Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Donald Rumsfeld: Historically and linguistically challenged.

Several sources on the web have already pointed out the ridiculousness of Bush labeling whoever it is we are battling with as “Islamofascists”. Rumsfeld picks up the beat from the Preznit.

From the Washington Post:

“Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the world faces "a new type of fascism" and likened critics of the Bush administration's war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis in the 1930s.

“In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security. His remarks amounted to one of his most pointed defenses of President Bush' war policies and was among his toughest attacks on Bush's critics.

“Speaking to several thousand veterans at the American Legion's national convention, Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failure to confront Hitler. He quoted Winston Churchill as observing that trying to accommodate Hitler was "a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last."

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

"Can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America _ not the enemy _ is the real source of the world's troubles?"”

Where to start? First off, here is what I have as a definition of fascism:

Fascism: a system of government practiced by Benito Mussolini in Italy between 1922 and 1943 that was characterized by dictatorship, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of opposition, and extreme nationalism.

I would like someone to explain to me just how are the terrorists of all stripes and persuasions around the world today anything like a fascist government? First off, most of them aren’t associated with a government at all. I could hardly characterize all the various groups whom Bush has labeled as the terrorists who hate freedom as a dictatorship, or have a centralized control of private enterprise. That is a loony characterization. In fact, except for the bit about centralized control of private enterprise, I would say that this description fits exactly what the Republican party is trying to set up in the United States. Exactly. And throw in charismatic leader who can do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters and a bit of a police state with illegal wiretaps, surveillance on anyone who disagrees with the party in control, and downright intimidation of protestors, the press, etc., I would say that we have the makings of a very nice little fascist state here right at home.

Of course, the whole bit is to use that scary, frightening, emotional language that gets the Republican core support group all riled up. “Those evil Democrats, they’re actually appeasing the enemy, just like in World War II, which was, as we all know, was a very good war and we were on the side of righteousness and goodness and apple pie and the Ford Motor Company. We are now fighting the modern day Hitler, so the Democrats, in opposing our efforts to confront Pure Evil Incarnate, are misguided at best but more likely just plain traitors and terrorists themselves! It’s all the Democrats fault!”

Except, of course, it isn’t that way at all. I haven’t heard anyone wanted to “appease” anyone. Mostly Democrats are asking, “Hey, Bush, what happened to that Osama Bin Laden guy? You know, the one that WAS responsible for the attacks on 9/11? The one that you said that you “don’t think about much”?” That’s what I hear a lot of Democrats saying. I have never heard one word about appeasement.

What I am hearing is that people are finally figuring out that the war in Iraq never had anything to do with Bin Laden, and was just some testosterone-fueled wet dream by Bush and his cabal of Neo-Cons. I hear people saying that we should get out now, because there isn’t any good that is going to come out of this if we stay or if we go, and it’s going to be a whole lot easier on this country in so many ways if we aren’t there in a year’s time.

For starters, one billion dollars a week is what this war is costing us. That’s “Billion” with a B. For however long Bush decides we should be there. No wonder we are having to borrow money from China to finance this fiasco. Over 2500 of our brave troops have died for this farce, and tens of thousands are injured. Many who have escaped death and severe injury are facing severe emotional scares and the destruction of their personal lives by a fourth and fifth deployment. All because Bush and his band of Merry Warmongers had it in for Saddam, but were too cheap to do it the way it needed to be done. No, it was much better in their mind to plan for success, no matter how outrageous the premise, and not have any contingency plans for when anything went any different than their grandiose plan of transforming the world in our own image called for.


Rumsfeld deserves to be buried up to his neck in a nest of fire ants for however many years that the U.S. is ultimately involved in Iraq. And that would be letting him off lightly. And if we aren’t careful, the U.S. is going to end up just like Russia, an ex-superpower with lots and lots of internal problems, lots of nuclear weapons laying around, and a huge nationalistic chip on our shoulder, and China is going to be the new World Power, all financed courtesy of the American taxpayer.

No comments: