Dems Bash Rumsfeld's Nazi Comments
Defense Secretary Likened Iraq War Opponents To Those Who Appeased Hitler
-
Play CBS Video
Video
White House Tackles Critics
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld speaks out against war critics while Vice President Dick Cheney rallied troops in Nebraska. Aleen Sirgany has more.
-
Video
Rumsfeld Rips Appeasement
CBS News RAW: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said critics of the administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies are trying to appease "a new type of fascism."
-
Video
Bush Meets With Defense Team
CBS News RAW: Before his briefing with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, President Bush spoke about the country's fight in the war on terrorism.
-
Photo
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld speaks at the American Legion's national convention in Salt Lake City, Aug. 29, 2006. (AP)
-
Who's Who
Iraq Insurgency
More on the militant groups behind the insurgency in Iraq and their motivations.
-
Interactive
Iraq: 4 Years Later
The conflict wears on as the nation struggles to rebuild.
-
Interactive
Religion In Iraq
An interactive guide to Iraq's religious, ethnic and ideological mix.
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."
©MMVI, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



- 1
- 2
- next
See all 51 CommentsSensing a sea-change in American attitudes to reject the scandalous Iraq war and all the deceitful rationales behind it, Rumsfeld tells himself the best defense is a good offense-- but has yet to come up with one. Churchill was good rhetoric when the British PM actually faced an indomitable foe, and the Nazis actually were waiting to invade. But the invader these days is Herr Rumsfeld, and der Generalfeldmarschall is merely another two-dimensional, political Nazi from central casting.
Rumsfeld is simply incompetent, as offen happens when senior politicos get control of areas of which they know little. Rumsfeld it was who rejected the sage advice of one of America's real generals, Gen. Eric Shinseki, who calmly told congress Rumsfeld would need many times the number of troops in the invasion to occupy Iraq and keep order. Shinseki was blackballed for his sound military advice, which brings to mind the many times Herr Hitler, himself, overruled his generals to pursue his own "brilliant" tactical innovations. Ironically, Shinseki, not Rumsfeld, helped create the Stryker and other forward-mobility concepts which made the invasion, itself, work as it did.
Hey, this isn't George Bush you are talking to now Mr. Rumsfield.
I have a brain and it is in working order, thank you very much.
All through its history, America never adopted "pre-emptive war" as a doctrine-- until Bush arrived. But that posture is correctly called by its real name-- conquest-- throughout the pages of history. That history will not spare Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their minions, who have plundered and endangered America's future in a way Hitler never accomplished.
I also have an issue with the way he lumps all terror groups into one group. There are lots of different terror groups out there and not all of them want to destroy the US. Some of them have much less ambitions.
Rumsfield speech is nothing more than fear mongering and trying to whip up support by scaring the American people. I wonder exactly who is suppose to be Hitler?? He must think the American people are stupid!
The Bush admin is running scared because there is a real fear that they will lose one or both houses of Congress this Nov. If they do, then all sorts of nasty things might come to light. Congress might starting hard questions like "What did you do with the 200 billion spent so far." Or worse still, refuse to give any more money to the Iraq disaster. Or how about putting Cheney on the stand in the Valerie Plame case. Or even start impeachment procedings against Bush. He certainly is guilty to lying to the American people.
He's right. Americans still have a chance to stop the slide into a new fascist state by getting rid of Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and all their brown shirt supporters. The greatest threat to American fredom is not the terrorists but the new security industry created as a result of 9/11.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." Benjamin Franklin
"those who FAIL to pay attention - shall be blown to pieces"
times have changed my friends.......
But I'm afraid the Rumsfield is right about the rise of Facism. It takes one to know one.
They have lied to us from day one and will continue to lie to us for as long as they exist.
This bozo is ... a leader? Not of the United States of America, certainly. But, yes, a ringleader.
