BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

When the English Cry

by David Yeagley · October 27, 2004 · 25 Comments ·

With profound anxiety and caustion, the world must consider the recent news stories and videos of English captives in Iraq, and their extraordinary behavior. Their pitiable pleas are completely understandable, and heard with clarion resonance in the souls of all humanity, no doubt, and particularly with those with that virulent, pathological condemnation for America and the war in Iraq.

There can be nothing less than complete sympathy for their terrible plight.

Yet, it must also be observed that their conditional behavior is in fact anomalous when compared to the universal, stereotypical English image of the “stiff upper lip” in crisis. The world first saw Kenneth Bigley (62), of Liverpool, begging for his life, with tearful pathos. Bigley was murdered (beheaded) by his captors October 8th, with grand drama.

And now the murderers have a female captive, Margaret Hassan (60), Dublin-born Britisher, and have recorded her crying and begging for her life as well. They have not murdered her yet. They will wring more tears from her.

Hassan.jpg
Margaret Hassan (even married to an Iraqi,
still no mercy for her).

The Arab Islamisist murderer revels in the power and value of humilation, denigration, and arrogance. These internationally broadcast videos of Britishers begging, grovelling, in tears, with their ennobled grey hair, their mature age and life experience, are a socio-psychological triumph for the greedy Arabs. The Arabs have succeeded in reducing the English to pathetic begging. What could be more impressive? This is astounding. Think of it, to terrorize civilian captives in this way. This is truly the pith of Arab Islamicism: denigration of humanity. The Arab wants to show superiority, even through his doggish, satanic mania. It is the sense of superiority that he cherishes most. This he will have, at all costs, even his own life, which means nothing to him.

It is a tragedy, indeed, from all sides, but it affects far more than dear families of the victims. The tragedy is that these poor souls have cracked under the pressure. Most people would. Many soldiers would not, but, these captives are not soldiers. These are civilians. They are not trained to endure torture. And they are not politicians, but they are apparently not supportive of war, nor apparently assent to its occasional necessity in the world.

These incidents are truly a Liberal-fest, with no regard for the Liberal’s life in the end. It is total vanity. The compassionate, anti-war captives are allowed to cry and plead on international TV, to be used to make the most pitiable and passionate, desperate appeal for the anti-war lobby, and yet their lives are ended anyway, by the satanic murderists, whom the victims imply are justified.

That’s the orchestration of the murderists. That’s the message. No mercy. Why? The murderers are incapable of appreciating it. They are possessed. To give them mercy is to allow them more opportunity for cruelty, as in the obvious case of Abdullah Mehsud, captured, release, and murdering again.

So what of that universal stereotype of the Britisher who remains stone-faced in crisis, with unshakable stoicism, determination, and bravery, much like that of an American Indian? The English are known for complete mastery of self-control under the most extreme pressure, even agony. Remember Alec Guiness, in Bride over the River Kwai? And Basil Rathbone’s Sherlock Holmes? And certianly Winston Churchill and the whole British population during World War II. The Englishman is supposed to witness the catastrophies of Job, and take a puff on his pipe and say quietly, “Good show!” Weakness is not allowed. The Englishman holds his head high, always.

churchill.jpg
Winston Churchill

But the Arab effect is the denigration of the world. Or should we say, the ideology of the Left allows the supreme pleading, with tears? even from the British.

Again, no one will deny the horrid predicament of the victims. No one will without one pulse of sympathy from them, or from their families. (No one, except the Arab murderers.) This is sacred ground. This is not to be touched.

The concern must also be, however, for the larger picture of the world. Iraq is a land of cruel monsters, in breeding for 40 years. Saddam Hussein’s regime was the sustained climax of it all. That civilized people should fall into the hands of the monsters is a devastating blow to caring souls, but also the very greatest opportunity for the anti-war movement to attempt to validate its position. Rather than see the Arab cruelty as something that needs to be erradicated, anti-war Liberals blame the Arab cruelty on civilized greed. It’s our fault, not the Arab’s fault. He’s just a mechanical entity, an animal, a dog. He can’t help his natural reactions.

These British tragedies have done no good for anyone, on either side of the issue. They have been made to be tools of the enemy, within and without America and England, and anywhere else decency is valued. That is the greatest tragedy of all. The tears of the victims have been made poison.

Posted by David Yeagley · October 27, 2004 · 5:30 pm CT · ·

Tags: Bad Eagle Journal




Read More Journal Posts »

25 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Shane // Oct 27, 2004 at 6:29 pm   

    As the Brits would say, Dr. Y.,”Here, Here!”

  • 2 Bodvar // Oct 27, 2004 at 7:07 pm   

    My wife and I are, I’m certain, the most fervent Anglophiles this side of the Atlantic, having lived there for three years at one point and longing as we do to go back.

    That said, and leaving aside Alec Guiness, etc. as fictional Englishmen, I remember Mr. Churchill. What is more, I remember “Chinese” Gordon, inflexible when beseiged in Khartoum, and I also remember Baden-Powell in South Africa.

    I would observe, though, the Mr. Churchill was an EXCEPTIONAL human beings by anyone’s estimation. Gordon was a messianic fanatic. Baden-Powell seems to’ve been a good egg, though, but still not a typical Englishman.

    Along WITH them, though, I remember Bertrand Russell, who would’ve sold Britain out if he’d've had a chance. I remember Atlee parcelling out the Empire, giving back to factions hardly able to govern, giving rise to the tribal bloodshed we’ve seen since 1946 in Africa, India and elsewhere. I remember Philby/Burgess/Maclean/Blunt and the Cambridge spies willing to endanger the world at the behest of their masters in Moscow. I heard enough of Claire Short to need an antacid. I’ve also heard Islamists vowing from mosques in London that they’d bring Britain under the sharia by hook or crook.

    So, there’re a lot of sides to Britain.

    This war is just as deadly, if lost, to Europe as was the war against Hitler…except that the bad guys this time aren’t white, so it isn’t nice to criticize them.

    The odd thing is that the mass of protestors seem to think that we have or had some CHOICE in fighting it! The only choice given us by the actions of Islamists are those the fictional “Borg” give to other character nations on “Star Trek”: assimilate, as resistance is futile. Don’t assimilate, you’re a target. They’re really not very good militarily or unconventionally — 9/11 was unexpected and surprisingly clever, but weighed against forty years of other operations it’s an anomaly — but they only have to hit one out of a thousand to scare the beeswax out of most folks…and it’s the scare that terrorists are looking for. Fear multiplies their effectiveness.

    In all of this, I’m rather annoyed. What irritates me isn’t an anti-war movement.

    People of conscience, as the Quakers, oppose war, all wars, as both inhuman and unholy. Good for them. They’re at least consistent.

    There’re also those who oppose how this war is being fought, but who see that it must be fought.

    THEN, there’re the crowd — those at the loudest part of the opposition spectrum — who oppose this war, alright…because American is winning. These same people and their acolytes are willing to support anyone who’ll at least beard if not bloody the United States, and if they can bloody Britain as well, more’s the better. They supported the Viet Cong and Vietnamese Communists thirty years ago — Kerry and his crew, Fonda, Mailer, a lot of tottering old Hollywood lefties, and a basic load of tenured professors today. Today, they don’t OPENLY support the “insurgents”, but they will foot-drag, mew, chant and sloganize, which all amounts to the same thing.

    What flummoxes me is that more folks aren’t OUTRAGED at the barbarity of these murderers! Look at what they’re willing to do: behead the innocent (such as they can catch, anyway), blow themselves up to kill their opponents, TEACH THEIR TODDLING CHILDREN that it’s commendable to kill yourself to kill your opponents, TRICK OR FORCE TEENAGERS into “martyrdom”.

    …and, this all gets a pass from Big Media. They’re called “insurgents”, not “foreign infiltrators”, “murderers”, or “the enemy”, which would all be more accurate. The fact that a sizable proportion of them aren’t even Iraqis (in Iraq) or Afganis (in Afganistan) seems to escape notice…anything to trip up the West.

    Aligned with them are the Michael Moore zeroes who even deny that there’s a terrorist threat, that it’s all been manufactured to get Mr. Bush reelected. They ignore every outrage from Ma’alot to Munich, Lod Airport to Lochebie, the Achille Lauro to the Beirut bombing, putting aside forty years of murder, fanaticism and medieval mayhem.

    How can anyone hate their own people that much?

    I hope that Ms. Hassan is spared. Then, I hope that her captors are bombed into paste. As for the vermin in Guantanamo, I’d even be willing to go there myself and plant palms with my own hands to ensure that there are enough trees there in that enclave to see that every one of the “detainees” there has his very own limb to be hanged from…summarily.

    This is a war. It’s particularly nasty, largely because of the muddying up done daily by those who wish us ill, from the UN to France to the Democratic National Committee. That, and the enemy, who would resemble nobody so much as the Japanese on the Bataan Peninsula…were it not that the Japanese had standards.

    – B

  • 3 David Yeagley // Oct 27, 2004 at 7:40 pm   

    To any English folk, I would humbly say, the world has long honored and adored your courage, your splendorous dignity and strength. This is what the world expects from Englishmen, at heart. Never mind the massive failures of the 20th century, the denigration into which England has sunk through abandoning the Church, and Christian morality; never mind the criminal knighting of misanthropes like Mic Jagger; never mind the presumption of honor.

