NYT suckers KP by carving up Rumsfeld’s speech

[ballz2wallz]

NYT suckers KP by carving up Rumsfeld’s speech

So I was over at Kirsten Powers’s blog, pining away, when I stumbled upon this bit of unwarranted snarkiness. Emphases mine:

The NYT’s reports on Rumsfeld’s latest broadside against those who are in touch with reality:
“Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday that critics of the war in Iraq and the campaign against terror groups ’seem not to have learned history’s lessons,’ and he alluded to those in the 1930’s who advocated appeasing Nazi Germany.”
He really shouldn’t talk about Robert Novak, George Will, and William F. Buckley Jr. like that. Not nice at all. I may not agree with them on most things, but calling them appeasers is just not nice.

Yeah, it’s not nice. It’s also not what he said. Here’s the transcript. Quote:

There was a strange innocence about the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. senator’s reaction in September of 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:
“Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!”
I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today — another enemy, a different kind of enemy — has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history’s lessons.

Note: not Baghdad or Fallujah, although I certainly would have included them on the list. And note: it’s not “critics of the war in Iraq” but “some” unspecified segment of the population he accuses of not having learned history’s lessons. Would Powers herself deny that that’s true? She’s a Lieberman supporter, for Christ’s sake. She knocked the nutroots “fringe” not five days ago for believing that the UK terror plot was concocted to distract the world from Little Neddy’s primary win in Connecticut. Has she changed her mind?

Or did she make the very foolish mistake of trusting the Times to represent accurately what Rumsfeld had said?

More from the Times article:

Mr. Rumsfeld’s speech on Tuesday did not explicitly mention the Democrats, and he cited only comments by human rights groups and in press reports as evidence of what he described as “moral or intellectual confusion about who or what is right or wrong.”

Here’s the passage that quote comes from. He’s talking about Haditha and the rape and murder of the young Iraqi girl at Mahmoudiya:

[i]n every army, there are occasional bad actors, the ones who dominate the headlines today, who don’t live up to the standards of the oath and of our country. But you also know that they are a very, very small percentage of the literally hundreds of thousands of honorable men and women in all theaters in this struggle who are serving our country with humanity, with decency, with professionalism, and with courage in the face of continuous provocation. (Applause.)
And that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.

I.e., just because we have some bad people in the military doesn’t mean we’re the bad guys, especially vis-a-vis this particular enemy. Would Powers disagree with that? Will she not at least acknowledge that Rumsfeld’s rhetoric about appeasement doesn’t accuse anyone of being unpatriotic or cowardly, as so many lefties often claim, but merely “confusion”?

I see now there’s a lot more work to be done here before KP joins us on the right. A lot more.

McQ caught the Associated Press doing the same type of hatchet job on the very same Rumsfeld speech; read it now if you missed it earlier on Instapundit. Meanwhile, the morons at “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” are planning a special commentary tonight on Rumsfeld’s speech; I’m on the mailing list (don’t ask) and received this hot bulletin a few hours ago:

Things have changed since we sent out today’s newsletter… worth noting.
Keith will have a commentary on Donald Rumsfeld’s “fascism” remarks.
It’s a must-see edition of Countdown.

No doubt it’ll be scrupulously fair to, and representative of, Rumsfeld’s actual remarks. Check in at Olbermann Watch later. I’m sure they’ll have the heavy artillery out for this.

once again, the media twists and turns and misrepresents

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

NYT suckers KP by carving up Rumsfeld’s speech



once again, the media twists and turns and misrepresents

Don't they know only politicians are allowed to do that?

[motivez]

I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today — another enemy, a different kind of enemy — has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history’s lessons.

Yeah, because that's obviously not related to current criticism of Iraq? Give me a break, she's right on the money.

He's talking about the rise of a new facism, ie: 'Islamic Fascism', and that's been a recent talking point as it relates to the insurgency in Iraq and terrorists all around the world. It's also been a recent talking point that some have forogtten the lessons of the past when the discussion has been about Iraq.

The other stuff, eh, that's pretty shitty that they'd misrepresent what he was talking about.. but the first one is dead on IMO.

