«"We know for a fact ... that terrorists studied Somalia and they studied instances where the United States was dealt a blow and tucked in and persuaded themselves they could, in fact, cause us to acquiesce in whatever it is they wanted us to do," [Rumsfeld] told reporters aboard his plane.
... Rumsfeld made clear that he was talking about both the international press, such as reports on the Arab al Jazeera television network, and critics in the United States.
...
Earlier in his trip, Rumsfeld had criticized the U.S. news media for ignoring "the story of success and accomplishment" in Iraq and argued that the speed of improvement in the country "dwarfs any other experience I'm aware of," including Germany and Japan after World War II. He argued that the impact of continued attacks against U.S. forces had been overstated and likened them to isolated terrorist violence "in every country in the world."»
--Washington Post: Rumsfeld: Criticism at Home, Abroad Harms War on Terrorism
It's right shame that the Founding Fathers of the US, who had done such a marvelous job crafting the second Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of citizens to bear arms, included that unfortunately worded predecessor that allows disloyal muckrackers to give tangible support to terrorists. You're right, Mr. Rumsfeld, to condemn the media on the shameful way it keeps bringing up your failure to find credible evidence of WDM, to expeditiously restore "normalcy" to the liberated citizens of Iraq or even find Saddam Hussein and his good buddy Osama bin Laden. What is the media for, if not to enlighten our nation? If only those naysayers would just support the troops and not question the motives, goals or methods of this administration, America could once again be a great nation, as it once was in the sunset of World War II.
Shame on you, Mr. Rumsfeld.
Shame for equating the loyal and reasonable opposition to the Bush administration's foreign and domestic policies to giving aiding terrorists. Shame for stooping to the kind of sophistry that is normally the domain of autocratic regimes, like the one recently deposed in Iraq. Shame for the stranglehold this administration has on the real news of 9/11, the investigations that followed and the wars in the Middle East.
Your loyal critics have had to do a lot of handwaving and speculation about the details of the mischief that's been done under the rubric of "the War on Terror." The cause of "national security" has been stretched so thin that soon, I suspect, only Pentagon officials will be allowed into White House press conferences. What the world is likely to learn when you cowboys in DC are shown the door in 2004 or, God help us, 2008 makes my blood run cold.
Either burn the Constitution in great bonfire at an oceanic GOP rally or acknowledge the rightful place of loyal dissent in a healthy democracy. Trying to scare the population with unspecified warnings on the one hand and intimating veiled threats to your opposition on the other has all the panache of a schoolyard bully. I will not see the Stars and Strips set down in history next to the Swastica as a fascist symbol.
I am a loyal American, Mr. Rumsfeld. My family has been in this country for generations. My father served in the Navy during the Korean War and my brother served in the Air Force. I've got friends currently serving in the military today. I am tax payer and a voter. I believe that American experiment has not failed (entirely). I assert that the Constitution, despite its age, brevity and occasional shortcomings, still provides the best of system of government that anyone has come up with so far. I am as loyal a citizen of this representive democracy as you are likely to find.
And I oppose you.
The First Amendment gives the media every right to criticize the administration and bring into question whether what the administration is doing what is right for the country. It also gives Rumsfeld the same right to call into question whether the media is doing what is in the best interests of this country. Somehow, you seem to believe the First Amendment only gives license to criticism of the Government.
Shame on you for equating the brutal murderers of Iraq with Rumsfeld's constitutionally protected criticism of reporting with which he doesn't agree.
Re:Give me a break
jjohn on 2003-09-09T03:38:49
Somehow, you seem to believe the First Amendment only gives license to criticism of the Government.
Yes, I do believe that was exactly the intention of the First Amendment: to check the power of elected officials. The media can be more effective hedge against rogue governments that local mitilias.
Some autocrats sieze power from outside the political system. Some autocrats are elected to power (The Nazis, 1933 and Mussolini's Black Shirts, 1922) Plainly, my concern that we have elected autocrats to office. I point this out as I best I can. I admit, jordan, that I may be wrong. After all, I have no special source of information. I don't have an extensive education in world politics, beyond some college classes and some books I've read. I do get some of my facts wrong sometimes. It may be that the world is exactly as Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush as it is; that their foreign policy is designed to bring peace to the region and remove the global threat of terrorism for the good of everyone; that Iraq really had a successful WMD program, the evidence for which will soon be discovered. My analysis of the complexities of world politics may turn out be critically flawed.
However.
I remain deeply offended at Rumfeld's comments. I see them as part of a process that could lead the US toward full-blown fascism. I see no special reason why the US government is impervious to wholesale corruption or collapse. It is dangerously naive to believe otherwise. So in pointing out credible dangers to our democracy, I'm attempting to be a good citizen. The department of Homeland Security does much the same thing for precisely the same reason. If I have greatly misjudged the intentions (and actions) of the Bush administration, then I'll merely be a good, but loudly wrong citizen.
This Union has survived worse.
I have not equated the methods of the Hussein regime and those of the Bush administration. They differ by degree. It is true that there's no evidence that suggests Rumsfeld has violent interrogations videotapped so that he can masturbate to them later (like Uday Hussein is rumored to have done). It's true that there's no evidence that US forces shower captives with acid, as the Hussein regime seems to have done. Still, both regimes have split a lot of innocent blood, but it is the victor that writes history.
