tau_neutrino

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...6/cr062906.htm

Finally, a voice of reason from within our government!

It's an article about the current state of US politics and foreign affairs. The author points out the shortcomings, oversights, and general incompetence of some aspects of the gov't.

__________________



TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Beatnik

"The major obstacle to a sensible foreign policy is the fiction about what patriotism means. Today patriotism has come to mean blind support for the government and its policies. In earlier times patriotism meant having the willingness and courage to challenge government policies regardless of popular perceptions."

Testify.

__________________

Switchcraft

Sigh. Again with the patriotism stuff. Has anyone in the administration ever actually questioned anyone's patriotism over the Iraq war? Seriously?

Steeler

Yes.

__________________

aeroripper

Nice read. Although everyone knows that America's angry because it takes to long to get your liscense at the DMV. I mean WHAT gives .

It's not as bad now, but in the immediate months\years after 9\11 it was pretty bad. I see a lot of people in the administration toning down their rhetoric now.

Just a thought, maybe its because we've had fear injected into almost every corner of our daily lives and tired of it? We should come up with a list of major things that the average US citizen has been told to fear one way or another in the past 50 years. That would be a great list

Then again, couldn't the same be done for just about every other country, or is it more prevalant in ours?

Switchcraft

Funny. Because all I really remember at the time was people saying "they're questioning my patriotism" without ever providing a citation.

All I'm asking for is some links, if it is or was so pervasive.

aeroripper

I most certainly could, although this would take a LOT of research to pull all these conversations up. I can recall a number off the top of my head (people questioning Iraq war policy as political opportunists and unpatriotic, cheney saying if congress didn't pass patriot act they were unpatriotic, remarks in debates in congress when additional amounts for emergency funding for the wars was being debated.)

I'm having trouble finding links on bush actually saying "your unpatriotic for not wanting to invade Iraq", but there was definitely the patriotism drum being beaten from the administration over the response to 9\11 and the invasion of Iraq for some time.

I think when people are saying "their questioning my patriotism", their talking about the overbearing climate of fear and tunnel vision that dominated the media (moreso after 9\11) and the invasion of Iraq.

As far as what high ranking officials in the administration said? I couldn't quote, although I'm sure there out there. I'm not going to find citations for them, so take it as you will, I can't prove it so my point might as well be moot .

Beatnik

To answer your question, which seems to miss the point of the quote, yes. Check out some of the debate leading up to the political theater of the most recent non-binding House Resolution to commit that we won't set a timetable for pulling out of Iraq on June 15. For example:

The point of the quote I originally pulled had nothing to do with the administration calling people unpatriotic, rather it refered to everyone who blindly accepts whatever the administration does without question in the name of patriotism, and how that's a threat to sensible foreign policy. But you bring up a good point - those calling fellow congressmen unpatriotic for disagreeing with foreign policy (and indeed asserting that a vote against a symbolic House Resolution is equivalent to supporting our enemy) is what is truly unpatriotic.

But this is off topic. Or is it? If so, sorry for the hijack tau.

__________________

Switchcraft

Alright, so the original quote linked in this thread says basically we should refuse to use the United States military for any reason other than national defense. No supporting UN actions. No trying to stop genocide. I'm fine with disagreeing with that...I think part of being a good neighbor is trying to save your neighbor's life when someone is trying to kill him.

But as to the unpatriotic bit, I don't see why, if it was so pervasive, someone wouldn't be able to come up with an administration quote. Aeroripper mentions Cheney saying it in regards to the patriot act, but I can find no such thing. If it really happened, it should not "take a LOT of research" to cite it...money quotes like that are the stuff of lefty blog dreams.

And okay, Beatnik, you pulled a quote from a congressman, not an administration figure, so I don't think it really answers the question at all, since it's the administration which is constantly being accused of "questioning patriotism." But was what Norwood said really about patriotism? I don't know anyone in the military who would like us to set an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Every intelligence analyst I have worked with, and every counterterrorism specialist I have served with, all agree that al Qaeda now believes it is losing the war it is waging in Iraq. Al Qaeda sees Iraq as the central front in its battle with us as the moment. It does not matter why we got there. In war, you do not get "do-overs" or "mulligans." You deal with the situation you have, not the situation you wish you could have.

Al Qaeda believes democracy in Iraq must be opposed at all costs. If we set an arbitrary date to withdraw, then they needn't fight us anymore, because they know all they need do is wait until that day and then launch attacks against a possibly unprepared Iraqi government. If we stay until the Iraqis can truly stand on their own feet, however long that may be, al Qaeda believes they may lose.

So what's wrong with Norwood's question? Why should our politicians pretend their votes don't have consequences outside their voting districts? Our troops are on the ground winning a war against our enemies. They know it. Our enemies know it. Our politicians know it. The only people who stand to come out on top with an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal happen to be our enemies. Should it really be out of bounds to point that out? And is saying so "questioning" someone's "patriotism" or just an analysis of what's going on on the ground?

RandomGuy

Quick, someone tell me what the terror alert warning color is today (not you Cing).

xTYBALTx

Grey?

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

Pokerface

Not in America, buddy! We do that color with an "A"!

__________________

NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
<anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
<LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash
Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

SmokingTarpan

I'm angry because gas took a mid-day hike from $2.89 to $3.09.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

AMosely

Tying patriotism to support for Bush and the Iraq war has been part of a propaganda campaign that is evidenced between the lines of numerous statements from right-wing politicians, both in the White House and in the Congress.

The best example that comes to mind was Bush and Cheney's multiple statements of 'you are either with us or against us' in the 'war on terror.' Trying to frame the issue in black-and-white, right-or-wrong, has been a major hammering point of the war campaign. Cheney in particular pushed this thread during the 2004 campaign, threatening that a vote for Kerry (a vote against Bush) would result in more terror attacks.

More evidence of tying war support to patriotic duty can be found in statements on 'sending the right message' to our troops, or conversely 'sending the wrong message.' Such statements are made in reference to any and all critics or questioners of Bush's war on terror, and are clearly designed to frame naysayers in a negative light. What is more unpatriotic than helping the enemy, or hurting your own troops?

AMosely

On the topic at hand - this was an interesting editorial. Unfortunately it probably won't make much difference, as speeches such as this fall on deaf ears in the chambers of congress, especially in an election year.

I'm not sure that America is as angry as it is polarized - the images of red and blue states portrayed on our election maps in 2000 and 2004 have had a profound effect on the population, and to some extent both created and exascerbated this polarization. The country is not what it used to be. Fractures are growing in several areas of this once unified nation, and the political system has been promoting these fractures to their perceived gain. Confronting contentious issues has become a leveraging tool to get out the vote and to build political momentum. Unfortunately the practice also promotes the growth of these fissures, pitting neighbor against neigbor, and that will make America angry.