Miniver Cheevy: Pentagon vs. CIA
Hiro pointed out the following to me this morning: Pentagon vs. CIA. It talks about the recent Seymour Hersh story on the off-the-books Pentagon spy operation, but does a really good job of tying the facts together to paint a coherent picture of what’s really going on.
The leopard does not change its spots. Bush will continue to operate in the way he has for the last four years. And that means, in Cheevy’s memorable phrase, that with the Bush administration, it always turns out to be even worse than I first think, even after compensating for the fact that it’s even worse than I first think.
So, this is what America’s version of the Third Reich looks like. No, we’re not reproducing the phenomenon of Nazi Germany in every particular; that would be a silly Star Trek plot. But we’re heading down the same path, destroying our nation for the vanity of a petulant man motivated by fantasies of personal grandeur, a man unconcerned about the damage he is doing to democracy, and personal liberty, and world peace.
February 7th, 2005 at 9:49 am
I’m a bit of a Trekkie.
You know another particularly silly plot from Star Trek?
The Mutually Assured Destruction plot, which was used several times in the Original Series alone. On a pre-First-Contact planet, two rival superpower nations are about to nuke each other to hell. But because of the Prime Directive, the Enterprise captain does not take sides, even though one side may be the side of freedom, and the other into some kind of weird evil Mind Control or something, because of the Prime Directive. (of non-inerfearance) That is, until it is discovered that one side or the other is powered by alien technology, at which time all the nations of the world are abolished and become “united” under a one-world government that applies for Federation membership. Supposedly that’s what happened to Earth before it went out into space.
The thing you liberals don’t seem to relize is that there is no Prime Direcctive. There are no “international laws” for Bush to violate, and one side is indeed better than the other.
February 7th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
The US Air Force and the CIA fought for _ten_ days, between Oct 3rd, 1962 and Oct 14th, 1962, over who would run the U-2 flights over Cuba, once the preliminary missile information was available.
This story was part of my Intro to Politics text from college.
This has been going on for a long time.
I recently heard a couple post-Presidential interviews with Truman and Nixon on C-SPAN radio. Nixon lied so many times it sickened me. Truman didn’t really talk about many contreverial topics, but he did go on about how wonderful the CIA, which he started, was.
I heard that Ike, after leaving office, claimed that he didn’t know how a relatively unpowerful guy like Kennedy would be able to stop the CIA. Eisenhower had the 5 stars, you know.
Six months later the CIA had Kennedy in Cuba in the Bay of Pigs.
February 7th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
Where’d my comment go?
It was about several things. the Air Force and CIA fighting for ten days, back from Oct3-Oct14, 1962, over who would get to fly the U-2s over Cuba. Closest we ever came to nuclear war, perhaps, and we almost fucked up on a turf war.
Then I talked about a couple other things….
February 7th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
I heard a couple post-Presidential interviews with Truman and Nixon.
Nixon lied so many times it made me sick.
Truman perhaps didn’t cover as many controversial issues, but he did go on about the CIA, what he started.
I heard Ike wodnered that he didn’t know how a relatively powerless Kennedy could stand up to the CIA, he had barely been able to do it, and he had five stars.
Six months into the Kennedy administration the CIA had us into the Bay of Pigs.
February 7th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
You’re right about one thing Patriot; one side is better than the other.
It’s just not the side you think it is.
February 8th, 2005 at 8:44 am
intolerant bigotry.
February 8th, 2005 at 9:25 am
Again, you’re right Patriot. Assuming yourself to be superior and all others to be inferior based simply upon group affiliation is indeed intolernt bigotry.
February 8th, 2005 at 10:23 am
which is exactly what you are doing by claiming I am doing it.
February 8th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
Oh that’s just sad.
“I know you are, but what am I?”
What a state we’ve fallen to when this is the best a troll can do. But I guess with Dear Leader being so dim the pool of followers is much shallower, eh?
Back under the bridge wingnut.
February 8th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
The comment system is kind of aggressive about flagging things as potential comment spam, and holding them in the moderation queue until I notice them. Sorry about the delays on some of these comments appearing.
