A day after our DKos hurrah for the sage words of Keith Olbermann, comes a raft of editorials from newspaper boards across the country, all calling Don Rumsfeld on the carpet for the latest in a long series of hollow defenses of the indefensible. I'll start with a quick review of my hometown paper's editorial, and will offer a few links to other editorials nationwide.
This morning's Star Tribune (Minneapolis) makes two key points:
... (W)e suspect that Rumsfeld is just fronting for a desperate White House. President Bush should, indeed, worry that the public now recognizes that his detour into Iraq was an epic blunder, that it has weakened the nation against the true terror threat and that it has damaged the nation's standing in the world. The consequences in the fall elections could be devastating for Republicans.
It is no surprise that they're playing politics--and what is the price?
Bush keeps saying that he will not "quit Iraq before the job is done." We agree. But what is the job? There were no WMD, no links to Al-Qaida, no mass welcoming of American troops with hugs and flowers.
All Bush and Rumsfeld have accomplished is to incite a civil war that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis and more than 2,600 brave U.S. troops. Will the job be done when Iraq is totally engulfed in war with itself?
Who, in this case, is "morally confused"? Who has forgotten the lessons of history? It was Rumsfeld's arrogance and hubris that, once the Iraq folly was hatched, insisted on a force far too small to secure the country's stability.
Visit
http://www.startribune.com/... for the full editorial.
Meanwhile, other like-minded editorials of note include:
http://www.latimes.com/...
Even more offensive is Rumsfeld's "blame America first" canard. Who exactly has been pushing what he called "the destructive view that America -- not the enemy -- is the real source of the world's troubles"? Certainly no one in mainstream American political discourse
http://www.boston.com/...
These days, the term fascism is loosely applied to anything antidemocratic. But it has a specific meaning in the context of World War II, and Rumsfeld's application robs the word of its power. Similarly, there is plenty of fodder for a sharp critique of the Bush administration without opponents resorting to hyperbole about Hitler.
These cliched allusions -- whether from anti war activists or from official Washington -- only cheapen the memory of the Holocaust and hasten the degradation of political discourse. The history of European fascism ought not be hijacked for cheap political effect .
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...
As any administration knows, rhetorical misdirection can help win the immediate argument. Rumsfeld received a standing ovation. But resolute administration avoidance of the real issues has contributed to the widening disillusionment even among former supporters of the war from both parties over failure to address fundamental problems in the incoherent, poorly executed Iraq campaign.
http://www.charlotte.com/...
The Hitler analogy is a baseless smear. The choice isn't between present policy and appeasement. It's between present policy and a more effective policy. Many Americans who favor strong action to combat terrorism disagree with Mr. Rumsfeld's way of going about it. They include many retired generals and several Republicans in Congress. Appeasers? Baloney!
http://www.roanoke.com/...
Responsible critics don't want to placate Osama bin Laden. They want to defeat the radical Islamist movement he inspires.
In the five years since al-Qaida's attacks on the United States, the movement has metastasized.
So no one in this administration should be trying to silence those who question its strategy.
The answers, after all, are years overdue.
http://www.postcrescent.com/... (Appleton, WI)
It is good, perhaps healthy, for citizens to weigh carefully the information emanating from all sources on the war, then speak out on their beliefs. It is also important to show support for the troops and honor their service. But it is not healthy to hint that those who question the administration's tactics are traitors.
The secretary and others in the administration also often fail to acknowledge that its critics do not disagree that there is a real threat to America. Even Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, perhaps the president's most vocal detractor in Congress, has said repeatedly our nation is in danger. But his objections -- and others' -- revolve around America's approach and methods toward combating that danger. It's the how, not the what.
http://www.ajc.com/... (Atlanta)
To blame Donald Rumsfeld is not to blame America. To blame President Bush is not to blame America. To blame those of both parties in Congress who have lacked the courage to perform their duties of independent oversight in the conduct of this war is not to blame America.
It is not patriotism to sit in silent submission to those who have led this country into the most serious foreign policy blunder in our history. It is not moral confusion to point out that with its embrace of torture as a legitimate weapon, and with its refusal to abide by the Geneva Conventions, it is the Bush administration that has undercut the moral standing of the United States in a struggle in which moral standing is of utmost importance.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/... (Vermont)
The fascism equation is a useful way to halt actual thinking and diplomacy that might actually solve problems. .... There are dangerous players in the Middle East, including al-Qaida and Iran. But the terrorist threat comes from many different groups with differing agendas. To call them all fascists oversimplifies our view of them and threatens to oversimplify our response.
Even those editorials that don't entirely get it, sort of get it. The Dallas Morning News, while defending the administration's overall goals in Iraq, still chides them for their rhetorical recklessness:
Invoking Hitler is designed not to invite understanding but to obscure it for the sake of manipulation. If it really is 1938 all over again, then there's only one thing we can do: Go to war with all we've got. The Hitler analogy is not necessarily wrong, but it is so freighted with historical memory that it compels the war conclusion. It puts those who invoke it in the Churchill position, and portrays those who disagree as jelly-spined Chamberlains.
http://www.dallasnews.com/...
Well, they almost figured it out. However, many, many more editorialists got it right. Let us all hope the tide is continuing to turn.
NOTE: Editorial quotes added...forgive the lack of paragraph breaks. :)