I took an oath to an idea, not to a man (or a party). This poster expresses what it is all about to me - loyalty to our Revolution and the Constitution, not to a party or a candidate. Or any single religion. Or region. Our Constitution is for all of us - and that is what Ashcroft and his cronies don't understand. It is for Moslems, Christians, Jews, and athiests. For the rich and the poor. For the UNITED states, together we stand, one nation. I love this poster.
This is what we should be fighting for, and nothing else.
17 comments:
Question of the Day: (Not leading or rhetorical question)
Is American saftey worth a few limitations on freedoms? Wasn't this always the case during past conflicts?
TDW: Kat posted this for you at my place (under 'Humid Summer Night Musing') wanted to make sure that you didn't miss it:
Kat said...
Here I go...
The Christmas in Cambodia, where he actually states that he was in Cambodia, before the Senate, was in 1986, when he was putting his two cents in on the support for the Contras against the communist Sandanistas. Basically, using his Viet Nam experience, he states that he is afraid that the continued support for this group would lead the US to become more involved there on the "pretext" of fighting communism.
During this rant, he makes the ill fated claim of being
"in Cambodia" being fired at by the Cambodians and VC, during Christmas of 1968 and it was "seared-seared" into his brain while the President "lied" about whether troops were there or not. He makes this as a point of his speech because he is afraid that our soldiers are or will be there (Nicaragua) and dying and no one will know it, because that was what almost happened to him.
In that testimony, clearly recorded in the Senate record (which I have a photo copy of on my own site) he clearly states he was "in" Cambodia. Not near it.
In 1992, he makes those same statements to a reporter.
Now...I think he was over blowing it to make a point and now he is being called on it and wants to back pedal. You can't really disclaim what you said on the Senate floor that is recorded for posterity.
In regards to his other Viet Nam service, I don't really care, although, I don't see his 4 month tour as the making of a commander in chief, nor do I find his "heroic" activities anymore heroic than some other vets I know. So that is just a bunch of hogwash as my friend says.
The real teller of the Kerry/Viet Nam issue is that it did something to him. It has made him what he is today. And what that has made him is an idealist that is scarier than anything that Bush can say.
He truly believes that the best action is no action.
You think he will stay the course? You've been saying that for some time TWD and I have to dispute you on that. From his own mouth he has stated that within 6 mos of taking office he will pull back 3/4 of the troops.
Maybe he thinks his secret plan of getting France and some others to become involved will supplement this withdrawal? Or, is he planning to was his hands of Iraq like Pontious Pilot the same way he demanded the government wash it's hands of Viet Nam?
Since France, et al are stating, no how, no way, doesn't matter who is President, will they become involved in Iraq, I would have to assume that he is goin with plan 2: wash his hands.
You want to stand by him while we leave that place a mess?
That's what will happen or he will have to eat his words.
So..vote as you like. Delude yourself.
The truth is, Viet Nam made him what he is and we aren't talking about "commander in chief". We are talking about his policies.
He has an innate belief that American interference in foreign countries is not necessary the same as you are supporting the Viet Nam withdrawal in which case he states himself that it was not a danger to us, just as you do.
That's how he looks on the spread of fundamental islam in these countries. Nothing that we need to be afraid of. Just set back and let it happen. We will deal.
Well...we already know what happens when you set back and let it go. 3000 dead not enough for you?
It's apparently not enough for Kerry. 3000 dead and 9/11 and terrorist alerts are "fear mongering" according to him. I read his speech at the DNC. That's his take.
So...vote away. If he wins, you will be eating your words about how he understands what is at stake and will take the fight to the enemy.
Viet Nam screwed with Kerry's mind and we are going to suffer for it if he is elected.
ALa71: I of course responded over there (http://mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com/2004/08/humid-summer-night-musing.html) but here it is in brief:
No. Kat's wrong. If you want more detail, my dear readers, go to the "humid-summer-night-musing" link and read the fascinating and constantly twisting debate there.
As for your question about safety v liberty - yes, in some circumstances. We don't enjoy the same right to privacy in an airport as we do in your homes - and I don't want us to either, for we either would be defenseless, or we would have screeners in our living rooms.
And my point is that rather than use common sense and very, very carefully choose the methods we need to protect ourselves, Ashcroft wants screeners in our living rooms. I would rather die - death before dishonor, die free, don't tread on me, and this we'll defend and all that. Plus that oath I swore to defend to the death the constitution and our way of life.