February 8th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
Patriot:
The things that you neo-cons don’t seem to realize is that you cannot spread freedom and promote peace by dropping bombs and killing thousands of inncocents. For every innocent Iraqi killed, that’s potentially several more terrorists immediately spawned (their brothers, cousins, friends that want revenge against the Americans). I really don’t see how you cannot understand that.
Leftee
February 9th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Leftee:
I’m sure you meant that as a rheortical question but of course the Neo-Cons and Patriot and their Republican cronies have no interest whatsoever in spreading freedom or promoting peace. They HATE freedom and peace, because free people are self-determinant and because peace renders their armies impotent.
Their interests are in domination and power – and they understand perfectly well that the only way to achieve this is by killing those who oppose these interests. Hence their war in Iraq, the coming war in Iran or Syria and then wherever else killing will suit their purposes.
February 9th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
“It is a shame we can’t go in and devastate the enemy and cut off a few of their kids’ hands and feet and scalp a few of their old men, but I guess it will be better to make them work for our allies for fifty years.“
Which of those blood-thirty Neo-cons did I quote? Jim Mattis? Patriot? Dwight D. Eisenhower? George S. Patton? Goerge W. Bush? Colin Powell? Who?
February 10th, 2005 at 5:19 am
Actually I have a rather complex philosophical point behind the “right back at ya” agrument.
See if you can understand this and tell me if there is a flaw in my logic:
What is tolerance? Tolerance is the acceptance of others who have views that are different from your own. Diversity.
So, tolerance must include tolerance for the intolerant – otherwise it becomes intolerance. Because if you are only tolerant of other people who are tolerant, then you are only tolerant of people who agree with you and thus are just as bad as a racist/sexist/homophobe bigot.
To say that “one side is better than the other” would be an example of this, using Leftist logic. So that was what you might call a carefully constructed logic trap.
February 10th, 2005 at 6:39 am
I don’t mean to have the comment thread go off on a tangent here, but being tolerant of other tolerant people wouldn’t mean people who are only in agreement with your views.
February 10th, 2005 at 8:42 am
“I don’t mean to have the comment thread go off on a tangent here, but being tolerant of other tolerant people wouldn’t mean people who are only in agreement with your views.”
Yes it does because in this case, tolerance itself becomes your views.
February 10th, 2005 at 8:46 am
If tolerance itself is your view, and you are intolerant of intolerant people, then you are intolerant of people with different views.
February 10th, 2005 at 11:18 am
So let me understand this now.
Since some Democrat made an angry statement in a letter to his wife fifty years ago it justifies Republicans today committing acts of aggression and reveling in the killing.
Amazing.
Carry on TeacherVet, there’s still lots of killing to do. Don’t stop until they’re all dead. You ought to really have a goal or something though – you know, something to shoot for.
I’m not saying like a Mao or Stalin or Hitler kind of killing goal, that’s probably too much to ask for since Dear Leader is such an underachiever in all things. I mean, what is he at now, barely 100,000?
I do have an idea how you can help him reach his goal: make one of those big thermometer fund-raiser things, but instead of money it can chart dead Iraqis. Put in on your lawn or at your local grade school. Then when we reach some milestone or another (200K bodies? 300K?) you could have General Mattis or Colin Powell or Condi Rice or Dear Leader himself out to comment on how delightful and gratifying these murders are.
What do you think? Would Harry Truman approve?
February 10th, 2005 at 11:40 am
This is a long post – I hope it gets thru!
I do have an idea how you can help him reach his goal: make one of those big thermometer fund-raiser things, but instead of money it can chart dead Iraqis. Put in on your lawn or at your local grade school. Then when we reach some milestone or another (200K bodies? 300K?) you could have General Mattis or Colin Powell or Condi Rice or Dear Leader himself out to comment on how delightful and gratifying these murders are.
Say – not a bad idea! We could track the percentage of al queda terrorists left vs the percentage of american people left. (war is not murder by the way, suicide bombing is.)
