By Saje Williams
When I was young I asked what America was and I was told it was a nation that extended from the Pacific to the Atlantic, from the border of Mexico to the border of Canada. It was a land that was wrested from Britain during the Revolutionary War, and purchased, stolen, and won from others as those who called themselves Americans spread across its width and breadth.
As I grew older I learned that America was not only a place, but an idea, and that idea was one of freedom and justice. In the early days some men were slaves and some were free, but the notion was that maybe, someday, all men could be free. Once the women were like the property of their husbands, fathers, or brothers, but maybe, someday, they could stand and claim to belong to themselves.
It was a bright lady that stood in a harbor, a torch held aloft, saying "Send me your tired, your hungry, your poor. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
It was a place where men stood and fought and died to make the dream of liberty a reality rather than just a dream. It was a nation that sent its young men abroad so that others might realize that dream as well.
In its darkest times, a tiny light flickered in the blackness, a light that whispered to all the world, "let me be your beacon against the flame of tyranny and oppression and remember that what is ours could be yours as well, if only you wish it and are willing to make it so."
America's greatest power is not in its force of arms, or its economic strength, but in what it has represented to the rest of the world. We have strode forth to do battle with tyrants and madmen, and brought to other lands not only our gifts of chocolate and Coca-Cola, but a belief that America stood for the underdog, the disadvantaged, and those ground underfoot by greater powers than themselves.
For the past several years I have been crying out, wondering where THAT America had gone. The America that stood at the forefront of history, its flag waving proudly as the rest of the world cheered us for our honor, dignity, and compassion.
But that America had been sleeping, or addled by the blow cast against it on the day of infamy that brought terror to its shores. In her anger she lashed out, striking in blind fury not at those who'd done it, but at any who tried to calm her fury.
Then, driven mad by grief and rage, betrayed by her leaders and those who claimed to be the 'voice of its people,' America took one long stride across the ocean and sent a petty tyrant tumbling from his throne.
This was not enough, though. America reached down and took that land in her hands, and squeezed as its people cried out in fear and agony.
She placed her children in that land, and made of them oppressors, just like those she'd once fought so proudly to topple. Her children killed, and tortured, and maimed, and grew to be despised.
The once-great lady became tarnished, and those who had once loved her cried out at what she'd become.
But those of us that still believe in America still have hope that the evil that has infected her can be exorcised. Because, beneath all the scars and stains that mar the surface of what she once was, there lies a heart as pure and good as it ever was.
America--a land not only of people, mountains, lakes, rivers, plains, forests, and desert, but of hope, and a promise of something the world never knew until she was born.
Justice. Liberty. Equality.
The ideals of America will not die unless we let them. We are her children, and we believe in what she represents.
If we don't, no one else ever will again.
Resurrect the dream. Restore the lady. And, this time, bring her closer to the dream that never quite came to pass.
It's within our power.
We're Americans. We've done the impossible before. We can do it again.
Posted in fuill with author's permission.
Originally posted at democraticunderground.com: http://tinyurl.com/2tugxx
Thursday, December 13, 2007
I have finally reached the end of my rope.
By democrank
I`m a crusty old woman, which is one reason I refuse to point to a pile of dog crap and call it a strawberry sundae. Not even for party unity. Not even in honor of comity. Not even because sometimes a few scraps are better than none. I`m going to actually face reality. Forty-five years of Democratic Party activism have helped me understand the difference between bitching and doing. The sickening mess we`re in today didn`t happen by accident. Homeless folks we ignore, public support of torture, jampacked emergency rooms, decaying ghettos, packed prisons, obscene national debt, the destruction of Iraq, boarded-up factories....happened why? Because the majority cared so damned much?
Imagine. Broken soldiers wandering around Walter Reed (hile some of their comrades start their third or fourth deployment) and we show our "support" by demanding tax cuts and displaying yellow ribbon magnets? But Democratic leaders think they need to enter a pissing contest? Are they kidding me? I`m supposed to be glued to my teevee to determine who goes to church most often? Who is the True Christian? Who is willing to kill the most people to keep me free? Who is willing to use a nuke? Great. Let homeless children pace the sidewalks while I listen to a debate on which churchgoer loves his/her family the most and which Jesus Lover is willing to bomb Iran. This is more like a circus than a circus. Is Edwards` house too big? Did Obama inhale? What about Hillary`s cackle? My head hurts. All this and we`re debating torture? Or as Kit Bond calls it....the "backstroke."
Maybe Pelosi could have a friendly meet and greet at the White House so the next war funding request can be a joint effort with Junior Bush. Maybe our Senate leadership can be in the next Barney video. There`s always hope when you work things out with your "friends" across the aisle. In the meantime, I can`t think of one government agency that hasn`t been defiled, one right that hasn`t been trampled. None of this could have happened without the help of a big chunk of Democrats. One day they`re at their microphones promising oversight and the next minute they`re huddled out of sight making a deal with the devils. Compromise is one thing. Sacrificing principles is quite another.
The CIA torture tapes did it for me. Why do you suppose that Democrats....my party....didn`t present themselves en masse with a thunderous, crystal clear statement of revulsion? Is it the same reason they can hear reports of collective financial struggles and still stuff bills with inexcusable pork?
Is it the same reason they can shamelessly sign up for getaway weekends while soldiers from their own districts get sent to Iraq for the third time? Is it the same reason they can hold galas in Georgetown but ignore New Orleans?
We can make excuses `til the cows come home, but if we don`t get some fresh blood and a giant charge of backbone, there isn`t going to be anything left of the Democratic Party. We`ll just meld with the Republicans into a giant corporation-driven inetrest group that concentrates on treasure chests and re-elections. Every single time we look the other way and make excuses for unaccountable, unresponsive leaders, we contribute to our own demise. If they know who we are when they want a contribution, they should know who we are when we want an end to war and torture. We`ve overlooked way too much and required way too little. Time for change.
Post in full with author's permission.
Originally posted at democraticunderground.com: http://tinyurl.com/2mu2nu
I`m a crusty old woman, which is one reason I refuse to point to a pile of dog crap and call it a strawberry sundae. Not even for party unity. Not even in honor of comity. Not even because sometimes a few scraps are better than none. I`m going to actually face reality. Forty-five years of Democratic Party activism have helped me understand the difference between bitching and doing. The sickening mess we`re in today didn`t happen by accident. Homeless folks we ignore, public support of torture, jampacked emergency rooms, decaying ghettos, packed prisons, obscene national debt, the destruction of Iraq, boarded-up factories....happened why? Because the majority cared so damned much?
Imagine. Broken soldiers wandering around Walter Reed (hile some of their comrades start their third or fourth deployment) and we show our "support" by demanding tax cuts and displaying yellow ribbon magnets? But Democratic leaders think they need to enter a pissing contest? Are they kidding me? I`m supposed to be glued to my teevee to determine who goes to church most often? Who is the True Christian? Who is willing to kill the most people to keep me free? Who is willing to use a nuke? Great. Let homeless children pace the sidewalks while I listen to a debate on which churchgoer loves his/her family the most and which Jesus Lover is willing to bomb Iran. This is more like a circus than a circus. Is Edwards` house too big? Did Obama inhale? What about Hillary`s cackle? My head hurts. All this and we`re debating torture? Or as Kit Bond calls it....the "backstroke."
