Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld revealed the essential nature of current foreign and domestic security policy in a speech before the American Legion's national convention Tuesday. His central theme was terrorists. His strategy was to invoke fear.
Rumsfeld likened our war against terrorists and in Iraq to that of WWII, alluding to the prospect of Islamic Fascism seeking to take over the world and subjecting freedom loving peoples everywhere to their fascist regimes. This was quite illuminating for its glaring falsehood and overreaching.
One huge glaring error was comparing Islamic terrorists today to the fascist regimes of Germany and Italy and to Imperial Japan of the 1930s. These were nation states that sought to overpower the militaries and the people of other nation states and incorporate them, subjugating their people to their expanded nation state's regime.
Terrorists today are nationless, and lack military power and might to annex other nations and subjugate their peoples. So, why do Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice, all of whom have made similar arguments this week, create this false image for public consumption? There are at least two reasons: military expansion and fear of the American population.
Military expansion is a platform issue, which the Bush administration ran on in 2000 and 2004. To expand the military capacity by a half trillion dollars or more, one needs a boogeyman to justify the cost. Prior to September 11, 2001, their boogeyman was Saddam Hussein, but they had no way to sell him as a domestic threat to the U.S. After 9/11, fashioning boogeymen was easy.
The axis of evil—Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—was added to the al-Qaeda threat and the administration talked of them as if they were one, colluding and planning to invade America and subjugate our people to their will and denying us our democracy, our liberties, and our sovereignty. Of course, nothing could have been more inaccurate or born of fantasy.
That is why they had to cherry pick intelligence, to at least hint of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. North Korea has no Islamic base whatsoever. Never mind that; they sought nuclear weapons, which tied them to Iran and Iraq, and al-Qaeda had to be linked to Iraq or al-Qaeda could not be tied to the nuclear threat. And so the propaganda unfolded.
What was really driving this military expansion? Al-Qaeda numbers were estimated in the thousands and they clearly lacked weapons of mass destruction (WMD) with which to attack us. This is why box cutters and jets were used. This hardly called for military expansion. We had sufficient military resources to invade Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban that supported al-Qaeda. As for international terrorists, what was called for was intelligence expansion, and much more closely integrated domestic and international policing capabilities.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - JP
This whole "fascism" argument shows the idiocy and lack of connection with reality of our "leaders." Fascism involves intense nationalism and collaboration with corporations, totally against what radical Islam is all about. Let's reject this bastardization of language coming from the Bush camp.
2 - Nancy
BushCo has established over the past 6 years a track record for complete lack of credibility, manipulation of facts, and character assassination of anyone who differs from them or criticizes/recognizes their ineptitude or criminal behavior. The pathetic part is that a still substantial percentage of the public are too damned dumb to think for themselves and recognize how they're being lied to and used by this administration. Even more pathetic (it would be laughable if they weren't so dangerous) is that BushCo is still trying to pull the same old same old of creating or exaggerating fear issues, divisive non-issues, and smear tactics on their opponents.
3 - David R. Remer
JP and Nancy, here's some more shocking news. Pres. Bush just spoke and said Iraq is the homefront of the war on terrorism. Well, a correspondent in Iraq who has talked with the high ranking commanders in Iraq has a different story he reported on MSNBC right after Bush’s speech. He said the commanders have told him they have kicked the hell out of al-Queda and the insurgency in Iraq, and that the violence occuring now, is almost exclusively a result of sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni Iraqis having no connections with al-Queda or Baathist insurgents.
The Pentagon has announced it is going to spend 20 million dollars of federal taxpayers money to convince Americans that the Iraqi Civil War is going well and we must stay the course.
Folks, they are pulling out all the stops to try to justify and defend this war including outright lying as Bush just did to the American Legion regarding Iraq being the center of the war against al-Queda and terrorism, to spending our own tax dollars to convince us of how we should think and respond to this war.
Sounds like something straight out of George Orwell’s 1984, doesn’t it? Well, its here. I have been writing about George Bush’s '1984' scenarios for a couple years, and now the media is finally willing to cover the most glaring examples of it.
Amen. !
4 - Nancy
Even holding it up to the glaring light of day it doesn't seem to be making a difference. I don't expect any one of those aging VA audience members to stand up and challenge him on any of the innumerable discrepancies & outright lies he & his have perpetrated on the US, because I know they're carefully & specially chosen to listen docilely & applaud every time that bastard stops for breath. But I do expect a far bigger deal to be made of it than has been, or is being, by more than just a selected few of the Media. Why aren't the generality of the public rising up in outrage? How is BushCo able to keep on lying and lying and lying, and not be called to account for it, by anybody except a few? Why are they allowed to bury it in an avalanche of lies, smears, and false issues? This is what I don't understand. Has American intelligence of the average citizen gone so far downhill since Nixon that we are now incapable of outrage for this sort of fraud against us by our own executive?
