Reply
Wed 14 Jul, 2004 01:54 am
You Calling Me An Unpatriotic Wimp?
Commentary By Jack Dalton
Date: Jul 11, 2004 - 08:25 PM
Intervention Magazine
When Americans opposed to Bush are called unpatriotic wimps, a disabled veteran in a wheelchair goes on the attack.
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, right or wrong, is not only un-patriotic, but it is morally treasonable to the American people.
--President Theodore Roosevelt
In the small Texas town of Canyon Lake, a sea of Bush ideologues, there is a stong voice of reason: Doug Kirk, the much attacked publisher of the Canyon Lake Weekly. Recently, a letter to the editor from Frances Shannon went too far. Way too far.
"It is people like you who cry anti-war slogans, criticize our commander-in-chief for liberating Iraq and Afghanistan from barbarian rule that I was referring to as wimps," she wrote. Besides Doug, she also included in the "wimps with no backbone that do not deserve to be called Americans" category, "wives, mothers, and others that complain."
This rated more than a simple letter to the editor response.
For your information, Frances Shannon, when you were at home baking cookies, I and thousands of other "wimps with no backbone" were crawling around in Vietnam. While some at home were being "patriotic" and proudly waving the American flag with self-righteousness and vociferously supporting that un-mitigated disaster, as is being done today with Iraq, I and thousands of other Americans were getting shot to hell and back, as is happening in Iraq today.
Thirty-five years later, after all the pontificating about "never again" has faded from memory, that same flag of false and misguided patriotism once again "proudly" waves over America. It seems that never again is here again (if it ever went away).
The ease at which those of you who so blindly follow Bush can label fellow citizens as "wimps without backbone that do not deserve to be called Americans," including those of us who are combat veterans, concerns me in some ways more than my serious concerns for George Bush. Having been decorated for counter-insurgency operations in 1966, having been three times wounded and living a life fighting the effects of Agent Orange, I am not a wimp.
By your statements, one can only conclude that you believe the only patriotic Americans are those that toot the horn for George Bush. I guess it makes no difference to you that the man you support has cut and is cutting funding for the Veterans Administration which to date has forced over 250,000 veterans out of the system due to a lack of funding. At the same time, this same man is creating more veterans and more disabled veterans.
If continuing my open opposition to the Bush cabal makes me a "wimp without backbone," I guess I'll be a wimp without backbone for whatever life I have remaining. For I will go to my grave in opposition to any and all who preach perpetual war for profit.
The thing that really stands out is that the vast majority of those who feel free to label their fellow citizens as un-patriotic, un-American, traitors, wimps, etc., especially those of us who actually wore the uniform and went to war, is that they themselves, for whatever reason, never wore this country's uniform and never went to war. The arrogance of people to call anyone, let alone combat veterans, wimps and un-American is astounding!
My right to criticize was born in the thick of war. Your right to criticize was born in your front rooms from watching 30-second sound bites on Fox "news." My right is carried by sacrifice, yours by privilege.
A Free Iraq?
As for the statement Iraq is liberated and the Iraqi people are now free, it would be laughable if it were not so very sad. Sure the Iraqi people are now free, free to be a part of the 60% unemployed and free to watch Halliburton import thousands of foreign laborers to "rebuild" Iraq. Free to watch the wholesale privatization of their nation's resources, infrastructure, economy and everything in between by the same U.S. multinationals importing labor. But the Iraqi people have been liberated.
They are now free to see their fellow citizens subject to arrest, detention, torture, and murder in the same prisons that Saddam used for the very same purposes. But they have been liberated and they are now free. They are now free to watch their country turned into what it never was until the politically driven and ideology based invasion: ground zero for fools and fanatics. But Iraq has been liberated and the Iraqi people are now free.
They are free to wonder, with all the money Halliburton has been paid, when they will have potable water and electricity more than 8 hours a day; they are free to wonder about this and much more. They are free to wonder why Americans pay no attention to their own General Accounting Office reports that clearly state Iraq is worse off than before the invasion. (GAO report, 6/2004: "Iraq is Worse off Than Before the War Began")
I could go on for a long time enumerating the theft of Iraq, but time and space prevent that. Be that as it may, one last thought on the "liberation" of Iraq: For those willing to use the brain's memory cells, you will recall that in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, not one time was "liberating Iraq" part of the discussion. From the beginning, it was weapons of mass destruction, mushroom clouds over Manhattan, and the link between Saddam, bin Laden, and al Qaeda, all of which has proven to be false and deliberately so! It was when those "reasons" began to unravel that Bush's adventure morphed in to a war of "liberation." This was deliberate deception, just like with Vietnam.
