- EverVigilant.net - "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran
This November, conservatives will be faced with a choice. Most, however, will choose not between good and evil, but between the lesser of two evils. They dare not abandon the Republican plantation for fear of "wasting" their vote on a third party candidate who can't possibly win. But what's the difference when the "winner" causes us to lose ground in the fight to restore our constitutional republic?
Since the election of George W. Bush, the federal government has grown bigger and has spent more money than when Bill Clinton was in the White House. How can a Bush win in 2004 even possibly be considered a victory for conservatives? At least having a Democrat in office encourages Republicans to take a stand against government growth.
It remains a profound mystery. So-called "conservatives" speak out against the dangers of big government, yet embrace it as they would a long, lost friend when an election year rolls around. They talk about rolling back decades of government largess, but continue to vote for more of the same every chance they get. Such is the dual nature of modern American conservatism.
Never mind that North Korea has threatened us with nuclear war. Forget the links between al Qaeda and Chechnya or Saudi Arabia. The neocons would have us believe that Iraq posed the greatest threat to not only the United States but the entire world. But did everyone in the Bush administration agree?
Consider the following remarks Sec. of State Colin Powell made in Cairo, Egypt, on Feb. 24, 2001:
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions - the fact that the sanctions exist - not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.
Then, in May of 2001, speaking before a Senate subcommittee, there was this exchange between Powell and Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT):
Bennett: Mr. Secretary, the U.N. sanctions on Iraq expire the beginning of June. We've had bombs dropped, we've had threats made, we've had all kinds of activity vis-a-vis Iraq in the previous administration. Now we're coming to the end. What's our level of concern about the progress of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs?
Powell: The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological and nuclear - I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.
Colin Powell wasn't the only one at odds with those who had been gunning for Iraq since Bush's inauguration. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, in an interview on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, pointed out that President Bush was the one who "considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly." When asked about how well sanctions against Hussein had been working, she noted that Saddam "does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
Many argue that the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, changed the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq. That certainly would explain why the president was so bold in using 9/11 as a springboard to war. In a White House Rose Garden address in September of 2002, he said, "[Saddam's] regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq." But he soon realized (if he didn't know already) that the evidence linking Iraq and al Qaeda was rather flimsy. During a Jan. 31, 2003, press conference, when asked if there was a link between Hussein and the 9/11 terrorists, Bush replied, "I can't make that claim."
Yet the administration continued to push for war in Iraq. Why? What motive could the Bush administration possibly have had for attacking a Third World nation that posed no immediate threat to the United States?
Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to help feed the hungry. I think the American people find it interesting that we're providing food for the North Korea people who starve.
We have an obligation to lead the fight on AIDS, on Africa. And we have an obligation to work toward a more free world. That's our obligation. That is what we have been called to do, as far as I'm concerned.
And my job as the president is to lead this nation and to making the world a better place. And that's exactly what we're doing.
Note that he is not asking privately funded charitable organizations or individual citizens to take action. He is letting you know that he requires your tax dollars and the lives of your sons and daughters in his Wilsonian quest to make the world safe for democracy. Perhaps this is exactly what his father had in mind when he spoke of a "new world order."
In the mind of this "compassionate conservative," the U.S. is little more than a global welfare provider. He is determined to continue on his holy crusade - and as the war on terrorism has demonstrated, those who believe they are following a higher calling are not easily dissuaded.
The neocons are salivating over the prospect of expanding their war. (It's an election year, in case you forgot.) They have been gunning for Iran for quite awhile, but they just might have the "justification" they need to begin moving forward.
The recent post-war violence in Iraq has placed Iran at the top of the Bush administration's regime change list. Reports indicate that U.S. intelligence officials are looking into a possible link - direct or indirect - between Iran and Iraqi militia forces led by Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
Sadr has long been an advocate of an Islamic theocracy in Iraq and apparently has some financial ties to Iran. If this is true (heck, even if it isn't), then look for Bush to include as part of his 2004 campaign platform an expansion of the "war on terror" into Iran.
Why not? After all, we invaded Iraq over much less.
