A disgraceful speech

Reading this, I couldn't help thinking that Demon Rumsfeld and his associates are the kind of folks of whom Dr. Johnson spoke: "Sir, truth is a cow that will yield these people no milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull.">

I agree. To answer one of his questions: Abu Grhaib is infinitely more important in understanding what is happening then Paul Ray Smith is (everyone read Fiasco). That is the reason for all of the attention Mr. Rumsfeld.

On another note, I really admire the Israelis for holding their leadership accountable for its mistakes. I don t hear nationalist propaganda about supporting Hezbollah when Ehud Olmert's mistakes are pointed out. I wish it were the same here.>

Steve, I'm sure you didn't mean to disparage Paul Ray Smith. I would have made the point this way: Gallantry among American fighting men and women is the rule; atrocities committed by them are aberrations. In this life, the aberrations get more ink than the rule. Unfair, no doubt--but that's the way things are. And if there's a silver lining, it's this: the more the aberrations are exposed and condemned, the fewer of them there will be.>

Rod,

You are an intelligent man. I'm sure you can see the difference between "don't print anything bad about America" and "don't slant media coverage so that it is disproportionately unfavorable to American troops." There is a significant difference.

You are probably more familiar with the examples he cited than me, and I would welcome any necessary correction of his citations. However, here are a few things I noticed.

-He cited a senator who learned Hitler had invaded Poland, then said "Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." I thought immediately of Jimmy Carter's recent "contributions" to diplomatic discourse. We can debate whether Rumsfeld should have used a Hitler reference, but it should be noted they have been fairly common in Democratic and blog circles (including Swami on this site not too long ago).

-He referred to a database search returning 10x as many mentions of a soldier punished for misconduct than for the 1st Medal of Honor recipient in the current conflict. The difference is statistically significant.

-He cited a sr. editor referring to our "mercenary army."

-He referred to the CNN official concealing reports of Saddam's crimes.

-He referred to Amnesty International's calling Guantanamo a "gulag."

-He reacted against a "Blame America First" sentiment.

-He referred to the American Legion's activity around the Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian, which (according to this speech) was significant in preventing the U.S. as being depicted as the "aggressor" in WWII.

Sorry for the lengthy post, but my point is that I think you mischaracterized his speech. As far as people being disconnected with reality... I think that's the Lamont crowd. Just my opinion.>

I'm with your critics on this one Rod. You're seeing yourself and people like yourself as the target of Rumsfeld's speech- which is of course not the case. So he's addressing a straw man from your perspective.

But let's not forget how many people opposed Afghanistan. There is a significant contingent who do represent the opposition Rumsfeld describes- and he's entitled to take them as his opposition, and not his most intelligent and nuanced opponents.>

I'll let an Iraqi woman speak for me: It's like Baghdad is no longer one city, it's a dozen different smaller cities each infected with its own form of violence. It's gotten so that I dread sleeping because the morning always brings so much bad news. The television shows the images and the radio stations broadcast it. The newspapers show images of corpses and angry words jump out at you from their pages, "civil war death killing bombing rape "

Rape. The latest of American atrocities. Though it's not really the latest- it's just the one that's being publicized the most. The poor girl Abeer was neither the first to be raped by American troops, nor will she be the last. The only reason this rape was brought to light and publicized is that her whole immediate family were killed along with her. Rape is a taboo subject in Iraq. Families don't report rapes here, they avenge them. We've been hearing whisperings about rapes in American-controlled prisons and during sieges of towns like Haditha and Samarra for the last three years. The naivet of Americans who can't believe their 'heroes' are committing such atrocities is ridiculous. Who ever heard of an occupying army committing rape??? You raped the country, why not the people?
July 11, 2006
">http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/>

The Republican take: maybe disgraceful, but effective.


