and appease the terrorists.

Crazed Rabbit

Yeah, a full text would be alot more useful than brief snippets. Heck, the video link in the story (which I watched hoping to see some context) doesnt even contain the quotes they used in the article.

[Ice]

According to Donald Rumsfeld, people who criticise the current administration's Iraq policies are appeasing a "new type of fascism." Yes, that's right -- if you disagree with any element of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq and remaking the middle east, you're an appeasement monkey. But wait, there's more:

In some unusually blunt terms, Rumsfeld says the administration's detractors suffer from "moral and intellectual confusion" about global security threats and he says they lack the courage to fight back.

Unfortunately for the Backroom, I think everyone in here has been critical of at least some small part of the conduct of the Iraq war. I hate to say it, but we're all fascist appeasers. You heard it here first.

It must be that 25% German and 50% Italian in my blood. I just can't help myself.

[Xiahou]

Yes, that's right -- if you disagree with any element of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq and remaking the middle east, you're an appeasement monkey.

So.... where does he say that?

After a quick skim, I think it was a pretty good speech on the balance.

[Lemur]

As I said, I'm not certain this is the speech referenced, and I'm not sure the transcript is accurate. After a quick skim, Howlin' Don Rumsfeld moves from discussing fascist appeasers in the U.S. Senate and immediately asks one of his patented rhetorical questions:

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

So we have appeasement of Hitler paired up with appeasement of terrorists. He also carelessly mixes up the viewpoint that the terror fight is about intel and law enforcement with the Blame America First crowd; the former is a legitimate strategy, the latter is not.

Anyway, if time permits I'll dig around for some more transcripts, since this one doesn't seem to be an exact match. I note with deep amusement that he's back to blaming the media for the Iraq war's low polls.

[Papewaio]

I liked this part, being a former scout...

Well, I was a proud Cub Scout, then a Boy Scout; then an Explorer Scout; an Eagle Scout; and, in 1975, a Distinguished Eagle Scout. The Scouts represent some of the best qualities in our great country -- and they certainly deserve our support!

... and knowing how it was created by a Brit. I have to agree that the best values of the US are created by foreigners, specially value for money Chinese goods.

[Xiahou]

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;

I think he has a fair point. I cant say that Ive ever heard of Paul Ray Smith, and I certainly dont remember hearing what he did to earn the Medal of Honor. It used to be that highly decorated soldiers were virtually idolized- now we dont even know who they are since the media seems completely pre-occuppied with covering US attrocities and mis-steps. I wonder if we'd know who Sergeant York was with today's media coverage?

Maybe Rummy is partly to blame for this- but I really dont think you'd be slapping him on the back if he started sponsoring propaganda news reels ala WW2 either.

[Papewaio]

Bad news to good news in any newspaper is generally an order of magnitude more... unless you want to read some sandal wearing hippy newspaper that is made from recycled toilet paper that has editorials on Karma and ads for Soul Cleansing Enema Crystals , are you that kind of Orgah? Well are ya?

[Lemur]

Here's yet another summation of his speech, as posted by that hotbed of liberalism, military.com:

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."

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.

Linky. So I think I'll stand by the thread title -- if you criticise, regardless of whether or not you have an alternate strategy -- you are an appeasement monkey. Live with it, Xiahou. I'm going to mail you your very own red "A".

[edit]

I'm tickled by one of the respondents in the Military.com discussion board:

Well Mr. Rumsfeld, thats what we get for living in a Democracy "CRITICS." We also have this little thing (thats incidentally written into our Constitution and Bill of Rights) called "Free Press." Sounds to me Mr. Rumsfeld that you would like to subvert these freedoms, and make us no better than the terrorists we are fighting. Mr. Rumsfeld, Cuba-China-Russia-Iran, may all agree with you here, but we Americans and people of free country's certainly don't. If people want to disagree with the way this war on terrorism is being conducted by yourself and your band of 30/40-something appointed pentagon civilians, who trump the better advice of experienced senior military officers, we have every right to do so, because it seems it could be handled a whole lot better than it is.

And the one from marinegrunt99 is a beaut:

The comparison between, Hitler and Bin Laddin, is not logical, nor connected, and outside the scope of reason, it insults my intelligence to attempt to link the two! The term "appeasement" used in this matter, would indicate that the American people agree with our enemy, which is not the case, we disagree with the abject failure of this Administration way it is handling this war! It is just one more "play on words" meant to throw the American people off track!

First, the occupation of Iraq, or all the other lunitic reason's we've been told for this war have all proved wrong! Second, American's have the god give right to express our beliefs, if we disagree with who ever is in power that validates the power we have been given in our Constitution. Our elected officials serve us like any employee of a business, if an employee turns out not to be able to do the job we simply fire him in the next election! For our employee's in the White House, to put out this garbage that we are disloyal or consenting to "Appeasement" because we disagree with one failed policy after another is pure hog wash!

