Donny Rumsfeld's Twisted Worldview

It has taken me a couple of days to even get the words out. Watching Donald Rumsfeld's address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week left me speechless. Comparing people who oppose what is undoubtedly the stupidest foreign policy blunder in American history to Nazi era appeasers is not only the ultimate in gutter discourse, it is just plain crazy! It is as insane a statement as I've ever heard come out of the mouth of a public official in my lifetime. It is interesting to watch the utter desperation of this sick and sickening administration as they march in lockstep to the beat of Karl Rove's latest public relations ploy. So frightened are they of losing control of both houses of congress in November that they are now charting new and unexplored territory in political craziness. The new buzzword is "Islamo Fascism" and it seems as if everyone within the GOP's ideological machinery has embraced the term wholeheartedly. How do I know that? Because overnight, that is the term that every single one of these murderous bastards and bitches (Hi, Condi!) were using.

My question is this: Did any of the geniuses around the First Fool take the time to do even a minimal amount of historical research? My guess is that they did not. Calling Islamic extremists "Fascists" is about as dumb as calling them "Communists" or "Sandinistas" or "Daughters of the American Revolution". It makes no historical sense what-so-ever! It's as if, out of the blue, the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt decided to call Hitler and the Nazis, "Southern Rebels". I mean, just when you thought these people couldn't get any nuttier....You've got to say this in their favor, however: They never disappoint, do they?

No doubt about it: America is in serious need of a long overdue history lesson. That being the case, let us start with a quotation from a man who is now regarded by historians as the father of the modern fascist state, shall we? Here is how Benito Mussolini defined fascism in a 1927 interview. It was conducted in English so there is no room for misinterpretation:

"Fascism should more properly be called 'corporatism' because it is the total merging of corporate and state power".

Now ask yourself this question: Who better does that preceding quotation describe, Al Queda or the Bush administration? Ponder that for a minute or two. Don't get me wrong! I have no doubt that Osama bin Ladin's organization is made up of some seriously bad guys; No argument here. It's just that - call it a foolish eccentricity on my part - I have the silly habit of insisting that things be put in their proper historical context. Go figure.

Is this latest trick out of the Rove propaganda factory going to work? I hope not. And yet when one takes into consideration the utter, mind-numbing stupidity of the American public, there is room for pessimism - lots of room. What made Rumsfeld think he could get away with making the outrageous claim that anyone against the policies of this disgusting administration is suffering from, "moral or intellectual confusion"? Because he knows damn good and well that there are Americans out there - a whole lot of Americans - who are ready, willing and able to swallow this bullshit, hook, line and sinker. That is the reason your once-great nation is the laughingstock of the planet, kiddies!

Here is another scare tactic (and my personal favorite) that the right wing is now using on the electorate: If the democrats regain control of congress in November, they'll impeach the president. Oh, really? Gee! And why, all of the sudden, do you think they're using that line? During the midterm elections of 1984 and 1986, no one was suggesting the impeachment of Ronald Reagan. Not even during the height of the Iran-Contra affair was it ever seriously considered - in spite of the overwhelming evidence that he should have been removed from power. During the 1990 mid-terms, I don't remember anyone calling for the impeachment of King George the First! Then why, in the year 2006, do you suppose they are raising the ugly possibility of forcibly removing a sitting chief executive by means of a totally legitimate constitutional process? Is it because the Democratic Party is comprised of a posse of wild-eyed, left wing extremists? [PAUSE FOR LAUGHTER] Or might it be the fact that in 1998 the republicans lowered the bar for what constitutes an impeachable offence to an embarrassing level and that, eight years later, there is enough evidence - mountains of evidence - to send George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney to the hoose gow for a very, very long time. I'll go with the latter.

And while we're on the subject of Dick Cheney, let's not forget that thirty-three years ago, Richard M. Nixon's VP, Spiro T. Agnew, was forced to resign from office for committing relatively minor crimes while he was governor of Maryland - years before he even joined the Nixon administration. Are you gullible enough to believe that it's a mere coincidence that Cheney's "former" company, Halliburton, was able to obtain no-bid contracts in Iraq that have over-charged the taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars? If you are, I've got a stove made out of balsa wood that I'd just love to sell you!

In a twisted impersonation of FDR: Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing the Bush administration has to offer is fear itself....Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror. That is what they are trying to do! They are attempting to scare the bleeding mortal shit out of all of us. Count on it: In the days leading up to the November elections, the "terror alert level" will go up into the stratosphere, particularly in the so-called "blue states". Let's not get fooled again.

I know that I've said this here before and please forgive me for sounding like a broken record but I've got to say it again: George W. Bush will be remembered in history, primarily, as the first (pray last) former chief executive to go to federal prison. Remember you read it here, folks.

Pray for peace.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

tomdegan@frontiernet.net