Unfortunately, despite your predictions of a vietnam-like quagmire that didn’t happen (you must have lied then, right?) Americans left alive will probably never dip below 97% – assuming we stay on our present course in our KILL ALL THE TERRORISTS policy and even then that’s a low low estimate.
I remember at some point bush or somebody saying 60% of al queda had been destroyed – so 40% is left. But lets add in the other terrorist organizations like those in iraq for example and maybe we’ve destroyed 20% of the islamic terrorists in the world. As they are apparently unable to kill americans who are not in iraq, and since only a small percentage of american people are in iraq, no matter how many “new terrorists” our killing “old” terrorists may generate, we have virtually unlimited resources in a land on the other side of the globe that they are unable to touch as long as they are so busy fighting us on their side of the world and we make sure to institute racial profiling against them in our airports.
so Point A. We’re winning the war, slowly but steadily.
February 10th, 2005 at 11:45 am
Point B. Was the Clinton administration guilty of murder?
Or is it just that everyone who wears a uniform is automatically guilty of murder by default?
Or perhaps if a security guard had managed to shoot all of the 911 hijackers before they had boarded the planes he would have been guilty of murder?
Is anyone who carries a gun guilty of murder?
Or is it just that the United States is an evil country that exists only to spread death and oppression to the otherwise-peaceful rest-of-the-world?
February 10th, 2005 at 11:49 am
Oh wait, I know! It’s Bush’s fault! Everything is Bush’s fault! Everything!
911 was Bush’s fault!
Old people dying is Bush’s fault!
All the world’s racism sexism bigotry and homophobia is Bush’s fault!
Christianity is Bush’s fault! (as if it was something for which blame needed to be assigned)
If a kitty dies during Bush’s eight years as President, it must be Bush’s fault!
February 10th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Thanks for responding, Ray. Yes. I have no doubt that Harry Truman, the angry Democrat who wrote the letter to his wife on the eve of the Armistice that ended the war, would approve of the war in Iraq. He was president before the Democrat (not democratic) party was relinquished to cowardly pacifists and peaceniks.
If we can excuse a hero of the American Left for wanting to “go in and devastate the enemy and cut off a few of their kids’ hands and feet and scalp a few of their old men,” surely we can accept Jim Mattis’ desire to kill terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. The general’s words, in full context, were exactly the right words.
February 10th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Patriot, you outlined the pitiful resentment of the radical Left quite well. Thanks, and keep it up.
February 10th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Don’t use the word “we” you Nazi asshole.
We’re nothing alike. NOTHING.
You’re a disgrace and a traitor to the ideals of this country and don’t deserve to walk on the same soil as real Americans.
It’s not a “pitiful resentment” that drives me; it my hatred of the evil you espouse and practice.
February 10th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
Strangely, when one has no legitimate argument to proffer, personal insults are the last resort. They don’t bother. My father hated Nazis when he was killing them more than 60 yers ago, and he passed it along to his kids. I earned the right to walk on the same soil as any “real American” who would further endanger or troops to satisfy a spiteful, political agenda. Those people certainly are to be pitied. I’m the traitor?
I’ve never killed a baby in my lifetime, not even one that I spawned, but I was called a “baby-killer” by a pitiful, hate-filled, activist professor when I returned to civilian life. Unfortunately, his kind of “real American” bred and multiplied in some parts of our society. What miserable lives they must lead.
February 10th, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Apologies for the typos and omissions. It’s late, and I need sleep so I can be fresh for class tomorrow morning. I’ll assign homework, something about comparing and contrasting “legimate protest” and “treasonous” speech and activities. I’ll find appropriate verbiage when I’m more rested.
This freedom-sharing Nazi (oxymoron?) is tired. Bye for now.
February 11th, 2005 at 5:25 am
“You’re a disgrace and a traitor to the ideals of this country and don’t deserve to walk on the same soil as real Americans.”
hahahahahahahahahaha! you’ve just proved my tolerance point! again!
i have just learned that there is a web site for the book that is about the fictional serial killer that I stole my alias from lemme see if this link works
its from the book “virtu@lly elminiated” and i have no…. admiration of any kind for the crazy person but do think it is cool how he is able to constantly justify his delusions with quotes from american history – much as i must appear to from your point of view.