I for one am really tired of Bush and company pissin' on my boots while trying to convince me it's raining. The crazy part is how many of you are reaching for umbrellas.
Jack Dalton is a disabled Vietnam veteran suffering from the effects of Agent Orange. He lives in Portland, Oregon. You can email Jack at Edit: Moderator: Author's email removed
Posted Monday, July 12, 2004
Wow. He sure told her! And hopefully lots of others.
Later today I will e-mail him.
Being also a Texan, I can sympathize.
That is telling it like it is. To bad the papers nationwide did not pick that up and publish it. Any comments from the right.
Re: You Calling Me An Unpatriotic Wimp?
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, right or wrong, is not only un-patriotic, but it is morally treasonable to the American people.
--President Theodore Roosevelt
Best. Quote. Ever.
That is an interesting quote, and is from a newspaper interview which TR had done with the Kansas City Star. It is good enough that it ought to be properly quoted, for its full vigor:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
as quoted in the Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918
au1929 wrote:That is telling it like it is. To bad the papers nationwide did not pick that up and publish it. Any comments from the right.
they will not be able to respond quickly or off the cuff but will follow their usual steps.
read and reread to understand.
work ones self up into a lather of self righteous indignation.
put together several responses until the onset of a headache
lie down and rest to soothing sounds of Lee Greenwood and Toby Keith
find someone elses response and either cut and paste it or paraphrase it.
post it.
do the superior dance.
another nap.
That one finds comfort in any particular commentary does not perforce validate the assertions put forth in that commentary, nor, by the same token, would the converse be true. Just because one agrees or disagrees with a thing or condition has little to nothing to do with the qualitative probity of that thing or condition.
The editorial-as-rebuttal at discussion here is simply that; an opinion piece itself. I happen to take exception to some of the assertions and allegations contained therein, and I also happen to take exception to some of the assertions and allegations expressed by the parent opinion piece, Ms Shannon's ... both authors use the broadest of brushes, and both are much given to stereotyping and agenda-parroting in support and furtherence of their respective causes. While both make a valid point here-or-there, neither do it particularly well nor from solid forensic footing. Further, I note that while somewhat of a kinship of shared experience connects me to Mr. Dalton, I personally and emphatically do not subscribe to his opinion.
I read through the lead article once, did a little backgrounding, neither of which occasioned any re-reading or struggle-to-understand, no lather to rinse off, no nap to go back to (I'm actually working on-line - as in making effort to generate personal income - as is customary for me this time of day), this response was composed and posted with neither editing nor external reference apart from looking up Ms Shannon's right-wing whine, The current background music playing is Nitty Gritty Dirt Band's
"Will the Circle Be Unbroken", no cut-and-paste or paraphrase has been employed in this post's composition, nor animals or other resources harmed or endangered, and I don't dance much. Don't much suffer from headaches, either.
Among other attributes, orifices, and appurtenances shared by all are opinions.
Re: You Calling Me An Unpatriotic Wimp?
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:For those willing to use the brain's memory cells, you will recall that in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, not one time was "liberating Iraq" part of the discussion. From the beginning, it was weapons of mass destruction, mushroom clouds over Manhattan, and the link between Saddam, bin Laden, and al Qaeda, all of which has proven to be false and deliberately so!
That is sooooo on the money. I have yet to hear a halfway decent argument from those who support Bush that refutes this or explains it away.
Any takers?
No stockpiles of ready-to-use WMD have been turned up (other not-so-comforting discoveries notwithstanding), but then, neither has any validation of the "Bush Lied" mantra ... rather the contrary, in fact, despite the spin frantically applied by the columnists, commentators, and pundits given to such entertainments, nor has Mr. Blair come off at all badly in such regard; the "Lie" clearly has been shown to be the assertion that either lied.
Timberlandko
Could you validate the (other not-so-comforting discoveries notwithstanding) part of your post. You seem to indicate that even though we havent found WMD's we have found something that brings truth to the Bush reason for war.
Read the actual Kay and Duelfer reports, rabel22 ... the reports themselves, not commentaries written about them.
You mean the fact that they say at one time Iraq was developing necular weapons and had gas weapons. I know that but at the time that Bush declared war the Iraquies had quit development of them and there werent any WMD's. They had been destroyed and the UN inspectors were telling Bush that. Bush wasent interested in what they had to say. If he had been we could have freed the Iraquie people without war.
No, that is not what I mean, nor is that what was said in the reports. Read the reports, not what commentators say about the reports.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace