"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Monday, August 29, 2005

Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts: The Left’s Campaign of Lies and Distortion Knows No Shame

Will Malven

It is astounding how twisted the Left’s thinking has become. I’m not even sure that they are aware how distorted their view of the world is.

This morning Barry Lynn (Executive Director, Americans United for Separation of Church & State ) was on C-Span with Jay Sekulow (Amer. Ctr. for Law & Justice, Chief Counsel). The topic under discussion was the nomination of Judge John Roberts for the Supreme Court. Barry Lynn spent the entire morning distorting the history of the Supreme Court and of John Roberts.

His opening salvo was stating the possibility that a Justice John Roberts might vote to reverse the past thirty-five years of Supreme Court Rulings (actually Barry, with any luck the figure is closer to forty-five years).

First I have to ask, “This is bad?” Since its creation, there has never been a more activist period for the Court. This is the period in which the Court “discovered” a previously unknown right to privacy in the “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees” [Griswold v. Connecticut] to justify the murder of unborn children. This is the period during which the court mounted a continual all out assault against the “free exercise” of religion clause of the First Amendment, severely curtailed the rights “to keep and bear arms” guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment, ruled that racial discrimination was permissible as long as it was in pursuit of the goal of non-discrimination (Huh?) [affirmative action, title IX, etc.] From Lynn’s organization website:

(Quotations from “Paper Trail On Court Nominee Roberts Grows More Troubling, Says Americans United [Link])
“In a 1985 memo, Roberts railed against a U.S. Supreme Court decision that year that invalidated an Alabama moment-of-silence law, saying it “seems indefensible.”
This should read:

In a 1985 memo, Roberts, as a private lawyer spoke against a U.S. Supreme Court decision... [Robert’s was responding as lawyer on a case, not as a judge in a ruling. Also “railed” is a clearly inflammatory and incorrect description. “Seems indefensible” sounds a bit more equivocal than I would expect railing to be.]
“This is just one more piece of evidence that Roberts has spent years working to erode the First Amendment principle of church-state separation,”
This is just one more piece of evidence that Roberts has spent years working to strengthen the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. [There is no “principle of church-state separation” in the constitution.]

On this particular issue, I have to ask my Liberal friends the following:

People of my (and Reverend Lynn’s) generation all went to schools in which there was not only moments of silence, but actual teacher led prayers in classes.

Where are all of the people who were irrevocably damaged by this process? Where are all of the little Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist kids whose lives were destroyed by this? How many of my fellow classmates were so traumatized by being forced to recite or listen to the rest of us recite prayers that they had nervous breakdowns or changed their religious affiliation. How many little atheists suffered “brain-lock” and became failures in life due to our school sanctioned prayers? I’m not talking about some nebulous “possible” damage or feelings of being outcast or an outsider, I’m asking for genuine verifiable damage.

Show me the horrors of majority rules in these cases. Who was hurt? Names, case numbers, documentation please. These are the kinds of questions Liberals hate. The ACLU and the PFAW run and hide from these questions. The problem is, they can’t provide any of that. That is the problem with most of the Left’s fear mongering; it’s all based on anecdotal non-evidence. One hears a lot about “someone I know of,” or “they reported,” or “I heard,” or my personal favorite, “studies have shown,” but one never hears any real substantiation of these charges.

I am an American, I was born and raised here, and this culture is a Judeo-Christian, Western European, culture. I don’t care about your “hurt feelings,” I only care about actual verifiable damage. I don’t wish to hurt anyone, but injured feelings are not actual injuries. Feeling “bad” is not justification for the oppression of the Majority by a Minority of Citizens. If your feelings get hurt, grow up and get over it. The world is full of disappointment, get used to it.

The Constitution does not guarantee your rights against getting your feelings hurt. It does guarantee your rights against actual injury. So having established that there are no special hospital wards for victims of forced praying, I have to ask “What’s wrong with prayer in school?”

