The Left becoming hysterical over Rumsfeld

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Little-Acorn, Aug 30, 2006.

  1. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Gold Member

    Jun 20, 2006
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    San Diego, CA
    I've seen a number of notes from various leftists insisting that "Rumsfeld has really lost it", and similar sentiments. Nothing new about that, they've said the same about nearly every Republican in power since the Democrats were kicked out of most majorities in 1994. But recently the tide of hysteria seems to be swelling, with no real indication of why the leftists were so upset this time.

    An article excertped from the Wall Street Journal Online does a lot to clear up the mystery. Rumsfeld evidently made a speech the other day, holding up the rhetoric and tactics of the Left and pointing out how weird and nutty the tactics were. He didn't even identify what side was supporting those tactics, or make any partisan references at all, but merely described the tactics themselves, leaving the rest as an exercise for the common sense of the listener.

    No wonder the Left is apoplectic. They ran out of ideas years ago, and now their entire agenda depends on people NOT realizing how silly they have become.


    From "Best of the Web" by James Taranto

    Does Reid Favor Appeasement?

    Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid yesterday lashed out at Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

    *** QUOTE ***

    Secretary Rumsfeld's reckless comments show why America is not as safe as it can or should be five years after 9/11. The Bush White House is more interested in lashing out at its political enemies and distracting from its failures than it is in winning the War on Terror and in bringing an end to the war in Iraq.

    If there's one person who has failed to learn the lessons of history it's Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld ignored military experts when he rushed to war without enough troops, without sufficient body armor, and without a plan to succeed. Under this Administration's watch, terror attacks have increased, Iraq has fallen into civil war, and our military has been stretched thin.

    We have a choice to make today. Do we trust Secretary Rumsfeld to make the right decisions to keep us safe after he has been so consistently wrong since the start of the Iraq War? Or, do we change course in Iraq and put in place new leadership that will put the safety of the American people ahead of partisan games? For the sake of the safety of this country, it is time to make a change.

    *** END QUOTE ***

    The obvious point to make is that Reid is being partisan too, but it turns out that isn't quite right. If you look at Rumsfeld's speech , it turns out that the secretary isn't being partisan at all:

    *** QUOTE ***

    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!

    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. . . .

    But this is still--even 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 were 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 distortions being told about our troops and about 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."

    *** END QUOTE ***

    Rumsfeld says nothing about the administration's "political enemies." He does not mention the Democrats, and the only American politician to whom he so much as alludes is a long-dead Republican, Sen. William Borah. He does criticize the media (specifically Newsweek and CNN) and Amnesty International for anti-American calumnies, and he takes vigorous issue with the mindset that, as he puts it, "somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."

    Tellingly, Reid raises no objections to the substance of Rumsfeld's speech. It may be that he agrees with everything the secretary says and is merely playing politics with terrorism. That is the charitable interpretation of his comments. The uncharitable one is that the man who hopes to lead a legislative majority actually disagrees with what Rumsfeld says--in other words, that Harry Reid believes terrorists can be appeased.

    * Note: Rumsfeld errs in attributing this admission to "the former CNN Baghdad bureau chief"; in fact, it was Eason Jordan, then CNN's chief news executive, as we noted in April 2003 .
    Jane Arraf, CNN's former Baghdad bureau chief, has told us emphatically that she was not a party to Jordan's suppression of news.

    (Full text of the articles can be read at the above URLs)
  2. ScreamingEagle

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Jul 5, 2004
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Here's a more recent article.
    Some things that Rumsfield said that got the libs all upset:

    the world faces "a new type of fascism."

    administration critics suffered from "moral confusion," (that's putting it mildly :D )

    "was apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons."

Share This Page