    The image of the grand Englishman is still bright and noble in the world’s collective psyche. Please do us a favor, have compassion on us all, and recover your own honor. I “beg” of you.

  • 4 Kidist // Oct 27, 2004 at 10:16 pm   

    The formidable Mr. Churchill was half American. His mother was an heiress from Brooklyn, New York.

  • 5 desertrat77 // Oct 28, 2004 at 9:22 am   

    Anyone ever thought of invading Mecca and Medina to REALLY piss them off?

  • 6 David Yeagley // Oct 28, 2004 at 9:32 am   

    Ever think that when the Arab Muslims invaded virtually every known country on all sides of them, that might have offended a few folks?

    DesertRat77, you speak like a Leftist lackey. Myopic and chronologically disjointed. Islam has been the aggressor from the beginning, by creed. We’re talking 622 AD. You’re British invasions are about half a millenia too late for conversation.

    That is, if we’re concerned with cause and effect. Or, would you rather not have a country develop? Would you rather see millions of people in abject squalor? Some people say yes…, as though the world is unlucky that the West ever brought sewage systems into the world.

  • 7 desertrat77 // Oct 28, 2004 at 10:04 am   

    Leftist Lackey? Come on Doc, it was a joke and lighten up. Its a shame that you can’t read facial expressions and voice inflections in a text based statement. Of course I would rather see nations develop into stable, humane, democratic entities. But the muslim fundies are evil and should be eliminated from the face of the earth, I wouldn’t mind taking Zarqawie’s head personally, film it and watch Al-Jazeera play that. That however is beside the point. Its a shame that all these people are getting kidnapped and murdered, but on some level they have to accept some resposibility for their own predicament. Anytime that unarmed civilians are in a war zone by their own choice, whether they are helping rebuild or not, they aren’t going into this situation blind. The Japanese(one of the greatest warrior traditions of all time) gov’t isn’t giving into the demands, neither do we and the Brits. I feel incredibly sorry for the families of these people and the terror that they must be going through. I advised my cousin not to go to Iraq to work for Halliburton, even though it would have gotten out of West TX, and paid him 100K a year, watching him come home in a box sans head, wasn’t something that I could lived with if I could have helped prevent. I resent the fact that you call me a lackey, some of my views agree with the Right (illegal immigration, gun control), my mind isn’t for sale, and it is mine and mine alone(Taught to me and my brother by my Choctaw-Chickasaw mother and Grandmother).

  • 8 desertrat77 // Oct 28, 2004 at 10:30 am   

    thought that the poeple that read this website, might enjoy this article about drug testing in AZ. http://www.azcentral.com/news/columns/articles/1028montini28.

  • 9 MarkJ // Oct 28, 2004 at 12:02 pm   

    Dr. Yeagley write: “Rather than see the Arab cruelty as something that needs to be erradicated, anti-war Liberals blame the Arab cruelty on civilized greed. It’s our fault, not the Arab’s fault. He’s just a mechanical entity, an animal, a dog. He can’t help his natural reactions.”

    This is an excellent point and Dr. Yeagley put his finger on something that has been bothering me but which I hadn’t fully elucidated to myself: that the liberal worldview is basically a belief that people are incompetent. They believe Arabs are incompetent morally and can’t be held responsible for their choices. They believe blacks are incompetent and can’t be expected to improve themselves on an even playing field, so they need Affirmative Action. They believe the poor are incompetent and can’t improve their lot themselves, and so they must be handed free money, education, housing, health care, and so on.

    Conversely they suspect that those who have succeeded in life, who are strong and prosperous, have only accomplished those things by cheating or oppressing others. They have to believe this because if they acknowledged that 99% of the strong and prosperous people in this country got that way through honest, intelligently-directed, disciplined hard work, it would annihilate their faith that people can’t fix their own problems and that only group efforts coordinated using government force can make a difference. And it is that comforting belief in universal incompetence that allows them not to feel bad about their own personal failures.

    But Ayn Rand said all this already.

  • 10 David Yeagley // Oct 28, 2004 at 12:28 pm   

    Thanks Mark! I’ve read some Rand. All quite true. (Yet, I wouldn’t want to totally idolize the self, or utterly neglect the misfortune of others…)

    DesertRat77–My HUMBLEST apologies! I completely misread your post. I thought you were rebuking the West for entering Arabia in these modern times…

    This is what happens when one reads to quickly, and is a little too agitated before even sitting down to the computer!

    Please forgive me.

  • 11 David Yeagley // Oct 28, 2004 at 12:31 pm   

    Kidist, I wasn’t aware of the American element in Churchill’s bloodline. How ignorant of me. America should take some credit, then, eh?