More Barry Lynn Lies:

(Quotations taken from Senate Should Reject Confirmation Of John G. Roberts To Supreme Court, Says Americans United [Link])
“John Roberts has long been a faithful soldier in the right wing’s war on the Bill of Rights, he does not support personal liberties and should not receive a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.”
Err...what war is that Barry? You mean he’s trying to take away our 2nd Amendment rights? Oh yeah, that’s you Liberals doing that. You mean he’s trying to prevent us from freely expressing our religion...No actually that’s you Liberals too. Hmm...Maybe he’s going to take away our 5th Amendment right protecting our private property from seizure for public use without due process of law. Oops, Liberal justices again. Hey Barry, it looks to me like you guys are the ones bent on taking away our basic liberties. It has been the Left that has been at war with our Bill of Rights, not the Right.
“Lynn noted that Roberts, as deputy solicitor general in the first Bush White House, drafted a key legal brief urging the Supreme Court to scrap decades of settled church-state law and uphold school-sponsored prayer at public school graduation ceremonies and other forms of government-endorsed religion.”
Uh...Barry, weren’t those “decades of settled church-state law” put into place by “scrap[ping]” a century and a half “of settled church-state law?” Your hypocrisy knows no bounds it seems. There was no “separation of church and state” until Justice Hugo Black suddenly decided that the Danbury Letter was equivalent in law to the constitution in Everson v. Board of Education 1947.
“Roberts will work to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state and open the door to majority rule on religious matters,”
Not to be repetitive Barry, but there is no wall of separation between church and state to be dismantled. Oh, and Heaven forefend that the majority ever get its way on matters of state, whether religious or otherwise...Err...isn’t this nation a Democratic Republic? Doesn’t that mean that the majority does rule?
“Roberts’ judicial demeanor and the technical quality of his writings are not at issue, nor is his pleasant personality. An understanding and concern for religious minorities and fundamental civil and human rights is what is missing from his record of government service. Just because a candidate is well liked does not make him qualified to serve on a tribunal that is often the last great protector of the rights of the people.”
Sorry Barry, “judicial demeanor and...technical quality” are the only issues that should be at stake. “An understanding and concern for religious minorities and fundamental civil and human rights” are not requirements for a Supreme Court Justice.

I submit that an understanding and concern for the meaning and integrity of our Constitution, and an ability to render verdict in a dispassionate and objective manner are requirements for a Supreme Court Justice.

Judicial Activism Defined:

Conservatives and most Republicans define judicial activism as the act of creating law from the bench. It usually entails an “activist judge” putting his own desire for what he believes the law should say in place of a judicious attempt at interpretation of what the law actually says. It is legislation by judicial fiat.

Liberals and Democrats define judicial activism as any attempt be a judge to reverse the excesses of activist (by Conservative definition) judges and to reinstate the law as it was written. Thus any attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade or Griswald v. Connecticut, or Everson v. Board of Education, or Dred Scott v. Sanford, is seen by Liberals as judicial activism. So tell me Barry, was Lincoln wrong? Do you believe that Dred Scott v. Sanford still be in effect? Do you believe in slavery?

Of course he doesn’t, he is just being selective in his definition of judicial activism and who may or may not indulge in it:

Liberal activism rules:
  • Liberal judicial activism-Good.
  • Conservative originalism-Bad
We understand Reverend, it’s hard to be consistent and Liberal. It’s also hard to be honest and Liberal isn’t it?

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Hagel Joins McCain in Abandoning His Presidential Aspirations

Will Malven

Senator Hagel Sunday suggested, effectively, surrendering to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Senator Hagel believes that we should abandon the Iraqis to terrorists because he’s afraid of another Vietnam.

Earth to Hagel, the only way this war can become a Vietnam is if weak-kneed Republicans like you and the other RINOs begin to back down in the face of Democrat and MSM pressure. Vietnam was lost when America’s politicians and the American people lost the will to fight and win the war. The constant barrage, by the MSM, of false portrayals of American defeats and the constant drumbeat of the death count of American soldiers served the propaganda purposes of the North Vietnamese. With no alternative source for information, the American people’s attitude became progressively more negative. Politicians, driven by the fear of being on the wrong side, became less and less capable of standing firm in support of the war. The American people need a leader of vision, not a follower of polls. How is it that so many Republican politicians lack the intestinal fortitude to stand the winds of negative press from the MSM? If they believe that the MSM, long an adjunct of the Democrat Party, is going to help them get elected against a Democrat, they are living in a fantasy world. The MSM will provide an anti-war Republican with a favorable platform from which to speak only until they gain the nomination, at which point, they will turn on them. Currying favor with the MSM has never and will never be a successful strategy for a Republican. A genuine leader seeks to shape the opinions of the American people, not allow the MSM to do so. He leads from conviction not from expedience. Hagel may have been a hero in war, but he is a rank coward in politics. Perhaps Senator Hagel needs to talk to some of our troops coming back from Iraq. You know, the same ones that are re-upping for second, third, or even fourth, tours of duty in Iraq because they believe that what they are doing is good and necessary work and believe that they are succeeding in their campaign.

