Wash. Post hedged on Rumsfeld speech, reported that Democrats "interpreted" him as having equated Iraq critics with Nazi appeasers

In a September 1 article, The Washington Post qualified its characterization of recent comments by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, reporting that Democrats had "interpreted" his August 29 speech as "equating critics of the war in Iraq to appeasers of Adolf Hitler." By contrast, the day before, the Post had unequivocally described Rumsfeld as "accusing the opposition of aiming to appease terrorists." And on August 30, the Post had reported that Rumsfeld had drawn "parallels to efforts by some nations to appease Adolf Hitler before World War II." The Post's September 1 report came after the Pentagon put forth the dubious argument that Rumsfeld had not accused war critics "of supporting appeasement or being appeasers."

On August 29, Rumsfeld delivered a speech on the Bush administration's Iraq and terrorism policies at the American Legion's annual national convention in Salt Lake City and cited, in the speech, those who thought the Nazis "could be accommodated" during World War II. Rumsfeld went on to claim that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and they "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased." From the speech:

Indeed, 1919 was the beginning of a period where, over time, a very different set of views would come to dominate public discourse and thinking in the West.

Over the next decades, a sentiment took root that contended that if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be accommodated, then the carnage and the destruction of then-recent memory of World War I could be avoided.

It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else's problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace, even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Winston Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.

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.

We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:

• With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?

As noted above, the Post subsequently reported Rumsfeld as having suggested that those who criticize the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war and the terrorism threat want to appease the terrorists. And the Post was not alone in characterizing his comments in this way:

• An August 29 Associated Press article reported that Rumsfeld had "likened critics of the U.S. war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis."
• An August 30 Los Angeles Times article reported that Rumsfeld had "compared critics of the Bush administration to those who sought to appease the Nazis before World War II."
• An August 30 New York Times article reported that Rumsfeld said "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."
• An August 30 Wall Street Journal article (subscription required) reported that Rumsfeld said "proponents of withdrawal [from Iraq] are effectively promoting appeasement of 'a new type of fascism' similar to that of Nazi Germany in the 1930s."

The Voice of America reported on August 30, however, that Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff had taken issue with the initial coverage of the speech -- and in particular, the August 29 AP article by AP military writer Robert Burns. Ruff described the AP's assertion that Rumsfeld accused critics of "supporting appeasement" as a "mischaracterization" and was quoted as saying, without further explanation, "[T]hat is not what was said by the secretary." VOA further reported that "the Associated Press is standing by its story."

From the VOA report:

In his report on the speech, Associated Press reporter Robert Burns ... said Secretary Rumsfeld had "accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counter-terrorism policies of trying to appease" terrorists. A later version of the story noted that Rumsfeld had not specifically mentioned critics of the administration, but quoted the secretary as saying "many" have not learned history's lessons.

The Pentagon issued a statement saying the story "seriously mischaracterized" the secretary's remarks, and calling on the Associated Press to correct the story. On Wednesday, Pentagon Press Secretary Eric Ruff explained just what he thinks was wrong with the report.

"The mischaracterization comes from the reporting that said the secretary was accusing critics of the Bush administration of supporting appeasement or being appeasers," said Eric Ruff. "I'm paraphrasing. And that is not what was said by the secretary."

In response to an email inquiry, spokeswoman Linda Wagner said only that the Associated Press is standing by its story.

Indeed, in its subsequent coverage of the controversy surrounding Rumsfeld's speech, the AP did not back off its earlier characterization; neither did the Post, in the August 31 article noted above, the Los Angeles Times, nor The New York Times:

• An August 30 AP article reported that Rumsfeld had "asserted to the American Legion on Tuesday that war opponents displayed the kind of thinking that delayed military action against Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany. ... And he warned against repeating the pre-World War II mistake of appeasement."

• An August 31 Los Angeles Times article noted the uproar Rumsfeld had caused "for comparing critics of the Bush administration to people who sought to appease the Nazis before World War II."

• An August 31 New York Times article reported that Rumsfeld had "set off a partisan battle by saying on Tuesday that critics of the war had not 'learned history's lessons' and going on to allude to appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930's."

Further, MSNBC's Countdown host Keith Olbermann highlighted Ruff's questionable objections on the August 31 edition of Countdown:

OLBERMANN: Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff told us today that Mr. Rumsfeld was not talking about critics of the administration in his speech Tuesday. He then, of course, also would not say that -- who it was that the defense secretary was speaking about.

In its September 1 article on the growing criticism of Rumsfeld, however, the Post presented the nature of his August 29 speech as a subject of partisan interpretation:

In Rumsfeld, Democrats believe they have found both a useful antagonist and a stand-in for President Bush and what they see as his blunders in Iraq. This week, Democrats interpreted a speech of his as equating critics of the war in Iraq to appeasers of Adolf Hitler, an interpretation that Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff disputed. But Democrats said the hyperbolic attack would backfire.

By contrast, a September 1 New York Times article, also referring to Rumsfeld's comments, continued to unequivocally report that Rumsfeld "invoked variations of the word 'appease' to characterize critics of the president's policies" and said "they had not 'learned history's lessons.'"