A blog about Kern County and Politics.
Real Name: Tom Webster Gender: male Member Since: August 14, 2006 Last Signed In: August 19, 2008 Profile Views: 11576 Blog Views: 13050 Bloggers and Lagers: This Saturday from Noon to Three at Pizzaville Bloggers' Beer and Pizza at PizzaVille on Saturday Drinking Liberally - The bar is now open! Drinking Liberally Thursday Night Not Yet Drinking Liberally Drinking Liberally? Bush Announces The End of the Surge McCain Breaks His Own Laws McCain's Idea of Love Unofficial "Bloggers' Brunch" at Dagny's Saturday August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
A "Politically Correct" War is the ONLY Way America Can Win
I've been considering writing something up on the 9/11 mockumentary being trotted out for election season by ABC. Thank you Sam for giving me the nudge I needed.
Reading through Sam's piece, I see the mindset of a person who is willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. We cannot become our enemy in order to defeat them. If we are to win, and truly win, the War on Terror, we must do so in a way that does not shame us as a nation. If we consent to the end of judicial review, equal rights, protections for everyone, and the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty, we will have lost America for the sake of vengence. As to the the propaganda piece being aired by ABC this weekend, they are broadcasting a piece which they know to be false at the beginning of an election season. They are also lying about one of the worst events in American history. We were all hit that day, if you lived in New York or Bakersfield or Tokyo or Paris. We were, for a short time, all Americans, all united. To lie about the causes of that event is unAmerican and should be regarded as such. It undercuts the significance of the attack, dishonors those who died, and reduces our standing around the world. We faced a choice that day and we still face it now: Will we be true to being America, land of the free and home of the brave, or will we become our enemy, tearing down the laws of our land, tearing down the government which has served us and the Constitution that protects us in the name of comfort and security? These times are difficult and call for courage from everyone. And we show that courage by not being so afraid that we are willing to give up our country's ideals for protection. These ideals are the ones that some would call Politically Correct. I call them by their true name: American. 13 comments from 5 users
1
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 7, 2006 at 09:59 AM
FDR caught 6 German sabboteurs off Long Island. He hung 4 and sentenced the other 2 to life. We did not find out about this until after the war, when the military tribunal records were revealed. How does this knowledge of one of your heroes go down?
In a war, at least in the past, drastic mesaures sometimes have to be taken. You people will literally be the death of us if you have your way. I am sure you would be more understanding if CLinton were President. Libs were mum when tanks set Waco on fire, and Randy Weaver's wife, baby and son were murdered at Ruby Ridge. That was "the rule of law" which was suddenly important to libs, that is until Clinton was impeached. Then suddenly he was above the law. posted by
TomW
on Sep 7, 2006 at 10:09 AM
Us people, huh? Here's the difference: I wouldn't have to be more understanding if Clinton were President. The war would be over. We would have won instead of using it as an excuse to invade Iraq. As far as Clinton being above the law, I never thought that. On the other hand, the case could be argued well that since he was aquitted in a trial, he was not guilty of the charges.I don't understand your repeated reference to librarians though. What do you mean about them being mum? posted by
mattloch
on Sep 7, 2006 at 10:09 AM
Anon, FDR tried him using military tribunals, following the rules of War (i.e. declared) and the Geneva Convention. He didn't try to create new rules, deny them basic human rights, torture them, ship them to secret OSS prisons, or anything else that has become standard operating procedure in the War on Terror. Quit comparing apples to manure.. In a declared war, there are established rules. In an undeclared "war", you must follow the established rules as well. Last time I checked, we still had a Constitution, despite what the Executive Branch says, or does. If you don't like it, go to another country, preferrably one without ennumerated rights. . And there were at least hearings into Waco and Ruby Ridge. Oh, and many "liberals" were just as vocal as the "conservatives", because they respect the rule of law no matter who's rights get violated (see: ACLU). At least Clinton didn't have his legal council try to argue that the Constitution doesn't apply to him in front of the Supreme Court. posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 7, 2006 at 10:26 AM
Anny, could Bush have the police arrest me as a traitor, and execute me for blogging, if in his opinion it would help the war effort? Why or why not?
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 7, 2006 at 10:30 AM
Vernon Howell set the fires at Waco, in more ways than one. posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 7, 2006 at 10:47 AM
Police in Belgium just arrested 17 people, apparently nipping a terrorist plot. None of them was Islamic, apparently, so it won't hit the newspapers. All right-wingers, some in the military. posted by
TomW
on Sep 7, 2006 at 10:59 AM
The problem is with fundamentalists of any stripe. If you believe that you are on a mission from God, killing a few people to enforce your will doesn't matter much. This is why the polarization of our country is so bad. It gives rise to Tim McVeighs and other terrorists.
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 7, 2006 at 11:39 AM
Maybe the CIA should recruit in Belgium and Britain, these paranoids would arrest their own shadows, it is convictions that count big guy!
posted by
TomW
on Sep 7, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Yes, it's not as though we've ever arrested anyone in America that didn't end up getting convicted.
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 7, 2006 at 11:57 AM
I am going to Dallas, the City Council there is going to establish a "fashion" police, I wonder why Jacquie Sullivan has not thought of it.
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 8, 2006 at 12:12 AM
Just so I get this straight: Bush can bomb something to hell, but needs special permission to listen to phone calls from known terrorists? Random, you know well that warrants have to clear the court first, so your ludicrous example of your being arrested for your blogging is . . . . fine with me. But no court would approve it. posted by
mattloch
on Sep 8, 2006 at 09:37 AM
Anon, try reading ACLU vs. NSA. The Bush Administration has admitted, for the record, that they don't need judicial approval of wiretaps. Oh, and they already have arrested someone for blogging.
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 8, 2006 at 10:31 AM
Exactly, Mattloch. That's what the whole fight is about. *WARRANTLESS* wiretapping. Bush has said he doesn't need the courts' approval to do...anything. Clinton wiretapped, but he did it *LEGALLY.* . Bush has essentially said, in his best Spanish, "we don't *NEED* no *STEENKIN'* warrants." . So, again, is there anything keeping Bush from having me executed, calling it a "necessity of war"? What would prevent that, since the Bill of Rights is "just a piece of paper" to him?
1
Our readers recommend: |