Come on Senator Chuck, do you honestly believe that the al-Qaeda wing of the Democrat Party is going to replace the millions of Conservatives that you have just alienated? Do you believe that there are enough Libertarian Republicans to do so? Just as McCain turned his back on the Conservatives in the Republican Party by his continual efforts to curry favor with the Left, even going so far as to play footsies with the Kerry Campaign over the possibility of running as VP on the Democrat ticket, Hagel has now abandoned his base constituency. I can tell you right now, both Hagel and McCain are finished as potential Republican Presidential candidates. They will never be nominated by our party. That’s it, finito, end of the line, forget it, sayonara, good-bye! You cannot win the Republican nomination if you have abandoned the base. I can tell you what else, Senator Frist’s change of stance on stem-cell research and Senator Allen, who has made his own faux pas by suggesting that the president should meet with Cindy Sheehan, again, had better watch themselves or they will end up in the same place. A Republican politician must accept the fact that he will always be disliked by the MSM and that he will be opposed by the MSM in his every effort to communicate his message. For a Republican, strength of character and having the courage of their convictions in the face of the constant barrage of criticism are de rigueur. Neither the Republicans nor the American people will be well served by a “Casper Milquetoast” whose opinions and convictions are at the beck and call of the latest political poll. An assertion as per Jim Hacker (of the British sitcom “Yes Minister”) of “I am their leader, I must follow them,” will not cut it.

President Bush polls highest with the American people on his honesty and strength of character. He has been successful because he has refused to concern himself with what the latest poll numbers say. Just as the late President Ronald Reagan, President Bush is a man of firm conviction. He knows exactly what his vision for America is and he is dogged in his determination to take us there. Exactly to the extent that a potential Republican Presidential candidate declares his independence from the polls and the power of his political advisers, he will succeed in his efforts. By associating himself with McCain and the rest of the RINO sheep, Senator Hagel has driven a stake in the heart of his own political aspirations. There will be no Republican nomination for Chuck Hagel or John McCain in 2008. There have recently been rumors of a possible McCain/Kerry ticket, a rumor reported in The Hill [link] today. This man believes that he can secure the Republican nomination?

It never ceases to amaze and amuse me, the lengths to which a politician will go to make an ass of himself. To date two of the most prominent Republican Senators have done so and are vying to see which one is the more profoundly foolish. I have no problem with Hagel and McCain falling on their respective swords for the sake of our party and the Republican victory in 2008, as I have little regard for either of them and their political views. McCain has relentlessly pursued that unconstitutional abomination known as campaign finance law, and been on the wrong side of any number of issues in the past. He has been very vocal about the imprisoning of enemy combatants in GITMO, perhaps the most understandable of his stances because of his own imprisonment during the Vietnam War. Hagel chose to run interference for the Democrats on the Bolton nomination during those hearings, and has himself, made a number of poor choices for a potential Republican nominee.

With our Republican Senators self-destructing at an astounding pace, things are looking better and better for Governor Mitt Romney, who today declared his support for President Bush’s Iraq policies, and Newt Gingrich who, if he can get beyond his own personal shortcomings, is certainly the most qualified and knowledgeable potential candidate in the field. As for the other potential candidates like Patake and Giuliani, I do not believe they stand a chance simply because of their position on the abortion/life issues. We are still too far away to make any real assumptions about the 2008 elections, but I believe that these two have pretty much destroyed their own chances.

Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.
--Ralph Waldo Emerson, 'Art,' 1841

Friday, August 19, 2005

What Do They Expect? Cindy’s Protest Generates Hostility from Vietnam Vet.

Will Malven

Larry Chad Northern, a 59-year-old Speegleville, Texas resident was arrested and charged with felony criminal mischief for allegedly running over some of the makeshift crosses placed on the side of the road by anti-war protestors near the President’s Crawford, Texas ranch on Monday night.

Mr. Northern is identified as a Vietnam veteran and a realtor in Waco. Now as to his motivations, one can only offer conjecture. I would guess that, as a veteran of a war in which the sort of people with whom Cindy Sheehan is associating led anti-war protests and spat on soldiers as they returned from Vietnam, he was offended by their anti-war, anti-troop, anti-American protest. The leftist press felt it was very important to mention that he is “[a] gun enthusiast who has served as president of his local gun club.” How very predictable; for the press, they are not interested in what motivated him; they only want to make sure that the public knows that he is a “gun nut.” Well yes folks, there are a lot of people in Texas that drive pick-up trucks, and own guns; your point being? How completely irrelevant. Perhaps he is just a disgruntled member of the ACLU angry at the placing of 500 crosses on public property. The press is enthusiastic in their support of Cindy Sheehan’s campaign of lies and hatred, and denies the rights of anyone to criticize her because she is “the mother of a slain soldier.” If you don’t have a son or daughter in the service or killed in the war, then shut up, you don’t have the right to speak.

