Rumsfeld got it right

Posted by: ST on August 31, 2006 at 9:24 am

And that’s why his critics, like Olbermann and certain Democratic Senators, are flaming mad.

Here’s the LA Times write up on Rummy’s blistering Tuesday speech.

Here’s the transcript of Rummy’s speech (my comments on it will follow). Highlights:

That year — 1919 — turned out to be one of the pivotal junctures in modern history with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, the creation of the League of Nations, a treaty and an organization intended to make future wars unnecessary and obsolete. Indeed, 1919 was the beginning of a period where, over time, a very different set of views would come to dominate public discourse and thinking in the West.

Over the next decades, a sentiment took root that contended that if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be accommodated, then the carnage and the destruction of then-recent memory of World War I could be avoided.

It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, 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 Winston Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.

There was a strange innocence about the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. senator’s reaction in September of 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:

“Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!”

I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today — another enemy, a different kind of enemy — has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history’s lessons.

We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:

With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?

Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?

Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?

And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world’s troubles?

These are central questions of our time, and we must face them and face them honestly.

We hear every day of new plans, new efforts to murder Americans and other free people. Indeed, the plot that was discovered in London that would have killed hundreds — possibly thousands — of innocent men, women and children on aircraft flying from London to the United States should remind us that this enemy is serious, lethal, and relentless.

But this is still not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there’s more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats.

It’s a strange time:

When a database search of America’s leading newspapers turns up literally 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers who has been punished for misconduct — 10 times more —than the mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror;

Or when a senior editor at Newsweek disparagingly refers to the brave volunteers in our armed forces — the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard — as a “mercenary army;”

When the former head of CNN accuses the American military of deliberately targeting journalists; and the once CNN Baghdad bureau chief finally admits that as bureau chief in Baghdad, he concealed reports of Saddam Hussein’s crimes when he was in charge there so that CNN could keep on reporting selective news;

And it’s a time when Amnesty International 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 — “he gulag of our times.” It’s inexcusable. (Applause.)

Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths and distortions that are being told about our troops and about our country. America is not what’s wrong with the world. (Applause.)

The struggle we are in — the consequences are too severe — the struggle too important to have the luxury of returning to that old mentality of “Blame America First.”

Read it all. And then you’ll understand why Rummy foes are so fired up at him – again. Because he’s right.

This is a speech that should have been given long ago, by the President himself. It’s time to take the gloves off and clearly distinguish who is part of the problem and who is part of the solution. It looks like the GOP now is doing just that. Better late than never.

Democrats frequently accuse the admin of trying to ‘stifle’ debate in this country, but I wonder if they’ve looked in a mirror lately when they’ve made that assertion? They are the ones who have, by repeated howls of outrage, made it so that any Republican who questions their patriotism is portrayed as a mean-spirited intolerant conservative ‘warmonger’ by the MSM, and now they’re trying to say that we can’t call the enemy for what it truly is and is about: Islamofascism – they don’t like the use of the word “fascists” to describe an enemy who is very much like the one Rumsfeld described in his speech with the comparisons of this war to WWII. Islamofascists are who we are fighting. They’re not just interested in hurting and killing the ‘infidels’ – they’re interested in forcing people to convert to Islam, and on an even bigger scale, turning democratic Western nations into Islamic states. That is what fascism is.

The main reason, of course, that Democrats are bristling at Rummy’s speech is because he’s helped bring back to the forefront an issue they are known to be weak on: the war on terror. Hammering home that we are still at war and have a clearly defined enemy reminds people of how weak Democrats are on national security issues and how much stronger the President – and Republicans – have been on national security since 9-11. As I noted last night, a new Gallup poll indicates that perhaps Americans are rembering that again. Democrats don’t like reminders of 9-11, they don’t like reminders that we are at war, and they don’t like anyone trying to define an enemy that they either can’t, don’t, or won’t understand.

It’s been nearly 5 years since 9-11, and at this point if the current crop of Democrats in Washington still don’t understand who and what it is we’re fighting, they never will. It’s a sad commentary on the current state of the Democratic party, a party who is desperately fighting to take back control on Congress so they can prove to America that they can be ‘tougher’ on terrorism than Republicans – how they can do that, though, when they have a fundamental ignorance and/or misunderstanding of who the enemy is, remains a mystery. I hope we don’t have to find out.

Others blogging about this: Michael van der Galien at The Moderate Voice, Dan Riehl, Alabama Liberation Front, Blue Star Chronicles, Brent Baker at Newsbusters, Villainous Company

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt slams appeasing Dems.

