Jim Cohen
Staff Writer
An Aug. 29 speech by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has drawn ire from critics of the Iraq War. In his address to the American Legion, Rumsfeld used harsh rhetoric tacitly comparing critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy to Nazi-era appeasers. Rumsfeld said the administration’s critics are suffering from “moral and intellectual confusion,” implying they lack the understanding of America’s security threats and the courage to fight terrorism. Rumsfeld asked, “Can we truly afford to believe somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?”
As criticism of the speech intensified, Secretary Rumsfeld attempted to clarify his remarks but the damage had already been done. A speech that conjures the memories of the destruction caused by Hitler and his appeasers sends a clear election-year message that the purpose of the speech was intended to appease the Secretary’s political supporters.
To complicate the issue further, a Sept. 8th declassified CIA report from the U.S. Senate has once again acknowledged that Saddam Hussein “did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi (al-Qaeda) or his associates.”
The report went on to say that Hussein viewed al-Qaeda as a threat to his regime and unsuccessfully made an attempt to capture Zarqawi. While our nation’s leaders have known for some time that Saddam Hussein had no relationship with al-Qaeda or Zarqawi, on Aug. 21, President Bush said “imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein … who had relations with Zarqawi.”
That sounds like some “fuzzy math,” as the president would say, because what he said does not add up to the facts reported by the government. The “confusion” Rumsfeld spoke about seems to have permeated to our president. It gets more confusing.
In July, Israeli forces fought the real war on terrorism against Hezbollah and its Iranian-backed allies from Lebanon and Syria. While the Israelis fought for their physical existence, the prime minister of Iraq was about to make his first visit to the United States. Before Prime Minister Maliki left his home country, he publicly condemned Israel and explicitly supported Hezbollah’s terrorist attacks. After his statement, Maliki prepared to meet with Bush and give a speech to a joint session of Congress. The confusion continues.
Another prominent Iraqi, a popular and radical Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, held demonstrations with more than 10,000 of his militia fighters in the streets of Baghdad chanting “Death to America.” and “Death to Israel” in support of Hezbollah. While they protested, U.S. troops were responsible for providing security to allow the militia to have its demonstration.
Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia are a primary group responsible for launching the Iraqi insurgency that exploded in the spring and into the summer of 2004. Al-Sadr’s militia is responsible for killing hundreds of American troops according to Pentagon reports.
Can we imagine a world where Bill Clinton is still President? If we can, just imagine if Clinton invited a prime minister who openly supported the destruction of Israel and ordered U.S. troops to defend a group of militia fighters who support Hezbollah and are responsible for killing hundreds of our soldiers. Needless to say, Clinton and his Democrats would be painted as anti-American and weak on defense. Oh wait, that’s already been said. How confusing.
Can we truly afford to believe somehow, some way, vicious political speeches and failed foreign policies can be appeased? When our nation’s leaders refuse to acknowledge a fact and continue to say something that is incorrect, it demonstrates they lack the understanding of United States security threats and the courage to fight the real war on terrorism. The only appeasement is our national security taking a backseat to political motives. It is these motives that have created a confusion clouding Bush and Rumsfeld’s moral and intellectual conscience while our soldiers pay a horrible price for a disgusting mistake.
09-14-2006