Tim's Favorite Blogs
Media Matters
Blog Directories
Thursday, August 31. 2006
Fear the Fascists
Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld
(Photo Courtesy of AP)
Donald Rumsfeld
(Photo Courtesy of AP)
Just a brief aside: Salt Lake City? No bars, to speak of really, no hot nightclubs, no casinos. The Veterans of Foreign Wars is holding its annual convention in Las Vegas. Which organization would I consider joining … duh …
So, in his speech Tuesday, the embattled secretary said we cannot appease the fascist extremists in the war on terror. You know, there is so much wrong with the administration’s latest attack on its critics; let’s just start with the definition of “fascism.”
According to my trusty Merriam-Webster’s, “Fascism” is defined thus: 1: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
It’s a topic that needs to be explored because the power structure in Washington has recently begun using it to describe the enemy in this “war on terror.” Wednesday afternoon, on the PBS program “Fresh Air,” the guest was American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Ledeen who is also a guest editorialist for the National Review.
He used the term “clerical fascist,” which has been around since the 1920’s when Mussolini first rose to power in Italy. He also used the term “Islamic Fascist,” describing, in particular, Iran. If this guy doesn’t scare you into voting “Democrat” in November, no one will.
(Link to the program and the interview with Michael Ledeen)
Fascism, for the past 65 years, has been defined in our zeitgeist by the visage of Hitler’s Nazi Germany, and to a lesser extent Mussolini’s Italy. We all know the horror Hitler brought down on the world when, in 1939, he invaded Poland … well, he first annexed the Sudetenland, but that’s a detail not germane to this discussion.
This is where the latest propaganda meets the history lesson: If we look at the governing regime in Iran, we can certainly see elements of Webster’s definition of fascism in the Iranian regime: suppression of opposition (which also exists in “communist” regimes), but do we really see the government of Iran exalting nation or race above the individual? Not really, although the Iranian government puts Islam ahead of everything. Their government is centralized, but is it autocratic? Maybe, but that could be somewhat subjective. Does it have one dictator? Not really.
It is brutal towards women who do not toe the line or women who are just accused of not toeing the line, but does that make Iran fascist?
What the propagandists count on, and they have been successful at this since the attacks of 9/11, is that the American public will know only enough about the terminology — the definitions of the words they use, like “fascism” — to confuse those terms with what is truly the definition of what we face as an enemy. And, if enough people — like the president and his administration and people like Ledeen and Bill Kristol — use the terms “fascism” or “Islamo-fascism” enough, people in this country will begin to believe we are dealing with another Hitler — just like they did in the run-up to the first Gulf War and the current war/civil war in Iraq.
They would also like us to believe Usama bin Laden is a fascist and Al Queda is an Islamo-fascist regime, despite the reality it has no nation state, that it is a movement without borders; it has no autocratic government nor one dictatorial leader. While bin Laden may be a very powerful inspirational leader, he does not control the actions of the various cells around the world which generally act autonomously.
But, when the power structure in this country connects Saddam Hussein, Iran and Al Queda with the term “fascist,” they are trying to connect all their dots to the one “Pearl Harbor Moment” that was September 11, 2001.
Ledeen advocates regime change in Iran, although his plan doesn’t include military action. He says we should set up a broadcast similar to Radio Free Europe, which he believes was instrumental in the downfall of the Soviet Union.
People like Bill Kristol, who uses the term “fascist” as well when describing any number of Islamic bogeymen in the conversation, advocate regime change in Iran, but Kristol’s plan calls for military action.
The Bush Administration hasn’t officially called for military action against Iran, but they’ve made it known loud and clear military action is “on the table.”
So, when the president tells Brian Williams of NBC, to justify the war in Iraq, we were attacked first in this “war,” when he glibly refers to the ‘Islamic-fascists,” which now includes just about every Islamic entity we have a beef with; and the secretary of defense says those of use who disagree with the president’s policies are “intellectually and morally confused” and are appeasing the Islamic-fascists; and the vice president echoes those same sentiments, we have to wonder just how soon our troops will be lobbing artillery shells and cruise missiles into Iran.
Here it is, over 870 words into this posting and I still haven’t addressed the implied falsehood that those of us who oppose the war in Iraq advocate appeasing the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. In fact, every Democrat in Congress in the past four years has been firmly behind the effort to get the terrorists and advocated strong action to do so. It was only when the Bush administration turned to Iraq that Democrats — and some Conservatives — objected to the administration’s policies.
Nor have I addressed the notion that one of our premier liberties as U.S. citizens, the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” — the very essence of who we are as a Nation (First Amendment) — and that right, along with our right to free speech and a free press is under attack when the Secretary of Defense says we are intellectually and morally confused.
But, despite the seemingly infinite space available on this server, if this goes too long, some might find it just too much to read.
The Bush crowd wants the Republicans to retain complete control of Congress of course, because without that, there will be real opposition to any military action against Iran. Not to mention some real oversight committee hearings into a host of administration policies.
To achieve their goal of retaining control, the Republicans are once again rolling out the Rove fear machine, creating new terms with scary — but inaccurate — connections to the past and playing on the idea that if they can scare the populace enough the electorate will once again deliver at the polls come November.
Today, a majority of Americans don’t believe the war in Iraq has any connection to this war on terror. A majority of Americans believe invading Iraq was a mistake. And a vast majority think the administration failed the Gulf Coast when Hurricane Katrina struck just 367 days ago.
Once again, let me mention that here in the California 52nd District, we can help change Congress with a vote for John Rinaldi. Over 2,600 Americans have died in Iraq and now the president and his puppet masters appear to be gearing up for more action in Iran.
Yes, we need to fear the fascists, but from where I sit, they seem to be giving speeches here in this country.
Calendar
Quicksearch
Archives
Categories
AD Links
Referrals
Syndicate This Blog
Blog Administration
Powered by
TheForkesReport