Don Rumsfeld gave a provocative and in my opinion shameful speech yesterday, which defended the war in Iraq and the Bush administration’s conduct of the fight against terrorism. In that speech, he argued that those who are against the war in Iraq and who criticized the way his administration fight terrorists group haven’t learned the lessons of history and are doing the same thing that the people who argued that it was possible to talk to and to bargain with Hitler did, that is appeasing a new kind of fascism. Here is an excerpt of what he 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! 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. But this is still -- even 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. 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.”
Rumsfeld has the right to believe that the war in Iraq is a struggle against fascism; he doesn’t have the right to say that those who don’t agree with him and with his characterizations would have wanted to talk to Hitler. The problem Rumsfeld isn’t that he uses History to defend the indefensible and to delegitimize serious criticisms, but the fact that he doesn’t know anything about History for he is too blinded by ideology.
The only history Rumsfeld knows is what Karl Rove tells him he is allowed to know.
Posted by: pgl | Wednesday, 30 August 2006 at 09:12 AM