Maybe Pelosi could have a friendly meet and greet at the White House so the next war funding request can be a joint effort with Junior Bush. Maybe our Senate leadership can be in the next Barney video. There`s always hope when you work things out with your "friends" across the aisle. In the meantime, I can`t think of one government agency that hasn`t been defiled, one right that hasn`t been trampled. None of this could have happened without the help of a big chunk of Democrats. One day they`re at their microphones promising oversight and the next minute they`re huddled out of sight making a deal with the devils. Compromise is one thing. Sacrificing principles is quite another.
The CIA torture tapes did it for me. Why do you suppose that Democrats....my party....didn`t present themselves en masse with a thunderous, crystal clear statement of revulsion? Is it the same reason they can hear reports of collective financial struggles and still stuff bills with inexcusable pork?
Is it the same reason they can shamelessly sign up for getaway weekends while soldiers from their own districts get sent to Iraq for the third time? Is it the same reason they can hold galas in Georgetown but ignore New Orleans?
We can make excuses `til the cows come home, but if we don`t get some fresh blood and a giant charge of backbone, there isn`t going to be anything left of the Democratic Party. We`ll just meld with the Republicans into a giant corporation-driven inetrest group that concentrates on treasure chests and re-elections. Every single time we look the other way and make excuses for unaccountable, unresponsive leaders, we contribute to our own demise. If they know who we are when they want a contribution, they should know who we are when we want an end to war and torture. We`ve overlooked way too much and required way too little. Time for change.
Post in full with author's permission.
Originally posted at democraticunderground.com: http://tinyurl.com/2mu2nu
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
12 Days of George Bush's Christmas
By David Glenn Cox
On the first day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me over one million dead Iraqis.
On the second day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the third day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me three coup d’etats, two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the fourth day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me four secret jails, three coup d’etats, two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the fifth day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three coup d’etats, two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the sixth day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me six generals a wavering, lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three-coup d’etats, two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the Seventh day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me seven wonks a spinning, six generals wavering, lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three coup d’eatats, two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the eighth day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me eight glaciers melting, seven wonks a spinning, six generals wavering, lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three coup d’etats two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the ninth day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me nine billions missing, eight glaciers melting, seven wonks a spinning, six generals wavering, lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three coup d’etats, two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the tenth day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me ten amendments gutted, nine billion missing, eight glaciers melting, seven wonks a spinning, six generals wavering, lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three-coup d’etats, two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the eleventh day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me 11 gas hikes weekly, ten amendments gutted, nine billion missing, eight glaciers melting, seven wonks a spinning, six general a wavering, lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three coup d’etats, two stupid wars, and one million dead Iraqis.
On the twelfth day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me America in tatters, eleven gas hikes weekly, ten amendments gutted, nine billion missing, eight glaciers melting, seven wonks a spinning, six generals wavering, lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three coup d’etats, two stupid wars and over one million dead Iraqis.
Tiny lame duck George says, “God bless us everyone!”
On the first day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me over one million dead Iraqis.
On the second day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the third day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me three coup d’etats, two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the fourth day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me four secret jails, three coup d’etats, two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the fifth day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three coup d’etats, two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the sixth day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me six generals a wavering, lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three-coup d’etats, two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the Seventh day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me seven wonks a spinning, six generals wavering, lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three coup d’eatats, two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the eighth day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me eight glaciers melting, seven wonks a spinning, six generals wavering, lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three coup d’etats two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the ninth day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me nine billions missing, eight glaciers melting, seven wonks a spinning, six generals wavering, lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three coup d’etats, two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the tenth day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me ten amendments gutted, nine billion missing, eight glaciers melting, seven wonks a spinning, six generals wavering, lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three-coup d’etats, two stupid wars, and over one million dead Iraqis.
On the eleventh day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me 11 gas hikes weekly, ten amendments gutted, nine billion missing, eight glaciers melting, seven wonks a spinning, six general a wavering, lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three coup d’etats, two stupid wars, and one million dead Iraqis.
On the twelfth day of Christmas, George Bush he gave to me America in tatters, eleven gas hikes weekly, ten amendments gutted, nine billion missing, eight glaciers melting, seven wonks a spinning, six generals wavering, lies of WMD’s, four secret jails, three coup d’etats, two stupid wars and over one million dead Iraqis.
Tiny lame duck George says, “God bless us everyone!”
The Psychopathic Meaning of “Patriotism” to Militant Nationalists
By Time for change
By “militant nationalist” I’m referring to the type of person whose idea of “patriotism” is a belief that their country is better than any other country, their country is always right (with the possible exception of when a liberal is president), and anyone who believes differently and raises objections to their country’s actions during war time is unpatriotic at best, or treasonous at worst. This type of person supports every war that his or her country enters into, even in the absence of the slightest clue as to the purpose of the war. Thus, militant nationalism is very much akin to a religion* – more specifically, a fundamentalist religion. It provides the same type of unambiguous security feeling that a strict fundamentalist religion does – the feeling of belonging and the feeling that as long as one follows a rather simple set of rules one will be taken care of by one’s God/country.
Why do I choose to write an article about this subject? Two reasons: First, I believe that such people are terribly dangerous to our country and to our world. This is the type of person who supported Hitler in his genocide and his march to tyranny and war. And secondly, I believe that there are way too many people like this in our country today. Put the two of these reasons together, and what we have is a phenomenon that is leading our country and the world down the road to tyranny and widespread death and destruction.
Yes, I realize that what I’ve described here is somewhat of a stereotype, and perhaps there are not many people who fully fit that stereotype. After all, most Americans today do not approve of our invasion of Iraq, and most eventually came to disapprove of the Vietnam War as well. But a large part of the reason for that is our failure to achieve “victory” in those wars. How many Americans would have disapproved of them had we “won”? Stereotype or not, my concern is that there are way too many Americans today who at least approximate the definition I described above. And that is very dangerous.
* I am not anti-religion, though I recognize that my statement may sound that way. I believe that religion can and often does play a useful and important role in our society. I have nothing against it as long as it is not used as an excuse for war or other bad things.