    Well, Bush is the only president we’ve have in ages who diplays fortitude even remotely resembling the old English stereotype…America has lost it’s guts, to a perilously great extent.

    People like Kerry and the Left don’t even believe in guts. It’s against their world view, against their core values.

  • 12 Cle // Oct 28, 2004 at 1:12 pm   

    “…against their core values.”

    Let me pick at this a bit, the big difference I see between Bush and Kerry is in this area (values). I would argue that Kerry has no core values, thus no core. At least I have not been able to discern any.

  • 13 desertrat77 // Oct 28, 2004 at 1:17 pm   

    I too have been lamenting the pussification of America. I believe that root of all of this is the Boomer generation that were raised in such a permissive environment that they no longer take responsibility for their actions, and they passed it on to my generation(I am 27). It’s not the fault of the Left, or the Democrats, much to the chagrin of you Conservatives, its ALL of society’s fault. Some good things came out of the 60′s, the sexual revoloution, Civil Rights movement, ending of segregation, and this nation has more to go, but the lack of personal accountability is the #1 problem, most of all social ills can be traced to this, regardless of politics.

    Where people differ is the remedy to these solutions. Ultra-Conservatives believe that Jesus and Family should fill all these voids at the expense of the Gov’t regulation. Ultra-Liberals believe that its the Gov’t's job to do this, I believe that the answer is somewhere in the middle. I also believe that most Americans are somewhere in the middle 85% of the political spectrum, to the left on some issues, to the right on others. When you get extreme’s of both stripes, then it gets dangerous. I am talking about your 1 issue voters: Anti/Pro abortionists, Anti/Pro Gun lobby, etc. When a small segment of the population is allowed to dictate to the rest of us, then the rest of us get screwed. Prime example: Electoral College, antiquated system that needs to be outlawed. Had it not been there, then the 1/2 million more votes that Al Gore got over George Bush would’ve elected the President, and the whole Florida debacle wouldn’t have happened.

    But I am getting off topic, people need to take responsibility for their actions, good or bad, bottom line.

    No sweat Doc, your articles are very entertaining and thought provoking, and I wouldn’t want to be accused of being an elitist, Leftist Dem who doesn’t believe that EVERYONE of all stripes shouldn’t have a voice, a common ill of both sides of the spectrum.

  • 14 desertat77 // Oct 28, 2004 at 2:03 pm   

    for Cle, here is your info for JFK:
    Name — John Forbes Kerry
    Age — 60

    Resume — Vietnam veteran, prosecutor, lawyer, Massachusetts lieutenant governor, U.S. senator

    Iraq (news – web sites) — Goal of starting troop withdrawal in six months, complete withdrawal in four years

    Military draft — No
    A
    rmed Forces — Boost active-duty forces by 40,000

    Minimum wage — Would raise it from $5.15 to $7 by 2007

    Abortion — Supports abortion rights; opposes partial-birth ban without exception for health of the mother

    Death penalty — Opposes, except in terrorism cases

    Taxes — Raise them for those earning more than $200,000

    Gay marriage — Supports civil unions, opposes gay marriage and constitutional ban

    Guns — Favors assault weapons ban, background checks at gun shows

    Health care — Expand insurance system for federal employees to private citizens through tax credits and subsidies

    Social Security (news – web sites) — Opposes any privatization

    Stem cells — Would lift restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research

    Drug imports — Supports reimportation of FDA (news – web sites)-approved drugs

    Medical malpractice — Supports “three strikes” policy against lawyers who file frivolous claims

    Trade — Place all agreements under 120-day fairness review

    Budget — Goal of halving deficit in first term

    Education — Establish $200 billion trust fund to pay for No Child Left Behind law, other programs

    College costs — Free public college tuition for two years of community service

    Energy — No drilling in Arctic refuge, greater development of renewable fuels

    Environment — Increase automobile fuel economy, resume international talks on climate change

    Immigration — Citizenship eligibility for those who pay taxes for five years

    North Korea (news – web sites) — Supports one-on-one talks to stem nuclear threat

  • 15 Cle // Oct 28, 2004 at 2:32 pm   

    Rat-

    I have seen JFK all over the globe on all these issues (which I guess you blogged for my edification re values). In any given speech at any given location he will come down firmly on both sides, ergo my “no core” feelings. I am not going to debate it with you in that you obviously have your mind made up as do I. I will give you this insight to my mind: With the traitorous Senate testimony he gave in ’71 he ripped it with me (and many other vets). He and Fonda can burn in Hell as far as I am concerned. On the religion issue, as a practicing Catholic he cannot hold that belief regarding abortion and still take communion. Your vote is your vote and mine is mine, and God Bless America that we can differ in this manner and one of us not be locked up.