"THE DEMS TAKE THE BAIT [Rich Lowry]
"Democrats are being monumentally stupid in taking the bait of Rumsfeld's speech. It would have been much better to ignore it on grounds that Rumsfeld said things everyone agrees with we're dealing with a totalitarian threat that can't be appeased and whose evil there should be absolutely no confusion about. Democrats would be shrewd not to appear to contest any of that, and keep the argument about how well the war in Iraq is going. But they can't help themselves if someone says the word "appease," Democrats reflexively leap to protest too much. Part of what's at play here is the mis-applied lesson of the Swift Boat episode respond to everything. But sometimes it makes no sense to respond. Administration officials are delighted, just delighted with the Democratic response and the debate is going so well that the GOP Senate leadership, after waiting 24 hours to see how it would play, is apparently going to weigh in sometime soon here."
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTBmMzY1NWVkZGEwMTllZmMyNmU0NWNmNGJiZGI1MmE=



It's not clear to me why stuff like this from Harry Reid helps the GOP, but what do I know, they've won a lot of elections lately.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009583.php
Reid: "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.">

But they don't have a hope in hell of electing anyone anywhere. Something like 10% of the population claims to be athiest, and maybe 10% claims to receive daily personal messages from God; but who cares, they can't run on that platform and win squat.

Rumsfeld can't engage substantive criticisms, only fight straw men. If the administration really thinks that we're in WWIII, or IV, why don't they try to get widespread public support, instead of ginning up imaginary domestic foes to dump spite on? Maybe The War on Islam-o-fascism is more useful as a GOP vote-getter than a strategy.>

Gabriel-- did you post twice to make fun of me? If so, that is awesome, and a good joke. If not, sorry that you too are having comp troubles.

I'll back Rod up on the "disgraceful" tag for this speech. Domestic support for this war is cratering. Criticizing marginal foes as a way to rally the base for the midterm elections is unstatesmanlike and disgraceful. It raises the possibility that the War in Iraq is, to its architects, the continuation of domestic politics by other means.>

Aw geez. I've never used that term ("theocrat") in my life; please let's keep to the debate at hand and not cast this discussion into the oblivion of The Left vs. The Right. ("If you aren't on my side on the 2 or 3 issues that I care most about, everything you think is stupid!")

Rumsfeld's quote doesn't illustrate anything about what he says about his opponents; he's saying in that quote that Americans will overcome their false consciousness and come to believe the same stuff that he does.>

Who in this country, other than the Chomsky-Kos-Sheehan crowd, really believes that America is the real source of the world's trouble?

That "crowd" defeated a sitting senator and a recent veep nominee in a party primary.

I agree with Gabriel -- Rumsfeld is not talking about conservative critics of the war like yourself, Rod. But the people he is talking about are very far from a straw man, and they have pretty much become the veto-wielding base of one of the two major parties.

For example, Rod, you ask ... "Which serious person in American public life is proposing negotiating a separate peace with terrorists?"


Jesse Jackson (from CNN transcript of The Situation Room, this afternoon):
"JACKSON: I remember many years ago when Khrushchev was beating his shoe on the table, saying, "We'll bury the U.S." We didn't stop talking with Russia, because we know no talk gets no results. And so I would say that we have too few friends and too many interests here. And not talking with Iran, and Syria, and Hezbollah, and Hamas leaves us very vulnerable."


Ned Lamont, from his primary-night victory speech:
"Our country is stronger, our nation is stronger, our nation is more secure when we reach out and work with allies, we work with our friends and we negotiate with our enemies. >

"But the people he is talking about are very far from a straw man, and they have pretty much become the veto-wielding base of one of the two major parties."

Come on now...you don't really believe this, do you? Just who are these supposed "appeasers" of "Islamo-fascism?" Please explain to me how suggesting "we negotiate with our enemies" makes one an "appeaser?" That's patently absurd. Was President Reagan an "appeaser" when he negotiated arms deals with the Soviets?

Further, how can you conclude that one primary election proves that a "veto-wielding base" controls the Democratic party? The vast majority of democrats do not support a timetable to remove the troops from Iraq. If what you were saying was true then every sitting democrat would have been defeated in their primary election, which of course didn't happen.

"Rumsfeld is not talking about conservative critics of the war like yourself, Rod."

Of course he was. This is standard operating procedure for these folks. This the same administration that smeared McCain and Kerry (two actual war veterans as opposed to current "commander in chief").>

This the same administration that smeared McCain and Kerry (two actual war veterans as opposed to current "commander in chief").

Until you resorted to the "chickenhawk" claim, you almost had me willing to respond to you.>

"Who is still persuaded by stuff like this? Anybody?"

