One of the most powerful legislators on the planet is a fascist appeaser, and a flaming traitor in my opinion.
Posted on 08/31/2006 7:19:10 AM PDT by XR7
SALT LAKE CITY — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld compared critics of the Bush administration to those who sought to appease the Nazis before World War II, warning Tuesday that the United States is confronting "a new type of fascism."
Rumsfeld, speaking before the American Legion convention, delivered some of his most explicit and extended attacks yet on the administration's critics, provoking criticism from furious Democrats who accused him of "campaigning on fear."
By comparing U.S. foreign policy with World War II and the Cold War, Rumsfeld sought to portray skeptics of Bush's foreign policy as being on the wrong side of history. Rumsfeld again ridiculed U.S. officials who, before World War II, wished to negotiate with Adolf Hitler.
"I recount that history because, once again, we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism," Rumsfeld said. "But some seem not to have learned history's lessons."
He continued: "Can we truly afford to believe that, somehow or some way, vicious extremists could be appeased?"
His use of the word "appease" was particularly notable, clearly tying administration critics to the failed efforts of the pre-Churchill British government to mollify Hitler.
[snip]
"The struggle we are in is too important — the consequences too severe — to have the luxury of returning to the 'blame America first' mentality," Rumsfeld told the American Legion. "Can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world's troubles?"
[snip]
Rumsfeld's speech drew sharp complaints from Democrats.
"It's a political rant to cover up his incompetence," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
[snip]
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., renewed his call for Rumsfeld to be replaced.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
And the Commie appeasers that came after them.
Anyway, Rumsfeld's statement is so true.
At least Rummy has the guts to say it.
Rumsfeld/Bolton '08!!!
I'm THERE, anybody else?
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Rumsfeld says what so many Americans, even those who aren't hardcore Republicans, suspect, though they're afraid to really think about it. American's don't like to think such things, it's like calling someone a fascist. Some on the far left and right toss off such labels casually; most Americans don't. But Dems have to be taught that two can play the hateful rhetoric game, and if I had a dime for every dem who called Bush a Nazi I'd be rich.
That's right Rummy, time to take the gloves off and call a spade a spade.
As usual, Rumsfeld is right.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense then McCain, Guiliani, Hagel, and Frist
There, I said it too.
One of the most powerful legislators on the planet is a fascist appeaser, and a flaming traitor in my opinion.
Dream team...
… also a crook.
He killed the Patriot Act. (He thought) What a Looooooooser.
Works for me!
Rumsfeld is being overly generous again.
Compairing Bush critics to Nazi appeasers isn't nearly as harsh as compairing Bush to a Nazi, like the leftists love to do.
Isn't Bush the guy who brokered the UN deal that sold Israel down the river recently?
Who is the appeaser?
Their bumber sticker could be:
"Don't vote for Stupid"
Peace In Our Time
"One of the most powerful legislators on the planet is a fascist appeaser, and a flaming traitor in my opinion."
Go here for some more info on Reid's dealing in Nevada.
http://gsting.blogspot.com
Rummy has forced Reid into the bind of having to make statements of the form [Rummy is evil for accusing us of being cut and run appeasers]. Notice that Reid et. al. are forced to repeat the allegation that they are appeasers to defend themselves - but this only highlights that they are appeasers.
Obviously a devious ploy by that evil chimp's puppet master, Karl Rove.
I'd vote for Rumsfeld; he's NOT too old, he's brilliant, and the libs hate him...PERFECT MAN!
Oh yeah.....I'm there!
There is a very good blog about viral marketing here.....
http://abaraxas.blogspot.com/2006/02/viral-marketing-in-political-game.html#links
The demonRATS need to be stopped and Rummy is a great place to start.
"Can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?" he asked.
The answer to the question is yes. The Democrats want to talk to the terrorists. Or, think of the number 444.
Sound good to me to - Yes
There's an excellent analysis of the lying AP article here:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4496
I'll support that...rto
Rumsfeld/Bolton....count me in...if only in my dreams...
I think a lot of them are closer to NAZIs than to NAZI appeasers.
Maybe Rumsfield should be our next Commander in Chief.
 |
Just to be fair, first Rumsfield and Hillary should have a no-holds-barred octagon contest and the winner of that match should be our new Prez. |
Really! What did Jack Reed say about the liberal fascists who cut the eye out of a girl because she was a fan of AC/DC?
I guess Reed would say it was only an innocent protest against consevative bands which is "patriotic".
I don't think that Rumsfeld mentioned Bush critics. It seems to me, he spoke of the critics of the war in Iraq.
A-ha, I was right! From WSJ - Best of the Web:
_______________________________________________________________
If you look at Rumsfeld's speech, it turns out that the secretary isn't being partisan at all:
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."
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 adm
Rumsfeld never even mentioned Bush critics, the left simply saw themselves in the Rumsfeld words. Rumsfeld hit too close to home and made them more than a little uncomfortable. The reaction to his words can be seen in some of the articles and remarks that were made today. The today show had Russert and Lauer saying that they couldn't find a single Democrat that had voted to pull funding for the war. I think that Pelosi made some similar statement. So, the Democrats are now either playing word games, or truly vascillating on where they stand on the war in Iraq.
Rummy's too old. Turn it around.
The ones who sold Israel down the river was its premier, defence minister and head of the military. The last was a pilot who tried to go after guerillas with jets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.