  • 16 Bodvar // Oct 28, 2004 at 3:10 pm   

    Rat,

    “Anyone ever thought of invading Mecca and Medina to REALLY piss them off?”

    Yes, I, for one, HAVE considered it. I’ve considered nuking the two cities, then of seizing them and turning them over to the Turks to steward.

    This sort of brinksmanship isn’t isolated. Today, I heard radio pundits are talking about nuking Faluja now.

    You want to REALLY annoy the House of Saud, inhibit the cash flow of the Bin Ladens of the world, and heel the A-rabs a bit? Drop the 82nd on the oil fields of eastern Saudi Arabia and environs…seize the fields around Basra…then IMMEDIATELY turn it over to the EU and the Russians to run. Demand that a percentage be set aside to enable indigent Muslims to make the Hajj, with the rest (over 75%) going to pay for “administrative” costs (guards, ammunition, equipment maintance, whacking Wahaabi fanatics who pipe up at the wrong time).

    Take their oil away and they’re nothing but socially inept medieval tyrants, lackies and fanatics.

    Wm. F. Buckley in an interesting article compares our problems in Iraq with those of the French in Algeria. I’ve long held that we should’ve read Bernard Fall and any of several excellent books on Algeria available before going into Vietnam, but who listens to me. He mentions Horne’s excellent book, “Savave War of Peace”, on Algeria, and I couldn’t agree with him more on that as a reference.

    In the end of the piece, he wraps up with something stunning: “What Bush could do in Iraq he simply wouldn’t do, indeed would not be forgiven if he were to try to do it…It is that the insurrectionists can’t be defeated by any means we would consent to use.”

    This goes to the interesting point you raise about the “pussification” of America, although I’d take it out of the realm of sex roles. You are quite correct inasmuch as it’s been a equal-opportunity failure. I DO believe that the Left has tended to give its loyalty too readily and too regularly to foreigners (the UN, France, the North Vietnamese, their Soviet comrades), but no matter.

    It stems, I think, from feeling as if either lack of certainty, that we haven’t anything worth serious defense — that the country actually IS the exporter of misery we’ve been told that it is — or that “the other guy” (meaning either our European “allies” or even the enemy) would pull his punches at some point, so we must be prepared to let up at some point, i.e., to defend UP TO A POINT and no further.

    Being civilized doesn’t mean that you won’t fight if you’ll get your suit dirty or wrinkle your tie. It means that you’ve built something WORTH defending.

    We should spend less time teaching Zinn and Chomsky in universities, and spend more time on the Romans. The Imperial British had the measure of Augustus’ Rome. They would not wait until an enemy became strong enough to strike. They realized that you only put off the inevitable to the advantage of that inevitable. This, and they’d either crush ‘em or leave ‘em alone militarily, subverting ‘em instead.

    Either way, they thought Rome was worth defending. They only slipped under the bus of history when the lost sight of the worth of their own society.

    – B

  • 17 desertrat77 // Oct 28, 2004 at 3:58 pm   

    Bod,

    I think you sell Dems a little short. I have noticed one theme that is important in all of the posts that Repubs have mad on this site.

    “I DO believe that the Left has tended to give its loyalty too readily and too regularly to foreigners (the UN, France, the North Vietnamese, their Soviet comrades”

    that blanket quote is generalization that is the same as me saying that all Conservatives are” bible thumping, goose stepping, fascist, racist freaks,” a common mantra of the EXTREME left, but not one that I share, its just not true. Republican Presidents in the last 50, one has taken responsibility for their mistakes. Reagan’s “I dont recollect” over Iran-Contra, Nixon was the exception, W’s failure to admit that his reasons for going into Iraq were wrong, (no WMD’s, no Saddam-bin Laden connection). JFK took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs, LBJ admitted that escalation was the wrong policy, Clinton admitted that he lied under oath, in his book, but he admitted it. Republicans in the White House tend to not admit they were wrong, oneof the signs of maturity and manhood. I ask the question that maybe someone on this message board can answer. Why is it that someone who disagrees with the Republican platform and questions W is anti-American, or hates America? I love my country, enough to defend it with my life. Haji doesn’t if you are Dem or Repub, to him you are an invader, and deserve death. Dem’s bleed and die for this country same as Repubs. The political Right in this nation thinks that they are the only ones who are right and anyone who has a different opinion is un-American. Wrong answer. Fanatics of ALL types disgust me, whehter its the Jerry Falwell’s, Pat Robertson’s, or the ELF’s, PETA’s.