Apparently. Emmett Tyrrell defends it vigorously: ">http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/EmmettTyrrell/2006/08/31/the_rumsfeld_horripilation>

Rumsfeld's points are filled with misleading, factual inaccuracies (to use the charitable term). His points cannot stand but in a contextual vacuum.

He refers to Guantanamo Bay as the "most scrutinized detention facility in the history of warfare". That's patently false, in fact the Red Cross has been denied visitation guaranteed under Geneva.

He asserts that Guantanamo "holds terrorists who have vowed to kill Americans", which may have some basis, but he asks us to trust and NOT verify. The assertion is unsubstantiated by anything other than closed military tribunals. Our own Supreme Court ruled that Gitmo prisoners were entitled to due process (which they have not received) and that Geneva applies there, both of which are important points -- they are bold refutations of administration policy which Rumsfeld helped to architect.

He criticizes Eason Jordan's claim that journalists were being deliberately targeted, and leaves out the discussions between Bush and Blair to target al Jazeera's HQ in allied Qatar (setting aside for a moment the unfortunate accidents that struck al Jazeera's Baghdad and Kabul bureaus.)

To examine the merits of Rumsfeld's data, is to find it rife with bias which serves the administration's political ambitions, but not the truth. The choices of data he uses (and that which he omits) is as hypocritical and disgraceful as the rest of his presentation.

He impugns the character of the majority of this country, for daring to dispute their premises and strategy in the war they started. The American people can be trusted to make the right decisions, if only they are given the truth and are not impeded in public debate. While the bloom has fallen off the rose of the administration's pre-war WMD threat claims over time (which is matched by the appropriate loss of public support, as the truth becomes evident and the administration's deceptions and manipulations become apparent)...here Rumsfeld makes clear his allergic reaction to honest debate.

Par Rumsfeld, he is quick to ask and answer his own questions...questions which hardly anyone else is asking.

After being so wrong on so many important matters -- WMD, troop levels, duration and costs, scope and outcome, a dearth of occupation planning and resources -- Rumsfeld has no credibility with which to lecture anyone. The central questions of our time are not those strawmen he poses. I suspect the real questions in fighting global terror and extremism start with examining the things the Bush Administration wishes to conceal from the public.

Only given the truth can the American people make the correct decisions as to how to face our enemies. Truth be told -- the Bush Administration has done more to impede and distract us from the fight against the 9/11 attackers than any critic could ever conceive.

Here's a central question: Where's Osama? Where's Zawahiri?

Here's another: What was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq?

And others: Will the US be establishing permanent bases there? Will the US leave if the sovereign government asks?

These are arguably far more important questions than focus group tested strawmen about "appeasing terrorists".

"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results." - Winston Churchill

...and the future of that strategy. An earnest man would be reticent after such miscalculations as Rumsfeld has made. But not Donald Rumsfeld. Such misplaced and unwarranted confidence can only be deemed unwavering arrogance, and America will be the better off for a sharp change in direction, and the restoration of checks and oversight.>

For Pete's sake, you're all like a bunch of product liability lawyers yelling and arguifying on the sloping decks of the Titanic. Not enough boats! reckless speed in an ice field! inadequate bulkheads! Gross and criminal neglegence! All good points, but the water's lapping at your spats. And mine.
Forgive me, but this carping doesn't get us anywhere.>

" agree with Gabriel -- Rumsfeld is not talking about conservative critics of the war like yourself, Rod"

So, it is okay for conservatives to be critical of the war, but not non-conservatives?

Is that your opinion?>

Verbose, great post. CSC, that's exactly who Rummy was talking to. I never listen to them, but I bet Hannity, Rush, and all of the other GOP talking heads haven't shut up about the "appeasers."
Armchair, I agree. It's too bad that Rummy couldn't have said anything of substance for us to discuss.>

Susan,

The "war on terror" is just a "ruse to gain control of the oil in the Middle East?"

Yeah, that's why just after the U.S. installed a provisional government in Iraq, they nationalized the oil companies and started sending profits back to the U.S. Wait a minute, they didn't do that. Hmmm....

If there is no "war on terror," how exactly do you describe the multiple bombings that have taken place around the world? Is it coincidental that Islamic jihadists have chosen to target civilians in multiple countries? Did Western countries somehow cause this, or bring it upon themselves?

