Rumsfeldian fantasy readily transparent...

[fastpat]

Yep, ole' Rummy is losing it, little by little, step by step, inch by inch.

Rumsfeld's fantasy easy to see through
By Leonard Pitts Jr.
Originally published September 3, 2006
On Dec. 7, 1941, Japan launched a sneak attack that devastated the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. And the United States rose in righteous fury, immediately declaring war on Thailand. Because, you know, it was in the same part of the world as Japan and the people kind of looked alike and besides, those Thais had been getting a little uppity and were due for a smackdown.

Which is not the way it happened, of course, but if Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld wants to use World War II allusions to describe the war on terror, I submit that my fantasy comes a lot closer to the truth than his. Mr. Rumsfeld's fantasy, if you missed it, was shared in a recent speech before the American Legion in Salt Lake City. There, the defense secretary said that critics of the war in Iraq - a designation that now includes most Americans - are like those who thought they could avoid fighting by negotiating with, or "appeasing," the Nazis in the days before World War II.

The war's critics - again, that's the majority of us - need to crack a history book, he thinks. "Once again, we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons."

Mr. Rumsfeld's rant was but the shrillest of several recent statements by members of the federal regime - Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the great and powerful President Bush himself - in defense of the war in Iraq. Which must mean - hold on, let me check my calendar - yep, there's an election coming.

The war on terror has, after all, been this gang's get-out-of-jail-free card for years. High gas prices, a hurricane fiasco, red ink, an overall patina of ineptness overtopped by arrogance, and it's all forgotten the moment they say "9/11." Small wonder they say it loudly now, with midterm elections looming and polls suggesting more Americans are seeing through the president like Saran Wrap.

Indeed, there was an interesting exchange between Mr. Bush and a reporter at a recent news conference. In the process of answering a question about Iraq, Mr. Bush reflexively invoked 9/11, leading the reporter to interrupt him.

"What did Iraq have to do with that?" the reporter asked.

"Nothing," Mr. Bush said irritably. The reporter somehow resisted saying, "Then why did you bring it up?"

Or maybe that's self-evident. After 9/11, the nation needed some Muslims to hit. And the Bush administration, already looking for a pretext to attack Iraq - which once plotted the assassination of Mr. Bush's father - gave us some.

Since then, the White House missed no opportunity to falsely conflate Iraq with the terror war. The most recent example came last month, when anti-war candidate Ned Lamont defeated Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Mr. Cheney said this rebuke of the war would embolden "al-Qaida types."

For the record: On Sept. 11, 2001, we were attacked by men directed from a terrorist base in Afghanistan. We quickly knocked over Afghanistan and just as quickly forgot about it, turning instead to the troublesome dictatorship the president just knew in his gut was behind the carnage. Now we find ourselves mired in a poorly defined, poorly designed mission in a nation that, with all due respect to the presidential gut, had no known connection to 9/11.

And with more than 22,000 U.S. casualties - meaning dead and injured - and thousands more dead Iraqis, the nation finally begins to question this pig in a poke it has been sold. We're all for killing the terrorists. Heck, after you kill them, dig them up and kill them some more. But people are beginning to see that the only terrorism in Iraq is that which we, by our presence, have helped create.

Donald Rumsfeld calls that kind of talk appeasement. I call it understanding.

And the bad news for the secretary is, it's spreading.

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for The Miami Herald. His column appears Sundays in The Sun. His e-mail is lpitts@miamiherald.com.
The article

[fastpat]

Showing the distance the Bush'ists have slipped into fantasyland, here's more.
Bush's Salt Lake Whoppers

[techweenie]

Rummy says the Iranians will 'greet us as liberators.' Faux News says he hasn't been wrong yet!

[Moneyguy1]

There is fascism and then there is Fascism.

Sometimes, with the close alliance between government and corporations here, it is difficult to see the difference.

Once again, the fear mongering is out there, doing its best to scare the public. All one has to do re: fascism is to acquaint themselves with Germany in the late 20s and early 30s to see how it begins. (1) Find a scapegoat group and blame them for all the Country's ills (2) enact laws that reduce individual freedom, claiming the need for fighting terrorism (3) create an atmosphere of fear, hatred and mistrust for anything outside. (4) declare anyone not in step with the government is a traitor (5) emphasize patriotism as the antithesis of dissent.

The words of FDR come to mind and are more relevant today than they were in the 30s.

Not to mention George Orwell........

War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength

[74-911]

Leonard Pitts is absolutely the best syndicated columnist there is for cutting through the spin, hype and BS coming from our fearless leaders and telling it like it really is in plain easy to understand english.

[fastpat]

More on the American Legion Speeches.

The American Legion Speeches -- Preaching, Pondering and Predicting

by Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., Lt. Col. USAF (ret.)


Last week, the administration addressed the 88th annual national convention of the American Legion. Rumsfeld spoke on the 29th of August, and Bush swept up on the 31st preaching the gospel of ongoing and future military operations.