February 11th, 2005 at 5:25 am
hmm, that didnt work, try this one
February 11th, 2005 at 8:50 am
So anyway, to continue down the path of logic out of the swamps of spin, the Left is intolerant. Because if the Left had it’s way, everyone in the world would be trained to be tolerant of everybody else – and thus would become Leftists and thus the same. So the only people the Leftists actually tolerate are themselves. Everyone else (who also does not believe in Allah) is subject to a level of sheer hatred that is far far beyond anything the “neo-cons” in even their most angry moments are able to direct at them.
examples abound on this site in particular. for instance, take Ray’s post at TeacherVet yesterday.
February 11th, 2005 at 10:54 am
Oh god forbid that the world grow tolernat of each other!! That might actually lead to peace! Right-wingers can’t let that happen, they need the war machine to keep turning so their rich corporate buddies can profit from it.
Hey Patriot – I love how you like to refer to the insurgents in Iraq as “Terrorists”.
So let me get this straight:
I live in Canada, my government says that the US government is producing WMD’s and selling them to dictators who in turn are using them on human beings (remember the 80’s?, I do). So Canada, along with a “grand coalition” of other countries illegally invade the US against the wishes of most of the free world to disarm her.
Obviously the American people, a proud people, are resisting these foreign invaders and are appalled by the presence of foreign troops in their homeland. So they take up arms, fighting these foreign occupiers with anything and everything that they have.
Tell me Patriot, are the American people terrorists for doing this?
February 11th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Your Daddy missed one.
February 11th, 2005 at 6:21 pm
Tolerating someone for their race, religion or sex is different than tolerating someone’s abuse. If you beat your wife (hopefully you do not), and she doesn’t tolerate it, you perceive this as a bad thing?
February 12th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
I consistently refer to your “insurgents” as common “criminals,” although there are acknowledged terrorists among them. Any reference to the criminals as insurgents requires tremendous spin on the definition of the word.
Fact is, the treasonists who insist on providing encouragement to those criminals need to have them identified/referenced/defined as insurgents to justify/legalize their agenda-driven behavior, but they are not insurgents by any definition.
February 14th, 2005 at 5:21 am
“Oh god forbid that the world grow tolernat of each other!! That might actually lead to peace!”
The September 11th attacks, (which were NOT analgous of the german parliment building burning down before Hitler came to power!) was an impressive display of that kind of tolerance wasn’t it? I suppose what we should learn from this is that if Americans were more open and accepting of other cultures, such things would not have been nessicary. We just got what we deserved I guess.
“Right-wingers can’t let that happen, they need the war machine to keep turning so their rich corporate buddies can profit from it.”
That idea (that the war is just for profit) is so stupid that I’m not even going to address it. So just consider the point conceded.
“Tell me Patriot, are the American people terrorists for doing this?”
Once again, you liberals fail to see the distinction between a free country where people can have anti-war protests and say things like what you just said, and a dictatorship where unspeakable things happen to anyone who does not loudly agree with the party line. But come to think of it, you would probably label this kind of distiction as an international extention of the idea of “discrimination” and would call anyone who professes it … oh wait you already called me and TeacherVet those things.
February 14th, 2005 at 7:04 am
Can’t answer the question can you?
Stop using 9/11 to further your hatred of other people. 20 men did those horrible things, so you label an entire culture as terrorists? Seems a little childish and narrow minded to me.
TeacherVet – Call them common criminals or whatever else you can think of, but where they are from they a called freedom fighters, they are resisting the American occupation of their country. It is because of this fundamental lack of understanding that America will never “succeed” in Iraq, as long as the American stamp of occupation remains.
You’d think after 2 years and soooooooooooooo many deaths, and with what seems to be an ever growing and sucessful resistance, that you people on the right would start to clue in. But then again, one only has to look at your leader to gauge the intelligence of your party, so maybe it will just take another 2 years for you guys to figure it out?
February 14th, 2005 at 8:56 am
Can’t answer the question can you?
oh you actually expect a direct answer!?
okay, Yes in that sense, depending largely on one’s definition of “terrorist.”
In the broadest sense of the word, the American patriots who dumped English tea in Boston Harbour and took shots of British soldiers after the battles of lexington and concord without any hope of getting away afterwards were “terrorists” because they were, to the British, an enemy army that did not have uniforms and used psychological warfare.
In that sense, the United States is a “terrorist” nation, and has been since it’s beginning. In that sense, George W Bush is a “terrorist” leader, as was John Flip-flop Kerry when he said “Bring it on!”
In that sense, lies.com is a “terrorist” web site.
That you fail to see any distinction between the United States and a dictatorship – not even the most obvious one that in a dictatorship you would not be allowed to say those things – shows an extreme blindness and lack of judgement on your part.
“Stop using 9/11 to further your hatred of other people. 20 men did those horrible things, so you label an entire culture as terrorists? Seems a little childish and narrow minded to me.”
Yes. I would. No matter how you define the word, the Palistinian/arab/islamo-facist culture is a culture of suicidal terrorism, is proud of it, (it being the deaths of civillians, as long as they are Jews) and has been for its entire history. “Narrow-minded” (whatever that means anyway) or not, it’s the truth. So there.
February 14th, 2005 at 12:35 pm
Flip Flop – Definition
-“We’re going to invade Iraq because they posses WMD’s”
-“We invaded Iraq because Saddam supports Al-Qaeda”
-“We Invaded Iraq because Saddam is a brutal tyrant (no arguement there)
-“We are here in Iraq to spread liberty and bring freedom to the Iraqi people”
Seems as though when times change, so does the presidents position on illegally invading another counctry, whatever seems to suit his agenda at the time. Talk about the epitamy of “flip-flop”.
To quote Patriot:
“George W Bush is a “terrorist” leader,” – Thank you, couldn’t agree with you more.
And another…
“John Flip-flop Kerry when he said “Bring it on!” – Actually that was your faithful leader who said that, not John Kerry.
And finally…
TODAY’S LESSON: POLITICAL CAPITAL
Team George had planned to hand control of Iraq over to handpicked allies in a secular government… instead, Iraqis went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base — and very close ties Iran. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy — $300 billion and counting.
Oh btw, “narrow-minded” is a term to desribe people who only see things one way, they’re people who are afraid to question authority, who take everything as it comes, people that are unable to question things that don’t seem to add up.
Do yourself a favor, read some books.
February 14th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
“That you fail to see any distinction between the United States and a dictatorship – not even the most obvious one that in a dictatorship you would not be allowed to say those things – shows an extreme blindness and lack of judgement on your part”
Umm…sure?
I think you missed the point I was making, which is that just because people fight against armies that illegally invade their country does not make them terrorists, if fact, one might call them Patriots.
And really I don’t see much of a difference between the current state of US government and a dictatorship. Consider this:
-paying journalists to promote their agenda
-getting rid of people that don’t agree with them, or question them
-doing whatever he pleases even though millions of people urged him not to
-and for crying out loud his daddy was president
All those things seem like dictatorship traits to me, what do you think?
–
February 15th, 2005 at 5:33 am
I think Bush may be corrupt – what politician isn’t?
I also think that evil comes in degrees. On a scale of 1-10 Bush may rate a 2 or 3, while certain gentlemen of Middle-Eastern decent rate an 8 or 9.
February 15th, 2005 at 7:26 am
Holy Patriot, could you be more racist?
How many deaths is Bush responsible for?
How many is Bin Laden responsible for?
February 15th, 2005 at 8:44 am
The question is not how many deaths someone is responsible for, but how many wrongful deaths someone is responsible for.
For example, if the world was ruled the way I would have it ruled, all murderers and rapists would get a fair trial. If the trial finds them guilty, they’d be promptly shot and not get funerals.
So one could say that a judge or an executioner is responsible for the deaths of violent criminals. That doesn’t mean there has been any wrongdoing on their part.
It is a question of justice and morality.
February 15th, 2005 at 10:20 am
Ah – it seems I have missed reading some insults… I mean posts!
Do yourself a favor, read some books.
One of favorite activities – extending far far beyond such madness as How to Talk to a Liberal.
I’d suggest the Light and the Glory.
But anyway, having finished being completely contrary to ann coulter’s formulas for talking to liberals which I reject almost entirely, Mr. Kerry said “bring it on” to a live audience, directing that toward Republicans – a textbook case of misplaced Democrat aggression. When Mr. Bush said “Bring it on!” to all America’s enimies, that was carefully calculated psychological warfare. A bombshell as it were in the war of the mind that lurks behind every physical world war.
Yes you go ahead and take that “Bush is a terrorist leader” out of context all day long for all I care. Under your definition of the word, you’re a terrorist leader, I’m a terrorist leader, Barney the Dinosaur is a terrorist leader, everyone who it is possible to concieve of being somewhat scary and has ever told anybody else what to do is a terrorist leader.
The “flipflopping” “justifications” for the war are all fundamentally the same. There is a core belief there, that there is Evil in iraq and we are sending Good to defeat and conquer it.
February 15th, 2005 at 10:24 am
What are Mr. Kerry’s core beliefs? What are the Democrat Party’s core beliefs?
February 16th, 2005 at 5:42 am
You’re an American and you don’t even know what you official opposition’s beliefs are? Thats too bad, you should try listening more.
What are Bush’s core beliefs? Is he a caompassionate conservative? Is it compassionate to murder thousands of innocents?
Is it compassionate to cut social programs, such as food stamp programs?
February 16th, 2005 at 5:43 am
And oh yeah…
You’re comparing Kerry saying “Bring it On” at a politcal rally, to Bush saying it to insurgents? After Bush said that infamous line… kiddnappings, beheadings, …the insurgency just got provoked. Pretty tough talk for some rich guy thousands of miles away. To compare them to together shows a complete lack of comprehension on your part.
And no, the judge isn’t responsible for the deaths, the criminals are. Thats not hard to figure out. And since Bush is the criminalin this case, then he is responsible, right? He ordered the illegeal invasion, so yes he is responsible.
I might check them books out, in the meantime I think you could do yourself some service if you took a read of these best-sellers:
-Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq
-The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception
-Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to Be So Hated
-The Halliburton Agenda : The Politics of Oil and Money
-The Iron Triangle: Inside The Secret World Of The Carlyle Group
Real eye-openers, I strongly urge you to read them.
February 17th, 2005 at 12:05 am
Try reading Stolen Valor, authored by B. G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley. It should be required reading for every politician and every police officer in the U.S., but for different reasons in each case.
Burkett never states any political affiliation, so it will not be a butt-patting session. The references are thoroughly researched and documented, and it is the most thought-provoking and revealing book I have ever read – That says a lot; I am a constant reader. It is one of those rare non-fiction books that you cannot put aside until finished.
The complete title is STOLEN VALOR: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History. Burkett effectively debunks the many myths that existed during the Vietnam era. He does not waste time giving opinions, only certifiable facts with unquestionable documentation.
It was not the goal or purpose of his book (and he never makes this stated point), but no one can possibly read the book without understanding how the activists of the 60s and 70s have evolved into the blind, sheeplike activists of today. It becomes abundantly clear that the genesis of today’s hate-filled, fabricating, self-serving activists was founded in that era.
I have spent many years of genealogical research, requiring lots of historical study. I wanted to know “where I came from” and “why I am who I am.” If you are one of today’s activists, you are cheating yourself if you don’t read Burkett’s book to learn something about the relatively short evolution of your mindset. You will almost surely not change your sheeplike behavior, but at least you will learn “where you came from.”
February 17th, 2005 at 12:09 am
Apologies for all the italicized text. I just returned from a six-hour drive returning from a funeral, and didn’t proof-read or double-check before submitting. I failed to stop the italics at the end of the book title in the 3rd paragraph. Sorry if that makes it difficult to read.
February 17th, 2005 at 5:16 am
Hey gimme a break. I do lotsa opposition research – but not that much opposition research. That’s more than I ever read on any topic ever – except for star trek I suppose.
