- 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
The chief problem of American political life for a long time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and more international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right, and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in terms of procedure, priority and method. ... Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still persue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.
George W. Bush, with his daddy's help, was able to avoid combat in Vietnam, but that doesn't mean that he isn't qualified to comment on what we have learned from that war. From a recent AFP article:
US President George W. Bush, making his first visit to Vietnam, said that one lesson of the bloody US military defeat here a generation ago was that the United States must be patient in Iraq. ...
... Asked whether the US defeat in Vietnam offered lessons, the US president replied: "We tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while."
Perhaps the lesson for you, Mr. President, is that you should stay out of conflicts that don't concern you and refrain from invading sovereign countries that pose no threat to the United States.
The lesson for the rest of us should be to never trust a government that lies us into war. They did it in 1964 and they did it in 2002. Unfortunately, when it comes to history, we Americans are slow learners.
Saddam Hussein's courtroom drama was nothing more than a smoke-and-mirrors act. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that those responsible for setting up the kangaroo court were not at all interested in seeking justice. If they were, many others would have been made to stand trial alongside the deposed dictator. Columnist John Pilger, in a recent article, asks, "Why are these accomplices not being charged with aiding and abetting crimes against humanity?"
Pilger begins with the guys who were in on it from the beginning:
Why isn't George Bush Sr. being charged? In 1992, a congressional inquiry found that Bush as president had ordered a cover-up to conceal his secret support for Saddam and the illegal arms shipments being sent to Iraq via third countries. Missile technology was shipped to South Africa and Chile, then "on sold" to Iraq, while US Commerce Department records were falsified. Congressman Henry Gonzalez, chairman of the House of Representatives Banking Committee, said: "[We found that] Bush and his advisers financed, equipped, and succored the monster... ."
Why isn't Donald Rumsfeld being charged? In December 1983, Rumsfeld was in Baghdad to signal America's approval of Iraq's aggression against Iran. Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad on March 24, 1984, the day that the United Nations reported that Iraq had used mustard gas laced with a nerve agent against Iranian soldiers. Rumsfeld said nothing. A subsequent Senate report documented the transfer of the ingredients of biological weapons from a company in Maryland, licensed by the Commerce Department and approved by the State Department.
What about those responsible for the current war in Iraq?:
Above all, why aren't Blair and Bush Jr. being charged with "the paramount war crime," to quote the judges at Nuremberg and, recently, the chief American prosecutor - that is, unprovoked aggression against a defenseless country?
Let's not forget the pro-war, pro-government mainstream media:
And why aren't those who spread and amplified propaganda that led to such epic suffering being charged? The New York Times reported as fact fabrications fed to its reporter by Iraqi exiles. These gave credibility to the White House's lies, and doubtless helped soften up public opinion to support an invasion.
The only explanation I can think of is that America has grown soft on crime. We'd rather blast the Dixie Chicks for criticizing the president than go after the treasonous mass murderers in Washington. Talk about misplaced priorities.
A disgusted "conservative" at FreeRepublic.com has an important message for those of you who didn't follow his example of blind party loyalty:
This is directed at those so called "conservative" retards who did not vote for their Republican Senators and Representatives in the few close states, or who voted Libertarian or Democrat.
I knew a country once. It was called "America". "Libertarians" and Republicans who didn’t vote; YOU ARE TRAITORS to that country and your so called conservative values. It’s that simple. And you just handed America to the Modern American Socialist party. Good job. Well done. GO TO H**L!!! I am so disgusted and ashamed of America right now I can’t even hardly type. I can’t sleep either. I can not make myself even process the fact that in a time of war, the most serious and most difficult war in America’s HISTORY, the people of America are so weak and gutless that they can’t support the one single party with the ability to do what needs to be done to win and protect the country.
With a 15 or so seat House Majority and a basically two seat Senate Majority, the country is well and truly f****d for the next two years. The war, forget it. Might as well run up the yellow flag, pull our guys home, and grab and kiss our butts good bye. The terrorists will be gleeful about this election result, and that speaks for itself. The party of weakness and appeasement and talk without action just won. North Korea and Iran will cheer this election. That speaks for itself also.
What this disgruntled voter doesn't understand is that this latest election changes nothing. The same ignorant, self-serving blowhards are still in charge of running the country into the ground. The sad thing is that this kind of reaction is typical of someone who places his faith in government.
I think the so-called "conservative" reaction to Tuesday's election can be summed up this way:
Listening to the Republican reaction to the Democratic triumph in yesterday's elections, you'd think the world was coming to an end. That's why the warmongers are having a pity party.