Is it all just one great big conspiracy by evil Westerners? Don't think so.>

The Chamberlain/appeasement cliche

Screaming "appeasement" and endlessly comparing political opponents to Neville Chamberlian is not a serious, thoughtful argument, nor is it the basis for any sort of foreign policy. At best, it is an empty, cheap platitude so overused by those seeking war as to be impoverished of meaning. More often than not, though, it is worse than that; it is the disguised battlecry of those who want war for its own sake, and who want therefore to depict the attempt to resolve problems without more and more new wars as being irresponsible and weak.

This same mindset -- even, in some cases, the very same individuals -- now launching the "Chamberlain/appeasement" insult even viewed Ronald Reagan that way because he negotiated and signed treaties with the Soviets and tried to find ways to avoid constant wars. The Cold War didn't end with wars on the Soviets but with engagement of them and treaties with them, signed by the Neville Chamberlain of the 1980s, Ronald Reagan. Those who considered Reagan a Chamberlain appeaser back then were radicals and extremists (and were viewed as such). They still are extremists, but they also happen to be the ones guiding the dominant political party in our country and they don't just want to prolong the war in Iraq but want several new wars (at least). That ought to be the principal issue in this election.

CS,

I don't mean to be cryptic with you... and a better description would be cynical, but here goes.

The scuttlebutt is that we have exactly what they want, right now. The "political turmoil" is pretty mild by all accounts; how many heads have you seen or heard called for over the rising prices? Why is the only investigation currently going being conducted by the UK? Where is the outrage?

I feel outraged, but then I drive a 36mpg car. I'm not the one leaving $40 and $50 displayed on the pump.

Respectfully, it's your notion of control that I'm arguing about. The world would be up in arms if the US dictated the supply and delivery of the oil, which is what I think you mean by control, so they are using a "soft touch". We get exactly as much oil as we want and need. We are the only country in the world who doesn't have long lines and early closings at gasoline stations. Not since the embargo in the 70s have we even come close, and that experience certainly, IMO, has driven the "control" strategies in the US since then.

The next big test of this is Venezuela. The currently sell about 2/3 of their total oil production to the US. China is about to spend several billion to upgrade their production infrastructure, and you know it's not out of charity. When Chavez has it all in place, you'll see the true test of the US control strategy, and a clear indication of what it all means.

In the meantime, think about what I described. Do some reading. I think you'll learn a new level of outrage.>

Really, what difference does it make if they do it by proxy or directly. What difference does it make if they do it covertly or overtly. They just do it. Don't forget though, they do seem focused on Iran, though, more than Venezuela right now.>

Franklin,

Yes, we get the oil we need. So does anybody else who wants to pay for it (in $, infrastructure, etc.). It's hard to look at the world oil market (e.g., OPEC, Russia, Venezuela) and describe the U.S. as controlling it either directly or with a "soft touch." As for political turmoil, it was most intense after Katrina last summer, when numerous news stories hammered home the fact that gas prices were higher than ever, and some showed photos of gas stations with "arm" and "leg" displayed as prices.

As far as the "only country in the world" without "long lines and early closings" at gas stations, I think you may be overstating your case. Petrol is more affordable here than in many other places, and I'm sure there are many countries with long lines, early closures and fuel shortages. But every country besides the U.S.? Really?>

Well, okay. What's a bit of hyperbole between friends, eh? ;)

The control over oil is a market control, not a strategic one, and it has equal components profit, politics and brinksmanship. Does anyone truly believe that Saudi Arabia wasn't very uncomfortable watching both Gulf Wars, with the thought going something like: "there but for the grace of Allah go we."

There is a balance involved. We need to feed our oil addiction, and our suppliers need the income to stay in power. Extreme moves on either side will not only upset that balance, but lead to war, q.e.d. I don't have a well-constructed logical argument to support that, just a very strong gut feeling: in 3 to 5 years, after China's investments have shown fruit, Venezuela will become the next Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan, depending on the direction Chavez takes them. And the square off will be mainly between the US and China, with a potential for being as strong as any such event during the Cold War. Ever see or read about two strung-out junkies trying to rob the same store at the same time? That's my prediction, and the proof will be in the pudding.>