It’s not what we do that counts – It’s what we say we do
Those who care about their fellow human beings and the direction of their country are willing to speak out when they notice an atrocity being committed by their country. To a militant nationalist, however, it is not the atrocity that is the problem – the much bigger problem is pointing out the atrocity. That makes their country look bad. The reaction to Richard Durbin’s 2005 Senate speech exposing torture at Guantanamo Bay makes this point perfectly:
Senator Durbin tells the U.S. Senate of Bush administration use of torture
In 2005, Senator Dick Durbin gave one of the most courageous speeches that has ever been given on the floor of the U.S. Senate: In response to an FBI agent’s eyewitness report of torture by U.S. forces at Guantanamo Bay, he quoted that report to the U.S. Senate and made a comparison between our use of torture and the use of torture by historical regimes from other countries that “had no concern for human beings”. This is what Senator Durbin said:
No exaggeration there. How could there be? Durbin was simply quoting from an FBI report. But he didn’t stop there. Instead he went on to put the matter into historical context:
That’s what really got him into trouble – what enraged the militant nationalists. Why did Durbin do that? Simple. He was trying to make a forceful argument that our country should not do such things. He was hoping that his appropriate comparison of the Bush administration’s actions to some historical evil regimes might shame our country into reversing course – as can be seen by the continuation of his speech:
The reaction to Senator Durbin’s Speech
The militant nationalists were outraged by Senator Durbin’s speech. Not outraged by our treatment of prisoners, but by the fact that Durbin dared to point it out. Here is what Karl Rove had to say about it:
In other words, what’s important to Karl Rove and his ilk is not what we do, but how we are seen. It is not the Bush administration who puts “America’s men and women in uniform in greater danger” by violating the Geneva conventions. No, it is Durbin’s fault and Al Jazeera’s fault for broadcasting what people in other countries already know but which very few Americans have much knowledge of because our “journalists” are so concerned to protect us from this knowledge.
Conservative talk radio host, Hugh Hewitt, also had some revealing things to say about the meaning of Durbin’s speech, in his book, “Painting the Map Red”. After inaccurately implying that torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay represented “criminal conduct by a handful of out-of-control GIs not acting under orders”, Hewitt goes on to characterize the Democratic Party, referring to it as “defeatist”, having a “blame America first impulse”, having “suspicion of American military power”, and most important:
Ah, good old “American exceptionalism”! He thinks that’s a good thing. In other words, he (and militant nationalists in general) believes that our country has no obligation to live in accordance with international laws that were meant to protect the human rights of all humanity and to prevent war. Why do they believe that? Because in their view we’re so special and good that there is no need for us to prove it by restraining ourselves from the atrocities that other nations are expected to restrain themselves from.
The Iraq War as an example of militant nationalism
The Iraq War in general
There has been a great deal of talk recently about whether George Bush’s surge “worked”, given that monthly American military mortality figures are now down into the 30s. Closely related to this, there has always been much talk of the need to “win” the war. Virtually absent from corporate news media discussion of the war is what it would mean for the surge to be “working” or to “win” the war.
If the surge “works” or if we “win” the war, that will never erase the fact that we’ve killed approximately a million Iraqis, made refugees out of over four million, and ruined their infrastructure. Nor will it change the fact that most Iraqis hate us (polls consistently show that over 60% of ordinary Iraqis approve of violence against U.S. troops) and that our war has contributed to the expansion of al Qaeda by fueling Muslim hatred against us – the imperial occupiers of a Muslim country that never posed any danger to us. So if we “win” the war, what will we have “won”, other than the right for U.S. corporations to operate in Iraq, access to Iraqi oil, and the right to say that we “won”?
The April 2004 battle for Fallujah
Let’s take a look at the April 2004 battle for Fallujah as an especially egregious example of militant nationalism, as related by investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill in his book, “Blackwater – The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army”. The background for this battle of Fallujah is that four mercenary soldiers who worked for Blackwater had been recently ambushed and killed by guerillas from Fallujah. That was in retaliation for U.S. soldiers shooting and killing several Iraqi civilians in Fallujah, in retaliation for peacefully demonstrating against the U.S. occupation. Scahill described the U.S. retaliation for the four slain American mercenaries in his book. I’ll begin with his description of the end results:
And the U.S.-created Iraqi security forces? As described by Anthony Shadid, in “Night Draws Near – Iraq’s People in the Shadow of America’s War:
Remember the above paragraph the next time that some politician or anyone else whines about the Iraqis not doing their part to help us. Or the next time some idiot says “When they stand up, we’ll stand down”. Iraqis who refuse to help us in our occupation of their country, or those who switch to the other side do so not because they’re “terrorists”, as George Bush calls them, but because they don’t like imperial occupiers who murder their women and children in the name of bringing them freedom and democracy.
And lastly, consider what a real journalist, Dahr Jamail, had to say about the state of journalism in our country with respect to its reporting of the battle of Fallujah:
Why are so many Americans militant nationalists?
I’m sure that one could write a book on the answer to that question, and I certainly don’t have the answer to it. But I do think it’s important to note that our “leaders” consider it very important to impart militant nationalistic thinking to the American people. Their motives may vary, but the end result is that there is great pressure put upon politicians and ordinary Americans alike to support American wars, regardless of the reasons for them. So in that respect, those Americans who have characteristics of militant nationalism are not necessarily fully to blame for their unthinking knee-jerk support for American wars. I was fortunate enough to have two liberal parents who brought me up to recognize that it’s important to think for myself rather than believe everything that I’m fed by the news media or other “authorities”. That’s one reason, I believe, why I try to be careful about judging those who weren’t fortunate in that respect.
With that in mind, a very revealing example of how politicians reject the truth about our country in favor of a cleansed and idealized version of the truth is the U.S. Senate’s rejection, in 1995, of the proposed National Standards for United States History (take a look at the table of contents), by a vote of 99-1 (The one vote against the resolution was cast because the Senator felt that the resolution wasn’t strong enough.)
The standards
The standards were produced by a policy-setting body called the National Council for History Standards (NCHS), consisting of the presidents of nine major organizations and twenty-two other nationally recognized administrators, historians, and teachers, and two taskforces of teachers in World and United States history, with substantial input from thirty-one national organizations. The document was created through an unprecedented process of open debate, multiple reviews, and the active participation of the largest organizations of history educators in the nation.
In November 1994, NCHS released its document, which was meant to provide purely voluntary guidelines for national curricula in history for grades 5-12. As explained by Gary Nash, who led the effort, these standards were meant to have one thing in common: “to provide students with a more comprehensive, challenging, and thought-provoking education in the nation's public schools.” Their signature features were said to include “a new framework for critical thinking and active learning” and “repeated references to primary documents that would allow students to read and hear authentic voices from the past”.
The controversy over the standards
One article derogatorily refers to the “multi-cultis” who it is claimed wrote the document to advance their “politically correct” and radically left point of view. Lynn Cheney aggressively criticized the document as containing “multicultural excess”, a “grim and gloomy portrayal of American history”, “a politicized history”, and a disparaging of the West. Other major critics of the document included Newt Gingrich and Republican presidential candidates Pat Buchanan and Bob Dole. Dole blamed the document on “the embarrassed to be American crowd” of “intellectual elites”. With regard to the criticisms of “grimness and gloominess”, Nash had this to say:
Nash then discusses the historians’ point of view:
The meaning of patriotism to the militant nationalists
Thus it is that for a large segment of our population, “patriotism” has come to mean defending and glorifying the actions of our country, right or wrong (because our country is always right), especially during war time.
