http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210989,00.html

Rumsfeld: Bush Critics Trying to Appease 'New Type of Fascism'

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah — 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.

In remarks to several thousand veterans at the American Legion's national convention, Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failed efforts to appease the Adolf Hitler regime in the 1930s.

"I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism," he said.

Rumsfeld spoke to the American Legion as part of a coordinated White House strategy, in advance of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, to take the offensive against administration critics at a time of doubt about the future of Iraq and growing calls to withdraw U.S. troops.

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.

He said, for example, that more media attention was given to U.S. soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib than to the fact that Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith received the Medal of Honor.

"Can we truly afford to believe somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?" he asked.

"Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and lies and distortions being told about our troops and about our country," he added.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was addressing the American Legion convention later Tuesday, and President Bush is scheduled to speak here later in the week. On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld made separate addresses to the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Reno, Nev.

Rumsfeld made similar arguments in Reno about doubters of the administration's approach to fighting terrorism, saying too many in this country want to "blame America first" and ignore the enemy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

the bolded is my favorite, because, you know, rumsfeld and the people who make up the bush administration aren't extremists or anything, you know?

Doesn't surprise me considering how much criticism that they've been receiving lately

Well, he likes to kill people, so of course he'll be upset if someone tries to resolve problems without going to war.

Rumsfeld: Bush Critics Trying to Appease 'New Type of Fascism'

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah — 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."

Rumsfeld went on to state "And folks we just can't have that; there's only enough room in this world for old facists like me"



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.


"Can we truly afford to believe somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?" he asked.


God this shit pisses me off. Who the fuck ever said anything about appeasing terrorists? Find me one politician, hell one citizen, in this country that has said, "you know, I say fuck it, let's just let the terrorists take us over" The arguement against the Bushies and the entire Iraq misadventure isn't that we should appease terrorists, its that we picked the most irresponsible way possible to address the problem. Here's a hypothetical; I hope everyone reading this does realize that we've always been fighting a war against terrorism, right? I mean since the founding of our country we've always been fighting a war against terrorism. Except until these current mouth breathers got in office we just called it maintaining national fucking security. The war on terrorism has been packaged and sold to you as an idea to keep you in fear and ignorance. Rumsfeld can suck my fucking balls.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

I screwed up the quote function, hopefully the above post is readable...

Nice. It would be nice if the Bush administration and those that support the war would come out and be more aggressive and assertive about their positions. It's nice to see someone at least explain their positions and try and outline why victory is important. So good on Rumsfeld.



Actually, I can find a number of people who have said, "The Iraqi people don't want it, they're animals, let's get out of there."



I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to defend this a little better. Furthermore, if that's indeed what national security has been since the beginning of this nation, then we did a pretty shitty job of it in the 90's.



No actually, dropping alcohol and cocaine, and being born again doesn't make you an extremist in the slightest sense.

You are off your rocker.

I think the best part about this, is that you guys have absolutely positively NO RETORT to what Rumsfeld said. He's spot on with everything he said and how he labeled you.

Despite how you may percieve it, diplomacy = appeasement. And that's exactly what you wanted.

Diplomacy = Proactive
War = Reactive

The irony to what Rumsfeld said, is that not only will those "vicious extremists" not be appeased, but by taking the stance he has, neither will the current administration. It's a completely arrogant, stubborn, and narrow minded vision of how to deal with the situation.

Yeah, those 12 years of diplomacy were certainly pro-active. Not only were they pro-active, but they were extremely effective at getting results.

That's great. Now go back and read my statement and see if you can actually answer the question.




I'm sorry, but you're gonna have to defend this a little better. Furthermore, if that's indeed what national security has been since the beginning of this nation, then we did a pretty shitty job of it in the 90's. - LW

I'll give you that there were lapses in the 90's; 1st WTC bombing, U.S.S. Cole, OK City. Their may be more that can be named. And by my understanding there have been slow degredations made eroding aspects of the CIA's and FBI's effectiveness since Bush Sr.'s term. But I don't see how you can deny that keeping terrorists or other renegade organizations from bringing harm to our country has not always been a function of gov't and that any so-called "war on terror" is nothing more than hyped up jingoism



Let me make two things abundantly clear. I have no sympathy for terrorists or any who wish harm upon our country. I don't count myself as one of the so-called appeasers that Rummy mentions in his rant. As a matter of fact, I don't think the "appeasers" he mentions even exist. Its more of the liberal boogeyman propaganda that these guys love to throw around. Along those same lines... I never mentioned diplomacy anywhere in any of my response. I don't advocate diplomacy with terrorist organizations. What I do advocate is choosing the right strategy to deal with a problem. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the best metaphor that I can think of for the Bush admin's approach to this whole deal is that it is akin to going to the dentist to get a cavity drilled and filled and instead of the dentist using precision tools to root out the small problem among the otherwise healthy set of teeth, he smacks you in the face with a Louisville Slugger repeatedly until the cavity tooth falls out and then says "All Better!"

Diplomacy, successful or not, does not have to lead to war. War is often a short sighted solution to a much longer term problem.

I'd say that's pretty close.



Well, what was the war against the Germans? The war against the Japanese? The war against the Korean's? The only difference is that now we are not fighting a specific government, we are fighting ideology.