This Administration has failed in their every attempt to validate or prove to us, thier employer's, every last thing they have done to date, i.e., to occupy a country that did absolutely nothing to the United States! If I am wrong, someone please tell me one policy that has worked! If you can't, then please look at the truth or the light of reason. This isn't about our emotional attachment to our flag or to the United States of America, it is about FAILURE on every aspect of this issue, by this Administration! This is the first president in the history of this country that persists to "Stay the course", which has been proven to be wrong, over and over and over, including every reason we have been given for starting this war in the first place.

[yesdachi]

I am a bigger supporter of this administration than most (mostly because the alternatives to get anything done are non-existent) but I criticize all the time, often about Iraq and Rummy’s decisions there. Let me continue my criticism of this administration by saying that I don’t think DR should make sweeping generalizations about the people’s criticism of the disappointing work that has been done in Iraq. Don’t want to get criticized? Do things right. That’s the way it works at my job. There is a difference between throwing stones and offering constructive criticism, Perhaps DR should pay more attention to the later.

[Patriarch of Constantinople]

According to Donald Rumsfeld, people who criticise the current administration's Iraq policies are appeasing a "new type of fascism." Yes, that's right -- if you disagree with any element of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq and remaking the middle east, you're an appeasement monkey. But wait, there's more:

In some unusually blunt terms, Rumsfeld says the administration's detractors suffer from "moral and intellectual confusion" about global security threats and he says they lack the courage to fight back.

Unfortunately for the Backroom, I think everyone in here has been critical of at least some small part of the conduct of the Iraq war. I hate to say it, but we're all fascist appeasers. You heard it here first.

Doesnt America have freedom of speech? SO basically the world is fascist just because we disagree?

[rotorgun]

Lemur you are my hero of the day! That picture of good ole' smilin' Donald just says it all IMHO. This picture comes to mind every time he opens his pie-hole about how we needed to invade Iraq to oust his ole' buddy Saddam. He is the penultimate beaurocratic, sycophantic, hypocritical stooge of the Republican party that has ever existed. He has been hanging on to the coatails of Republican politicoes since the days of Nixon, for God's sake. I have never wanted to punch the lights out of a Secretary of Defense before, until he came along.

Pheww! Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.

[KafirChobee]

Lemur you are my hero of the day! That picture of good ole' smilin' Donald just says it all IMHO. This picture comes to mind every time he opens his pie-hole about how we needed to invade Iraq to oust his ole' buddy Saddam. He is the penultimate beaurocratic, sycophantic, hypocritical stooge of the Republican party that has ever existed. He has been hanging on to the coatails of Republican politicoes since the days of Nixon, for God's sake. I have never wanted to punch the lights out of a Secretary of Defense before, until he came along.

Pheww! Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest.

At times even I have such visions of reason, and can acknowledge we (the US) have a moron running our DoD.

Having said that, it is rather honorable (to say nothing og gullable) for our President to continue to support a Nixon appointee. Rummy.

The USA is within a nats-ass of having a military coupe, but no one realises it. Why? The loyalty of the generals that haven't been fired. Er, can someone tell Donny and George that all these men served together as Lt's and as boys? Even the fired ones.

Rummy needs to say bye-bye. Bush needs to be the one to tell him (not that the dickless whimp ever could). But the reality is, Rummy needs to go. So does Dick, but that's another story.

Not since Kennedy have the Generals been so angry as to consider .... assassination, or stepping in to "correct things". The Gens really wanted that air-support for Cuba (as tho it would have mattered), and held a grudge because of its denial - some anyway). Today, it is more a matter that civilian rule, versus military dictum dictates the conduct of conflict (war).

The wisest Presidents have basically said, "Point the direction the army needs to take, and allow the generals to solve the problems - resolve how it [the mission] is to be accomplished. After all, why else do we need Generals?".

Regardless, the GOP and the present Lame-duck administration seem convinced that by creating new terminology - "Fascis-Islamic" - that the average American in the Dakotas, Indiana, Mo, Ks, etc. doesn't comprehend the meaning - but accepts the import of the message (Nazis) .... then it is job well done. Face it, the GOP truely believes Americans are idiots. Twist a word, change a phrase, exagerate an item, lie about a persons military service record (regardless of good = McCain, or bad = GWB), or accuse a war hero of cheating (on how he became one = Kerry, JFK, etc).

We live in an era of mysticysm. We live in a time where the errosion of liberties seems some how justified - for some.