To me and other liberals, patriotism that is worth anything is almost the opposite of that: Out of concern for our fellow citizens, and out of concern for people of other nationalities as well, we would always prefer that conflicts be handled peaceably if possible, and that war should be used rarely and only as a last resort, in order to defend ourselves or to stop genocide or similar crimes against humanity. When our country acts wrongly we feel that it is better to expose the wrong so that it may be corrected, rather than to support or acquiesce to it out of a misguided sense of “patriotism”.
If so-called “patriots” feel that the attitude I’ve described here is not patriotism, or that it exposes my “hatred of America”, my answer to that is that their version of “patriotism” is nothing but an inability to face reality and a defensive, immature militancy that will result in the destruction of the world as well as their own country if they get their way. If that’s what “patriotism” has come to in this country, we are far better off without it.
Posted in full with author's permission.
Originally posted at democraticunderground.com: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/255
By “militant nationalist” I’m referring to the type of person whose idea of “patriotism” is a belief that their country is better than any other country, their country is always right (with the possible exception of when a liberal is president), and anyone who believes differently and raises objections to their country’s actions during war time is unpatriotic at best, or treasonous at worst. This type of person supports every war that his or her country enters into, even in the absence of the slightest clue as to the purpose of the war. Thus, militant nationalism is very much akin to a religion* – more specifically, a fundamentalist religion. It provides the same type of unambiguous security feeling that a strict fundamentalist religion does – the feeling of belonging and the feeling that as long as one follows a rather simple set of rules one will be taken care of by one’s God/country.
Why do I choose to write an article about this subject? Two reasons: First, I believe that such people are terribly dangerous to our country and to our world. This is the type of person who supported Hitler in his genocide and his march to tyranny and war. And secondly, I believe that there are way too many people like this in our country today. Put the two of these reasons together, and what we have is a phenomenon that is leading our country and the world down the road to tyranny and widespread death and destruction.
Yes, I realize that what I’ve described here is somewhat of a stereotype, and perhaps there are not many people who fully fit that stereotype. After all, most Americans today do not approve of our invasion of Iraq, and most eventually came to disapprove of the Vietnam War as well. But a large part of the reason for that is our failure to achieve “victory” in those wars. How many Americans would have disapproved of them had we “won”? Stereotype or not, my concern is that there are way too many Americans today who at least approximate the definition I described above. And that is very dangerous.
* I am not anti-religion, though I recognize that my statement may sound that way. I believe that religion can and often does play a useful and important role in our society. I have nothing against it as long as it is not used as an excuse for war or other bad things.
It’s not what we do that counts – It’s what we say we do
Those who care about their fellow human beings and the direction of their country are willing to speak out when they notice an atrocity being committed by their country. To a militant nationalist, however, it is not the atrocity that is the problem – the much bigger problem is pointing out the atrocity. That makes their country look bad. The reaction to Richard Durbin’s 2005 Senate speech exposing torture at Guantanamo Bay makes this point perfectly:
Senator Durbin tells the U.S. Senate of Bush administration use of torture
In 2005, Senator Dick Durbin gave one of the most courageous speeches that has ever been given on the floor of the U.S. Senate: In response to an FBI agent’s eyewitness report of torture by U.S. forces at Guantanamo Bay, he quoted that report to the U.S. Senate and made a comparison between our use of torture and the use of torture by historical regimes from other countries that “had no concern for human beings”. This is what Senator Durbin said:
When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here – I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what an FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:
“On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for eighteen to twenty-four hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold… On another occasion, the air conditioner had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion…. with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor…”
“On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for eighteen to twenty-four hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold… On another occasion, the air conditioner had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion…. with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor…”
No exaggeration there. How could there be? Durbin was simply quoting from an FBI report. But he didn’t stop there. Instead he went on to put the matter into historical context:
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in the gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings….
That’s what really got him into trouble – what enraged the militant nationalists. Why did Durbin do that? Simple. He was trying to make a forceful argument that our country should not do such things. He was hoping that his appropriate comparison of the Bush administration’s actions to some historical evil regimes might shame our country into reversing course – as can be seen by the continuation of his speech:
It is not too late. I hope we will learn from history. I hope we will change course. The president could declare the United States will apply the Geneva Conventions to the war on terrorism. He could declare, as he should, that the United States will not, under any circumstances, subject any detainee to torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The administration could give all detainees a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention before a neutral decision maker.
The reaction to Senator Durbin’s Speech
The militant nationalists were outraged by Senator Durbin’s speech. Not outraged by our treatment of prisoners, but by the fact that Durbin dared to point it out. Here is what Karl Rove had to say about it:
Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see … Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.
Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot - three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?
Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.
Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot - three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the 20th century?
Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.
In other words, what’s important to Karl Rove and his ilk is not what we do, but how we are seen. It is not the Bush administration who puts “America’s men and women in uniform in greater danger” by violating the Geneva conventions. No, it is Durbin’s fault and Al Jazeera’s fault for broadcasting what people in other countries already know but which very few Americans have much knowledge of because our “journalists” are so concerned to protect us from this knowledge.
Conservative talk radio host, Hugh Hewitt, also had some revealing things to say about the meaning of Durbin’s speech, in his book, “Painting the Map Red”. After inaccurately implying that torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay represented “criminal conduct by a handful of out-of-control GIs not acting under orders”, Hewitt goes on to characterize the Democratic Party, referring to it as “defeatist”, having a “blame America first impulse”, having “suspicion of American military power”, and most important:
They are what they have so often shown themselves to be: a party of bitter hostility to the idea of American exceptionalism…
Ah, good old “American exceptionalism”! He thinks that’s a good thing. In other words, he (and militant nationalists in general) believes that our country has no obligation to live in accordance with international laws that were meant to protect the human rights of all humanity and to prevent war. Why do they believe that? Because in their view we’re so special and good that there is no need for us to prove it by restraining ourselves from the atrocities that other nations are expected to restrain themselves from.
The Iraq War as an example of militant nationalism
The Iraq War in general
There has been a great deal of talk recently about whether George Bush’s surge “worked”, given that monthly American military mortality figures are now down into the 30s. Closely related to this, there has always been much talk of the need to “win” the war. Virtually absent from corporate news media discussion of the war is what it would mean for the surge to be “working” or to “win” the war.
If the surge “works” or if we “win” the war, that will never erase the fact that we’ve killed approximately a million Iraqis, made refugees out of over four million, and ruined their infrastructure. Nor will it change the fact that most Iraqis hate us (polls consistently show that over 60% of ordinary Iraqis approve of violence against U.S. troops) and that our war has contributed to the expansion of al Qaeda by fueling Muslim hatred against us – the imperial occupiers of a Muslim country that never posed any danger to us. So if we “win” the war, what will we have “won”, other than the right for U.S. corporations to operate in Iraq, access to Iraqi oil, and the right to say that we “won”?
