Speaking to a crowd at the American Legion Convention in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, SECDEF made what would seem to most of us a set of fairly innocuous remarks on the nature of the war we’re in – even drawing some of the same historical analogies such as would be familiar to those who frequent the milblogs. But joining in the on-going scalp hunt, this is how the AP chose to frame those remarks:
Rumsfeld Lashes Out at Bush’s Critics
SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) – Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the world faces “a new type of fascism” and likened critics of the U.S. war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis.
In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the Bush 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 the president’s critics.
Pretty harsh, yah? Had several of the usual suspects issuing denunciations. Except that, looking over his remarks (the entire text can be found at the DOD Public Affairs website) it’s pretty clear that the AP’s characterization of the Secretary’s words picks a fight with an argument he doesn’t present. The relevant portions are excerpted below:
I would really like for our national defense to be above politics. I disliked Clinton intensely, but when he undertook military action, I most certainly wanted it (and him) to succeed.
It seems to me that the AP writers and their many liberal colleagues in the media have declared their own war on the Bush administration. They desperately long for a return of the Democrats to power. I think that they still fundamentally misunderstand the average American voter, who wants our government to take all of the necessary steps to protect him and his family from Islamic terrorists. The more that the media and the Democrats criticize Republicans for doing too much to defeat Islamofascism, the more that they harm their own partisan cause in November.
I think that they still fundamentally misunderstand the average American voter.”
I agree Kristen. What scares me however, is that maybe the MSM really does understand the average American voter. They know that every American really does, as you said, want our government to do everything conceivable to protect us. That all depends on one’s definition of “protection”, however, and the media seems to be working full time to convince voters that what President Bush is doing is actually placing us in more danger.
Just give the people a slew of choice stories, choice fauxtographs… maybe quote a speech by SECDEF out of context…
I’m afraid that, come November this year and again in ’08, the voting public might go to the polls actually believing that “If I vote the Republicans out of office, then the threat will go away.”
Not only that Lex, but they should have tried to understand what he said. Rummy framed how we’ve got to this state pretty well.
When the MSM write this pap, all they display are inflexible minds molded to lockstep dogma at US journalism schools. They are mere tools sent out to perpetuate the fairytale…I challenge them to think outside their limited boxes.
B2
Jeff,
I understand your concerns. When I look at the tidal wave of lies coming from most of the media, I start to worry that the public will believe them too. But we now have the internet and talk radio to offer balance, and the MSM isn’t able to perform the same gatekeeping function on information. And there’s one other thing: The American public actually does have some common sense. They don’t always or even usually elect the candidates supported by ABC and the New York Times. They do pay attention when their lives, and the lives of their children are on the line and national security is at stake. And they resoundingly support the United States military. I think (oh please God) we’ll do fine in November.
By the way, the word “fauxtograph” makes me laugh every time I see it. Too perfect.
I watched parts of his speech and while I will not comment on the media aspects, it seems to me that Rummy needs to go re-read some of history. To make a comparison of Iraq to the lead up to WWII is, to me, a stretch. Its a conclusion not very well supported by the historical data.
It does confirm though that there is always a tactic of questioning the patriotism of the critic anytime someone has the temerity to question whether it is in the national interest to be tied up for years and years trying to reform another sovereign nation’s government from “Islamo-fascism”.
If Rummy real wants to make a historical comparison of the current situation, I would advise him to move his timeline up a few years and take a hard look at 1956. That is the period that this current conflict is more analagous to.
You’re bucking the sine wave again Skippy…
If Joe Lieberman or well.. there has to be another Democrat..OK- Zell Miller, gave the same speech, outlining the same historical similarities..you’d say nothing or agree. Cmon, what he said has nothing to do with Iraq, by itself, per se.
But it was Rummy after all and you have R.D.S. You need a shot of Reality! It’s that clear stuff in front of the Courvoisier!
El B2
I think that run-up to WWII is very analogous to the current situation. When Germany invaded Austria in the late 30s the rest of Europe did nothing. The more Hitler menaced other parts of Europe the more he was met with.. inaction.
The situation is no different today. Fanatic Muslims riot, blow up subways and trains… and much of Europe tries to make nice.
*I realise that the pre-WWII years and the current situation in Iraq specifically may not be a valid comparison. I’m just trying to present the analogy in a broader sense.
Most of you all won’t like Obermann’s biting and insightful commentary, but for a “balanced” conclusion, it’s necessary:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/OlbermannBlastsRumsfeldOnFacism.wmv
I find it alarming to see the MSM, with its context-bending cherry-picking of quotes and fauxtography, sliding into the Michael Moore role of agenda-based jounalism.
The fact that those who agree with the agenda deny it’s occurring is equally alarming.
Good heavens, what an oddly constructed universe it must be that the physics admit the possibility that Olberman provides “balance” to any issue. The man’s an agenda-driven hack journalist, a low grade Bill Reilly of the left, whose only contributions to the national discourse are to grind out softcore pr0n for the nutroots.
You want balance, place the fulcrum under Rumsfeld’s actual remarks – read what he really said, and not what those who would attack him wish he might have said.
“The man?
“The man’s an agenda-driven hack journalist, a low grade Bill Reilly of the left, whose only contributions to the national discourse are to grind out softcore pr0n for the nutroots.”
That’s a keeper in terms of quotes.