In addition, there are few constitutional protections that can be taken away just because we are in danger. The Founders had just fought a war, had hostile natives on their western border, a hostile Canada (don't laugh - it was British then) to the north and a hostile Florida controlled by a hostile Spain to the south. Still, they decided that certain protections were too important to sacrifice to security, while others (the writ of habeus, military regulations) could be changed by a President in time of crisis. That means that a couple things: 1)short of a declaration of war the President does not have certain powers he claims he has - yes we are at war, but no declaration by Congress means he shouldn't get certain wartime powers - otherwise we would have those 25-year long "state of emergency" regimes that tinpot dictators always set up. congress is the only body that can declare war, and we should strive to make sure that this power has real meaning or we will always be "at war" and our imperial presidency will become a pure imperium. A Ceasar after the fall of the republic, while the masses cheered the end of democracy. And 2) certain rights even Congress and the President combined don't have the right to disregard whatever the circumstances. The true sovereign is the people, and they created the Constitution (we the people) and only the people can make the choice to change it. The People have been shown to be very circumspect and careful about doing so, with only one obvious populist error in our history (Prohibition). The president calls for a constitutional amendment on gay marriage, so perhaps we are in for another one, but few politicians have the courage to go to the People and say "give me more power over you than any leader has ever had before." The People have a knack for deciding such "leaders" need to go home and have no power anymore at all. God Bless America.
We don't need a Ceasar to protect us. I think we face an enemy in AQ that threatens us, but not as big a threat as we faced in the darkest days of the Cold War, certainly not as great a threat as the combined forces of the Empire of Japan and the Third Reich, and not even close to the biggest threat we faced when the South seceded and we fought for our national survival. So why do we need to cede more liberties to the federal govt now then we did then? And hindsight has shown that most of the time when we did cede our liberty it not only didn't help our cause, but it was often counter-productive.
Also, I thought Ashcroft was a threat to the Constitution well before 9/11 - I knew who he was when he was a Senator. And I heard him sing - talk about a threat to national security or war crimes. Geez.
My husband loves Ashcroft --he thinks that he CARES about protecting us no matter what it takes and he loves that he's not PC. I am somewhere in the middle --I dig that about him too, but he is Assemblys of God and I am not sure that I want someone that 'speaks in tongues' that high in the Government...it scares me a little.
Well, my view is if he speaks in tongues or plays with snakes or bites the heads off of live chickens as part of his religion, I don't care. If a guy tries to punish those who don't bite the heads off of chickens with him I start getting kind of nervous. That is why I want AQ dead, the Taliban dead, I would like to see Iran's mullahs overthrown by their own people, and it is why I don't like Ashcroft.
Ashcroft "vets" the justice department for those who hold like political and religious opinions - liberal democrats need not apply to senior positions in the justice department that were formerly considered non-political. He punishes those who disagree. That is fine in a private company, but he is the attorney general and works for me - and you, and the American citizens worshipping Allah in the mosque, and even "hollywood liberals." All of us. Of all branches of govt the military and the justice department wield the most physical force and thus must be the most apolitical of institutions. Ashcroft has gone farther than Rumsfeld in installing and promoting only those who share his views. He looks down on employees who don't attend bible study or prayer meetings. He holds it against them professionally.
I don't like people in government who forget who the boss is and think it is them. I think the boss should fire them. That's why I'll cast my vote to do so in Nov.
wow, vrangel, again with the "undermining the war effort" talk. You even said "Fifth Column." With that kind of talk why would anyone be a little jumpy?
Well, gotta go burn some American flags. That is what all democrats do in their spare time you know. IN reality only republicans love this country. You found us out. Damn.
Vrangel:
40 days straight of Abu Graib because it was big story - not because reporting on it was disloyal. Reporting negative news is not disloyal.
Any reporters or media blurting out that they hope for our defeat deserve public approbation - but anybody thinking that they = the democratic party or all those who disagree with the president is hoping for the defeat of our Republic in exchange for a one-party state. Neonazis vote Bush. Does that mean Republicans are Nazis? of course not. Some left-wing nuts wish for American defeat. Does that mean Democrats wish for American defeat? OF COURSE NOT.
Your "freedom-loving friends" who thought Augusto Pinochet a hero compared to Allende would identify with the Bush tendency to see the world in absolutes, to only see two sides to every issue when there are many, many sides and multiple options. Here's an example:
Allende was a far-left freak show and his staying in power probably would have led to a full communist takeover and the destruction of Chilean democracy.
Augusto Pinochet was a right-wing freak and his seizing power led to a full fascist takeover and the destruction of Chilean democracy.