    The hypocracy of the Right-wing media knows no bounds. Rush Limbaugh is a junkie, Dr Laura is a nude-photo-posing, cheating on her husband, yet she has the balls to comment on others morality. Doesn’t your bible say,”he who hath committed no sins, cast the first stone?” or something to that effect. Doc Yegley, you to my knowledge, have never espoused a hatred of the left, I disagree with your views, and the demonization of Democrats, and vice versa has caused this nation to fracture. I don’t have the answer, if I did I’d patent it and get rich. However I don’t believe that the Right has the right (odd phrasing?) to point fingers and call us anti-US.

    I read the same article you did about Algeria, great read, and alot of good points. Oh yeah, lets not forget Mr. Tom DeLay, whose 2 cronies were just indicted for overcharging lobbying costs(of Indians no less Doc) Mr. DeLay is probably going to be indicted within the next month, from what I have read, another example of the upstanding Right. So for the Right and Conservatives to claim the moral high ground, is ludicrous. George W Bush believes that he was handpicked by God to run America. How can man know what the Almighty wants?

  • 18 David Yeagley // Oct 28, 2004 at 4:06 pm   

    Being civilized “means that you’ve built something WORTH defending.” Bodvar.

    Now that’s a beauty.

    And fighting alone, in an of itself doesn’t mean you’re civilized either. Thus, the confusion which is taken political advantage of by the Liberals.

    The Liberals want to be righteous, here and now, in this world, in earthly terms. It means bowing to other men, protrating anything and everytning, in the name of “peace.” It is self-righteousness, morally speaking.

    As our own Ben once wrote, “Do you want peace, or do you want freedom?”

    I’ll take freedom.

  • 19 Bodvar // Oct 28, 2004 at 7:22 pm   

    Rat,

    I couldn’t agree more.

    Hold the Right up to the standards they proclaim. By all means. Then, as you’re doing that, hold the Left up to the standards which THEY claim:

    * They claim to support liberty, but ROUTINELY quash any speech which counters their orthodoxy whenever they’ve the least power to do so.

    * They claim to oppose censorship, but do not hesitate, as I just said, to try every means in the book to suppress opposing views, e.g., Mike Moore (a human virus) can be feted for “Faren-Fantasy 911″, but Sinclair is inundated with threats of lawsuits for daring to air the other side of the story.

    * They claim to support racial equality, but the Democratic Party is a plantation, where blacks are only consulted every four years (reg’lar as clockwork). Don’t believe me? Ask Jesse Jackson and, now, “P. Diddy”, who just accused both parties of ignoring the “inner city”.

    * They claim to support the little guy, but in the end this translates into support Big Labor, which has a hundred years plus of putting people OUT of work, limiting opportunity, and terrorizing the workplace. Most of the McAuliffe’s, Kerry’s, Kennedy’s and now Clinton’s usually only ever see the “the little guy” when he comes to pick up his wife, who’s among the upstairs maids at one of their chateaus. When was the last time, do you expect, that Al Gore ate a sandwich made with “gubmint cheese”?

    * They claim to support women’s rights, especially in the workplace, which usually amounts to advancing the careers of a few shrill feminists while both completely ignoring and then advancing the cause of one of the most spectacular workplace predators in recent history: Billy Jeff Clinton! (Then, they have the audacity to say that they support him because he does what they want…most of the time.)

    The irritating thing today is that folks on the Left trip over eachother in order to invent new sins for Mr. Bush to commit.

    He went AWOL in the National Guard…OOPS, those documents were fake.

    He allowed Saddam or some other villain to steal explosives and ammunition in Iraq…OOPS, the story (probably leaked by the UN’s IAEC, has a REALLY rigid sense of its own importance and which has a stiffy for Mr. Bush) doesn’t check out.

    He sank the Titanic, produced the first strain of AIDS in that evil lair he had in his garage in Midland-Odessa, and gives out Hallowe’en candy with sewing pins in it.

    Even you, Rat, have chimed in with “George W Bush believes that he was handpicked by God to run America. How can man know what the Almighty wants?”

    When did he say that? Was he serious, or could he have been joking and we have “selective irony detection”? If he claimed to have a red phone to the Almighty, I’d be the first to demand that he be checked into the motel with the rubber wallpaper.

    Then, to top it off, the Left trips over itself TO BELIEVE KERRY WHOLE CLOTH. If he says it, it’s true. If it’s said about him in his literature, it’s true. If he says he’s gonna do it, not only is he taken at his word — how long has it been fashionable to believe what politicians say? — but he’s given immediate credit for actually being able to DO it…even if all he says is that he’s vaguely “got a plan”.

