"Little people, can't we all just get along?"
Posted on 09/01/2006 7:44:12 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reached out to Democrats, opening up the door for them to retract their stinging indictment of him as Pentagon chief.
In a letter to Congress's top Democrats, Rumsfeld said recent remarks he made during a speech in Salt Lake City were misrepresented by the media, including by The Associated Press. Rumsfeld said he was "concerned" by the reaction of Democrats, many of whom called for his resignation and said he was treading on dangerous territory
Democrats said Friday they stood by their remarks.
"We did read the speech and he makes comparisons to World War II" that are unjustified, said Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. "He needs to explain that. We stand behind what we said."
Pelosi, a California Democrat, had said: "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."
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
Excerps from Rumsfeld's speech ( link to full speech in post 1):
"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 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 -- as "the 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.”
Probably because the Dems didn't impede or obstruct our war effort, or assist and enable the Nazis back then.
They hate George Bush so much that they have transposed his fate with America's. And they would destroy the country in order to destroy him.
There is no patriotism in them.
Yes indeed, the Dems do want the US to lose, but they get terribly indignant, when someone points out this obvious fact.
It's not George Bush they hate. It's freedom.
..and the media, too...
Of course Rumsfeld is "concerned" about the reaction of Democrats.
He used to only "think" they were as dumb as carpet lint, now they've opened up thier mouths and confirmed it.
Someday, whether we like it or not, the Democrats will weild power again. It's just the ebb and flo of politics at work.
The real concern is that there are no JFK's left. No one (that they haven't already kicked to the curb) in that party has any interest in defending our country, or is strong enough to take real threats seriously. They'd rather spread the Michael Moore worldview that it's America, not terrorists, who are to blame for the worlds ills.
They are dangerous, and that is a cause of concern for all of us, not just Rummy.
You are right...if we don't get taken down from without by Islamofascists...we will be taken down from within by the dems...
They HATE George Bush more than they LOVE their families and country....because if they loved their family and the country, they would do anything to win the war..
"Little people, can't we all just get along?"
 |
 |
 |
"Of course Rumsfeld is "concerned" about the reaction of Democrats. He used to only "think" they were as dumb as carpet lint, now they've opened up thier mouths and confirmed it"
You hit the nail on the head-Rumsfeld, Rove, Cheney, Bush, et al, are playing the Dims like a cheap fiddle, and they're too stupid to see it!
The problem is the dimocRATS are not capable of a "constuctive debate". They do not have the mental capacity. However they are good a name calling and lying.
Who was that Senator?
Keep it up Rummy. They are scared for a reason.
Rove gave a great speech some months ago, that should be repeated.
Transcript: Karl Rove 's address to RNC
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562337/posts
"America is at war - and so our national security is at the forefront of the minds of Americans. President Bush has established a remarkable record. He is winning the war against terrorism, promoting liberty in regions of the world that have never known it, and protecting America against attacks.
The United States faces a ruthless enemy - and we need a commander-in-chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of this moment.
President Bush and the Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats.
At the core, we are dealing with two parties that have fundamentally different views on national security. Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview - and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong - deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong. "
Rumsfeld, Rove, Cheney, Bush, et al, are playing the Dims like a cheap fiddle, and they're too stupid to see it!
It's not that they are stupid, but they don't understand
the OODA Loop, the current administration, particularly
Cheney who supported David Boyd's work early on, are inside
their critics learning curve. The critics think they have the administration in their gunsights but find that Rummy, GW, And Cheney are already on their tail going, "Attack, attack, attack!"
Hose'em Dick, give'em one for David!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.