Damn *****.Follow

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld unleashed one of the Bush administration's most caustic assaults yet on war critics Tuesday, comparing such critics to ****-era appeasers and ramping up the GOP election-year attack against Democrats over national security.

The verbal broadside is part of an emerging pattern in which President Bush, attempting to transform the war into a winning election theme for the Republican Party, is using surrogates to deliver the most stinging criticisms of Democrats while sticking to milder -- though no less disparaging -- rhetoric on the war himself.

Speaking to the American Legion's annual convention in Salt Lake City, Rumsfeld warned against "moral and intellectual confusion." He said that "some seem not to have learned history's lessons" as the nation confronts new threats. He did not mention any names.

"It seems that in some quarters, there is more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats."

Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failure to confront Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. He quoted Winston Churchill as observing that trying to accommodate Hitler was "a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last."

*****. I *hate* *****!

Dennis Ross, a Mideast adviser to both the first Bush and Clinton administrations and now the director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he would have chosen different words.

"The `war on terror' has always been a misnomer, because terrorism is an instrument, it's not an ideology. So I would always have preferred it to be called the `war with radical Islam,' not with Islam but with `radical Islam,"' Ross said.

Why even mention the religion? "Because that's who they are," Ross said. "Fascism had a certain definition. Whether they meet this or not, one thing is clear: They're radical. They represent a completely radical and intolerant interpretation of Islam."

While "fascism" once referred to the rigid nationalistic one-party dictatorship first instituted in Italy, it has "been used very loosely in all kinds of ways for a long time," said Wayne Fields, a specialist in presidential rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis.

"Typically, the Bush administration finds its vocabulary someplace in the middle ground of popular culture. It seems to me that they're trying to find something that resonates, without any effort to really define what they mean," Fields said.

Speaking to the American Legion's annual convention in Salt Lake City, Rumsfeld warned against "moral and intellectual confusion."

Of course, if situations were reversed, and it was a Dem making the exact same comments (like Kerry for example), you'd all be praising his intellectualism and chatting about how he must be right since he quoted Churchill.

Feel better? Honestly though when name calling from either side ensues, I find it to be insipid.

Apparently Rumsfeld wouldn't either. Also I didn't mean direct name calling but more implied name calling.

And if you stop and really think about it, I think you'll realize that it's true. Can you honestly say that if a Dem president had taken the *exact* same actions in Iraq that Bush has that you'd view him as negatively as you view Bush? You don't have to answer here, but I'd like you to spend some time really thinking about it.

I would, but that's just because I don't trust the Democrats either. It's why I registered Green, not only is it a nice color, but at least when I vote, it's obvious they're not accomplishing anything!

That's quite the insulting accusation to make and I'm interested to know what Gbaji is basing it upon.