Posted on 09/03/2006 7:43:00 PM PDT by FreeKeys
****UPDATED: AP has apparently edited the original article. See update below.****
Interesting little side by side here. Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech to the American Legion. You can read it here. Robert Burns from AP reported on the speech. You can read it here. Below are some comparisons from the story and the speech.
1. What AP says Rumsfeld said:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."What Rumsfeld said:
I recount this history because once again we face the same kind of challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism.
Today, another enemy — a different kind of enemy — has also made clear its intentions — in places like New York, Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, and Moscow. But it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons.
We need to face the following questions:2. What AP says Rumsfeld said:* With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?
* Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
* Can we truly afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply “law enforcement” problems, rather than fundamentally different threats, requiring fundamentally different approaches?
* And can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world’s trouble?These are central questions of our time. And we must face them.
In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.What Rumsfeld said:
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 appeased, then the carnage and destruction of then-recent memory of World War I might be avoided. It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis — the rise of fascism and Nazism — were ridiculed and ignored.3. What AP says Rumsfeld said: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 Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.
There was a strange innocence in views of the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. Senator’s reaction in September 1939, upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:
"Lord, if only I could have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided.”
Think of that!
[...]
And in every army, there are occasionally bad actors — the ones who dominate the headlines today — who don’t live up to the standards of their oath and of our country.
But you also know that they are a small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of honorable men and women in all theaters in this struggle who are serving with humanity and decency in the face of constant provocation.
And that is important in this “long war,” where any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.
Rumsfeld recalled a string of recent terrorist attacks, from 9/11 to bombings in Bali, London and Madrid, and said it should be obvious to anyone that terrorists must be confronted, not appeased.What Rumsfeld said:
Today, another enemy — a different kind of enemy — has also made clear its intentions — in places like New York, Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, and Moscow. But it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons.4. What AP says Rumsfeld said:We need to face the following questions:
* With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?
"But some seem not to have learned history's lessons," he said, adding that part of the problem is that the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive.What Rumsfeld said:
But this is still — in 2006 — not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there is more of a focus on dividing our country, than acting with unity against the gathering threats.In example one, it is apparent, at least to me, that Rumsfeld wasn't at all accusing anyone of anything. He was instead saying these questions need to be asked and answered by everyone, to include those who disagree with the administration. But there isn't an accusation against anyone within that portion of his speech.We find ourselves in a strange time:
* When a database search of America’s leading newspapers turns up 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib who was punished for misconduct, than mentions of Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the Global War on Terror;
* When a senior editor at Newsweek disparagingly refers to the brave volunteers in our Armed Forces as a “mercenary army”;
* When the former head of CNN accuses the American military of deliberately targeting journalists and the former CNN Baghdad bureau chief admits he concealed reports of Saddam Hussein’s crimes when he was in power so CNN could stay in Iraq; and
* It is a time when Amnesty International disgracefully 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.”Those who know the truth need to speak out against these kinds of myths, and lies, and distortions being told about our troops and our country.
The struggle we are in is too important — the consequences too severe — to have the luxury of returning to the old mentality of “Blame America First.”
Example two shows no "accusation" with the phrase "moral and intellectual confusion." In fact he's talking about our military when he uses the phrase. "Moral confusion" is also found in the speech where he discussed the history leading up to WWII. However it is never addressed to the administration's critics.
Additionally, "courage" is found one time in the speech and it is addressing something completely different ("And one day, a future speaker may reflect back on this time of historic choice — remembering the questions raised as to our country’s courage, dedication, and willingness to continue this fight until we have prevailed.". Nowhere is anyone "accused" of "lacking the courage to fight back."
Example three again puts words in Rumsfeld's mouth. He never said it should be obvious that confrontation was preferable to appeasement. He instead asked a question for others to answer for themselves.
Example four is the least egregious of the four. Emphasis is mine. While he never comes right out and says "the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive" that message could be taken from his presentation. But as presented by AP, it sounds like a specific accusation, when it wasn't at all. So at best it is an exaggeration and at worst a mischaracterization of what Rumsfeld said.
I'm not sure why I felt compelled to compare the speech with the story, but for some reason the story just didn't sound right. And, as you can see, it wasn't. "Infer" does not mean the same as "accuse" especially when the inference wasn't really at all evident. When you say someone accuses another, it means something to most of us. I defy anyone to find an accusation within that speech which fits the descriptions found in Mr. Burns' article.
UPDATE: CNN repeats the story unedited and obviously, unchecked. Forbes as well. Ditto for ABC and Fox. And you wonder how myths and memes get started?
UPDATE II: AP has edited the original story. Yesterday the story had the following lead paragraph:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism."Now the lead paragraph says:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the world faces "a new type of fascism" and warned against repeating the pre-World War II mistake of appeasement.Additionally this paragraph has gone missing as well:
In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.To be replaced by these:
Rumsfeld alluded to critics of the Bush administration's war policies in terms associated with the failure to stop Nazism in the 1930s, "a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the Western democracies."
Without explicitly citing Bush critics at home or abroad, he said "it is apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons." Aides to Rumsfeld said later 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.Well imagine that.
(dozens of comments follow at the source page)
If reality does not fit your agenda, edit it or re-invent it until it does. It's in the liberal charter.
Rumsfeld Use of Word “Appease” Irks Dems
In a speech to the American Legion Convention in Salt Lake City, Secretary Rumsfeld asked “Can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?” Inasmuch as the term “appeasement” is widely associated with unsuccessful pre-World War II efforts to deter Adolf Hitler from starting a war, Democratic critics of President Bush’s handling of the war on terror were quick to take offense.
“I never said ‘appease,’” protested Representative John Murtha (D-Penn). “I said we should assuage the fears of the Muslims by pulling our troops out of their countries.”
“Mollify is the term I use,” said Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc). “I am no appeaser. I am a ‘mollifier.’”
“At first, I was for placating our adversaries,” said Senator John Kerry (D-Mass). “Later I switched to favor propitiation. But now I agree with Senator Feinberg. I think we should mollify them. Parenthetically, if I may interject, they would most likely have been placated, propitiated and/or mollified by now if I had been elected president in 2004. But never, ever would I appease them. Rumsfeld is slandering me.”
“I am no appeaser,” said Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass). “Getting bombed has always struck me as the better option. Rumsfeld needs to apologize and resign.”
“This is almost as bad as the ‘cut-run-surrender’ smear the Republicans have been trying to lay on us,” Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee Chairman, complained. “We never said that. Our position is that the U.S. should disengage, flee and yield. And we aren’t waving a white flag. It’s ‘cream.’”
Thus far, Rumsfeld has declined to apologize, resign, or respond to the Democrats’ complaints. “How can I respond?” Rumsfeld asked. “Their position is incoherent. “Appease, mollify, placate, whatever—it’s all the same thing.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
Delightful. Thanks!
Pronunciation: 'mä-l&-"fI
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English mollifien,
from Middle French mollifier,
from Late Latin mollificare,
from Latin mollis soft;
akin to Greek amaldynein to soften,
Sanskrit mrdu soft, and probably to Greek malakos soft,
amblys dull, Old English meltan to melt transitive verb
1 : to soothe in temper or disposition : APPEASE
mollified the staff with a raise
2 : to reduce the rigidity of : SOFTEN
3 : to reduce in intensity : ASSUAGE, TEMPER
intransitive verb, archaic : SOFTEN, RELENT
synonym see PACIFY
You DID see that John's column was satire, didn't you?
Ya, I just went off because of Feinstein being mentioned.
I really dislike that scum sucking turd sucker.
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.