Personally, anyone stupid enough to still believe the BS coming out of Donny's mouth, needs to be return to the remidial Nixon GOP acceptance class - they missed the lesson about how to properly eat S__t. Had their parents been aware that the child could'nt think - I am sure they would have put it on a rock to weather the elements. Maybe not. After all, if a kid can swallow the the crap the GOP parents have, it must be a pat on the head and and extention of time to listen to Limpballs.

As for appeasement.
Me? Chamberland did what his nation wanted him to. Were he to have done other, or been confrontational? Look at the whole of situation ..... The Brits as a whole would not have been happy (the world applauded his acheivement). After all, they just wanted to live in peace. Something Rummy can't quite grasp since now he has the power to send 10s of thousands of American boys into harms way with the wave of his hand. Chamberland, got duped - it happens to the best of us. Rummy? Well, he's an idiot that any President that actually had control of his government would have asked to resign years ago. Bush, can't - because the people that control Rummy ... control him. Chamberlain did his job, he made an attempt to preserve world peace - unfortunately he was dealing with a madman.

[Lemur]

The known hotbed of liberal appeasement elite cut-and-run leftist communism, The Financial Times, has commented on Rumsfeld's reasoning:

It may be unfashionable to acknowledge this, but Mr Rumsfeld is making one valid and important point. There should be no moral confusion about who is responsible for the heartbreaking violence in Iraq. It is not the American army that is planting car bombs in markets. Some of the most ardent critics of the Iraq war are in danger of almost welcoming further bad news as an opportunity to say "I told you so". They should recognise that it is still overwhelmingly in the interests of those who want a freer and more peaceful Middle East that the Americans and their allies succeed in stabilising Iraq.

The trouble is that while some of Mr Rumsfeld's more ardent critics may be guilty of "moral confusion", the US defence secretary himself gives every sign of intellectual confusion. To call Iraqi insurgents and Islamist terrorists "fascists" and to accuse opponents of the war of "appeasement" may be a useful rhetorical device in the run-up to the American mid-term elections. But it also suggests that the Bush administration is still falling back on tired intellectual categories drawn from the 1930s, rather than thinking seriously and creatively about the new challenges it is facing.

Worse, the Bush administration is sowing further confusion by equating today's war with the struggle against Nazism - and then resisting any suggestion that victory may require higher taxes or more troops. Such a rhetorical mismatch inevitably feeds growing domestic cynicism and disillusionment with the war.

In the coming weeks Mr Bush is expected to make a series of speeches that will seek to rally support for the war in Iraq. He will need to go beyond Mr Rumsfeld's angry denunciation of critics of the war. Instead, the president must lay out a frank and calm analysis of what has gone wrong in Iraq and state clearly what he thinks is now required to help that tortured country to achieve stability. If that means more troops and more money, Mr Bush should say so. For without a convincing and honest analysis of the current situation, he may find that the domestic demand for a rapid American withdrawal from Iraq becomes unstoppable.

Or, as Otto von Bismarck so memorably said, "People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election."

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Or, as Otto von Bismarck so memorably said, "People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election."

hah, that gets Rumsfield on two counts then. And Dick Cheney on three

[Xiahou]

The known hotbed of liberal appeasement elite cut-and-run leftist communism, The Financial Times, has commented on Rumsfeld's reasoning:

[indent]It may be unfashionable to acknowledge this, but Mr Rumsfeld is making one valid and important point. There should be no moral confusion about who is responsible for the heartbreaking violence in Iraq. It is not the American army that is planting car bombs in markets. Some of the most ardent critics of the Iraq war are in danger of almost welcoming further bad news as an opportunity to say "I told you so". They should recognise that it is still overwhelmingly in the interests of those who want a freer and more peaceful Middle East that the Americans and their allies succeed in stabilising Iraq.

I would've bolded that part myself.

To call Iraqi insurgents and Islamist terrorists "fascists" and to accuse opponents of the war of "appeasement" may be a useful rhetorical device in the run-up to the American mid-term elections. But it also suggests that the Bush administration is still falling back on tired intellectual categories drawn from the 1930s, rather than thinking seriously and creatively about the new challenges it is facing.

Umm, I dont get it... they are fascists arent they? Let's look to Webster's:

facsism: 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Sounds pretty close to their stated goals to me.

I also think it's much more contentious, but it certainly is arguable that opponents of the war tend towards 'appeasement' or 'defeatism'. It's important to distinguish between critics of how the war in Iraq is being handled- but it's totally unproductive to run around screaming about how we never should've gone... We're there now- it's too late. Further, the idea that we should pull out now is pretty much, by definition, defeatist is it not? So, if that's someone's actual position, why cry foul whenever someone calls you on what your advocating?