Where Have All the Patriots Gone?

Anyone who places politics over principle deserves exactly what they get. In the case of those who blindly supported George W. Bush throughout his candidacy, and offered him their unquestioning loyalty in his "war on terror," they got a leader who has no qualms about violating his oath of office in an attempt to become one of the most pragmatic presidents in recent history.

That's right. The man who solemnly swore before God and country to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" is now leading the charge against the very principles upon which this nation was founded. Case in point, his desire to extend the current ban on "assault" weapons.

I'll be honest. I have never made any attempt to disguise the fact that I believe George W. Bush is leading us down a very perilous road. Since Dubya was handed the keys to the White House a little over two years ago, we have seen the size and scope of the federal government increase more than it ever did during Bill Clinton's eight-year reign. Are the so-called conservatives complaining? They haven't made a sound. One cannot help but wonder what has happened to all the "patriots" who were so vocal in their criticism of the Clinton administration.

Personally, I don't think they ever existed. A person who simply toes the party line is no patriot. Anyone can criticize the "other side" for one thing or another. What a refreshing breath of fresh air it would be to see someone actually take a leader of their own party to task for violating the fundamental tenets of limited government!

But such patriots are in short supply. The sad thing about it is that those backing the president's constitutionally incompatible positions on issues like education and gun control make no apologies for their unwavering support. Their reasons range from "We must slow government growth before it can be stopped" to "Compromise is all part of the political process."

I'm sorry, but there is no excuse for Bush's misguided attempts to...well, to do whatever it is he thinks he's doing for the nation. He has abused his position of power, and no one in the GOP seems to be willing to call him on it.

Naturally, the president isn't the only culprit. Congress is just as guilty as he is of treating the Constitution as a floor mat.

As individuals, I'm sure the bureaucrats in Washington are nice people. Collectively, however, they are despicable, pompous blowhards. While they may not be engaged in the systematic imprisonment and torture of political dissidents—at least not yet—what they are doing to the fabric of this nation is no less destructive. The road they are leading us down may be paved with good intentions, but we all know where it leads. It doesn't matter how quickly or slowly we move, the final destination is the same.

Why?

Soon our government will declare victory in Iraq. Our troops will remain as "peacekeepers" for awhile, and then, hopefully, they will be allowed to return to American soil. But there is still a major question that needs answering: why were we there in the first place?

Long before the war began we were told that military action was necessary. "We really don't want to do this," Uncle Sam said with resignation, "but we have no other choice. Saddam Hussein is a threat to the security of the United States, and he must be removed from power."

So, the Bush administration set out to do just that.

The first step was to lay before Congress and the nation the damning evidence necessary to make the case against Saddam. Through that process America learned how Iraq had been in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions. The people realized that allowing an evil (i.e. non-Korean) dictator access to weapons of mass destruction could jeopardize the future of not only the U.S. but the entire world. Worse, they saw the indisputable evidence that there was a possibility that Iraq might be kind of linked to al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden and the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

The evidence presented was so overwhelming that Congress authorized the president "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." War was not declared, but, then again, the Constitution only serves to hinder government action in situations like this.

Once the people of the U.S. believed they were in imminent danger, Sec. of State Colin Powell presented the same evidence before the U.N. (You see, in this age of globalism it is considered bad manners for a sovereign nation to act unilaterally in its own defense.) The evidence was so convincing that over 40 countries of the 191 member states of the U.N. signed on—military powerhouses like Eritrea, Dominican Republic, Palau, Solomon Islands, and Tonga.

Now, it's all but over. There are a few pockets of resistance scattered throughout northern Iraq, but for the most part the world is safe from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Safe, that is, if you don't count those nations that actively fund and train terrorist organizations. Safe, if you exclude those nations that actually have weapons of mass destruction.

Again, I just want to know why we had to invade Iraq, a nation that did not attack us. Why, when we know of other dictators who have successfully tested WMD, did we commit thousands of troops and billions of dollars to removing the head of a third world country? Why, when we can easily trace the funding of terrorism to countries like Saudi Arabia, did we decide to go after Iraq? Why, when our own government refuses to repeal the unconstitutional gun control laws it has forced upon us, are we expected to feel safer with Saddam out of the picture? Why, when a handful of terrorists killed over 3,000 Americans with box cutters, are we more secure now that the Republican Guard has been destroyed?

There are many so-called conservatives who will say that to ask these questions at such a time as this is an act of treason. At the very least it is lending aid and comfort to the enemy. Now that the troops have been committed, criticism of the president's decisions should cease. "Those men and women in uniform are over there fighting for your right to dissent," they say. "How dare you utilize that right during a time of war!"

Why? It's a simple question, one that deserves a straight answer. Our actions today will have consequences tomorrow, and I just want to know what to expect.

A Swing and a Miss for the Baseball Hall of Fame

Now that the war in Iraq seems to be winding down, could we possibly end the petty bickering here at home?

Dale Petroskey, president of the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., withdrew his invitation to actors Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon to attend a 15th anniversary celebration of the movie Bull Durham. Why? Because of their anti-war stance. "What we were trying to do was take politics out of this," Petroskey said. "We didn't want people to espouse their views in a very public place, one way or another. The Hall isn't the place for that." Well, congratulations, Mr. President! You succeeded in dragging politics into it after all.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that Dale Petroskey can do whatever he wants. He has every right to uninvite Robbins and Sarandon if he so wishes, but it makes no sense. He is essentially punishing two people for having a different opinion about the war—and getting some positive patriotic publicity in the process.

The Hall of Fame, however, was thrown a curve ball. Roger Kahn, author of The Boys of Summer, considered to be one of the greatest books about baseball ever written, has cancelled his August speaking appearance at the Hall in protest. I'm sure there will be some very disappointed baseball fans, but Petroskey isn't budging.

According to the patriotic president, the actors' comments about the war could "ultimately could put our troops in even more danger." Now, he wasn't exactly clear about how our troops could be placed in even more danger than they already are, but his reasoning is good enough for other so-called conservatives.

Let's end this childish behavior. First "Freedom Fries," now this. People are going to have a difference of opinion. Get over it. That's what America is all about. Do we really want to start equating those practicing their freedom of speech with the ones actually shooting at our troops overseas?

Please. I suppose next we'll be hearing that Pete Rose won't be allowed into the Hall of Fame, either.