So you have read all six books of the WE HATE BUSH series eh?
Now lets see whose really selective in their reading. Have you read The Way Things Ought to Be and See I Told You So? They’re more than a little old, but Rush’s two books will help to balance your perspective.
See I’m not saying people shouldn’t read the WE HATE BUSH books, just that they should read some conservative’s books as well – if nothing else just as opposition research.
February 17th, 2005 at 5:17 am
that was just a test to see if my posts were still getting thru – ive lost several in transmission somehow.
actually come to think of it, i’ve read more than that on topics such as History and Religion.
I’ve read more classics that that…
So I guess the first sentence in my last post is full of crap.
February 17th, 2005 at 5:19 am
Lemme suggest not politics, but history: the Light and the Glory.
February 17th, 2005 at 6:05 am
I prefer non-fiction books.
February 17th, 2005 at 8:42 am
hahhaha thats an old joke. Whenever a political book comes out that the other side doesn’t like, they try to put it in the “fiction” category.
February 17th, 2005 at 7:18 pm
Regaining My Humanity
I was deployed to Iraq in April 2003 and returned home for a two-week leave in October. Going home gave me the opportunity to put my thoughts in order and to listen to what my conscience had to say. People would ask me about my war experiences and answering them took me back to all the horrors—the firefights, the ambushes, the time I saw a young Iraqi dragged by his shoulders through a pool of his own blood or an innocent man was decapitated by our machine gun fire. The time I saw a soldier broken down inside because he killed a child, or an old man on his knees, crying with his arms raised to the sky, perhaps asking God why we had taken the lifeless body of his son.
I thought of the suffering of a people whose country was in ruins and who were further humiliated by the raids, patrols and curfews of an occupying army.
And I realized that none of the reasons we were told about why we were in Iraq turned out to be true. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. We weren’t helping the Iraqi people and the Iraqi people didn’t want us there. We weren’t preventing terrorism or making Americans safer. I couldn’t find a single good reason for having been there, for having shot at people and been shot at.
Coming home gave me the clarity to see the line between military duty and moral obligation. I realized that I was part of a war that I believed was immoral and criminal, a war of aggression, a war of imperial domination. I realized that acting upon my principles became incompatible with my role in the military, and I decided that I could not return to Iraq.
By putting my weapon down, I chose to reassert myself as a human being. I have not deserted the military or been disloyal to the men and women of the military. I have not been disloyal to a country. I have only been loyal to my principles.
When I turned myself in, with all my fears and doubts, it did it not only for myself. I did it for the people of Iraq, even for those who fired upon me—they were just on the other side of a battleground where war itself was the only enemy. I did it for the Iraqi children, who are victims of mines and depleted uranium. I did it for the thousands of unknown civilians killed in war. My time in prison is a small price compared to the price Iraqis and Americans have paid with their lives. Mine is a small price compared to the price Humanity has paid for war.
Many have called me a coward, others have called me a hero. I believe I can be found somewhere in the middle. To those who have called me a hero, I say that I don’t believe in heroes, but I believe that ordinary people can do extraordinary things.
To those who have called me a coward I say that they are wrong, and that without knowing it, they are also right. They are wrong when they think that I left the war for fear of being killed. I admit that fear was there, but there was also the fear of killing innocent people, the fear of putting myself in a position where to survive means to kill, there was the fear of losing my soul in the process of saving my body, the fear of losing myself to my daughter, to the people who love me, to the man I used to be, the man I wanted to be. I was afraid of waking up one morning to realize my humanity had abandoned me.
I say without any pride that I did my job as a soldier. I commanded an infantry squad in combat and we never failed to accomplish our mission. But those who called me a coward, without knowing it, are also right. I was a coward not for leaving the war, but for having been a part of it in the first place. Refusing and resisting this war was my moral duty, a moral duty that called me to take a principled action. I failed to fulfill my moral duty as a human being and instead I chose to fulfill my duty as a soldier. All because I was afraid. I was terrified, I did not want to stand up to the government and the army, I was afraid of punishment and humiliation. I went to war because at the moment I was a coward, and for that I apologize to my soldiers for not being the type of leader I should have been.