The uber patriots at FreeRepublic.com are especially bitter. You can tell by the general tone of the posts and doomsday thread titles like "Defeat in the War on Terror Is Now Almost Certain." They believe that our constitutional republic (or what's left of it) will give way to an Islamic theocracy. They are afraid that Mexicans will overrun America, that gays will start marrying and reproducing, and that abortion clinics will soon have drive-through service.
Well, suck it up, crybabies. You had your chance. You could have taken a principled stand against bigger, more expensive, more intrusive government, but you never did. You could have said, "Hell no, we won't go!" when you were asked to support an unconstitutional war against a nation that posed no threat to you. You could have stood up to the president as well as Republican and Democratic members of Congress when they used the Patriot Act to turn America into a police state.
And now you suddenly pretend to be concerned about the future of the nation? Give me a break.
A round-the-clock curfew imposed ahead of the verdict against Saddam Hussein kept a relative peace in Iraq's most dangerous regions on Sunday, but the U.S. military announced two more American deaths and police said 72 people were killed or found dead nationwide by daybreak.
Iraq's government clamped the open-ended curfew on Baghdad and the restive provinces of Diyala and Salahuddin, closed the city's international airport, added checkpoints and stepped up police patrols with the U.S. military. All leave for Iraqi soldiers was canceled.
Am I the only one who thinks it's ironic that we are still imposing martial law on country we supposedly liberated almost four years ago? Wasn't this exactly the kind of thing from which we were saving the Iraqi people?
Oh, but Saddam is finally going to get his comeuppance. And something tells me the "my country, right or wrong" crowd will think that outcome alone was worth tens of thousands of American casualties.
It has been said that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." To put it in today's terms: when all else fails, wrap yourself in the flag and say something about supporting our troops, and when someone says something with which you disagree, accuse that person of being unpatriotic and you automatically win any argument. That is the tactic of a scoundrel.
Just look at the reaction of America's uber patriots to John Kerry's recent remarks. In this particular thread on the leading nationalist, pro-war, pro-government site in the country, a poster going by the pseudonym GulfWar1Vet lashes out:
Your weak apology won't cut it with me. You said you support the military, but your words and actions say otherwise.
Mr. Kerry, you are a traitor to the United States of America. You ought to be locked up and charged with treason.
Mr. Kerry, also, you need to resign from the United States Senate. You are a disgrace to the office of Senator and to the United States of America.
Here are some of the responses:
"As a Vietnam combat veteran, I second this. Kerry-you are a scum bag traitor and they don't come much lower than you." - posted by unkus
"It'd be cool if Kerry got off a plane one day and armed service members lined up to spit on him as he walked through the airport." - posted by Sir Gawain
"My father, a veteran of WWII and the Korean War, died one year ago today. Kerry dishonors my father as much as he dishonors America's finest serving in Iraq this very minute." - posted by ExTexasRedhead
But none were as "inspiring" as Anne of DC:
Good!
A thread were I can vent my anger at that moronic egocentric idiot who don't know when to shut his big flap!
Sen. Kerry
I am the daugher of a veteran, my dad served in the US Army in the 1950s, he missed going to Korea by a few days.
He only had an 8th grade education, but he had more brains in his little finger than in your whole body!
You, sir, insulted him!
I am the sister of a veteran of the US Marines, my brother was an "a" student and went all the way through high-school, he has more sense than you Harvard educated moron.
I am the aunt of currently serving "PATRIOTS"
My niece is in the Air-Force and my nephew and his wife are US Army. My other niece's husband is also US Air-Force, as well as being recently a naturalized American citizen. They, sir, as well as my family and thiers. as well as all who have loved ones in the Military either veretan or active duty weather stationed here at home or serving currently in Iraq and Afghanistan and else-where in the world an apology!
And don't give me that blarney about aiming those comments at President Bush! I ain't buying it!
Senator, like gulfwar1vet has said, you need to resign, NOW!
As an American, am I supposed to be offended by Kerry's remarks? He's a publicity whore who was just trying to win over the crowd by making a stupid joke. Why is that worse than the president joking about the search for non-existent WMD? Why is what Kerry said worse than the lies that got us into a pointless war in the first place? How is what he said more insulting to the troops than the orders that have given us tens of thousands of American casualties?
Please. Let's maintain a little perspective here. If anything, Kerry should be criticized for authorizing the use of force against a nation that never attacked us. In that respect, both he and the president are traitors to the Constitution.
Why isn't Donald Rumsfeld being charged? In December 1983, Rumsfeld was in Baghdad to signal America's approval of Iraq's aggression against Iran. Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad on March 24, 1984, the day that the United Nations reported that Iraq had used mustard gas laced with a nerve agent against Iranian soldiers. Rumsfeld said nothing. A subsequent Senate report documented the transfer of the ingredients of biological weapons from a company in Maryland, licensed by the Commerce Department and approved by the State Department.