The American Legion is a busy organization of three million, with a full-time staff of 300, split between the heartland in Indianapolis and K Street, Washington, D.C. It is a solid Bush organization, and a convention in the capital of the reddest of Red States, should have been guaranteed to be hospitable to Bush. Pay no attention to the large anti-Bush rallies there and the anti-war speech given by SLC Mayor Rocky Anderson that week.

Several years ago, the American Legion's monthly magazine featured an article entitled “The Principled Vice President Cheney.' By 2006, Americans and several billion other people around the world understood very well that Cheney had lied about the planning and motivations for the American invasion of Iraq. Most were also appalled that Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby was

indicted for lying to a grand jury on a national security case in 2005.

But members of the American Legion read the papers, and they do honestly care about national security, so the President rose to the challenge and laid it on thickly in his address. He described past, present and future wars in a glorious manner.

On past wars, Bush told the Legion that Afghanistan is newly democratic, and “… the future of Afghanistan belongs to freedom.' How nice for the Afghans, I'm sure. Pay no attention to the headlines in American newspapers speaking of the resurgence of both the Taliban and al Qaeda or the words of Bush's own government bemoaning an explosion in the production of opium in Afghanistan “despite hundreds of millions of [U.S.] dollars spent to reduce the opium.' And pay no attention to the continued fighting there.

On current wars, Bush told the Legion that Saddam Hussein is in jail, and the Iraqi people have their “sovereignty.' How nice for the Iraqis, I'm sure. He said, “America has a clear strategy to help the Iraqi people protect their new freedom, and build a democracy that can govern itself, and sustain itself, and defend itself.' Bush reported that he has been told, “only a small number of Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence.' Pay no attention to the monthly Iraqi death count of between 1000 and 2000 dead civilians, or to the Pentagon's latest report that warns “Iraq on the brink of civil war.' .

On future wars, Bush told the Legion that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, is led by a radical regime, and is seeking nuclear weapons. Bush told the Legionnaires that Iran has to make a choice, and we have already made ours. Presumably this is the same deal we gave Saddam Hussein, although it remains to be seen on whether Bush can pull off another such military fiasco in Iran in the time he has left.

Bush's speech in Utah, suggestively subtitled, “Winning the Struggle Between Freedom and Terror in the Middle East,' was in fact all about failure. He spoke of past wars (failed and not over in Afghanistan), current wars (not only failing in Iraq, but spiraling into a hated occupation, perhaps civil war, and a certain cancer on the world's oil supply), and future wars (not planned, of course – not even the bullish-on-war Mr. Bush wants to be accused of planning something as stupid as preemptively bombing or invading Iran).

Yet even the crowd of patriotic veterans associated with the American Legion and its publications could see that. Even they can think. And because they can see, and because they can think, we may better understand Rumsfeld's speech, given a few days earlier to the same crowd.

This infamous Rumsfeld speechhas already produced Pentagon “explanations' and backpedaling. For me, one of his most problematic statements, in a speech filled with problematic statements is this one, where Rumsfeld warns that in long wars or struggles,

“…any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.'

In this case, Rumsfeld gets it exactly and precisely wrong. Let's summarize: Using dubious information and a whole lot of propaganda, we launched the destructive power of the world's most expensive and deadliest military on extremely weak fourth rate Middle Eastern countries of narrowly perceived strategic value in the name of promoting “democracy.' If we question this situation on moral, ethical, logical (when they vote freely, aren't we the ones who get voted off the island first?), strategic or constitutional grounds, according to Rumsfeld, we are ourselves the enemies of “freedom.'

But Bush and Rumsfeld are right about one thing. They believe that if Americans think about and assess the Bush administration wars – overseas and at home on the Constitution – Americans will cease any remaining support for continued military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and potentially Iran. Rumsfeld and Bush believe that if we think, we will oppose their proposed military spending on same, and we will vote against politicians who have advocated such immoral, illegal, illogical, counter-strategic, and unconstitutional policies.

The Bush administration fears a true American legion – that growing multitude of thinking people who love this country and hate what Bush's foreign policy and domestic abuses are doing to it. This is why Rummy needed to chide, to threaten, and to name-call in a crowd of reliable and erstwhile supporters. Even in Salt Lake City, at an American Legion convention, people are increasingly morally or intellectually confused about what the Bush administration is doing around the world, and at home.

Last weeks' speeches indicate that Bush and Rumsfeld both know that if Americans become clear headed and logical, the Bush cabal loses and the party ends. Boldly unhampered by truth and increasingly menacing in tone, their words reveal panic and political desperation.

My prediction is neither earth-shattering nor genius. But between now and the November elections, every opportunity to cause American emotion to trump American intellect will be seized, squeezed and sustained by this administration and its handmaidens


© 04 Sep 2006 Karen Kwiatkowski
http://militaryweek.com/columns/withoutreservation.php?id=46

[Rodeo]

Who gave this two stars?

We might not like the truth, but if the last 6 years under Dubya have taught us anything, we ignore it at our peril.