[Thorgrim]

I like how he alludes to his critics being like Neville Chamberline meeting with Hitler, yet



The irony is killing me

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I like how he alludes to his critics being like Neville Chamberline meeting with Hitler, yet



The irony is killing me

The difference is when Saddam stopped cooperating we attacked him. Did Neville do that? I see no irony here.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

The difference is when Saddam stopped cooperating we attacked him. Did Neville do that? I see no irony here.

We are fine with genocidal dictators as long as they go after who we want.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

We are fine with genocidal dictators as long as they go after who we want.

the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And it's been working out great for us for the past 100 years.

[phreak]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

NYT suckers KP by carving up Rumsfeld’s speech



once again, the media twists and turns and misrepresents

[motivez]

After listening to NPR today I think I'm inclined to retract my statement about misrepresenting the ultimate point on some of those other quotes

There's a concerted effort on the Administration's part to link all of the things going on right now together in an effort to take some attention off the horrible failure that Iraq has become

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I like how he alludes to his critics being like Neville Chamberline meeting with Hitler, yet



The irony is killing me

The irony is killing me

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

The irony is killing me

what irony, Churchhill and FDR were flawed for that meeting or something...or they have poor moral values because they averted WW3 between the Eastern and Western Europe as the allies entered Berlin?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

what irony, Churchhill and FDR were flawed for that meeting or something...or they have poor moral values because they averted WW3 between the Eastern and Western Europe as the allies entered Berlin?

that we allies with stalin, one of the most murderous dicators of all time.

[JaJae]

I find it a bit humorous that a NY Times writer got caught with their pants down and it's somehow acceptable because some disagree with the war on Iraq or agree with the doctored message.

I wonder how the responses would be if the situation were reversed.

[motivez]

I don't really think they were wrong though. The message from Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush has all been the same

As I said, there is an effort to link all of this together with the conflict in Iraq, so that they can say people who disagree with what's going in Iraq would have appeased the Nazi's or whatever.

[Scrum]

This is just more of the same from the adminsitration.

They like to set these things up for plausible deniability. They constantly draw 2 lines to the same point, knowing the person who hears it will connect them. Just like the whole 9/11-Iraq thing.

God forbid a reporter goes ahead and connects the lines and comments on it.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

The message from Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush has all been the same

Doesn't matter what you've heard from them or heard about them in the past. This was one speech by one man, not Cheney or Bush. And his words were carefully written for this speech. Changing them to suit previous beliefs or words of other politicians is wrong... Especially if you're a paid media writer.

[motivez]

It's not about the past or previous beliefs dude.

It's about a concerted effort on their part. They've all had speeches in the past day or two saying essentially the same things that Rumsfeld did in his speech, linking the same things, etc.. and obviously for the same reasons.

They want to be able to brand people who disagree with Iraq as Nazi appeasers.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's not about the past or previous beliefs dude.

It's about a concerted effort on their part. They've all had speeches in the past day or two saying essentially the same things that Rumsfeld did in his speech, linking the same things, etc.. and obviously for the same reasons.

They want to be able to brand people who disagree with Iraq as Nazi appeasers.

You can say "they" have all said these types of things in the past, doesn't really change the fact that in this speech it didn't happen. Saying it did and changing the context of his speech to continue to suit that agenda is morally and ethically wrong.

[motivez]

Actually I think Bush's speech came after Rumsfeld's

And, it's not changing the context of the speech. Look at the shit surrounding what he said. It's a clear cut case of reading between the lines and understanding the broader Administration objective by coordinating phrases and wording in speeches.

It's pretty obvious. Being unwilling to look deeper into the meaning and message of the speech in context with what's going on today in the world and here at home doesn't change the fact that this had an obvious meaning.

The first example is what I'm talking about. The latter one is a pretty misrepresentation of facts. There are others though that were discussed today on NPR and I agree with what I heard about who's feet he's laying some of these criticisms.

The first is dead on though. Who do you think that "some" is referring to?

Obviously the "cut and run, hate america first, leave before the job is done" liberals who oppose Iraq.