Bush, Gonzales, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice. They are preachers of the "old world". They do not know how to listen to dissent. The opinions of others matter little when you KNOW you're right. The party they represent is just a rubber stamp due to various exploitive measures such as fund raising power and country wide talking point unification and propaganda.
If the left shows just a LITTLE bit of unification, I think they can win some elections and let DEBATE in Washington begin once again where the people in power unfortunately left it 6 years ago.
Don Rumsfeld has performed far better and accomplished more real objectives than any other defense secretary in history, and will go down in history with honors.
Thank you, Don Rumsfeld!
http://www.worldcantwait.net/
This is a call to rally support, a call to paper over the moral flaws in the conduct of the Administration, that has been at war for almost the entirity of its tenures. What we face, is a horrible terrorist threat, we face scum that want to kill us all, jew,christian,muslim,hindu regardless. Even the muslim Americans that live peacefully here are regarded as infidels. However that doesn't justify our conduct. Supporting the war in Lebanon severly damaged US reputation, Abu Ghuraib damages US reputation, 186%increase in oil exports from Iraq damages our reputation, rape claims damage US reputation, using napalm in Iraq damages US reputation.
cont..
The US needs to be tough on terror. But constant war, and suport for war, killing of innocent civillians, constantly is not helping US PR. Foreign pollicy, causes outrage and gives momentum to terrorists. The war on Terror should be more than just killing, and invading nations and creating more terrorist, it should simultaniously be a diplomatic one.
Rumsfeld knows people are not buying the same story as they did after 9/11, he knows no matter how hard they try, it a battle to persuade the public that Hizbollah and Al-Qaeda are one and the same thing. He acted to stop sympathy for the other side that more and more people are beginning to sympathise with. Of course nobody sympathises with terrorists in the shape of Al-Qaeda, but its becoming increasingly difficult to justify every attack by using the word terrorst.
"I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism,... Can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?"
In an eerie twist of irony he seems to be discribing his own administration. Freedom of the press has been compromised, it is time for all good citizen's to take action against the oppressors before it is too late. Rumsfeld is right that there are terrorists out there somewhere, we just don't know who they are because he's not doing his job. Take back our country now before these mindless pawns start WWIII, and have us all living in fear. Don't let them burn the Constitution, it is our only hope.
"The pen is mighter than the sword"
The reason Hitler came to power and the reason so many young Moslems are becoming radicalised are strikingly similar: Hitler rose to power through economic collapse in Germany following the Wall Street Crash; many young Moslems have been failed by the education system and are either not working or are in low-skill, low-wage jobs. Hitler came to power because the Germans felt that they had been humiliated by the 1919 Treaty of Versailles; young Moslems feel humiliated because they see their religion attacked by all sides, led by the US and Israel.
Until that link is learned by morons like Bush and Rumsfeld, then many more brave young soldiers from around the world will continue to lose their lives fighting a so-called "war on terror".
It was the good citizens of Germany that failed to "confront Hitler" allowing the propaganda machine to consume them, and drive them to war and dispair. Let us show him that we have studied our history classes, and we have learned valuable lessons that will help us to confront the "new fascism". Of course it would have helped if the Germans had the internet so they could bypass government propaganda and have a free exchange of information. I think this speech of Rumsfeld's will go down in history. Is it possible to insert a larger video segment of his speech above, that may be very helpful for the American people to help identify these new fascists.
"There is nothing to fear, but fear itself"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
WTC = Reichstag;
Van der Lubbe = Usama bin Laden;
Comintern = Al Qaeda;
Enabling act = Patriot act;
Hitler = ?
Their people ? You must be referring to government terrorism then ... because nobody would really care about "Al Qaeda people". And I guess that by "to control all aspects of there people's lives" you mean "illegal wiretapping" ...
Terrorists = a bunch of guys with ak-47's, no hierarchy, no military, no blitzkrieg, no unity, and no leadership; hell they can barely keep us out of their own countries.
US = More guns, bombs, and money than the rest of the planet combined; shivering in terror over what?
We are at war against potential external threats; like a hypochondriac we are fighting things in reality that can never be defeated.