    Does anyone question why he’s got four — count ‘em, FOUR — discharge dates from the Navy. Does anyone in Big Media want to trace this irregularity — which places him in Paris, treating with officials from Hanoi while STILL A SERVING OFFICER IN THE NAVAL RESERVE — with the same gusto that was shown in pursuing the 60 Minutes/desertion story?

    Here’s a guy who built a career around, A) marrying wealthy women, B) four months active service in Vietnam, C) a couple of medals which now seem to’ve been awarded using manufactured circumstances, “working the system” as it were, and D) about two years high-profile war protesting.

    Where are the questions? Where’s the DD214 to put this matter to bed?

    Nope…he’s the answers to every Leftist’s prayers!

    * He’ll stop global warming.

    * He’ll re-balance the budget (like social-program junkies on the Left even care).

    * He’ll allow gay marriage…after blacks have voted and are again irrelevant, of course.

    * He’ll establish social justice…whatever that is.

    * Of interest to Indians, he’ll be as big a friend to the folks on the Rez as Billy Clinton was…except that, in many instances, Indian money for election campaigns (or legal representation) came in, but results are still being awaited.

    * He’d even’ve made old Chris Reeve walk again — by laying on of hands, no doubt — if the poor man’d've been able to hold out a few more months.

    Such uncritical conduct doesn’t bode well for a party. It’s less a political party than a church, in that case.

    Oh, yes…a church. You see, a couple of years ago, a wag on the Right posited that Leftism (socialism, “liberalism”, what have you) is a religion…without a god. It has an orthodoxy, and therefore has heretics, which’re often pursued with a vengence. It gives rise to emotional, almost evangelical, support, with almost blind trust in the clergy of the faith — the major Big News pundits, any of several celebrities, and a few scruffy foreign ne’er-do-wells.

    Mr. Bush, on the other hand, frequently gets his head handed to him as a “traitor” to the Right. That’s why there’s a Constitution Party, and why there’s still a Pat Buchanan.

    So, there’s plenty of blame to go ’round. The problem is, what’re we gonna do about it?

    – B

  • 20 desertrat77 // Oct 28, 2004 at 9:42 pm   

    Hey Doc,
    Ask the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki if they think that Truman prostrated himself before them, or Hitler for that matter. You can also ask the Cubans and Soviets (if they existed) if Kennedy was a surrender monkey as well, ’nuff said.

    now for Bod:
    “They claim to support liberty, but ROUTINELY quash any speech which counters their orthodoxy whenever they’ve the least power to do so.”

    I wish that this weren’t true, but Repubs do the same, offsetting penalties, no moving of the ball

    “They claim to oppose censorship, but do not hesitate, as I just said, to try every means in the book to suppress opposing views, e.g., Mike Moore (a human virus) can be feted for “Faren-Fantasy 911″, but Sinclair is inundated with threats of lawsuits for daring to air the other side of the story.”

    *I don’t see the FCC going after Rush Limbaugh or Savage, or Drudge like they are H. Stern. Over 50% of the FCC’s fines int the last 5 years have been against Stern, so I think we know which party is the one that is into censoring speech. Also did you not notice the smear campaign launched against Richard Clark when his book came out, again offsetting penalties.

    “Big Labor, which has a hundred years plus of putting people OUT of work, limiting opportunity, and terrorizing the workplace. ”

    Do you honestly believe that Big Companies would have treated people fairly had they not unionized? Because their child labor practices at the turn of the century and since then has been exemplery, one evil necessary to keep another one at bay, sorry to say, I am a capitalist as much as any free marketer, but I am also realist enough to know that it is human nature to exploit people for personal gain. (the large corporations that use illegal immigration, aslo support the Repub’s, who then dont do anything about the situtaion to remedy it, it costs my state CA, to the tune of 5 billion a year, not reimbursed by the Feds.)

    *He’ll stop global warming. -does it really exist, we dont know, I agree with you.

    * He’ll re-balance the budget (like social-program junkies on the Left even care).-I already made this point in an earlier post, Clinton was the ONLY Pres in the last 24 years to balance the budget AND pay down the debt AND have a surplus. Like W’s faith based inititives aren’t the same as gov’t handouts.

    * He’ll allow gay marriage(again who cares, there are way bigger issues that this country faces, kind of like the whole”under God” argument)…after blacks have voted and are again irrelevant, of course.-can’t answer, I am not black.

    * He’ll establish social justice…whatever that is. -Well, as soon as you figure this vague crap out, let me know.

    In closing, I dont disagree with alot of what you say. But to answer to the character of the President and Party that you revere so much, I leave you with 2 stories.