I don't suggest that Rumsfeld should not express his dismay or disagreement with the press. I would be dumbfounded if he did not disagree. My issue is that he not-so-subtly linked criticism of US foreign policy to aiding terrorists. I will not be branded a terrorist because I disagree with many of Bush's policies and I am entirely comfortable with my hyperbole in taking Rumsfeld to task for this tactic. I'll paraphrase Catch 22 here:
Yossarian: "The Germans are trying to kill me!"
Solider Foo: "The Germans are trying to kill all of us. This is war. They're not trying to kill you personally."
Yossarian: "Is that supposed to make me feel better?"This administration has been ruthlessly hostile to opposition, both inside the GOP and (naturally) outside. The kind of open and frank questioning that Mr. Blair is facing regarding Iraq's WMD should also be occurring today in Congress. I'm deeply concerned that this has not happened yet. The lack of a vigorous opposition makes me deeply uneasy.
Re:Give me a break
jordan on 2003-09-09T16:14:14
- Yes, I do believe that was exactly the intention of the First Amendment: to check the power of elected officials.
And here, all along, I thought that the First Amendment was supposed to protect speech and foster debate. I see, it's only supposed to be used to protect speech critical of the Government.
I guess Clinton really didn't have a protected right to criticize Rush Limbaugh then. Makes sense to me.
- Some autocrats sieze power from outside the political system. Some autocrats are elected to power (The Nazis, 1933 and Mussolini's Black Shirts, 1922) Plainly, my concern that we have elected autocrats to office. I point this out as I best I can.
Hey, if this were Usenet, according to Godwin's Law, I just won this debate! Whohoo!
Not satisfied with comparing Rumsfeld to Hussein, you now smear the whole Bush administration as being autocrats similar to Hitler and Mussolini.
- I admit, jordan, that I may be wrong. After all, I have no special source of information.
Yes. I, on the other hand, am never wrong and have access to all the information.
Give me a break, again. This faux humility is unbecoming someone who is throwing such slurs around so freely. If you could be wrong and have no special source of information, shouldn't you think twice before labelling Rumsfeld's critical remarks as shredding the Constitution? Do you really feel this does anything beneficial to the debate, an important debate, other than polarize the sides?
- I have not equated the methods of the Hussein regime and those of the Bush administration.
That's just not true. The methods are exactly what you equated when you said:
Shame for stooping to the kind of sophistry that is normally the domain of autocratic regimes, like the one recently deposed in Iraq.
Let's set aside for a moment that it's hard to see where Iraq ever used sophistry and I doubt that you actually believe, if you think about it, Rumsfeld did either. It's clear that you are saying that Rumsfeld uses the method of sophistry just as Iraq did.
- They differ by degree.
Huh? Now, this seems like a non sequitur. Either they use the same methods and they only differ by degree or they use different methods and the difference is not in degree.
- Still, both regimes have split a lot of innocent blood, but it is the victor that writes history.
And here is more equating the Bush Administration with the Iraqi Regime, but the important difference is that the victor (I assume you mean the American Administration here) gets to write the history.
- My issue is that he not-so-subtly linked criticism of US foreign policy to aiding terrorists. I will not be branded a terrorist because I disagree with many of Bush's policies and I am entirely comfortable with my hyperbole in taking Rumsfeld to task for this tactic.
Do you believe that it's impossible for someone who uses their free speech rights to aid terrorists?
Sorry, you don't have the right to not be called names. You can disagree, but you can't be protected from it.
So, you are entirely comfortable with your hyperbole. I see. Do you believe wild exaggeration actually adds to this debate?
Why not step away from invidious comparisons and hyperbole? Why not work to decrease the emotion and polarization surrounding the issues? You and I might find common ground if I felt you were reasonable. As it stands, I feel you are a chicken little crying that Kristallnacht is coming when in fact all that's happened is a little criticism.
- This administration has been ruthlessly hostile to opposition, both inside the GOP and (naturally) outside.
To what are you referring here? What, because Rumsfeld calls some people names, that's "ruthlessly hostile"?
- The kind of open and frank questioning that Mr. Blair is facing regarding Iraq's WMD should also be occurring today in Congress. I'm deeply concerned that this has not happened yet.
Do you propose that the Press here in the US wildly exaggerate single-source stories like they do in the UK? There, the reporter, Andrew Gilligan seems to believe that:
The truth of the story is "less important" than that the BBC should be seen to stand up to government pressure?
I could see how you long for the UK style of debate, seeing as you are comfortable with your own hyperbole.
- The lack of a vigorous opposition makes me deeply uneasy.
Used to be, vigorous opposition took courage. Eugene Debs was sentenced to prison for 7 years for making a speech that was deemed to discourage conscripts from serving in WWI. These days, it seems our press is cowed in submission by mere implications.
If you, or anyone else, actually had to suffer from the consequences of exercising your free speech, I think you would see such an outcry, which I would join, that would topple this Government. As it is, you seem to be just hysterical and easily dismissed.
