Thursday, August 31, 2006
The Problem Is Not Rummy
Power Line quotes a Reuters story that mentions Donald Rumsfeld's speech to the American Legion:
Actually, Rumsfeld did not make that comparison; Reuters' inferred it then reported it as fact. Disregarding the ongoing problem of Reuters' mendacity, what if Rumsfeld had made that criticism? I do all the time. Reuters describes the notion as controversial. Why?
QandO discusses the coloring of Rummy's comments and notes that the article has been extensively revised to better tell the whole truth, but the point remains, what could possibly be wrong with ascribing bad judgement to those who exercise it?
Underlying the anti-victory left’s problem with what Rummy said or did not say is the basic premise that their position is unassailable, that to criticize it is a personal affront: how dare we call their very judgement into question? (How's about because it's irresponsible?) So rather than address the point, they try to snuff the debate by victiming out: "You're questioning my (latest attack buzzword)!" Thus they railroad the debate over to their hurt feelings and indignance rather than the core problem, which is that they’re just flat-out wrong in not taking Islamic fascism seriously. All the tripe about substance vs. style is a diversion from Rummy’s over-arching point, that to dismiss the existential threat Islamic fascism presents is a fatal mistake, just as it was for those sacrificed to appeasement on the altar of Peace In Our Time. In that respect, and contrary to the latest leftist excuses, this is in fact very much like the run-up to WWII.
Bob Beckles and Howard Dean can carp all they want about their questioned patriotism, but they know that’s irrelevant. Fine, you’re patriotic. Feel better now? Great. Now, do you mind if we get on with killing the enemy?
I don’t care about how patriotic or virtuous some useful idiot thinks opposing this or supporting that makes him, and I don't care if he's offended that I disagree or by how I express that. And I certainly will express my deep loathing for whomever would give modern Nazism a pass just so their precious and special world view can remain intact a few seconds longer.
I'll repeat what I've said a hundred times since the Blame America First/Rape Defense crowd began their braying on 9/11: If such idiocy had no affect on my way of life and gave no succor to the enemy, I wouldn't give it a second thought. But it does affect my safety and my way of life, and so I'm going to point to that idiocy every chance I get. The idiots can wail about my style all they want.
Appeasement will do to our way of life what Islamic fascists would do to our necks, and Bush, Rumsfeld, John Howard and everyone else who understands that truth should be saying so, every day, until the idiots understand it's not about how it all makes them feel.
Laying the groundwork for the administration's new push on Iraq, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday compared war critics to those who argued for appeasing the Nazis during World War Two. Rumsfeld made the controversial comments at the same American Legion venue where Bush is to speak on Thursday.
Actually, Rumsfeld did not make that comparison; Reuters' inferred it then reported it as fact. Disregarding the ongoing problem of Reuters' mendacity, what if Rumsfeld had made that criticism? I do all the time. Reuters describes the notion as controversial. Why?
QandO discusses the coloring of Rummy's comments and notes that the article has been extensively revised to better tell the whole truth, but the point remains, what could possibly be wrong with ascribing bad judgement to those who exercise it?
Underlying the anti-victory left’s problem with what Rummy said or did not say is the basic premise that their position is unassailable, that to criticize it is a personal affront: how dare we call their very judgement into question? (How's about because it's irresponsible?) So rather than address the point, they try to snuff the debate by victiming out: "You're questioning my (latest attack buzzword)!" Thus they railroad the debate over to their hurt feelings and indignance rather than the core problem, which is that they’re just flat-out wrong in not taking Islamic fascism seriously. All the tripe about substance vs. style is a diversion from Rummy’s over-arching point, that to dismiss the existential threat Islamic fascism presents is a fatal mistake, just as it was for those sacrificed to appeasement on the altar of Peace In Our Time. In that respect, and contrary to the latest leftist excuses, this is in fact very much like the run-up to WWII.
Bob Beckles and Howard Dean can carp all they want about their questioned patriotism, but they know that’s irrelevant. Fine, you’re patriotic. Feel better now? Great. Now, do you mind if we get on with killing the enemy?
I don’t care about how patriotic or virtuous some useful idiot thinks opposing this or supporting that makes him, and I don't care if he's offended that I disagree or by how I express that. And I certainly will express my deep loathing for whomever would give modern Nazism a pass just so their precious and special world view can remain intact a few seconds longer.
I'll repeat what I've said a hundred times since the Blame America First/Rape Defense crowd began their braying on 9/11: If such idiocy had no affect on my way of life and gave no succor to the enemy, I wouldn't give it a second thought. But it does affect my safety and my way of life, and so I'm going to point to that idiocy every chance I get. The idiots can wail about my style all they want.
Appeasement will do to our way of life what Islamic fascists would do to our necks, and Bush, Rumsfeld, John Howard and everyone else who understands that truth should be saying so, every day, until the idiots understand it's not about how it all makes them feel.