See: NO HERO. You don't have to choose one bad option over another bad option most of the time, and when you do don't lie to yourself and try and convince yourself that the one you chose is actually good. Allende sucked. Pinochet sucked. My opinion, given the brutality of Pinochet compared to the lesser brutality of Latin American communists like the Sandinistas in Nicuaraga and Castro, Allende would have been the lesser of the two evils - does that make me a commie? No, because I think Allende would still have been evil.
If you are a republican and love America and want the US to succeed in Iraq and want the defeat of our terrorist enemies, fine. Don't assume that if I am a democrat that I am against all the other things I just listed - assume I'm for them too, but that I think my way is more effective in accomplishing those goals than your way.
Right-wing attacks on the democrats bring to mind two guys arguing over how to get to LA from San Francisco. Kerry wants to take the 5 South, while Bush wants to take Pacific Coast Highway. They are in a big hurry and want to get there as quickly as possible in order to do a business deal. Bush is driving, so they start down the scenic route. Bush stays in the slow lane. Kerry says "there is no traffic on the 5 and it is shorter - we should have taken that. Now that we are on the PCH I think we should switch to the fast lane." Bush says "We don't want to drive to Oregon. Why do you think we should go to Oregon? And turning around and backtracking would be worse - it would take twice as long! Why do you keep trying to prevent us arriving in LA! You Moron!" And he continues driving along in the slow lane, convinced he is right, as his supporters cheer him, while Kerry has to fend off attacks on whether he thought Oregon was the original destination, or that he is trying to sabotage the deal in LA, or that he wants to turn around, drive back to SF, and start over again. Bush might stay the driver, but we might not make it to LA at all.
"Dem. party is dominated by H.Dean, M.Moore and Al Sharpton kind of charlatans at the moment. I do understand that rank and file are closer to mainstream."
Well, no. the party is dominated by John Kerry and Bill Clinton supporters, the candidates most democrats agreed were best to represent the party and its beliefs.
Thank you davesplash. :)
TWD, is there some particularly unconstitutional act by Ashcroft that has your laceys in a bunch this time around, or are you burning him in effigy "just because"?
I know his obsession with Janet Jackson's breast wasn't healthy, and that his absurd karaoke at press conferences should be taken as a cry for help, but I'm uncertain that a leap from there to painting him as Heinrich Himmler would do much good for the Loyal Opposition Party at the moment, especially when they're making an effort to try to look rational in a post-Moore world.
As was posted above, "I blame Ashcroft" as a rejoinder is indeed a bountiful source of intellectual snickering these days, in the non-lobotomized blogosphere.
Yep. Totally.
I love Alvaro on CB's blog. He is great fun.
Bigandmean - I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I do see a threat to the Constitution from Ashcroft. But the poster is meant to be figurative, not literal - kind of like major passages of the Bible. But Ashcroft interprets everything literally so I will probably be arrested soon for making threats.
Have you heard him sing? Tell me that isn't cruel and unusual.
Did God tell you personally that the Bible was figurative and not literal --did I miss that meaning? I am not saying that it is or isn't but it seems strange to be able to make that pronouncement. Also, Let's seperate 'Pentecostal' as farther right wing than your average Presbyterian born again...please....
Well, when Jesus gave us the parable of the mustard seed he was either being figurative, or he was very concerned with mustard seeds.
Lefty & TWD: Now ya both just look silly (though i guess your voter registration cards had taken care of that)...A PARABLE...
That's like saying, I thought rest of that book was figurative because the author included one of Aesop's Fables in there...come on boys -had higher education failed this miserably?
::I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.::
Yet you would deny free speech to Swiftboat Vets for the Truth. How quaintly hypocritical and sophistic of you.
::I do see a threat to the Constitution from Ashcroft.::
One which you still have yet to specify.
::But Ashcroft interprets everything literally so I will probably be arrested soon for making threats.::
Now you're just trying to flatter yourself.
::Have you heard him sing? Tell me that isn't cruel and unusual.::
I honestly think it's a cry for help. He needs some vacation time. But since when is it unconstitutional to sing? Are you going batty?
ala71, it's worse than just a "parable", it's a set of instructions given to people in an ancient context, by mystics and holy men living in that same ancient context, who in turn were ascribing the words to "Jehovah" so as to lend them more credibility.
If any Christian soldiers in Iraq right now were taking the Old Testament, not just literally but as valid for modern times, they would be scripturally sanctioned to take any Iraqi women they want as concubines so long as they shave the women's heads one month prior to actually sleeping with them (presumably a primitive form of delousing).
Even the Amish only go half-way in how literally they take the Bible. A full-bore approach would make them look rather cosmopolitan and enlightened by comparison.
Post a Comment