The April 2004 battle for Fallujah
Let’s take a look at the April 2004 battle for Fallujah as an especially egregious example of militant nationalism, as related by investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill in his book, “Blackwater – The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army”. The background for this battle of Fallujah is that four mercenary soldiers who worked for Blackwater had been recently ambushed and killed by guerillas from Fallujah. That was in retaliation for U.S. soldiers shooting and killing several Iraqi civilians in Fallujah, in retaliation for peacefully demonstrating against the U.S. occupation. Scahill described the U.S. retaliation for the four slain American mercenaries in his book. I’ll begin with his description of the end results:
In the end, perhaps as many as eight hundred Iraqis (including hundreds of women and children) died as a result of the first of what would be several sieges of Fallujah. Tens of thousands of civilians fled their homes, and the city was razed… Far from asserting U.S. supremacy in Iraq, Fallujah demonstrated that guerrilla tactics were effective against the occupiers. The number of guerillas probably totaled no more than 400 out of a population of 300,000. But by assaulting a whole city, as if it was Verdun or Stalingrad, the US Marines managed to turn it into a nationalist symbol….
And the U.S.-created Iraqi security forces? As described by Anthony Shadid, in “Night Draws Near – Iraq’s People in the Shadow of America’s War:
Iraqis in the U.S.-created security force began deserting their posts; some joined the resistance to the siege, attacking U.S. forces around the city. “In all, as many as one in four of the new Iraqi army, civil defense, police, and other security forces quit in those days, changed sides, or stopped working, according to Anthony Shadid. When the United States attempted hastily to hand over “responsibility” for Fallujah to an Iraqi force, some 800 AK-47 assault rifles, twenty-seven pickup trucks, and fifty radios … ended up in the hands of the resistance.…
Remember the above paragraph the next time that some politician or anyone else whines about the Iraqis not doing their part to help us. Or the next time some idiot says “When they stand up, we’ll stand down”. Iraqis who refuse to help us in our occupation of their country, or those who switch to the other side do so not because they’re “terrorists”, as George Bush calls them, but because they don’t like imperial occupiers who murder their women and children in the name of bringing them freedom and democracy.
And lastly, consider what a real journalist, Dahr Jamail, had to say about the state of journalism in our country with respect to its reporting of the battle of Fallujah:
In April of 2004, as a city was invaded and its residents were fleeing, hiding, or being massacred, there was considerable public awareness in the United States of human beings whose bodies had been mutilated in Iraq, thanks to our news media. But among thousands of references to mutilation in that month alone, we have yet to find one related to anything that happened after March 31st (when the Blackwater mercenaries were killed) … Mutilation is something that happens to Blackwater-hired mercs and other professional, American killers, not to Iraqi babies with misplaced heads.
Why are so many Americans militant nationalists?
I’m sure that one could write a book on the answer to that question, and I certainly don’t have the answer to it. But I do think it’s important to note that our “leaders” consider it very important to impart militant nationalistic thinking to the American people. Their motives may vary, but the end result is that there is great pressure put upon politicians and ordinary Americans alike to support American wars, regardless of the reasons for them. So in that respect, those Americans who have characteristics of militant nationalism are not necessarily fully to blame for their unthinking knee-jerk support for American wars. I was fortunate enough to have two liberal parents who brought me up to recognize that it’s important to think for myself rather than believe everything that I’m fed by the news media or other “authorities”. That’s one reason, I believe, why I try to be careful about judging those who weren’t fortunate in that respect.
With that in mind, a very revealing example of how politicians reject the truth about our country in favor of a cleansed and idealized version of the truth is the U.S. Senate’s rejection, in 1995, of the proposed National Standards for United States History (take a look at the table of contents), by a vote of 99-1 (The one vote against the resolution was cast because the Senator felt that the resolution wasn’t strong enough.)
The standards
The standards were produced by a policy-setting body called the National Council for History Standards (NCHS), consisting of the presidents of nine major organizations and twenty-two other nationally recognized administrators, historians, and teachers, and two taskforces of teachers in World and United States history, with substantial input from thirty-one national organizations. The document was created through an unprecedented process of open debate, multiple reviews, and the active participation of the largest organizations of history educators in the nation.
In November 1994, NCHS released its document, which was meant to provide purely voluntary guidelines for national curricula in history for grades 5-12. As explained by Gary Nash, who led the effort, these standards were meant to have one thing in common: “to provide students with a more comprehensive, challenging, and thought-provoking education in the nation's public schools.” Their signature features were said to include “a new framework for critical thinking and active learning” and “repeated references to primary documents that would allow students to read and hear authentic voices from the past”.
The controversy over the standards
One article derogatorily refers to the “multi-cultis” who it is claimed wrote the document to advance their “politically correct” and radically left point of view. Lynn Cheney aggressively criticized the document as containing “multicultural excess”, a “grim and gloomy portrayal of American history”, “a politicized history”, and a disparaging of the West. Other major critics of the document included Newt Gingrich and Republican presidential candidates Pat Buchanan and Bob Dole. Dole blamed the document on “the embarrassed to be American crowd” of “intellectual elites”. With regard to the criticisms of “grimness and gloominess”, Nash had this to say:
To be sure, it is not possible to recover the history of women, African Americans, religious minorities, Native Americans, laboring Americans, Latino Americans, and Asian Americans without addressing issues of conflict, exploitation, and the compromising of the national ideals set forth by the Revolutionary generation… To this extent, the standards counseled a less self-congratulatory history of the United States and a less triumphalist Western Civilization orientation toward world history…
Reduced to its core, the controversy thus turned on how history can be used to train up the nation's youth. Almost all of the critics of the history standards argued that young Americans would be better served if they study the history presented before the 1960s, when allegedly liberal and radical historians "politicized" the discipline and abandoned an "objective" history in favor of pursuing their personal political agendas.
Reduced to its core, the controversy thus turned on how history can be used to train up the nation's youth. Almost all of the critics of the history standards argued that young Americans would be better served if they study the history presented before the 1960s, when allegedly liberal and radical historians "politicized" the discipline and abandoned an "objective" history in favor of pursuing their personal political agendas.
Nash then discusses the historians’ point of view:
On the other side of the cultural divide stands a large majority of historians. For many generations, even when the profession was a guild of white Protestant males of the upper class, historians have never regarded themselves as anti-patriots because they revise history or examine sordid chapters of it. Indeed, they expose and critique the past in order to improve American society and to protect dearly won gains… This is not a new argument. Historians have periodically been at sword's point with vociferous segments of the public, especially those of deeply conservative bent.
The meaning of patriotism to the militant nationalists
Thus it is that for a large segment of our population, “patriotism” has come to mean defending and glorifying the actions of our country, right or wrong (because our country is always right), especially during war time.
To me and other liberals, patriotism that is worth anything is almost the opposite of that: Out of concern for our fellow citizens, and out of concern for people of other nationalities as well, we would always prefer that conflicts be handled peaceably if possible, and that war should be used rarely and only as a last resort, in order to defend ourselves or to stop genocide or similar crimes against humanity. When our country acts wrongly we feel that it is better to expose the wrong so that it may be corrected, rather than to support or acquiesce to it out of a misguided sense of “patriotism”.
