Post-Gazette Editorial – 9/1/06

This page was last updated on September 4, 2006.

Loose talk / The Bush rhetoric on Iraq is sounding desperate; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; September 1, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“There are at least three pieces of falsely based rhetoric that are beginning to emerge in the fall political campaign that need to be put into context now, early in the game.

“All three are being put forward by senior U.S. government officials or Republican candidates, notably Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Pennsylvania’s own nonresident peddler of nontruths, Sen. Rick Santorum.”

[RWC] This editorial is really a response to speeches given by President Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld to the American Legion convention this week in Salt Lake City. In doing so, the PG shows its own desperate rhetoric by basing its position on name-calling and misrepresentations. You’ll see what I mean below.

“The first of these is that any American who does not believe that the United States should stay in Iraq, to pursue President Bush’s vanity war to the end and continue to lose young fighting Americans as well as burn up formidable amounts of cash, is somehow not only wrongheaded but also a traitor who does not really love freedom.

“This is a scurrilous lie, insulting and a disgusting slur on good Americans -- Democrats, Republicans or independents -- who believe that it is time the nation found a way to bring an end to a war that is now more than 3 years old.”

[RWC] Notice the editorial didn’t provide any quotes to support its allegation that VP Cheney, Sec. Rumsfeld, and Sen. Santorum are calling any opponent “a traitor who does not really love freedom.” That’s because the PG can’t.

Here’s a quote from President Bush’s speech. “Still, there are some in our country who insist that the best option in Iraq is to pull out, regardless of the situation on the ground. Many of these folks are sincere and they’re patriotic, but they could be -- they could not be more wrong.”

“A second, very misleading, line that, notably, Republican Senate candidate Santorum is using, most recently at a talk in Harrisburg on Monday, is that America’s current war is against ‘Islamic fascism.’ This concept is inaccurate and unhelpful to the United States in both of its words. Anyone with half a brain can see that Islam is by no means unified or unanimous in its support of al-Qaida, terrorism or even Hezbollah and Hamas. Think of the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Or think of Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia, majority Islamic countries that have offered troops to the United Nations to stand between Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense Forces in defending the integrity of southern Lebanon.”

[RWC] The editorial asserts, “Anyone with half a brain can see that Islam is by no means unified or unanimous in its support of al-Qaida, terrorism or even Hezbollah and Hamas.” While that is undoubtedly true, it was also true for Germans and Italians up to and through World War II. Face it, not all Germans were Hitlers and not all Italians were Mussolinis. Did that make the rise and danger of fascism and National Socialism (Nazism) any less real?

The example of “Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia” is ridiculous. None of these countries recognize Israel’s right to exist and they all openly support the “Palestinian cause.” Have you ever heard these countries condemn the Muslim attacks on Israel? Their offer “to stand between Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense Forces” is like the fox offering to guard the henhouse.

“In addition, what is going on in the Middle East does not meet the definition of fascism. Fascism is a political philosophy, albeit a scrofulous one, and is generally a national phenomenon, not cross-national and religious in its scope.”

[RWC] “What is going on in the Middle East does not meet the definition of fascism?” What dictionary does the PG use?

Here’s the primary definition of fascism from the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”

Here’s another point. While the PG doesn’t want to label Islamofascists as, well, fascists, the PG apparently didn’t have any problem when Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) compared our military to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others.” A search of the PG website found no editorials decrying this labeling of our military personnel.

“Mr. Santorum has given no previous indication of any knowledge of foreign affairs, but waving around the words ‘Islamic fascism’ may take the cake.”

[RWC] The editorial asserts, “Mr. Santorum has given no previous indication of any knowledge of foreign affairs.” Even if that were true, upon what “knowledge of foreign affairs” does the PG draw?

“The third falsely based line that some Republicans are throwing around is an effort to draw a link between the situation in Europe in the 1930s -- Hitler, British Prime Minister A. Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 Munich deal, the Holocaust carried out by Germany and other nations against the Jews of Europe -- and some Americans’ advocacy of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The two situations have nothing whatsoever in common -- even the fact that Mr. Chamberlain saw himself as trying to preserve peace in Europe, whereas the Bush administration is trying to find a way to say it’s been successful in Iraq despite the fact that none of its stated invasion objectives (apart from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein) have been achieved.”

[RWC] If the PG doesn’t see the similarities between the decade preceding World War II and the present, I’d like to see its history books.

· When it came to communism in the 1920s and 1930s, liberals were apologists for the USSR. For example, an NY Times “reporter” received a Pulitzer Prize for “reporting” that millions of Russians really weren’t dying of starvation. That, of course, was a lie.

· When it came to Hitler, the world let Germany rebuild its military despite the fact doing so violated the Treaty of Versailles ending World War I. We did the same with North Korea regarding nuclear weapons and we’re doing it again with Iran.

· Hitler wasn’t exactly quiet about his beliefs. The same is true for Iran’s leadership, which said publicly in 2005, “Israel must be wiped off the map.”

· Much of the world believed you could negotiate with evil people, like Hitler. Today, much of the world believes you can negotiate with terrorists and people who believe “infidels” must be converted to Islam or killed.

· When it came to “land for peace,” Europeans sacrificed Czechoslovakia in the Munich Agreement in an effort to appease Hitler. Of the agreement, PM Chamberlain declared it would mean “peace in our time.” Of course, that turned out to be wrong. Muslims constantly claim Israel can exchange “land for peace,” yet such concessions by Israel do not bring peace.

The fact is, the PG and its fellow travelers are so invested in their comparisons to Vietnam, they can’t afford the far more logical comparisons to the World War II era.

“What would be most useful for America at this point is that its 2006 electoral campaign be waged on the basis of truths -- about its economic situation, of primary importance, as well as the current position of the United States in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. Feeding lies into the system -- with claims that advocacy of withdrawal is disloyalty, ‘Islamic fascism’ is the problem or the situation in the Middle East is like that in 1930s Europe -- is stupid and counterproductive to useful debate among competing candidates. It needs to stop now before it goes any further.”

[RWC] Not for one second does the PG want to see the “2006 electoral campaign be waged on the basis of truths.” This editorial is just one of many examples.