5 - gonzo marx
the best retort to Rumsfeld and the entire bullshit of the current Administration's tactics in the Realm of domestic politics was eloquently elucidated last evening by none other than
Keith Olberman on Countdown...
it says it all, and far better than this addled gonzo ever could...
"keep your knees loose"
Excelsior?
6 - JustOneMan
JP...youve been busted as a plagarist as well as a "Howard Dean Moveon.org" crowd...your posts is a verbatim of
R J Eskow at the Huffington Post writes:
"fascism" entails intense nationalism and collaboration with large corporations, both of which Islamists reject."
Read- riehlworldview.com
Eskow is flat out wrong. Perhaps he can't divorce the meaning of fascism from a typical Liberals distrust of both nationalism and big business. However, if one genuinely understands history and that it doesn't begin in the 1930's, one can then understand that apart from fascism being associated with the concept of the state, it is also a thing through which a state, or ever larger state, can emerge.
In a way, the difference is whether you want to see it only as a noun, or also understand it as an adverb. There are states that are fascist and there are acts that are fascist. Fascist states cannot maintain themselves without fascist acts. But fascist acts can certainly be separated from the concept of a state. We use the latter form of the word all the time.
The name comes from the Latin fasces - a bundle of rods with a projecting axe, which was the symbol of authority in ancient Rome. The term was applied by Mussolini to his movement after his rise to power in 1922. The Fascists were viciously anti-Communist and anti- liberal and, once in power, relied on an authoritarian state apparatus. They also used emotive slogans and old prejudices (for example, against the Jews) to bolster the leader's strongman appeal....
Rome came about as an empire through an expression of fascism. There was no Haliburton to get the contract for the Appian Way. Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy did the very same thing. The kernel or seed of a current or projected fascist state (how much geography or infrastructure it controls) is far less important than the fascist tactics and actions employed to establish, or grow such a state. It's only then that a fascist ideology will dominate and take on the form of a particular state. Fascists then assert control over industry, the population, the political machinery, etc..., because that's what fascists do.
Once a fascist ideology seizes control of something, it dominates it in whole, not in part. Currently, Islamo-fascists are struggling for control of Islam in its broader context. They are also fighting different types of wars for control within certain states, including Iraq.
Their fascism exists quite apart from any state, corporation, or Military Industrial Complex - the very concept of which likely keeps Eskow awake at night. Frankly, Eskow should be far more worried over a bunch of theocratic fascists who would like nothing better than to lop off his head.
7 - David R. Remer
JustOneMan, excellent comments. I would take issue with only one point. Our commanders in Iraq are telling journalists they have kicked the hell out of al_Queda and the insurgents, and they are no longer the problem in Iraq. They report that the sectarian violence now constitutes the violence in Iraq and over 90% of that is within Baghdad.
So, it appears, from those closest to the ground of the war, that Iraq is NOT, as Bush said this morning, the frontline of the war on terrorists. Our commanders say they have destroyed the terrorist and Baathist insurgency in Iraq. All that is left is the civil war between Sunnis and Shia, primarily in the nation's capital.
8 - Dean
"All that is left is the civil war between Sunnis and Shia..."
Translation:
All that is left is a war without end.
When will Bush figure that out and get out.
9 - David R. Remer
Dean, Bush said yesterday he will never get out as long as he is President. So, unless Congress revokes the spending for it, we are in Iraq for at least 30 more months.
I was encourged to see a handful of Republican Congress persons revolt against Rumsfeld's and Bush's remarks of this week. Shays, and 3 others have indicated their disagreement with either Rumsfeld's characterization of our war on terrorism as parallel to the entry to WWII or, perpetual war in Iraq as long as Sunnis and Shiites can't get along.
10 - Nancy
If the Dems can take a few seats this election & re-take congress, perhaps there'll finally be the impeachment of BushCo there should be; God knows there are more than enough grounds for dozens of hangings, let alone one or two.
11 - gonzo marx
so quick ta hang 'em, eh Nancy?
heh
i don't know about hangings, but i wil say that it is urgently needed, for the health of our Republic, that at least ONE of either the House or Senate flip leadership to the Dems...
not that i have any love for the Dems, per se...
but what we have seen is definately rampant Neglect, at the very least, of said governmental bodies, to perform the required function of "checks and balances" that comes with their Job description...
and thus the dire Consequences of single Party totalitarian Rule
but, the Way the trends are flowing going into this very crucial Labor Day week end, it looks pretty damn good that at least the House is going to flip
now, some will be saying "gonzo, you are being more fo a nutbar than usual"
i don't think so... hear me out for a Moment
i think the trends are showing a big push amongst the glacially moving american Electorate towards tossing out the Incumbents (especially the incumbent Majority)
due note that not only was a sitting Senator defeated in his primary, but the other examples of this from Alaska and dmaned if i remember where , but another State had the same thing ...
toss in the various poll numbers floating around, and you can spot the political "hot topics" that will be discussed around this week end's bar-b-que for many families/gatherings
we will see...
Excelsior?
12 - David R. Remer
Nancy, impeaching Bush is a symbolic waste of time: about a year, at least. Then, if successful, (doubtful), Cheney becomes President. One year under Cheney may be worse than 6 under Bush. Cheney is the arch-neocon with an unabashed penchant for enriching himself while in office. By the time Cheney is impeached, the 2008 elections are over, so, there is really no point.
Besides, the nation has pressing needs even greater than chastising a poor administration. Regardless of who is the majority, those pressing needs MUST be dealt with before cross points of no return.
13 - Dean
Nancy, impeach Bush?
Keep in mind that if Bush is impeached we put the back seat driver in the driver's seat.
Is that what you want?
14 - David R. Remer
The polls back you up Gonzo. Even Republican officials are conceding it doesn't look good for the GOP. 30% of Republicans now say they have lost faith in the current leadership in Washington. If that translates into Republican voters staying home on Nov. 7, one house or the other will change hands.
15 - Arch Conservative
Aren't all of you going to feel just a tad bit silly when Bush leaves office in 2009 and America is still standing?
16 - David R. Remer
Arch Conservative, aren't you going to feel a tab bit silly when your president leaves office with an 11+ TRILLION dollar national debt? In addition to a combined trade deficit and unfunded liability equaling another 11 trillion dollars. That's 22 trillion dollars debt. It would more than a century to bring our nation completely out of that kind of debt.
And government? Biggest government bureacracy and spending since FDR thanks to Republicans.
So much for conservative, eh?
I am a fiscal conservative. And I can tell you, this Republican Congress and President don't have a conservative value amongst the lot of them.
17 - gonzo marx
David sez...
*And I can tell you, this Republican Congress and President dont have a conservative value amongst the lot of them*
Quoted for Truth
nuff said...
Excelsior?
18 - DazeyMai
Rumsfeld's latest brilliant strategy of moving thousands more troops into Baghdad to control violence there, as usual, is failing. Violence has escalated even though "they" say the most wanted terrorists there fled Baghdad before we even got there. Anyone could have predicted that...John McCain called it playing "whack a mole". A recent 6 hour house to house search for weapons yielded a big return of 4 AK-14s and 1 green plastic water pistol.
As for impeachment, it is too late. I am hoping that after Bush leaves office, he will be charged with war crimes. Actually, impeachment is too good for him.
Yes, Arch, America will still be standing after Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld leave office, but She will never be the same. Never!
19 - Clavos
Yes, Arch, America will still be standing after Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld leave office, but She will never be the same. Never!
I sure hope not.
20 - DazeyMai
Clavos....what's your point? sarcasm? ridicule? I don't get it.
21 - RedTard
"Yes, Arch, America will still be standing after Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld leave office, but She will never be the same."
Yes, we will. We'll go right back to issuing harshly worded statements when a terrorist attack occurs and doing nothing. Although at only 3000 lives or so a whack it's not really all that bad. Despite all the bad policies of BushCo I can never bring myself to vote Democratic.
It's relatively easy to get ourselves out of Iraq, cut pork, and clean up corruption. It is exceptionally difficult to end socialist programs once they are created no matter how bad of a burden they become on the economy.
22 - Arch Conservative
Yeah Redtard god forbid a Democrat becomes president in 2008 and we have another terrorist attack in 2009. Then we will get to hear all the jackasses who said Clinton had no blame in 911 blame it all on Bush.
I mean radical Muslims loved us until Bush took office right? They never had even so much as a cross word for us until W showed up on the scene.
23 - Dean
AC -- Can you say "exacerbate"?
24 - gonzo marx
Red sez...
*It's relatively easy to get ourselves out of Iraq, cut pork, and clean up corruption.*
i would Wish it were so... but if it is so *easy*..
then why the fuck hasn't the single Party controlled government done ANY of it?
i woudl be happy if they just finish the fucking job in Afghanistan...
would have been nice if 18 months ago, when the Cedar Revoloution election happened in Lebanon, the US spent, oh.. even 10% of the over 250 billion we've wasted in Iraq to help an actual Democracy get on it's feet...
it's competence, Red... and so far the GOP has failed miserably in each and every test of their competence in the last 6 years...
just a Thought
Excelsior?
25 - RedTard
Easy was a poor choice of words. Corruption and pork are a different kind of problems, they're bad for the country but do not have the support of the majority of the electorate. They're easy in the sense that if held up to the light of public scrutiny they crumble.
Government "help" is a different type of problem completely. It creates dependency and eliminates freedom, but the limited sense of security or comfort is often enough to prevent the programs from being eliminated because of public support.
Whether it's levees, flu shots, medical care, or bread, if the government tries to give it away free there is invariably a shortage. Gross simplification alert: With freedom and capitalism and without lines in the US you can choose from stacks of bread a mile high in any gas station, grocery store, or walmart and all for a dollar or so. A typical Russian style free bread program requires lines, has shortages, and you end up having to bribe some lousy bureacrat a day's wages just to get your "free" bread.