What a load of tripe. Does that mean that if you’ve never been a President of the United States then you can’t criticize the way President Bush is performing at his job? Hmmm, if you haven’t been the Commander in Chief then you can’t criticize him for the way he is running the war? I guess from that logic, Cindy needs to shut the heck up. She’s never been President, she’s never had to order troops into battle so how does she know what is the best thing for America? How dare she go down to Crawford and complain about the war in Iraq? Kind of stupid isn’t it? Those on the Left are very fond of touting their own right to free speech. The problem only arises when someone chooses to question their actions or words. Then suddenly that person is stepping over the boundaries of propriety. If you’re Conservative, then you are a “gun enthusiast” (doesn’t that send chills down your spine) or a redneck or cracker. If you’re a Red-state voter then you “drive pick-up trucks with Rebel flags on them.” On the Left-wing blogs they refer to him as drunk, cowardly, shameless, inhuman, a jackass, ignorant, “pathetic piece of crap.”

Therein lies the rub. The sad truth is that the left is the real party of intolerance. The most bigoted members of this society are the Liberals. If you don’t think as they do, if you don’t act as they do, then you are a lout, a clod, a...redneck. They dislike the philosophy and policy of this administration and the President so Bush is dumb, he’s a puppet being run by Rove and Cheney. Bush is evil, his “buddies are getting rich and feasting off the blood of our children.” Truly Cindy’s is the voice of compassion and tolerance. It is highly probable that this kind of constant hostility and hatred expressed by the voices of the Left are to some extent responsible for Mr. Northern’s actions. As a veteran, he is probably resentful of the lack of respect being shown for America, the President, and the troops who have been killed and injured in combat. Perhaps he was set off by the hypocrisy of those who put those crosses by the road. Since when is the left respectful of the display of the cross or the flag? Are we supposed to believe that these protesters are strongly in favor of displaying crosses on public property? Do they expect me to believe that they salute the flag when it passes by? Do they support the anti-desecration law to protect the Flag of the United States from being burned? Yeah, right, and I voted for Kerry.

These protesters have as much credibility as the New York Times or Dan Rather. They have no shame in using these icons to support their twisted agenda; icons which under any other circumstances they would deride and the use of which they would ridicule. The motives behind this whole thing are completely transparent. This has nothing to do with Casey Sheehan, they don’t care about the troops in Iraq, they have only two objectives and those are the removal of President Bush and the recapturing of the Congress from the Republicans. Of course they have learned their lessons now and they no longer spit on the troops, but only because that would give them bad PR. Today on Rush Limbaugh’s program a veteran called who went to Crawford to observe what was happening. He reported that he heard a group of these fine, caring, protesters accosting a mother and her daughter who were attempting to remove the cross of their loved one because they objected to the protest. Among the things shouted at them was the epithet, used to describe the fallen soldier, “murderer.” I remember that precise word being used again and again by the anti-war crowd in the 60s. Judging from that, it won’t be too long before they begin spitting again. They truly are a bunch of animals.

I don’t condone or excuse what Mr. Northern did, and he needs to suffer the consequences of his action. In acting on his impulse he overstepped the boundaries set by society and potentially endangered lives. On the other hand, I fully understand his reaction and his motives. I have great contempt for these protesters, they have never fooled me. One has only to look at their supporters to understand what their agenda is. It is unfortunate that Mr. Northern allowed himself to be trapped by their machinations.

When one is confronted by lies, distortions, and name calling, his best move is to refuse to acknowledge it. By refusing to lower oneself to their level, one can avoid these kinds of unfortunate incidents. Cindy Sheehan is entitled, according to the First Amendment of the Constitution, to continue her protest as are those who disagree with her. Hopefully there will be no more of these incidents, but those on the protest line should remember that when you are stirring the pot, eventually some of its contents are going to erupt from the kettle and spatter on you. Hatred begets hatred, and Cindy’s crowd is full of hatred. By treading all over concepts and ideals which a great many Americans hold in high esteem, they are demonstrating their contempt for their fellow citizens. Cindy, herself, by denigrating her son’s service is insulting the service and beliefs of troops and their families who believe differently from her. She should not be at all surprised if the reaction sometimes becomes violent. I suspect that she is aware of that, and in fact is using some of the inflammatory rhetoric recently heard coming from her camp, for that express purpose.

