I could make a full-time job out of chronicling Donald Rumsfeld being a jackass. I doubt we’ll ever see again an administration that so thoroughly misrepresents and attacks its opponents. What about those anti-war guys, Donny-boy?

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration’s critics as suffering from “moral and intellectual confusion” about what threatens the nation’s security.

You know, a guy who on not once, not twice, but three times got caught trying to say he never said something should probably avoid accusing others of any kind of confusion. And then there’s his problem with history.

Now the fact that Rummy can’t remember what he said himself speaks volumes about his ability to recall, well, anything. So when he says something like this:

“But it is apparent that many have still not learned history’s lessons,” he said, adding that part of the problem is that the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive.

… there are doubts about the trustworthiness of the statement. The example he uses is that people forget about attempts to appease Hitler. Now let’s take a moment to compare WWII with Iraq. For the hell of it, we’ll use the ‘war’ phase of Iraq and compare it to the nation-building of now.

WWII (German side): A fight against a leader who was trying to conquer the world. He was killing millions and was certainly going to spread into the United States if left alone, already attacking our allies and taking over nearby nations.

“War” Iraq: A fight against a leader who probably wanted to conquer the world, but the only weaponry he had was that given to him by the United States. If left alone would do little more than oppress his people.

“Police” Iraq: A fight against the idea of hatred. The enemies, if left alone, will destroy each other but otherwise have little to do with the rest of the world. The United States serves only as a mediator between them, hoping to calm it all down and set up a new country.

A mild case could be made for taking out Saddam, and maybe the appeasement comments would work with him, but with the current situation? No. Not even close. The Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq pose zero threat to the United States. None of their vitriol is being aimed at us, and the terrorist threats have come from elsewhere.

In fact, let me pose that one. Find me a single terrorist attack that has originated in Iraq.

The US public, as a whole, supports wars when they are needed to protect us. There was little meaningful opposition to the Afghanistan war, what was there was merely a dislike for the civilian casualties. We support wars that are needed for OUR benefits.

Rather, we have billions of our dollars and hundreds of thousands of OUR soldiers being used to do something that solely benefits those in another country. The terrorists were not from Iraq nor were they situated in Iraq. Even the terrorists IN Iraq were from other nations.

Even if the Iraq War succeeds, what does that do for us? Not much. Anti-US sentiment is higher than it’s ever been, militant organizations all over the region are unhappy with us. So a stable Iraq will do what? They’re a US-implanted government, set up by us and enforced by us. They’re somewhat like Israel, in that while they are their own country, they’re still basically us.

Does anyone think that Iraq, surrounded by countries that more actively dislike the US than before, is going to be safe? Of course not. Why do you think Bush refuses to leave? He knows if he tries any kind of an exit then he’ll be responsible for the inevitable catastrophe. I’m surprised Iran and Pakistan haven’t made a move yet.

They say we’re afraid, but the reality is that they’re afraid. They’re afraid of having to deal with the consequences of their actions. A good president does everything he can to end a war. Finish the mission as swiftly as possible and get out. Bush does the opposite.

[tags]iraq, war, terrorism, bush, rumsfeld[/tags]