So far as your last paragraph, that was a nice impression of John Kerry. You didn't address the issue at all. Metaphors don't count. You claim that you don't agree with appeasing terrorists, but then you just come up with a clever metaphor to bash something you disagree with instead of clearly stating what you believe in. Now throw me a bone here, I'm not accusing you of anything, but when you do something like that, it seems as though you believe in some form of "appeasement" but you're too afraid to come out and concisely state what you believe in.

So what do you believe in? No jingoistic metaphors. What is your solution. Take it step by step. WTC 1993 happens. What would you do in response to that? What about Oklahoma City? What about Kobar Towers? What about the USS Cole, and the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya? What would you do in response to 9-11 and what would you have done in regards to Iraq?

Why did we have to do anything in regards to Iraq?

I was wondering the same thing.

In regards to Iraq doing what?

Not worshiping the right god?

"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.

He said, for example, that more media attention was given to U.S. soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib than to the fact that Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith received the Medal of Honor.


Since when is the news media supposed to support the agenda of the state? This isn't China.

Anybody who is surprised or upset that the press jumps all over bad news needs to be slapped around.

Exactly.

I wouldn't. And I think the reason that we are disagreeing on this is that you equate the war in Iraq w/ the war on terror. I don't



[/quote]Well, what was the war against the Germans? The war against the Japanese? The war against the Korean's? The only difference is that now we are not fighting a specific government, we are fighting ideology.[/quote]

And since it is a different kind of enemy we are fighting, it makes a lot of sense to me that we would fight it in a way that is applicable to the task at hand. You are exactly right; we are engaged in a struggle that is completly different than any type of traditional combat we have experienced before. Yet we are attacking the situation with a traditional military response.

[/quote]So far as your last paragraph, that was a nice impression of John Kerry. You didn't address the issue at all. Metaphors don't count. You claim that you don't agree with appeasing terrorists, but then you just come up with a clever metaphor to bash something you disagree with instead of clearly stating what you believe in. Now throw me a bone here, I'm not accusing you of anything, but when you do something like that, it seems as though you believe in some form of "appeasement" but you're too afraid to come out and concisely state what you believe in.

So what do you believe in? No jingoistic metaphors. What is your solution. Take it step by step. WTC 1993 happens. What would you do in response to that? What about Oklahoma City? What about Kobar Towers? What about the USS Cole, and the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya? What would you do in response to 9-11 and what would you have done in regards to Iraq?[/quote]

I use metaphor to make the point that you if you have a problem, its usually best to address it with a corresponding solution as opposed to a haphazard one. You know what makes sense to me? You put the intelligence community into overdrive on this stuff. That's what they are there for. If they aren't getting it done, you find a way to get it done. Seems to have worked pretty well for the British a few weeks back. And you know what? Even with everything that the Intelligence community can do, they would never completely eradicate terrorism. This action in Iraq will never completely eradicate terrorism. That's because its not a perfect world we live in. But if you are fighting an enemy that lurks among the shadows and in the nooks and crannys of the world, doesn't it make sense to engage that enemy in a similar fashion, instead of rolling roughshod over an entire country with the full force of a millitary operation?

I know you don't like methaphor, but I think it applies; if you have a fly on your wall, do you hit it with a flyswatter or do you prefer to smack it with a sledgehammer? The flyswatter will almost definately kill the fly, because thats what it is designed for. The Sledge hammer, might kill the fly, because its not really what it is designed for, and if it does kill the fly, you are also going to be left with a big friggin hole in your wall to repair.





My quoting skills have escaped me... hopefully this can be read.

If you'd answer the first questions, you'd have the answers to why something needed to be done in Iraq.




Why did we go in roughshod and bowl over the Taliban in Afghanistan while trying to get at our enemy that was lurking in the nooks and cranny's of the world? That's why we went in roughshod and took out Iraq.



I'm sorry, but the Global War on Terrorism has so many facets to it that it's staggering to think about. It goes much farther than Iraq or even Afghanistan. Which leads us to the next point:



Since when is it supposed to completely undermine it? All Rumsfeld is saying that the media should at least have the integrity to lay it all out on the table in a fair and balanced fashion. Instead of only presenting negative aspects, the least they could do is present SOME of the positive aspects. Let's revert back to Ampson11 thinking that this war is only being fought in a traditional sense through brute military force. Why is that? That's because Ampson knows only what the media selectively CHOOSES to present to him. Thus, the media in this country has a huge influence on public opinion about this operation. The media has pretty much convinced a large portion of the populace that the only thing coming out of all of GWOT is dead soldiers and dead Iraqi's. And when there's the occassional attack in Afghanistan, it's suddenly convenient to report on Afghanistan. Everything positive that is done through humanitarian operations, through civil affairs projects is absolutely positively non-existant.

I'm sorry, but it's wrong, and it's dangerous. They're thinking of themselves, they're thinking about an agenda, and they're not thinking about what's right or the big picture...

When one of the worst government administrations in the history of the United States no longer listens to the will of the people.

There is a reason that the Bush administration has a hard time passing scrutiny. Often because their arguments and logic are so weak, that they cannot withstand debate. And so, the media not only has easy pickings, but they represent the peoples will (in certain cases) better than the governments.

I think that the administration is genuinely confused about who the enemy is at this point, which is fine by me because they're the ones trying to morally white-wash everything. Muslims? Bin Laden? Extremists? Terrorism? Iran? Hamas? Chavez? North Korea? France?

You couldn't even name it yourself.