Consider why it is that the Left always brings out the worst in people, never the noblest? Why is it that the Left always seeks to lower the level of discourse, never raise it? Apparently it is born out of the intention to provoke angry responses for the MSM cameras. Cynical people deserve a cynic’s response to their pleas, and the Left abounds with cynical people. Left behind are the noble causes and higher calling of their “better angels.” All that remains is bitter, cynical, and hateful.

"Cynicism is not realistic and tough. It's unrealistic and kind of cowardly because it means you don't have to try." Peggy Noonan

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

The Liberal Playbook

Will Malven

At great personal risk, I delved through the weighty tomes of liberal mysticism and wisdom.  By hook or crook, I finally found, revealed herein for the first time, the debate secrets encrypted in the Liberal Playbook.

[Personal note--I suppose this information could also have been gleaned simply from listening to the inane babble in which liberals invariably engage when debating politics, but, after all, a man is only capable of enduring so much pain, and doing so would have been torture--WM].

Read these at your own risk, as your brain may fry from the heady thoughts therein contained.

"Know Ye All Liberals-These Be the Ancient Secrets of Our Tribe’s Debating Techniques.
May Any Who Reveal These Secrets to the Conservatives Be Struck Dumb
[Personal note--Judging from this curse, I can only conclude that most Liberals have at some time leaked this information to a Conservative. WM]

1. Avoid attempting to use factual arguments; the facts usually against you anyway.

2. If for some obscure reason the facts actually fall your way (an extremely rare occurrence) then repeat them endlessly regardless of the reply of your conservative opponent. Remember time is limited, use this against him.

3. Get as personal and vicious as you can, maybe it will distract your opponent from his train of thought.

4. If you are unable to insult him with the usual insults such as 'racist', 'homophobe', or 'bigot', then insult someone else on his side (someone related to the subject under discussion is preferable but not required).

5. When you're losing, and you usually will be, abruptly change the subject. Again the object of this is to distract and deflect attention from your opponent's argument.

6. Talk loudly and rapidly, don't allow your opponent to get a word in. Remember the more time you consume, the less time your opponent will have.

7. Use hyperbole as an example of your opponent's argument and suggest that that is what they are suggesting.

8. Purposely misunderstand what is being said by your opponent and distort it into something you can use.

9. Make up 'facts' most people don't check them and anyway, you'll be long gone by the time the truth is known, and so will the audience.

10. Expect perfection. Focus on the slightest flaw in your opponent's argument, any kind of mistake, grammatical, orthographicl, contextual, anything no matter how slight is sufficient to deflect attention away from how vacuous your arguments are.

11. Act insulted. Take umbrage at the slightest contradiction and act as if it is a personal insult. This will make your personal attack seem warranted and just.

12. Mug the camera or audience while your opponent is speaking, make faces, sneering is good, head-shaking better, and looking toward the ceiling is best [notice the avoidance of the word Heaven, Liberals avoid words of a religious nature WM]. Let the audience know you disagree with your opponent (even if you’ve no idea what he’s saying)

13. Use condescending laughter as much as you can. It serves two purposes, first, it dismisses your opponent as being unworthy of your respect and second, it shows your contempt for his arguments. This is a very powerful tool and can really annoy your opponent and disrupt his train of thought.

14. You’re an arrogant Liberal; demonstrate your obvious intellectual superiority by acting in a condescending manner.

15. Forget how many of the wealthiest in this nation are Liberals, always beat the drum of “Rich Republicans” and “working class Democrats.”

16. Finally, always remember style trumps substance. Know it, Live it.

Monday, August 15, 2005

Rethinking Sympathy: Cindy Sheehan's Lies

Will Malven

I was planning to let the Cindy issue stand and move on to other issues. The problem is that she remains the “darling” of the Leftist American press, left-over hippies from the ‘60s who never got over Nixon and Vietnam, and young hippie wannabes in pursuit of an identity chasing the “flavor of the month” cause. Having listened to and read her latest words, I no longer believe that this woman is an innocent, being used by the left. I believe that she is entirely complicit in this whole campaign and feel compelled to continue to comment in defense of the troops and the President.

