Last week the man who gave us “stuff happens” and “you go to war with the Army you have” outdid himself. In an instantly infamous address to the American Legion, he likened critics of the Iraq debacle to those who “ridiculed or ignored” the rise of the Nazis in the 1930’s and tried to appease Hitler. Such Americans, he said, suffer from a “moral or intellectual confusion” and fail to recognize the “new type of fascism” represented by terrorists. Presumably he was not only describing the usual array of “Defeatocrats” but also the first President Bush, who had already been implicitly tarred as an appeaser by Tony Snow last month for failing to knock out Saddam in 1991.
"new type of fascism?"
def. (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice;
What could be the new type? Oh, wait, Rumsfeld must mean Islamo-fascism. There's nothing new about that. I also think it's a misnomer. [Check out this article from the Chicago Sun-Times about what mainstream Muslim-Americans are not only up against but about what they think would be a good first step: Islamic convention focuses on balance.]
Maybe he's talking about the fascism in this country? Christiantist-fascism?
What made Mr. Rumsfeld’s speech noteworthy wasn’t its toxic effort to impugn the patriotism of administration critics by conflating dissent on Iraq with cut-and-run surrender and incipient treason. That’s old news. No, what made Mr. Rumsfeld’s performance special was the preview it offered of the ambitious propaganda campaign planned between now and Election Day. An on-the-ropes White House plans to stop at nothing when rewriting its record of defeat (not to be confused with defeatism) in a war that has now lasted longer than America’s fight against the actual Nazis in World War II.
I've made reference in previous posts to George Orwell's 1984. Big Brother controlled ALL propaganda. Is this what Bush and Rumsfeld and Rove want? Total control of what we believe, think and say? Oh, yeah, thoughtspeak.
Here’s how brazen Mr. Rumsfeld was when he invoked Hitler’s appeasers to score his cheap points: Since Hitler was photographed warmly shaking Neville Chamberlain’s hand at Munich in 1938, the only image that comes close to matching it in epochal obsequiousness is the December 1983 photograph of Mr. Rumsfeld himself in Baghdad, warmly shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in full fascist regalia. Is the defense secretary so self-deluded that he thought no one would remember a picture so easily Googled on the Web? Or worse, is he just too shameless to care?
Can Mr. Rumsfeld explain the connection/difference between these two photos?
just asking...
No comments:
Post a Comment