    1. During the 2000 primaries, Bush in, SC, when it was looking like McCain was going to win, Sen Mac and his wife had adopted a Bangladeshi child, who obviously is of dark complexion. Bush’s people were doing something called “push polling”, they were calling Repub voters and asking them in racially sensative SC, that would they vote for McCain if they knew he had had a black child out of wedlock? Obviouslly Bush won, kind of dirty don’t you think?

    2. Georgia, 2002 Senate election, Saxby Chambliss, a Republican had the balls to attack a TRIPLE amputee due to wounds suffered IN COMBAT(something that the Chickenhawks running the White House, withthe exception of Colin Powell, now wouldn’t know anything about, need I mention Ol’ Heart Attack Cheney’s FIVE deferments out of VN), Max Cleland’s patriotism because he voted against the 87 billion. they showed ads equating Mr Cleland with Osama. I have never seen Dems do anything that dirty. I await your response.

  • 21 Sioux // Oct 29, 2004 at 9:04 am   

    Hey, Desertrat77 – Know this from ex-Senator Cleland’s own lips – his devastating wounds were not suffered in combat. They occurred by him doing something very stupid on the way to go drinking with the boys. He said himself that he didn’t deserve the medals he got for this incident, but the fact that he was there in Vietnam fighting at all goes to his credit. That he became the ultra liberal shill of Daschle and Kennedy is why the Georgia voters threw him out.

  • 22 Bodvar // Oct 29, 2004 at 10:30 am   

    Rat,

    As Sioux pointed out, your understanding of the Chambliss thing was well-intentioned, but inaccuate. He was a veteran. So am I. He suffered horrific disfigurement. I, praise God, did not. Should you run against and beat me? Sure. Does his condition put him on some different plain of discussion…even IF those had been wounds and not injuries? Just as surely, NO.

    You might want to check the “conventional wisdom” factor on a few other things you used in reply.

    For instance, ask what factor labor costs had in our current domestic output of steel. It would be illuminating.

    Oh, and neither I nor many of the other Republican supporters this election who post here are tied to the party by any special loyalty. It isn’t a love affair. It is simply a choice, now, a realistic choice between the Democrats and the Republicans…and one chooses the closet to your point of view, holds ones nose and votes.

    – B

  • 23 kaktuskid // Oct 29, 2004 at 10:45 am   

    * He’ll re-balance the budget (like social-program junkies on the Left even care).-I already made this point in an earlier post, Clinton was the ONLY Pres in the last 24 years to balance the budget AND pay down the debt AND have a surplus. Like W’s faith based inititives aren’t the same as gov’t handouts.

    Who ran the congress for most of Clintoon’s reign?
    Why did he veto welfare reform several times then finally sign it when he was running in 1996?
    Of course Bubba balanced the budget while cutting defense. By the way, do the people who died at the US embassy in Kenya(an embassy is US soil),WTC bombing I, the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers under Clintoon’s watch count?

  • 24 Bodvar // Oct 29, 2004 at 10:59 am   

    Rat,

    This reply (you replying to me here) calls for special attention:

    “* He’ll allow gay marriage(again who cares, there are way bigger issues that this country faces, kind of like the whole”under God” argument)…after blacks have voted and are again irrelevant, of course.-can’t answer, I am not black.”

    This points to a troubling trend: not feeling qualified or maybe just not wanting to remark on a subject because race is involved (or “sexual orientation” or whatever), and recusing onesself because you’re not of that race (or “orientation” or whatever).

    Blacks are our neighbors. If the “party of Clinton” — you know him, that Bill Clinton guy, “the first black president” — which has counted on and received over 90% of the black vote in the past while treating blacks dismissively, that’s very troubling. It’s treating our neighbors shabbily. It also begs the question of how would they then treat us?

    I’m saying that the Democrats can’t be trusted, and that Republican record is marginally better, and marginally will have to do.

    But, to stand back from comment when either an issue doesn’t effect you directly or when you feel that you CAN’T understand it because you aren’t, as in this case, black excuses nothing. I’m not a woman, but feel fully qualified to have an opinion on “women’s issues”. I’m not Hispanic or foreign born, but have very definite views on our southern border and immigration.

    …and, seeing our black neighbors being taken for a ride really cheeses me off, quite frankly, especially when their being had strengthens a party which seems to feel NO call of duty toward me or my family. Silence here is a surrender of ones responsiblities as a citizen.

    – B

  • 25 Chienne // Nov 30, 2004 at 6:13 pm   

    Of course the Arabs are an inferior race! Duh! They were always like that, even in the Crusades! Oh, wait. It was Turks during the Crusades… Oh, well. They’re all the same. Muslim bastards. Oh, wait. The country with the highest Muslim population is Indonesnia. Crud. This makes no sense. Well, &^%$ the facts! There is no room for logic anymore! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You must log in to post a comment.