UPDATE II: How could I have forgotten the “You’re a chickenhawk so you can’t comment!” argument? Yet one more way Democrats try to stifle debate.

UPDATE III: The lefties are foaming mad – and Olbermann’s the big hero of the day for his ‘special’ comments last night on Rummy.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


  • Thespis Journal trackbacked with God Bless Don Rumsfeld
  • benning's Writing Pad trackbacked with Last Days On Earth
  • Mike's Noise trackbacked with Fascism, take 2
  • 31 Responses to “Rumsfeld got it right”


    1. Severian says:

      You’ve hit on something that irritates me no end about Democrats. What kind of person or party, when the country is confronted with this kind of threat, decides that it’s better to convince the public that the treat isn’t real and restrict discussion of it to cover up their weakness rather than change their policies to something that will protect the country and that the people obviously want? It’s a cynical, self centered “I know what’s best and you don’t need to know or think, just gimme the power” approach, rather than change to be successful tear down your opponent instead, which as has been noted before is a primary approach of liberals in every endeavor. Disgusting, and the reason they hate people like Cheney and Rumsfeld has everything to do with the fact that they are effective with their blunt communications style at showing just how morally bankrupt the Democrats are, so, naturally, they must be destroyed! God forbid the Dems actually change to realize the threats we face, that won’t work!

    2. BarneyG2000 says:

      This whole re-branding of the Iraq war is a joke. I wish the administration would spend more time on fixing problems than spinning them.

      The father of Fascism Mussolini defined it as a rightwing party. A nationalistic movement that believed in a strong centralized government modeled after the corporate structure. Islam is none of these, but it surely resembles the philosophy of our current administration.

    3. Severian says:

      Yeah, fascists are right wing, that’s why they always hail from the socialist left! More newspeak drivel from the left, trying to mask reality with distorted language. Barney, you don’t even have one bullet but that doesn’t seem to stop you shooting from the lip. The only people in this country that are close to being fascists, other than the Islamofreaks, are the liberal Democrats. Aren’t they the ones arguing that trying to force a candidate off the ballot, Lieberman, is supporting “democracy?”

      Fascism = Socialism

    4. BarneyG2000 says:

      Fascism = Socialism
      Comment by Severian

      Boy are you stupid!

      Fascism (American Heritage Dictionary): A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism

      Bush is the CEO president. Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rummy are the ones that equate debate with un-Americanism. It is this administration that expands presidential powers over the rights’ of free Americans.

    5. Jim M says:

      Hey Barney you had better stick to entertaining kids because your knowledge of History and the English language is around zip, nil, nada. Once again a liberal trying to do something they are not capable of “Thinking”.

    6. Jim M says:

      Hey Barney, here is the actual meaning of the word Fascism for the American Heritage Dictionary:

      Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

      It seems you have added a few words could it be that the original meaning didn’t fit your agenda?

    7. Ryan says:

      Geez, if the Bush administration is fascist, I wonder what Barney here thinks of FDR or Lincoln.

    8. BarneyG2000 says:

      My definition was lifted, verbatim, from the American Heritage Dictionary, second college edition, copyright 1989.

      Do you believe that Fascism = Socialism?

    9. Lorica says:

      I think Barney has been hit in the head and still thinks it is 2000 and he actually believes that he is talking about the Bill Clinton Admin. See how everything he says makes sense now??? – Lorica

    10. Big Bang Hunter says:

      – The Proggs (Big L Liberals) are barking at the moon, spewing the usual Marxist propaganda. The ultimate irony of everything they say is that AH was the most rabid National Socialist of all time. An inconvieniant truth if ever there was one. Projection; thy middle name is “proggresive”.

      – Bang **==

    11. Do you believe that Fascism = Socialism?

      Do you believe that ignorance = bliss? Looks like it.

    12. BarneyG2000 says:

      “Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He said in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:
      · “Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right’, a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the ‘collective’ century, and therefore the century of the State.” [1]

    13. Big Bang Hunter says:

      “liberalism implies individualism”

      – Exactly right Barneygoogle – And that is why the “proggresives” are neither Liberal nor tolerant. Your soft Marxist collectivism, and stiffling of individualality shines through like a sore thumb. In that you share a lot of the Fascist traits of your Islamofacist brothers.

      – Bang **==

    14. Jim M says:

      Barney, Wikipedia and Mussolini do not define the English language and the definition I posted earlier was copied and pasted right out of 2001 American Heritage Dictionary.

      Barney posted: (liberalism implies individualism) individualism is what liberals are trying to destroy.