If so-called “patriots” feel that the attitude I’ve described here is not patriotism, or that it exposes my “hatred of America”, my answer to that is that their version of “patriotism” is nothing but an inability to face reality and a defensive, immature militancy that will result in the destruction of the world as well as their own country if they get their way. If that’s what “patriotism” has come to in this country, we are far better off without it.
Posted in full with author's permission.
Originally posted at democraticunderground.com: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Time%20for%20change/255
O, Come All Ye Truly Unfaithful
By NanceGreggs
I don’t deign to speak for everyone. But I, for one, am sick to death hearing from so-called Christians about how hard done by they are at the hands of Democrats, Liberals, homosexuals, civil rights organizations, et al.
I am particularly tired of hearing the allegations of Christian-bashing from people who have completely abandoned the teachings of one Jesus Christ in order to align themselves instead with a president and political party that espouse everything Christ specifically taught against – those who have embraced the politically expedient god of war, famine, pestilence and death, and have talked themselves into believing that Thou Shalt Not Place Any Other Gods Before Me was not really a Commandment, but merely a serving suggestion.
To be as blunt as I feel the situation calls for, if you’re making a living as a whore, don’t feign umbrage when someone starts bashing virginity. You are not, despite your most fervent efforts to include yourself, part of the group that’s being disparaged.
And that is precisely how I feel about the psuedo-Christians who are inundating the news and the airwaves with their cries of persecution. When you’re being thrown into an arena with hungry lions, feel free to speak up. But someone wishing you Happy Holidays doesn’t come close to persecution – and if you honestly believe it does, you might want to watch some vintage footage of what was done to people in Bergen-Belsen or Auschwitz to get a clearer idea of what real religious persecution looks like, up close and personal.
What really sticks in my craw is the fact that the OPCs (Outraged Pretend Christians) were so willingly led to the altar of BushCo and the Republican party – not as mindless sheep too dumb to know what they were buying, but as anxious zealots desirous of having their greed, their bigotry, their homophobia, and their arrogant ignorance validated.
Those who didn’t want to hear that they were their brother’s keeper longed for political-minded preachers to assure them that social programs meant to assist the poor were nothing more than handouts to Welfare Queens living large on their monthly checks. Ergo, no need to support that.
Those who didn’t want to be reminded that torture and the murder of innocents was not in keeping with their Christian beliefs prayed for a modern-day interpreter of the New Testament – like Falwell or Robertson – who would assure them that killing Muslims, or inflicting pain and destruction on those who worshiped God in any way other than donating their money at the local mega-church was completely justified.
Those who put the pursuit of personal wealth above more spiritual endeavors lived on tenterhooks for years, concerned that their greed would lead to their being mounted on the backs of camels, desperately trying to pass through the eye of a needle in order to gain entrance to heaven – and lo and behold, a Christian president came along to assure them that tax-cuts for the wealthy was the godly-and-just reward for those willing to look after themselves rather than others.
It should come as no surprise that the not-so-mindless sheep have suddenly become unafraid to walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death – for the rod and staff of consumerism and the denial of the needs of the homeless, the sick and the hungry shall comfort them – which is pretty much what they were hoping to hear all along.
Christianity, in its true form and meaning, is not dead, nor is it in danger of being extinguished or persecuted out of existence. It is as strong as it ever was.
It lives within the hearts and minds of those who choose not to forget the words of a carpenter who walked the earth two thousand years ago, words which still hold meaning for those who aren’t looking for promises from a political party that, having had their lawyers look into the matter, can assure them that there are at least a dozen legal loopholes that can be trotted out come Judgment Day.
As for the psuedo-Christians – those who have tied up the infomercial call-lines, their credit card numbers at the ready to order the Green Prayer Cloth of Prosperity (because Jesus suddenly remembered that he wants you to be rich, rich, rich!) – you can take your hypocrisy, your pathetic self-absorption, and your religious pomposity and shove it into a place where the truths of the Sermon on the Mount won’t find it – or the speaker thereof simply can’t be bothered looking for it.
O, Come All Ye Truly Unfaithful, and remember that as you do to the least amongst us, so you do unto the Lord you have steadfastly ignored, choosing instead to praise the replacement Savior, a war-mongering, torture-loving, money-grubbing idol who is apparently much more to your liking – simply because he is created in your own image, and is more than willing to bless your pride rather than your humility, your greed rather than your generosity, your sins rather than your virtues.
As far as I am concerned, you can shut the fuck up – and while I realize that such a phrase is not in keeping with true Christian values, I am confident that Christ himself will understand the appropriateness of such an admonishment.
No doubt Jesus would be more circumspect in choosing his words, but – unlike the Moneychangers in the Temple who are passing themselves off as pastors of the flock – I don’t hold myself out as His official spokesperson.
The fact of the matter is that I am not even a Christian. But I do respect and revere the teachings of He who taught that loving one's neighbor was to be held in higher esteem than loving one's self.
And in the grand scheme of things, that makes me a better Christian than those who call themselves such these days - and if their incessant whining is on my last nerve, I can only imagine how pissed-off Jesus is.
Posted in full with author's permission.
Originally posted at democraticunderground.com: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/NanceGreggs/317
I don’t deign to speak for everyone. But I, for one, am sick to death hearing from so-called Christians about how hard done by they are at the hands of Democrats, Liberals, homosexuals, civil rights organizations, et al.
I am particularly tired of hearing the allegations of Christian-bashing from people who have completely abandoned the teachings of one Jesus Christ in order to align themselves instead with a president and political party that espouse everything Christ specifically taught against – those who have embraced the politically expedient god of war, famine, pestilence and death, and have talked themselves into believing that Thou Shalt Not Place Any Other Gods Before Me was not really a Commandment, but merely a serving suggestion.
To be as blunt as I feel the situation calls for, if you’re making a living as a whore, don’t feign umbrage when someone starts bashing virginity. You are not, despite your most fervent efforts to include yourself, part of the group that’s being disparaged.
And that is precisely how I feel about the psuedo-Christians who are inundating the news and the airwaves with their cries of persecution. When you’re being thrown into an arena with hungry lions, feel free to speak up. But someone wishing you Happy Holidays doesn’t come close to persecution – and if you honestly believe it does, you might want to watch some vintage footage of what was done to people in Bergen-Belsen or Auschwitz to get a clearer idea of what real religious persecution looks like, up close and personal.
What really sticks in my craw is the fact that the OPCs (Outraged Pretend Christians) were so willingly led to the altar of BushCo and the Republican party – not as mindless sheep too dumb to know what they were buying, but as anxious zealots desirous of having their greed, their bigotry, their homophobia, and their arrogant ignorance validated.
Those who didn’t want to hear that they were their brother’s keeper longed for political-minded preachers to assure them that social programs meant to assist the poor were nothing more than handouts to Welfare Queens living large on their monthly checks. Ergo, no need to support that.
Those who didn’t want to be reminded that torture and the murder of innocents was not in keeping with their Christian beliefs prayed for a modern-day interpreter of the New Testament – like Falwell or Robertson – who would assure them that killing Muslims, or inflicting pain and destruction on those who worshiped God in any way other than donating their money at the local mega-church was completely justified.
