Rumsfeld's Enemy: It's Us

[n2doc]

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
Rumsfeld's Enemy: It's Us
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld delivered a fire-and-brimstone speech at the American Legion's annual convention yesterday -- after acknowledging young soldiers serving in Iraq and giving the boy scouts a shout-out, the secretary wove an elaborate picture of an enemy made up of terrorists, morally misguided Westerners, disagreeable military strategists, and a cynical news media. Rumsfeld stated there could be no appeasing the enemy and any "any moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere." The "who" Rumsfeld is talking about is himself.

Rumsfeld is the "who" that is right, and everyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but a danger to freedom. Within minutes of the conclusion of Rumsfeld's speech yesterday, I received an e-mail from Thayer C. Scott, the secretary's speechwriter, serving up talking points. The Defense Department then took the unusual step, usually reserved for its broadsides against Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, of issuing a statement saying that the Associated Press coverage of Rumsfeld's Salt Lake City remarks mischaracterized them. Either Rumsfeld has delivered one of the most important speeches of the modern era, or he's gone crazy.

I think the latter, not just because I think the secretary is wrong on his intellectual characterization of terrorism, and not just because he is wrong about the media and its intentions, and not because he is so pugnacious, or because he has been wrong so many times before. Rumsfeld is so wrong about America. His use of World War I history and the specter of fascism and appeasement, and his argument about moral weakness or even treason in any who oppose him, is not only polarizing but ineffective in provoking debate and discussion about the proper course this country must take to "fight" terrorism. This is not the first time that Rumsfeld has shown himself to be so out of touch, so contemptuous of America. Rumsfeld as secretary of defense has displayed a contempt from long before 9/11 for anyone who disagrees with him, particularly in his initial wars against those in the uniformed military.

Moreover, Rumsfeld's declaration of war yesterday follows from his basic view that the Defense Department has to do it all: He has created an intelligence bureaucracy because he is distrustful and contemptuous of the CIA and all others. He has built up a secret army and covert capabilities in special operations forces because he wants to control and to rely only upon his own warriors. He has created a homeland security apparatus that looks over the shoulder of the Department of Homeland Security and is the ultimate arbiter of security. He has created his own FBI in the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), and fought to ensure that the NSA stays under Pentagon control. He has created his own law and his own human rights policy. He has subverted Congress through unexamined supplemental budgets and super-secret programs.

more:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/08/rumsfelds_declaration_of_war_o.html

[whistle]

1. Seems Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Nixon share a common

...symptom....paranoia:hide: :scared:

But, then Henry Kissinger cleared that up for the rest of us when he said, "...even paranoids have real enemies". What a prick.:popcorn:

[Demeter]

5. More Enemies than Most People, I'll Wager!

[peace13]

2. I agree!

It's 'us' and the troops because remember as Rummy says 'the troops are fungible'. At least we are in good company! Peace, Kim

[n2doc]

3. Another great part of the article:

If I were the conspiratorial type, I'd say Rumsfeld was a particular menace to America because in his view of a monolithic and totalitarian terrorist enemy, and in his analysis of the weakness of American society, he can only come to the messianic conclusion that he indeed needs to takeover the country in order to save it. And this might even be worth speculating about were it the case that Rumsfeld reflected the views of those in the military leadership, or were it the case that Rumsfeld could actually engineer such a coup.

But alas, the secretary would get the intelligence wrong, employ too few troops and send tank columns on thunder runs through Manhattan and Hollywood, prematurely declaring victory and then being befuddled about the American desire to recover and preserve its way of life, which is not the Rumsfeld way.

[PATRICK]

4. But let's not forget

the Lion of Idaho, Republican Senator and presidential candidate William Edgar Borah whose "strange innocence" was highlighted by the 1939 quote.

Specifically, the Lion roars:

"Lord" Typical hypocritical GOp invocation of the deity implying a personally favored influence
if only I" Continuing the arrogant egotism.
"had talked with Hitler" Why didn't he ask my permission(Sounds familiar and oddly belated as with hussein's surprise attack against Kuwait)
"wouldn't have invaded Poland." In light of the above perhaps it something a bit more than "strange innocence"(Borah was an RNC official who helped doom the League of Nations) and more like co-opting defensive GOP bombast.

It sounds more like the GOP religious hypocrisy of today, the isolationist sentiment Bill Clinton met with and that curious close relationship not only with the maker but with the dictator(post famous picture of Rummy shaking hands with Hussein here)


The quote is utterly consistent GOP message exploitation, namely making sure no one is protected here and abroad whatever the iron stand of the day against the Democrats happens to be and that disaster happens that can emotionally exploit but otherwise do NOTHING really positive about.

And we haven't even gotten to how the invasion of Poland compares to the invasion of Iraq.