Of all the misleading speeches about terrorism given by the Bush team in the lead-up to the 9/11 anniversary, the prize for chutzpah goes to Donald Rumsfeld.

In a pitch last week to the American Legion, Rumsfeld cited the failure of "a great many" to recognize the rise of Hitler and fascism in 1939. He then accused unnamed pols of eagerness to appease "vicious extremists." Then he charged that "moral or intellectual confusion" is sapping the war on terrorism and the fight in Iraq.

Moral and intellectual confusion? Rumsfeld's text and the pre-9/11 speeches by President Bush are riddled with both — to the detriment of America's future safety.

This was the moment for the president to try to unite the country. Instead, he sent Rumsfeld out to accuse administration critics of "appeasement." Can Rumsfeld name one prominent critic, on either side of the aisle, who wants to appease al-Qaida?

Constant references to Hitler mislead the public about the nature of the struggle. The ideology of radical Islamist terrorist groups is indeed evil, but World War II analogies delude Americans into thinking the struggle can be won by conventional battles or bombing.

The president's own counterterrorism strategy — released last week — describes how al-Qaida has morphed into loose networks of terrorists with no central command structure.

Rumsfeld — and President Bush — denounced the idea that you can "negotiate a separate peace with (Sunni) extremists." This is another straw man. No one of either party is proposing such a thing.

However, the president talks of using diplomacy to prevent Shiite Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet he lumps "Shiite extremists" together with al-Qaida (even though Iran and al-Qaida despise each other). Here is where the intellectual confusion of the White House approach shines through like a 150-watt bulb.

The White House can't decide whether it wants to change Iran's regime or change Iranian behavior on the nuclear issue, which requires recognition of Tehran.

Rumsfeld's denunciation of "moral confusion" would seem to indicate that Bush policy is regime change. Rumors are swirling that Bush wants to bomb Iran's nuclear research sites before he leaves office.

If we bomb Iran, Tehran is bound to retaliate against U.S. interests in Iraq. Bombing Iran would doom any hopes of salvaging stability in Baghdad.

The maximum level of confusion in the 9/11 speeches revolves around the claim that "Iraq ... is the central front in our fight against terrorism." Yes, Iraq has become a training center for jihadi terrorists. But the reason for Iraq's descent into postwar hell is the administration's arrogance and incompetence — which, of course, the president does not admit in his speeches.

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Reach her at trubin@phillynews.com.