"War on Terror", be afraid, be very afraid. THEY COULD BE ANYONE, ANYWHERE, AT ANY TIME!!! Luckily we have the Bush/Cheney Administration. Whew.
The "War on Terrorism" is a political scam to make us all afraid. It is nothing more than a useless tactic. (Terrorism is not an enemy. Terrorism is a tactic.)
Strategic US terrorism in Iraq has inspired more terrorists than all the previous Middle Eastern misadventures in the whole of the 20th Century.
Rumsfeld should resign. All that the Neocon's ever wanted to do was destabilize the region and divide Iraq into three parts. That's the logical solution, anyway, but they won't even admit to this. Boo! to his current statement. Like so much of his thought, it is drivel from a killer.
Future generations will judge you favorably.
Those who cling to the dieing anomaly of Liberalism will wish they had shown more respect, although in the future, Liberals will be too ashamed of themselves to admit it.
If you believe that the Iraq debacle has made us safer, think again. It has TOTALLY weakened us in everyway. Our reputation is shot with every world leader except Britians and I'm not sure about that. We are massively in debt to China, who is no ally of ours! (do you remeber Bill Clinton left us in the black). The mismangement of the Middle East from Iraq to Lebanon has created hordes of people who will hate us forever (do you remember how close Bill Clinton had to getting every one to sign a piece accord.)
The latest fiasco in Lebanon was a disaster that strengthened Hezzbolla and Iran (who are enemies) and weakened Israel (our ally).
I have lived through presidents from Kennedy to gw and he makes Nixon look like a player. gw is the most incompetent, idiotatic, just plain stupid man to ever hold office. Christ, even Warren Harding didn't do as much damage as gw.
As for being ashamed, you should die of shame for supporting this facist!
After controlling America's direction for six years, Republicans look in the mirror and see disaster in their wake. They've put the nation in the middle of the Big Muddy called Iraq; failed to call to task those who designed and sold the nation on a dead end war; gave up on the concept of competition when doling out billion dollar no-bid contracts; kept the costs of war out of the federal budget; gave bin Laden a pass; helped spawn a worldwide boom in terrorism; smeared the reputation of critics; sliced health care benefits to veterans; tarnished America's reputation around the world; let a major American city drown; shut down the science business to leap into deathbeds, libraries, and phone calls; gave up on health care; polarized the nation; squandered a surplus; drove America into debt; built a bloated government; dragged the dangers of *** marriage and flag burning out of the grave; recruited the Creator of the entire universe as their party's personal mascot; and began minting fear as the coin of their realm. In desperate need of a campaign slogan, they can look to history for an answer. Of course, they'd have to give FDR's rallying cry their own, personal, revealing twist: Republicans: The Only Thing We Have to Offer Is... Fear Itself
After controlling America's direction for six years, Republicans look in the mirror and see disaster in their wake. They've put the nation in the middle of the Big Muddy called Iraq; failed to call to task those who designed and sold the nation on a dead end war; gave up on the concept of competition when doling out billion dollar no-bid contracts; kept the costs of war out of the federal budget; gave bin Laden a pass; helped spawn a worldwide boom in terrorism; smeared the reputation of critics; sliced health care benefits to veterans; tarnished America's reputation around the world; let a major American city drown; shut down the science business to leap into deathbeds, libraries, and phone calls; gave up on health care; polarized the nation; squandered a surplus; drove America into debt; built a bloated government; dragged the dangers of *** marriage and flag burning out of the grave; recruited the Creator of the entire universe as their party's personal mascot; and began minting fear as the coin of their realm. In desperate need of a campaign slogan, they can look to history for an answer. Of course, they'd have to give FDR's rallying cry their own, personal, revealing twist: Republicans: The Only Thing We Have to Offer Is... Fear Itself
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.
When you point the finger at facists, three a pointing back at you.
Go figure :)
BTW, I meant you!
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...
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.
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.
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
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?
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 51 Comments