    15. Ryan says:

      Good morning (or afternoon for those on the east coast/central time zone) fellow right-wing fascists.


    16. BarneyG2000 says:

      All of the definitions posted so far have the following in common:
      -Strong Central Government

      Apply those principles to the theory of Islamo- fascism? You can’t! There is no central government, movement or leader that is directing attacks by:
      -Iraq Insurgency
      -Sadr Militia
      -al Qeda

      Most of them don’t even belong to the same sect of Islam (Shi’at, Sunni, Wahhabi, Sufism) or the same race (Arab, Persian, Asian).

    17. Big Bang Hunter says:

      – Hitler started as a “movement”. All totalitarinisms start as a “movement”. They work on the principle of destruction from within, through propaganda, and steady weakening of the governments they are attacking.

      – You are aiding and abeting a very definate neo totalitarian “movement” by trying to deny and evade, exactly the way pacifists in Europe did in the 20’s and 30’s, and we all have history to tell us how well that worked out. You’re doomed to try to repeat the mistakes of the past Barney. That wonderful approach ended up with 50 million dead. Propagandize all you like, just don’t expect the rest of us to follow the progressives suicidal agenda.

      – Bang **==

    18. sanity says:

      Hey, I’m all for dumping the word Islamofascism and calling them bluntly:

      Evil, scum-sucking, cowardly, assholes that have the blood of pigs that run through their veins, whom the majority are Muslim and take Islam to the Extreme to kill without compunction.

      Never in history have I seen such bending over backwards to try and appease terrorist, terrorist supporting regimes.

      It does worry me though, could we have won the war against Nazi germany and defeated Hitler if the same propaganda swallowing and making Media was thriving then?

      It sickens me to see so many seemingly willig to support terrorism by propagandizing it, all in hte name of making Bush look bad.

      This may sound pessimistic, but I don’t hold out much hope that we will not be hit very hard some time soon, becaus we just can’t seem to learn our friggin lesson the first time around when we got attacked. Most act like it is a one time thing, it won’t happen again.

      What is next, Iran gettting Nukes, and Israel becomes a wasteland? What then? Will we ask for another friggin resolution from the terrorist appeasing and castrated (no balls) UN?

      Why the hell are we still a part of such a waste of an organization?

    19. Baklava says:


      They wish to have government overpower rule with an iron fist whether it is central or not central. Your point is weak because you are arguing whether Islamofacists want to be ruled under Sharia law by a federal power or state like power or even more local power which is irrelevant.

      Jim M hit the nail on the head. Less government is what people right of center want. More self-reliance and less handouts. NOBODY argues that handicapped and elderly need a safety net or not. That is a given. Libertarians believe in an 80% cut in government spending. Conservatives are more moderate. Liberals want MORE government spending. If you feel like you are a liberal and want a cut in government spending then you need to re-evaluate if you are a liberal or not. The media does a poor job at edcating what right and left of center means but it is CLEAR if you do research what it is. Political Science 101 will teach you (unless you have an idiot for a professor).

      Jim’s definition was correct and it doesn’t matter how many idiots try to redefine the word.

      The Nazi’s were leftists. They were for more government control. The government book banners were oppresssive, they terrorized and put their foot on the necks of people. That is LEFT of center. Big government. In every case the more government grows the more people have to fear.

      The extremes are total and big government and the other extreme is anarchy or very little government.

      Brining some common sense into the argument, you must realize that this country’s federal budget, size, regulations, spending, has gone up every year for over 6 decades. THere have been ZERO cuts despite what the press irresponsibly say. The numbers are indisputable. Spending has gone up for Health, education, veterans, environment, social services and help for the poor. It is indisputable and you can’t find the budget dropping for these things from one year to the next in any of the last 60 years. Period.

      Now. What does that mean? It means that this country has been GOVERNED to the left for over 6 decades. WHile from 1940-1994 the Democrats fairly well controlled Congress and then the Republicans pretty much changed that in 1994 it hasn’t changed the fact that this country has moved towards the left every year. Conservatives have been hammered by the media as slashers, cutters, not caring about the poor, the environment, etc… and all I can say is that these leftists are LYING. The Drive By Media is not doing due diligence to find out the facts and spew out Democrat talking points whether it is true or not.

      It’d be great if this country was better prepared to handle the baby boom generation retiring but Democrats will irresponsibly lambaste any attempt at fixing the structural issue with Social Security.