Re:Give me a break
vsergu on 2003-09-10T00:04:24
Do you believe that it's impossible for someone who uses their free speech rights to aid terrorists?
Do you believe that it's impossible for the US government ever to become totalitarian? Or is that something we only need to fear when Democrats are in power?
Sorry, you don't have the right to not be called names.
Government officials accusing people of treason is more than name calling, and it's not the first time it's happened in this administration. Perhaps we don't have a right to avoid it, but it seems like something worth objecting to, and something that bears watching, even if they aren't yet blacklisting or jailing the traitors.
Re:Give me a break
jordan on 2003-09-10T17:30:31
- Do you believe that it's impossible for the US government ever to become totalitarian?
No, I don't think it's impossible, but I don't think Rumsfelds comments are any indication one way or the other that we're heading in that direction. I do believe that some of the media, particularly foreign media, are giving if not aid, certainly comfort to our enemies. I think this is all Rumsfeld was saying.
I also believe that it's not possible to criticize the Administration without giving some comfort to our enemies and therefore consider it protected speech. I think, if you asked, Rumsfeld would agree with this.
- Or is that something we only need to fear when Democrats are in power?
No, but I do think we have more to fear when these issues are so polarized. If half of the country believes the other half are evil monsters that will either sell us out in a minute and that half of the coutnry believes that the other half will take away all of our liberties, then we are in danger of a violent reaction that could truly lead to tyranny. Screaming that someone is shredding the Constitution when, in fact, they are exercising their protected right to free speech is an example of a polarizing activity that could do us great damage.
I don't believe, as some seem to, that criticizing the Government automatically makes you a good citizen. You can be a good citizen by criticizing the Government and you can be a good citizen by supporting the Government. In and of itself, your willingness and ability to criticize the Government does not make you a good citizen.
- Government officials accusing people of treason is more than name calling, and it's not the first time it's happened in this administration.
Mischaracterizing what someone has said is worse than name calling, in my book. Tell me, when exactly, did Rumsfeld or anyone else in this administration use the word treason with regard to their critics? I don't want to hear you point out when they said it by implication. Treason has a strict, Constitutionally defined, definition. Saying that you are aiding terrorists by your words is not the same as an accusation of treason.
- Perhaps we don't have a right to avoid it, but it seems like something worth objecting to, and something that bears watching, even if they aren't yet blacklisting or jailing the traitors.
In this discussion, I've always come down square on the side of your, or anyone's, ability to criticize the Government. Go ahead and object, but don't start screaming that the Constitution is being shredded if someone disagrees with you.Re:Give me a break
vsergu on 2003-09-09T04:00:29
I'm disheartened that nowadays we're apparently supposed to use countries like Iraq as the standard against which to measure the US government. Apparently we have to wait until the administration starts actually slaughtering its opponents before it's okay to object to government actions. Some of us think we should set our sights a bit higher.
And speaking of hyperbolic rhetoric, do you expect anyone to believe that "all media to which [you] have access to is openly critical of the Bush administration's policies at times"? Are you locked in a shed containing only issues of The Nation and Mother Jones? How do you manage to post to use Perl;?Re:Give me a break
hfb on 2003-09-09T15:45:11
Maybe he lives outside the US in a non-US territory:) Re:Give me a break
jordan on 2003-09-09T16:42:45
- I'm disheartened that nowadays we're apparently supposed to use countries like Iraq as the standard against which to measure the US government.
I wasn't the one who started making the ridiculous comparisons between the current administration and the Iraqi regime.
- Apparently we have to wait until the administration starts actually slaughtering its opponents before it's okay to object to government actions.
Congratulations on a fine strawman. Not only did you completely mischaracterize my position, you implied that we were dangerously close to a situation where this government will start slaughtering its opponents. I explicitly defended the right to criticize the Government. I also defended Rumsfeld's right to criticize the media.
- And speaking of hyperbolic rhetoric, do you expect anyone to believe that "all media to which [you] have access to is openly critical of the Bush administration's policies at times"? Are you locked in a shed containing only issues of The Nation and Mother Jones? How do you manage to post to use Perl;?
It seems to me that it's you that is living under a rock. Just go to news.google.com and type in "critical Iraq policy" and see all the many many articles, including those from US sources and not including The Nation nor Mother Jones. Even sources like FoxNews air views critical to the Administration. I'd be willing to bet that I can find critical views to the administration in every media I checked. Which is what I said. I said that "all media...is openly critical of the Bush administration's policies at times".
Re:Give me a break
vsergu on 2003-09-09T23:45:28
I apologize for overreacting, but I have become very sensitive to having Bush supporters say, whenever people point to some new erosion of civil liberties, that in Saddam's Iraq we wouldn't have been able to complain about such things. The statement is true, of course, but irrelevant.
My mindset did lead me to misread something you wrote. Because the sentence seemed to be a complaint, I somehow saw another "all" between "at" and "times", and thus turned a simple statement which with few would argue into a bit of over-the-top ranting.
What you actually did say is of course true, almost trivially so. The disagreement is about how critical the media are, how often, and when.