Those who put the pursuit of personal wealth above more spiritual endeavors lived on tenterhooks for years, concerned that their greed would lead to their being mounted on the backs of camels, desperately trying to pass through the eye of a needle in order to gain entrance to heaven – and lo and behold, a Christian president came along to assure them that tax-cuts for the wealthy was the godly-and-just reward for those willing to look after themselves rather than others.
It should come as no surprise that the not-so-mindless sheep have suddenly become unafraid to walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death – for the rod and staff of consumerism and the denial of the needs of the homeless, the sick and the hungry shall comfort them – which is pretty much what they were hoping to hear all along.
Christianity, in its true form and meaning, is not dead, nor is it in danger of being extinguished or persecuted out of existence. It is as strong as it ever was.
It lives within the hearts and minds of those who choose not to forget the words of a carpenter who walked the earth two thousand years ago, words which still hold meaning for those who aren’t looking for promises from a political party that, having had their lawyers look into the matter, can assure them that there are at least a dozen legal loopholes that can be trotted out come Judgment Day.
As for the psuedo-Christians – those who have tied up the infomercial call-lines, their credit card numbers at the ready to order the Green Prayer Cloth of Prosperity (because Jesus suddenly remembered that he wants you to be rich, rich, rich!) – you can take your hypocrisy, your pathetic self-absorption, and your religious pomposity and shove it into a place where the truths of the Sermon on the Mount won’t find it – or the speaker thereof simply can’t be bothered looking for it.
O, Come All Ye Truly Unfaithful, and remember that as you do to the least amongst us, so you do unto the Lord you have steadfastly ignored, choosing instead to praise the replacement Savior, a war-mongering, torture-loving, money-grubbing idol who is apparently much more to your liking – simply because he is created in your own image, and is more than willing to bless your pride rather than your humility, your greed rather than your generosity, your sins rather than your virtues.
As far as I am concerned, you can shut the fuck up – and while I realize that such a phrase is not in keeping with true Christian values, I am confident that Christ himself will understand the appropriateness of such an admonishment.
No doubt Jesus would be more circumspect in choosing his words, but – unlike the Moneychangers in the Temple who are passing themselves off as pastors of the flock – I don’t hold myself out as His official spokesperson.
The fact of the matter is that I am not even a Christian. But I do respect and revere the teachings of He who taught that loving one's neighbor was to be held in higher esteem than loving one's self.
And in the grand scheme of things, that makes me a better Christian than those who call themselves such these days - and if their incessant whining is on my last nerve, I can only imagine how pissed-off Jesus is.
Posted in full with author's permission.
Originally posted at democraticunderground.com: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/NanceGreggs/317
Monday, December 10, 2007
Presidential Precedent
By NanceGreggs
I can’t help but wonder whether you Republicans who have supported the illegal, immoral, and downright insane behavior of your president, G.W. Bush, have come to grips with the fact that come January 2009, the proverbial shoe will be on the other foot.
Precedents, however outrageous they are, have now been set by this administration. And should the new Democratic president wish to follow suit, believe me, you won’t like it. But then, you’ve had seven years to speak up for your country, and chose not to – because as long as it was your president, everything he did was okay with you.
So before you start whining about what you will undoubtedly deem to be the unlawful behavior of the new president if he starts acting like the current one, please keep the following in mind:
Should the new Democratic president choose to spy on any or all of you without cause, warrant or legal authority, he can do so because your president did it, so it must be okay.
If the Democratic president wants to start a war, he can simply fabricate ‘intelligence’ to justify its necessity because your president did it, so it must be okay.
If the Democratic president chooses to ‘out’ an undercover CIA agent for reasons of personal revenge, he can do so because your president did it, so it must be okay.
If the Democratic president appoints cronies whose incompetence could cause massive casualties in the aftermath of a disaster, he is within his rights to do so because your president did it, so it must be okay.
When the Democratic president allows his Attorney General to fire anyone he deems to be politically opposed to his views, he can do so without restraint because your president did it, so it must be okay.
If billions of taxpayers’ dollars ‘go missing’, the Democratic president will be free to quash any investigation into where the funds went because your president did it, so it must be okay.
The Democratic president can funnel billions of dollars to corporations owned by family members and friends via no-bid contracts because your president did it, so it must be okay.
Should the Democratic president run up the national debt and stick future taxpayers with the bill, he need not feel fettered by any notion of ‘fiscal responsibility’ because your president did it, so it must be okay.
The Democratic president is free to act like a buffoon in public, and prattle on incessantly in words that make absolutely no sense whatsoever, because your president did it, so it must be okay.
If the Democratic president chooses not to follow the law, he can simply execute a ‘signing statement’ and be excused from any accountability whatsoever because your president did it, so it must be okay.
If the Democratic president chooses to steadfastly rely on advisors who have been proven wrong time and again with disastrous results to the nation, he is free to do so because your president did it, so it must be okay.
If the Democratic president decides to ignore the Constitution and just do as he damn well pleases without restraint, he can do so without hesitation, because your president did it, so it must be okay.
Should the Democratic president be asked to account for any lies, deceit, corruption or wrongdoing perpetrated by himself or his administration, he can end the discussion by claiming executive privilege, or simply by saying “I don’t recall”, because your president did it, so it must be okay.
The Democratic president will not have to follow lawful procedures for the retention of emails, correspondence, discussion notes, et cetera, and can shred documents, delete computer data, and destroy any 'evidence' he wishes with abandon, because your president did it, so it must be okay.
The Democratic president will be free to hand sweetheart deals to any corporation or industry he wishes, even though it will cost the taxpayers billions, because your president did it, so it must be okay.
Should there be any investigations as a result of alleged wrongdoing, the Democratic president can refuse to answer any questions on-the-record and under oath, along with anyone in his administration or on his staff, because your president did it, so it must be okay.
Yessiree, it’s going to be fun to sit back and watch all of you trying to spin reasons why the Democratic president is not entitled to do anything and everything he chooses to do, whether you’re in agreement with it or not – because your president did it, so it must be okay.
But you won’t have to worry yourselves into a frenzy over it – you see, we simply don’t have anyone as corrupt, self-serving, idiotic and incompetent as your president among our candidates.
I guess a president who follows the law, upholds the Constitution, and governs all citizens with honesty and integrity will be something you’ll just have to used to.
Posted in full with author's permission.
Originally posted at democraticunderground.com: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/NanceGreggs/315
I can’t help but wonder whether you Republicans who have supported the illegal, immoral, and downright insane behavior of your president, G.W. Bush, have come to grips with the fact that come January 2009, the proverbial shoe will be on the other foot.
Precedents, however outrageous they are, have now been set by this administration. And should the new Democratic president wish to follow suit, believe me, you won’t like it. But then, you’ve had seven years to speak up for your country, and chose not to – because as long as it was your president, everything he did was okay with you.