FreeRepublic.com seems to have become a haven for neocon chicken hawks - most of whom have never served in the military, much less seen combat. Consider some of these comments made by keyboard commandos in response to a report of 280 Iraqis killed and 400 wounded in Fallujah:
"The Fallujah turkey shoot!"
"Stack the bodies in the streets as if they were so much cord wood. Then feed them to pigs."
"...that town in its entirety hates the U.S. presence and if any individuals didn't want to share its fate, they could have left, they had plenty of time. Bunch of savage barbarians. Mutilate this, dead guys."
"Does anyone know of a web site that would list the total muslims killed or something like that?"
"Like bugs on windshields."
"You know if the damn Marines were better shots we could up this total! Oh well, God Bless them anyway."
Robert E. Lee once said, "It is well that war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it." Something tells me he would be sickened to see how many people today take such pleasure in death and destruction.
Americans were sickened and apalled at the images coming out of Fallujah. Not surprisingly, the incident has those who backed the unconstitutional police action in Iraq calling for blood. Conservative Republican online forums like FreeRepublic.com were filled with such vengeful comments:
* Evacuate the woman and young children, hunt down those on the video-tape and summarily execute them (even the kids) - then FLATTEN Fallujah. And it's not like we've never done anything like that before; the purpose of the fire-bombing of Dresden was to kill civilians, nothing more.
* The world has seen what happened. Now they must see what will happen in response. I pray that the lesson will be swift, overwhelming, educational and unforgettable.
* We have to prevail. We have to blow away our enemies, whether they're men, women or teenagers. God is with us.
There were also the obligatory pictures of mushroom clouds thrown in for good measure.
It's interesting to see these knee-jerk responses. The general consensus seems to be that "shock and awe" is the way to go, that the only response is to brutalize and humiliate the enemy into submission. Has anyone paused to consider that the Iraqis in Fallujah were thinking exactly the same thing? After all, what would we do when faced with a foreign occupation force that had us out-manned and out-gunned and didn't seem to respond to anything but brute force?
Imagine that Chinese troops have invaded the United States with the stated goal of liberating the American people from the grips of the IRS, DEA, BATF, and the many other departments and agencies that violate the principles of freedom set forth by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence. ...
... Imagine also that the Chinese occupation ("liberation") troops embark on a campaign to pacify America, including curfews, surprise searches of homes and businesses, gun confiscation, pat-down searches of men, along with their wives and daughters, and roundups and indefinite detentions without trial of suspected Americans insurgents who, for whatever reason, don't like Chinese troops in America telling Americans what to do and what not to do. ...
... Some Americans would undoubtedly cooperate with their Chinese liberators, arguing, "What's done is done, and it's now time to move on. The Chinese are here to help us and we need to cooperate with them so that we can get our new government established and running as soon as possible. Those troublemakers who are resisting what the Chinese are doing for us should be hunted down and punished for their terrorist acts."
Yet, who can doubt that a certain percentage of the American people would resist the Chinese occupation ("liberation") of our country, regardless of the fact that the invaders had liberated them from the IRS, DEA, BATF, and other admittedly tyrannical departments and agencies of the federal government? And who can doubt that much of that resistance would be violent? Some Americans would be shooting, bombing, and killing Chinese occupation ("liberation") troops and officials, with a demand that they depart the United States immediately, leaving America to Americans.
Granted, this scenario is a bit far-fetched, but it does put things into perspective. Is it really so difficult to understand that there are a few Iraqis who are upset that we invaded, conquered and continue to occupy their homeland? Is it impossible for us to imagine that Americans might resort to similar tactics if the situation were reversed?
But understanding the enemy is of little importance to those who value pride and emotion over logic and reason. I suppose that explains why so many Americans still believe that it's actually possible to set up a lasting democratic republic in that part of the world.
To say that Richard Clarke made a few waves would be an understatement; his book and his testimony before the 9/11 Commission caused a veritable flood. The Democrats are hoping the current is strong enough to carry them all the way to the White House in November, while the Republicans are frantically stacking sandbags to keep from drowning...