I also apologize to the Iraqi people. To them I say I am sorry for the curfews, for the raids, for the killings. May they find it in their hearts to forgive me.
One of the reasons I did not refuse the war from the beginning was that I was afraid of losing my freedom. Today, as I sit behind bars I realize that there are many types of freedom, and that in spite of my confinement I remain free in many important ways. What good is freedom if we are afraid to follow our conscience? What good is freedom if we are not able to live with our own actions? I am confined to a prison but I feel, today more than ever, connected to all humanity. Behind these bars I sit a free man because I listened to a higher power, the voice of my conscience.
While I was confined in total segregation, I came across a poem written by a man who refused and resisted the government of Nazi Germany. For doing so he was executed. His name is Albrecht Hanshofer, and he wrote this poem as he awaited execution.
GUILT
The burden of my guilt before the law
weighs light upon my shoulders; to plot
and to conspire was my duty to the people;
I would have been a criminal had I not.
I am guilty, though not the way you think,
I should have done my duty sooner, I was wrong,
I should have called evil more clearly by its name
I hesitated to condemn it for far too long.
I now accuse myself within my heart:
I have betrayed my conscience far too long
I have deceived myself and fellow man.
I knew the course of evil from the start
My warning was not loud nor clear enough!
Today I know what I was guilty of…
To those who are still quiet, to those who continue to betray their conscience, to those who are not calling evil more clearly by its name, to those of us who are still not doing enough to refuse and resist, I say “come forward.” I say “free your minds.”
Let us, collectively, free our minds, soften our hearts, comfort the wounded, put down our weapons, and reassert ourselves as human beings by putting an end to war
February 18th, 2005 at 5:21 am
That’s right. War itself is the enemy.
That’s what we want the islamo-facists to hear. That’s what will make them see that peace and freedom is a better way.
You just keep saying that. Democrats will never win an election again.
But we’re getting off on a tangent with all these insults to each other’s intelligence. Back onto the path of logic climbing up out of the valley of vanity.
Now to recap, I said earlier:
If tolerance itself is your view, and you are intolerant of intolerant people, then you are intolerant of people with different views.
The next step is realizing who it is that decides whom you consider intolerant. You do. So all you have to do to be intolerant to and hate someone is to label them intolerant and you can hate them with a hot fiery hate. So who is it that is really being intolerant by preaching this doctrine of tolerance? The preacher is.
February 18th, 2005 at 5:46 am
Wow, what a passioante letter from that soldier. You know something Patriot, I think the democrats are already starting to gain ground, with military families, and quite understandably.
February 18th, 2005 at 8:57 am
Nah, don’t think so. I read it but generally don’t listen to sob stories; even ones from persecuted Christians. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the thread. Current topics were WE HATE BUSH, tolerance vs itself, and WHO IS STUPID?
March 16th, 2005 at 5:28 am
The only way Democrats might be gaining ground with military families is by making them former military families.
March 16th, 2005 at 9:37 am
But I digress. On to the stright and narrow path of logic out of the twisting mazes of madness.
I am an honest-to-goodness Class A homophobe, which is after all just another alternate lifestyle.
I resent your intolerance of my desire to live a homophobic lifestyle. After all, my homophobia is just the way I am. It’s not a chosen thing. I was born that way. If I’m living like a homophobe, that’s nobody’s buisness but mine. I want homophobic rights! If I decide to live with another homophobe, I deserve the equal protection of a homophobic marrige.
Now I’m going to have to make up some disease – the equivilent of AIDS – that many ignorant people think only homophobes have…. I’ll call it WWJD.
I demand money for WWJD research! If I get WWJD from hanging around other homophobes, everybody else has to pay extra taxes to find a cure and get me free treatment. Everybody is obligated to support more money for WWJD research, and any politician I don’t like I can accuse of not giving enough money to find the WWJD cure.
I also have a right to parade my homophobia in front of everyone in public. We’ll have an Anti-Gay Pride Day and dance around with our clothes ON.