      Instead of Debate, the Democrats and the left irresponsibly attack and attack and add no value to the political scene. They only weaken this country and weaken or standing in the world with irresponsible accusations that the foriegn people and press pick up on.

      Remember this if you can. Conservatives CARE about the environment, poor, race, security of the nation etc. Listen to and read what we say for once and you will be able to see that what we are saying may have points. If it is better to teach a man to fish rather than give him fish maybe that means we do care but love differently. If we see that the air has gotten cleaner over the last 20 years and see that data dramatically by many scientists maybe there isa point to that. Instead of attacking try to listen and see an ALTERNATE POINT OF VIEW.

    20. Jim M says:

      Baklava, Here, Here, very well put!

    21. BarneyG2000 says:

      Will we ask for another friggin resolution from the terrorist appeasing and castrated (no balls) UN? Comment by sanity

      The only appeasers I see are Bush and Rummy. How may times did Rummy appease Muqtada al-Sadr? The army had him surrounded on at least two occasions. The man is responsible for the death of American forces, and the main source of sectarian violence in Iraq today.

      Newt, on Meet the Press, declared that Bush was practicing the policy of appeasement with Iran and North Korea. Now you can add Hezbollah to the list.

      Does “I don’t think about him much any more” count as appeasement?

    22. Baklava says:

      Good attack Barney. Way to keep up the pattern.

      You offer so much to this debate… Is this how you like your life to go? With meaningless irrelevant attacking debate instead of making progress? Wouldn’t you like a change in the way discussions move forward?

      What are you alleging anyway. That the army had him surrounded and then what? Rummy micromanaged the generals and had the army do something else? Where is your proof? Why do you make false allegations and continue on with such condescension.

      False accuations is what the left/facists do in order to justify the power grab.


    23. Big Bang Hunter says:

      – Actually thats a bit ironic for Barney to try that ploy. When Bush attacks our enemies he’s a war mongering NeoCon, but when he tries to use diplomacy, encouraging al-Sadr to stop the pattern of aggression and join the government in a peaceful way by cutting him some slack, then the progressives jump in with “he’s appeasing”. It’s all the same pattern of ankle biting “Bush bad” yammering by the out of power Left. They have nothing, an empty wagon of idea’s, or worse old shop worn unworkable Marxist tropes, and appeasement pacisfism, both of which have been tried over and over through history, and always result in even worse consequesces. Bush derangement is the whole act with the one trick pony Liberals.

      – Even in this most recent example of why the totalitarian mind will never negotiate, al-Sadr, Barney and his merry gang of propagandists try to turn it around and avoid the embarrassment that appeasement just flat fails with fascism, so he tries to blame Bush for that too. Ankle biters are just that. Desperate out of power, sour grapes, noise makers, that just want to confuse, and shake things up, because they think thats their only hope. The mistake they’re making is in thinking it will fool anyone with a bit of world experience.

      – Bang **==

    24. Drewsmom says:

      Barney, you ain’t gonna win on this site, go on over to kos or code pinkie, you’ll make more of an impact there.
      All of the above rational posters can state this so much better than me — the main deal here is that the dems are not qualified to lead our country as they are appeasers and weak on terror and we need someone who will kick ass and take names later.
      jimma carter is a perfect example of a weak ass fool, he is gonna make nice with a moolah who spit in his eye when he was President and Iran’s current Prez wants Isreal and all of the U.S dead but jimmah is gonna talk to this man, thats like the rev jackson talkin to a major corporation and trying to con em into thinking he ain’t in it for the money.

    25. NC Cop says:

      I wish the administration would spend more time on fixing problems than spinning them.

      And yet you offer no solutions of your own and, instead, spend all this time worrying about the dictionary definition of a term. Interesting….

    26. Jim M says:

      NC Cop, the left has been wrong on everything so why should we expect them to get what a word means when its written in any dictionary? You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make a liberal think.


    27. Lorica says:

      If the Ayatollah Khomeini wasn’t a central figure for a ‘facist’ regime I must be abit off. Not a whole lot has changed in Iran. Osama bin Laden is a pretty central figure, seems to me if he were within a political boundary he would be a central figure. In WWII how many facists leaders and how many countries were there??? Seems to me the 3 major players in the axis powers were all lead by facist dictators, or in 1 case a facist emperor. Only difference between then and now is….. We don’t want these facists to form a centralized governing body. – Lorica

    28. Marshall Art says:

      As much as I’d like to, I don’t think I could add anything noteworthy to the incredible bitch-slapping to which Barney has been subjected, and rightfully so. Too bad Olberman doesn’t visit here. He’d be wetting himself.