Dems Bash Rumsfeld's Nazi Comments

(AP)  Democrats chastised Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld Wednesday for questioning the historical grasp of Bush administration war critics, accusing him of engaging in "dangerous business."

Several members of Congress had been urging Rumsfeld's resignation before he asserted to the American Legion that opponents displayed the kind of thinking that delayed military action against Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany.

Rumsfeld said the world faces "a new type of fascism." And he warned against repeating the pre-World War II mistake of appeasement.

Rumsfeld's speech in Salt Lake City Tuesday, in which he also said that administration critics suffered from "moral confusion," prompted angry reactions from Democrats hoping to win back the majority in Congress.

"It is a dangerous business to accuse those who disagree with you of moral and intellectual confusion," said Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. "Debate in our democracy is based upon respect, not vilification."

Said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi: "If Mr. Rumsfeld is so concerned with comparisons to World War II, he should explain why our troops have now been fighting in Iraq longer than it took our forces to defeat the Nazis in Europe."

Responding Wednesday, Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff said, "Facts are facts. As the secretary said in his speech, America and the free world face a gathering threat of challenges from a vicious enemy that is serious, lethal and relentless. There are important lessons from history that we ought to be mindful of as we talk about how we are going to meet the challenges extremist terror organizations present."

In his speech, Rumsfeld said it "was apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons." Aides later said he was not accusing the administration's critics of trying to appease the terrorists but was cautioning against a repeat of errors made in earlier eras.

Nevertheless, Rumsfeld's remarks were seen by many Democrats in Congress as fighting words.

Sen. Jack Reed, a member of the Armed Services Committee, said Rumsfeld has been "substituting sloganing for strategy" and delivered a "calculated political argument" to make people believe that to support a war against terror requires support of the administration's policies.

"I think the analogy is very, very weak," Reed, D-R.I., said of Rumsfeld's comparison of Iraq to World War II.

It is time Rumsfeld "should be departing" the Pentagon, Reed added. Reed, Pelosi and other Democrats have been calling for the defense secretary's resignation for more than a year.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York called Rumsfeld's portrayal of Democrats a "strawman" and said Americans need answers on how to deal with a looming civil war in Iraq.

Also Wednesday, a New York Democratic House candidate accused Rumsfeld of lying about progress in Iraq.

"After 21 months of trying to find something I can agree with Secretary Rumsfeld on, it is true: the American people are being lied to and I totally agree with Secretary Rumsfeld," Eric Massa, a Navy veteran, said in a conference call with reporters.

"What I disagree with is the fact that he's the one doing the lying," he said.

Massa, who is challenging one-term Republican Rep. Randy Kuhl, said he was outraged by Rumsfeld's comments and faulted him for blaming the media for his own misstatements and missteps. said the Bush administration has no effective plan to secure the country.

"This thing has disintegrated," Walz said of Iraq. "On the macro level, there's an absolute failure."

Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said the Democratic candidates' strategy is to criticize Republican efforts to win the war on terror, while elected Democrats are "committed to a strategy that will weaken our ability to defend America and make us less safe at home and abroad."

[lochlan-2009]

As has been pointed out many times by people all around the world, the only organization with any resemblance to Hitler and his Regime is this Bush/Cheney Administration. The attempt to turn the tables to their opposition is a complete joke, it doesn't even make sense.

[richmilesky]

observe, not obseerve. And Charlie McCarthy was the dummy, not the ventriloquist. So perhaps that analogy should be reversed?

[richmilesky]

Ourtomorrows said: "Just as a matter of historical accuarcy, world war II began in September of 1939 and ended in Europe in May of 1945 and in the pacific in August of 1945. The war lasted then a bit under six years. We have only been in Iraq for three."

Aside from the humorous irony in your misspelling of "accuracy", just as a matter of REAL historical accuracy, WWII began for AMERICANS in EUROPE, which was the point being made, in early 1942, only a few months after Pearl Harbor, and ended, as you obseerve, in May 1945 - a span of 3 years and 3 or 4 months.

Therefore, American troops have now been in Iraq for 3 years and 5.5 months (NOT 3 years, as you assert), or longer than they were in Europe fighting Hitler.

Try testing those foundations of "accuracy" before setting up your next straw man, OK pal?

[kenduerksen]

Rumsfeld just last week described our adversaries in the war on terror as consisting of loosely affiliated cells with an ephemeral command structure, making them elusive and hard to combat.

How in the world is this analogous with "Fascism"? Fascism is the unity of a society's political power, industrial capacity, military might, and media infrastructure in the hands of single leadership entity? "Fascism" in this context is nothing more than an evocative buzz-word the administration is using to heat up America's fear and hate to a level conducive to another costly invasion.

Rummy's insistence yesterday on a single political truth - together with: the Republican monopolization of the three branches of our government; the melding of the administration with FOX News and other cable networks; the cozy influence of industrialists with this administration; and the White House's affinity for unprovoked aggressive war - indicates that the fascists are much closer to home than the Defense Secretary suggests.

Ken Duerksen
Oxford, Ohio

[ourtomorrows]

To jailrove

Just as a matter of historical accuarcy, world war II began in September of 1939 and ended in Europe in May of 1945 and in the pacific in August of 1945. The war lasted then a bit under six years. We have only been in Iraq for three.

[ourtomorrows]

In one area Rumsfeld is right, appeasement and isolation have NEVER worked. Small threats that are ignored become major threats down the road. Even for those of us who support the president and, according to one poster, have a "naive understanding of History," are competent enough to see the lessons of the past world wars. Britain and France appeased Germany, Italy and Japan at every turn in the 30s--what did it get us? They wanted to avoid another war and instead got exactly what they hoped to avoid.

I get quite sick of the alleged intellectual superiority that is flaunted by those who oppose the President's policies and insinuate that anybody who supports ANY of his policies is a deluded simpleton.

Rumsfeld understands history, men like Howard Dean and Reid are far more dangerous because they don't and never will.

[jailrove]

And is the Iraqi insurgency more "vicious and relentless" than Hitler and the Third Reich? Is that why it's taking longer to win in Iraq than it did in Europe? Maybe if Bush hadn't declared V-day quite so early...

[alphaa10-2009]

<b>Rumsfeld is a big help to Bush-- secretly, he is Charlie McCarthy to Bush's Edgar Bergen.</b> If you actually catch Bush's lips moving when "Rumsfeld" speaks, you see at once how the routine is supposed to work.

So, <b>Rumsfeld is supposed to go out of his way to create acrimony, and clearly wants people to hate him-- all the better to divert public attention from his boss.</b> Why the diversion tactic? <b>Because Bush cannot take the heat for his own mistakes.</b> Rumsfeld is a former fighter jock, and any good wingman knows when his leader is about to be shot down and breaks up the maneuver, if he can.

<b>Bush is getting a little burned by all the incompetence he has displayed, and he needs somebody besides Rice in his corner. </b>But Rumsfeld, der GeneralFeldMarschall? The man even the Pentagon loves to hate? Javol ! Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld uber alles...

[rockygabriel]

Yo Rummy,

When you point the finger at facists, three a pointing back at you.

Go figure :)

BTW, I meant you!

[long_rider]

I don't like anything about this secretive, and opressive administration. I will support any, and all, efforts to impeach this president, and remove the co-president. This administration has been no good from the start, they have done zero for the American people.

As for anyone losing the war? Rumsfeld should look in the mirror, after all he is in charge of it. Isn't he?

Rumsfeld's speach was just like all speaches from the chimps cage (Whitehouse), hollow words.