She is not a woman distraught at losing a child; she is a hatemonger using the death of her son to bash the President and the United States. Her own words convict her. She is more reminiscent of a stalker than a mourner. Her obsessive hatred is far beyond any which might be explained in the pain from loss. She is not deluded by some Machiavellian plot of extreme Left-wing activist “kooks,” she is an extreme Left-wing activist kook. She had this Leftist anti-war stance well before her son was killed. She is not mourning his loss, she is not turning her efforts towards helping her own family or other families who have lost loved ones, cope with their losses, instead she is picking at the scab of their healing wounds, delaying the healing process and prolonging their pain. This is not a nice woman; this is not a caring woman; this is a hateful, destructive, selfish, woman who is more interested in her own political agenda than in healing the damage she has done to her own family in pursuing this wrongly directed vendetta.

Mrs. Sheehan’s son died a hero’s death trying to rescue his fellow soldiers from an ambush in Sadr City. He deserves to be remembered for that sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice, he made in a selfless act of courage. Thanks to Cindy, he will be remembered as sacrificial lamb dragged through the streets of America to prop up her anti-America, anti-Bush, campaign against the war in Iraq. She attempts to garner sympathy with her sad tale of a mother in grief, rebuffed by an uncaring, cold hearted, war mongering president, in her time of greatest need. A mother who lost her son, seduced into serving by lies, to a war which was started by a lying administration bent on enriching its friends and top contributors. Unfortunately for Cindy, she is wiping the tears from her eyes with a tissue of lies. There have been incorrect assertions from this administration, but the term “lies” conveys the intent to deceive and there is no corroborative evidence, direct or indirect, that this administration ever made assertions regarding this war which were intended to deceive the American people.

When WMD were cited as a reason for attacking Saddam, it was universally believed by all intelligence organizations that they existed in Iraq. When Iraq’s attempt to buy high grade uranium ore from Africa was mentioned, there was and still is substantial evidence for that attempt. In spite of the fact that the Bush administration has backed away from that assertion, the British have not. They continue to maintain the veracity of their intelligence. When the Saddam-al Qaeda connection was discussed, it was and has been proven to have been extensive and real. Even the faulty 9-11 Commission Report confirmed the numerous links of al Qaeda to Saddam’s Iraq. Since its publication, evidence has only grown that those links were extensive. Of course those on the Left will insist that the 9-11 report says there were no links between al Qaeda and Iraq, but they are not fully reading the report and are quoting William Clarke’s testimony out of context, not the report of the commission itself.

Another of the lies coming out of the Sheehan camp is that President Bush has been changing the reason for the war as each one has proven false (of course only the WMD assumption has proven so). The fact is that President Bush has never wavered from his original statement as to why we were going to Iraq except for the admission that we have found no WMD and that contrary to intelligence gathered by the CIA, MI6, the French DRM, and the Russian SVR, apparently there were none when we entered Iraq. Certainly the emphasis has changed as the situation has changed, but the president included WMD, al Qaeda links to Iraq, freeing the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator, fighting terrorism in Iraq so that we don’t have to fight it here, and establishing a stable democracy in his speeches leading up to the war.

The most recent and biggest lie to come out of the Left is the lie that Bush never wanted a peaceful end to the Iraq situation, that according to the Downing Street Memo, Bush planned on fighting a war from the start. Beyond the obvious argument that the famous line “the intelligence was being fixed around” going to war means that the efforts at obtaining intelligence was being concentrated on that possibility, it would have been insane to expect anything else given Saddam’s record. Saddam had never, repeat that NEVER, been an honest dealer with the UN or with the USA. To have expected him to suddenly be cooperative would have been naïve at the very least (something Liberals are very good at). Going to war with Iraq was virtually inevitable once it was decided to confront him on the WMD issue.

Personally I would have been astounded had the Bush Administration not been making war plans with Iraq. I would expect there to have been half a dozen possible scenarios fully worked up prior to our going in. When one is talking about the possibility of going to war, he wants to be prepared for any eventuality. I would have had every available intelligence officer working on the move into Iraq once I had decided that it was possible. I would certainly not have waited until the deadline ran out before I made my plans and started gathering intelligence. What the anti-war, anti-Bush people are suggesting President Bush should have done, not plan early, falls into a category I reserve for the pacifists of the Left, stupid, naïve, and DUMB. Had President Bush done that, then there truly would be grounds for impeachment. To suggest that the President didn’t try to get Saddam to give up peaceably is a base lie. Having sought and obtained a UN resolution, the President made one last effort on March 16th, 2003 to get Saddam to comply, meeting with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the Azores, Portugal. Following that meeting, the President then gave Saddam Hussein a forty-eight hour ultimatum to leave Iraq. Quoting the President from his speech on March 17, 2003:
"On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger [my emphasis], but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."
The President never sought this war; he came to it in the genuine belief that Iraq posed a very real and growing danger to its neighbors and, with its connections to al Qaeda, the United States. He gave Saddam Hussein every opportunity to avoid it. But Saddam chose to rely upon assurances from his French allies that they could subvert any move toward war by the UN. They were right, they were able to subvert America’s efforts in the Security Council, but what they didn’t count on is an American President whose resolve and determination were not to be ruled by the UN. What they didn’t expect was a President who, unlike Clinton or Gore, was an American first. Now those who oppose this war have every right to quibble and complain that it was unnecessary and that we should end it. They cross the line when they say that President Bush “lied to get us into the war.” That is simply a fantasy derived from their own opinion, founded on Chimerical assumptions.