So before you start whining about what you will undoubtedly deem to be the unlawful behavior of the new president if he starts acting like the current one, please keep the following in mind:
Should the new Democratic president choose to spy on any or all of you without cause, warrant or legal authority, he can do so because your president did it, so it must be okay.
If the Democratic president wants to start a war, he can simply fabricate ‘intelligence’ to justify its necessity because your president did it, so it must be okay.
If the Democratic president chooses to ‘out’ an undercover CIA agent for reasons of personal revenge, he can do so because your president did it, so it must be okay.
If the Democratic president appoints cronies whose incompetence could cause massive casualties in the aftermath of a disaster, he is within his rights to do so because your president did it, so it must be okay.
When the Democratic president allows his Attorney General to fire anyone he deems to be politically opposed to his views, he can do so without restraint because your president did it, so it must be okay.
If billions of taxpayers’ dollars ‘go missing’, the Democratic president will be free to quash any investigation into where the funds went because your president did it, so it must be okay.
The Democratic president can funnel billions of dollars to corporations owned by family members and friends via no-bid contracts because your president did it, so it must be okay.
Should the Democratic president run up the national debt and stick future taxpayers with the bill, he need not feel fettered by any notion of ‘fiscal responsibility’ because your president did it, so it must be okay.
The Democratic president is free to act like a buffoon in public, and prattle on incessantly in words that make absolutely no sense whatsoever, because your president did it, so it must be okay.
If the Democratic president chooses not to follow the law, he can simply execute a ‘signing statement’ and be excused from any accountability whatsoever because your president did it, so it must be okay.
If the Democratic president chooses to steadfastly rely on advisors who have been proven wrong time and again with disastrous results to the nation, he is free to do so because your president did it, so it must be okay.
If the Democratic president decides to ignore the Constitution and just do as he damn well pleases without restraint, he can do so without hesitation, because your president did it, so it must be okay.
Should the Democratic president be asked to account for any lies, deceit, corruption or wrongdoing perpetrated by himself or his administration, he can end the discussion by claiming executive privilege, or simply by saying “I don’t recall”, because your president did it, so it must be okay.
The Democratic president will not have to follow lawful procedures for the retention of emails, correspondence, discussion notes, et cetera, and can shred documents, delete computer data, and destroy any 'evidence' he wishes with abandon, because your president did it, so it must be okay.
The Democratic president will be free to hand sweetheart deals to any corporation or industry he wishes, even though it will cost the taxpayers billions, because your president did it, so it must be okay.
Should there be any investigations as a result of alleged wrongdoing, the Democratic president can refuse to answer any questions on-the-record and under oath, along with anyone in his administration or on his staff, because your president did it, so it must be okay.
Yessiree, it’s going to be fun to sit back and watch all of you trying to spin reasons why the Democratic president is not entitled to do anything and everything he chooses to do, whether you’re in agreement with it or not – because your president did it, so it must be okay.
But you won’t have to worry yourselves into a frenzy over it – you see, we simply don’t have anyone as corrupt, self-serving, idiotic and incompetent as your president among our candidates.
I guess a president who follows the law, upholds the Constitution, and governs all citizens with honesty and integrity will be something you’ll just have to used to.
Posted in full with author's permission.
Originally posted at democraticunderground.com: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/NanceGreggs/315
We should proudly torture our enemies on live t.v. for all the world to see.
By Philosoraptor
Enough of this sneakin' around and torturing the enemies of freedom on some offshore nether-land, hidden from view, as if it were bad to torture one's enemies. We should hold our freedom loving heads up high and proud and torture anyone who doesn't like it.
Why be so ashamed about protecting America? That's why we torture, to protect America, and of course its great fun. Why destroy interrogation tapes? We should let all the school kids see those tapes to truly understand what America stands for. Our children need to understand that bad behavior has consequences, and if you are a terrorist you will be tortured. There are no 'time outs' in the corner for terrorists.
Torturing prisoners of war in some dark, secret cell out of view just gives torture a bad name, it makes it look like its illegal or unnecessarily cruel. Torture is nothing to be ashamed of, we are the greatest nation the world has ever witnessed, we are the noblest, the proudest, the freedom loving-est, fuck with America and you WILL be tortured.
I for one would like to see terrorists tortured live, every Saturday night at 8 p.m. central, prime t.v. time, and let all the world see how we deal with those who would dare to harm us. And screw that pansy-ass waterboarding stuff, I want real, biblical torture, crusader style.
It pains my heart terribly to see our fine president having to stretch the truth and say that "America does not torture", of course we torture, we torture the living fuck out of all kinds of enemies of freedom, nobody tortures like we do, nobody. In this shiny, new 21st century we should let the stigma and shame heretofore associated with torture die off once and for all, we should cast off the shackles of shame and bring the practice of torturing one's enemies out into the liberating light of day, for all the world to see, and envy, and marvel at.
God bless America, let freedom reign, and horrible torture to anyone who would dare cross our sacred borders and seek to harm us. Torture in its purest form, torture for freedom and democracy, torture for truth, justice, and the American way.
Does America torture? You bet your sweet ass we do, and we're damned proud of it too by God.
Posted in full with author's permission.
Originally posted at democraticunderground.com: http://tinyurl.com/3b3tgf
Enough of this sneakin' around and torturing the enemies of freedom on some offshore nether-land, hidden from view, as if it were bad to torture one's enemies. We should hold our freedom loving heads up high and proud and torture anyone who doesn't like it.
Why be so ashamed about protecting America? That's why we torture, to protect America, and of course its great fun. Why destroy interrogation tapes? We should let all the school kids see those tapes to truly understand what America stands for. Our children need to understand that bad behavior has consequences, and if you are a terrorist you will be tortured. There are no 'time outs' in the corner for terrorists.
Torturing prisoners of war in some dark, secret cell out of view just gives torture a bad name, it makes it look like its illegal or unnecessarily cruel. Torture is nothing to be ashamed of, we are the greatest nation the world has ever witnessed, we are the noblest, the proudest, the freedom loving-est, fuck with America and you WILL be tortured.
I for one would like to see terrorists tortured live, every Saturday night at 8 p.m. central, prime t.v. time, and let all the world see how we deal with those who would dare to harm us. And screw that pansy-ass waterboarding stuff, I want real, biblical torture, crusader style.
It pains my heart terribly to see our fine president having to stretch the truth and say that "America does not torture", of course we torture, we torture the living fuck out of all kinds of enemies of freedom, nobody tortures like we do, nobody. In this shiny, new 21st century we should let the stigma and shame heretofore associated with torture die off once and for all, we should cast off the shackles of shame and bring the practice of torturing one's enemies out into the liberating light of day, for all the world to see, and envy, and marvel at.
God bless America, let freedom reign, and horrible torture to anyone who would dare cross our sacred borders and seek to harm us. Torture in its purest form, torture for freedom and democracy, torture for truth, justice, and the American way.
Does America torture? You bet your sweet ass we do, and we're damned proud of it too by God.
Posted in full with author's permission.
Originally posted at democraticunderground.com: http://tinyurl.com/3b3tgf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
