Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged the troops fighting in Iraq in his speech Tuesday at the American Legion's annual convention. But he didn't stop there. He went on to say how lucky the country is to have President Bush, "a leader of resolve at a time of war" and a "president who works every day to fulfill his vow to bring the enemy to justice or to bring justice to the enemy." Rumsfeld even managed to squeeze in a brief recognition of his beloved Boy Scouts.
But the majority of his speech was about America's fascists.
And by fascists, Rumsfeld meant critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies.
The secretary of defense painted a picture of morally confused Westerners disagreeing with military strategies and buying into the far too cynical and negative news media.
Turns out it's not that the war in Iraq is failing because of mismanagement and poor postwar planning, but more accurately — according to Rumsfeld — because of critics' "destructive" views.
Rumsfeld's argument polarizes Americans into two vastly different groups — either you're with him, or you're against him. Either you're patriotic, or you're a fascist. Either you support the Bush administration, or you support terrorism. Either you're right, or you're utterly wrong.
If only it were that easy.
Questioning and criticizing your government does not make you a fascist, it certainly doesn't make you a supporter of terrorism and it doesn't even make you unpatriotic. Issues — especially political issues at a time of war — are not black and white.
Rumsfeld also takes a popular Bush administration tactic and attacks the media's Iraq war coverage. He cites the lack of coverage of Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, a soldier in Iraq who saved at least 100 lives and was justifiably awarded a Medal of Honor, as an example of "some quarters" focusing "on dividing our country." Then he goes on to complain about the "10 times as many mentions" of the abuse at Abu Ghraib by one soldier.
First, Smith was awarded the medal in 2005, and it garnered a more than 1,200-word story on The Washington Post's front page, as well as several other mentions in newspapers throughout the country — and that's just from the print media. As usual, Rumsfeld is apparently convinced it's all the media's fault — as though The New York Times, The Washington Post and other outlets mismanaged postwar Iraq.
The abuse in Abu Ghraib prison had far greater consequences for the U.S. and its ability to properly fight terrorism or any conflict in which the country is involved, like Iraq. The embarrassment of the scandal has tarnished our image, not only in regard to human rights, but also in our constant war to win the "hearts and minds" of those living in the Middle East.
The coverage of Abu Ghraib, according to the gospel of Rumsfeld, is an example of the media's goal to "distort" the truth about "our troops and our country." The media reports on the incompetence of the government — it does not cause it.
Rumsfeld did make one good point in his speech. He said Americans "over time will evaluate and reflect on what is happening in this struggle and come to wise conclusions."
And they have. Poll after poll, like the latest from CNN, shows the majority of Americans don't have confidence in the president or support the war in Iraq.
Rumsfeld's finally right — Americans have come to a "wise conclusion."