The Left wingers have great contempt for those of us who support the President in this war, describing us variously as being “dumb,” “brainwashed,” “hicks,” “evil,” “mean spirited,” “war mongers,” and a host of other more “colorful” names which you can find in the “comments” sections of this and other conservative blogs. That is alright with me as I have at least as much contempt for them. Their penchant for name calling and insult throwing fails to impress me as cogent arguments for their cause. Quite the opposite. It leads me to think of them as inarticulate, slavish followers of anti-American, opportunistic, socialist, hate-mongers such as Mikhail Mooresky, Alexi Frankenov, Susansky Sarandonova and her pet Tiny Tim.

Now as to Cindy. We know for sure that she lies. We have her own words on it. She has given us two different accounts of her meeting with President Bush following her son’s death in April of 2004. We have her assertion that her now estranged husband [link] supported her, an assertion we now know to be false. She asserted that she was not a political activist prior to her sons death (an assertion to which I alluded in one of my editorials on Cindy[link]). We now know that she was a political activist against the war before her son was killed. She has claimed that she only wanted to talk to President Bush in order to ask him what the “noble cause” was for which her son died. Yet she arrived in Crawford riding in a red, white, and blue, bus emblazoned with “Impeachment Tour.” If all she was seeking was a meeting with the President, wouldn’t it have made more sense for her to avoid the publicity and caravan of anti-war protesters and seek the meeting in private? She would have been much more likely to have achieved her stated goal that way. Of course, the answer is she doesn’t want to meet with the President; she wants to generate a side show for the MSM. Her worst lie of all though is that Casey died for no good reason. Casey obviously didn’t believe that, he was the first to volunteer for the rescue mission. Cindy Sheehan is a publicity seeker looking to get all the attention she can for her Liberal agenda. Hardly the sympathetic figure the MSM is portraying. For those on the Left who feel it is indecent to invade her private life and difficulties, I can only say that it is of her own volition that she has become such a public figure, inviting such scrutiny and it is she that is invading the President’s privacy by harassing him while he is trying to get some time to himself from working at the most stressful and difficult job on the planet. Cindy go home, your family needs you more than we do.

Evil wins hearts with the face of innocence, poisons minds with the voice of need, and destroys goodness by seducing its kindness. It never appears in its own diseased skin.

Monday, August 8, 2005

Cindy Sheehan: Tale of a Grieving Mother Twisted by the Left?

Will Malven

Cindy Sheehan, mother of killed soldier Casey Sheehan and outspoken critic of President Bush, is camped outside the Crawford, Texas ranch of President George Bush. She arrived there at the head of a caravan of fellow protestors and press, in a bus painted red, white and blue and emblazoned with the words, "Impeachment Tour." Sheehan, from Vacaville, Calif., had been attending a Veterans for Peace convention in Dallas.

What happened to Cindy Sheehan to cause her to be so hateful in her speeches and writings? How did a grieving mother become a militant “Impeach Bush” campaigner? Is it a stand she came to on her own born out of her grief, or is it possible that some on the Left, who have a very well established long term agenda against the Republicans and President Bush, are using her grief as a tool for their own political ends? In an earlier editorial, I was very critical of Cindy Sheehan for her campaign of hate against the President and his Cabinet. I accused her of being an anti-Bush activist before her son was killed in a heroic attempt to rescue some of his fellow soldiers in Sadr-City on April 4th, 2004. It turns out that I may have been wrong on this point and if I was, I am sorry. I don’t like to mislead or misinform my readers and I don’t enjoy denigrating innocent individuals.

In an interview with AntiChimp.com, posted on the 7th of July this year, she was asked if she was politically active prior to her sons deployment to Iraq. Her response was:

“No. I still don't consider myself politically active. I don't consider peace a political issue...”

At some point (apparently around July of 2004) she became affiliated with Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) a vocal anti-war, anti-Bush organization begun in November of 2002. Again from AntiChimp:

”Were you referred to MFSO by someone, or did you find them on the Internet? CS: A friend of mine, Bill Mitchell, whose son Mike was killed in the same ambush as Casey, found them on the internet.”

What is interesting about this revelation is that sometime around that period, Cindy Sheehan and her daughters changed their tune about the meeting that the families of the fallen heroes had with President Bush.

In June of 2004, in an interview with David Henson of the Vacaville Reporter, Cindy discussed the meeting saying the following:
"...Pat [her husband] noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election "We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us." Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture. "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush,Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith... For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle. For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again. "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said."
Roughly one year later, having been exposed to the Bush haters of the extreme left, she described the same meeting in a telephone interview with Greg Szymanski (of the Artic Sun) as follows:
"...arrogant man with eyes lacking the slightest bit of compassion, a President totally "detached from humanity" and a man who didn’t even bother to remember her son’s name when they were first introduced. Instead of a kind gesture or a warm handshake, Sheehan said she immediately got a taste of Bush arrogance when he entered the room and "in a condescending tone and with a disgusting loud Texas accent," said: "Who we’all honorin’ here today?" "His mouth kept moving, but there was nothing in his eyes or anything else about him that showed me he really cared or had any real compassion at all. This is a human being totally disconnected from humanity and reality. His eyes were empty, hollow shells and he was acting like I should be proud to just be in his presence when it was my son who died for his illegal war! It was one of the most disgusting experiences I ever had and it took me almost a year to even talk about it," said Sheehan in a telephone conversation from Washington D.C. where she was attending a July 4th anti-war rally."
Now am I imagining something or is this a truly bizarre turn around? The two descriptions read not only like two different meetings, but with two different people. The only explanation I can find is that she has been seized upon by those on the extreme Left who wish to destroy President Bush. Cindy has rationalized this change of attitude by saying that at first she was grieving and she later became angry. This answer doesn’t wash for me. This is not just “getting angry,” this is a completely revised description of the meeting. It is a complete disconnect which is much more reminiscent of someone under the influence of really rabid Bush haters. The Left is using Cindy Sheehan in the same manner that she has been using her son’s death.

This is standard fare for the Left. They don’t want Ms. Sheehan grieving and healing, they want her to continue to suffer by channeling her grief into anger and hatred. They see in Cindy a tool which they can use to beat up on President Bush and his administration. They don’t care anymore for her welfare than they do for that of the troops in Iraq. We witnessed this same phenomenon during the 2004 Presidential Election when the MSM and their Democrat Party maintained a “death watch” by counting up the death toll of our troops with a growing excitement as the count approached 1000 souls. It was a sick and ghoulish process led by the MSM and recited with glee by Democrats in Congress and Democrat candidates during the election. It was a disgusting indulgence by animals who lack even the decency to respect the grief of the families of our dead troops.

So, now we have Ms. Sheehan camped out at the President’s Ranch spouting her hateful vitriol to the glee of the MSM and the Democrat party. Her husband has left her because he disagrees with what she is doing. She is a pitiful figure out there in the heat in Crawford waiting for a meeting she knows will never occur for the entertainment and purposes of the MSM and Liberals. She has sacrificed her marriage for her campaign of hate. She has been seduced by the Moores, the Conyers, the Boxers, and the Pelosis. They are working on her anger to keep her from healing. It is a sad, sad situation.

Now don’t get me wrong, I blame her as well. She is an adult and is therefore responsible for her actions. Her family should be intervening and helping her get over her loss, but the Left have managed to estrange her from those who could help her most. The depth of her hatred and anger leads her to make outrageous statements and in the process, she is dishonoring her son. She has stated that he died for nothing, something with which he would disagree, and basically did before he left on his deployment. Her remaining son is now toying with the idea of following in his brother’s footsteps and joining the service. In her interview with AntiChimp, she said that she blamed herself most for her son’s death, because she “didn’t teach him not to die for this country.” What a sad legacy to leave for her son.

Once again we are granted a look into the black heart of the Liberal movement in America. Their drive for the domination of and victory in America leads them to acts which are hateful to America and its people. We once again see why they must never be allowed to regain the reigns of power. To do so would be a disaster.

Grief is the agony of an instant, the indulgence of grief the blunder of a life. --Benjamin Disraeli