Questioning Patriotism
Dean
It's been interesting to see various bbloggers talking about the issue of honesty to the historical record.
I must say this is refreshing. For the longest time I was one of the few people in the blogosphere willing to openly call some people unpatriotic. I heard the "don't question my patriotism" line at least hundreds of times more often than I ever saw anyone question someone's patriotism, but I admit to doing it--and unapologetically so. I've also explained, hundreds of times, what constitutes unpatriotic dissent from patriotic dissent.
Culled from comments I've made in the past, here's a handy list you might find useful:
You might be unpatriotic if:
#1) You think publishing slanderous allegations about American troops based on nothing but hearsay is what constitutes "good journalism."
#2) You believe that news stories which show gloom and doom and pessimism and failure for our troops at war constitutes nothing but good reporting--but that stories of heroism, major accomplishment, building friendships with people in foreign lands, and victory are "touting the Administration line."
3) You refer to the "the President's war" as opposed to "our war."
#4) You think the average American voter is a stupid, unsophisticated idiot who just doesn't know what's good for him.
#5) You think Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is anything other than vile fascist hate-propaganda.
#6) You find nothing offensive at all about burning an American flag.
#7) When America has an enemy that slaughters our people, your first and foremost reaction is "we must have really offended them--we should figure out why so they won't be mad at us anymore."
#8) You think American foreign policy is the primary explanation for world poverty, suffering, injustice, and terrorism. (We may offend people sometimes, and do wrong sometimes--we aren't perfect after all--but the primary explanation for these things?)
#9) You call those prosecuting the war "liars" when you simply disagree with them.
#10) You believe that any of the sentiments expressed here are "conservative," "right-wing" or "Republican."
Related Posts (on one page):
In a republic such as this the highest ideal should be to be a citizen.
Maybe thats why they're all confused. And they do need to take into account Vodkapundit's warnings from last week.
I really wish there was a better way than a war to be honest. However, I haven't thought of anything better and neither has anyone else. So until someone does, war it is. We tried talking and having tea parties with people over there since 1978. Nothing came of it so what else is left?
Discourse, even discourse with which I profoundly disagree, doesn't bother me at all. Written material, even written material with which I profoundly disagree, doesn't bother me much, either.
Flat out lies bother me regardless of who's doing it.
But—and I realize this is an unpopular position—I don't believe that conduct is speech. Period. Nine theoreticians in the Supreme Court notwithstanding. And I think that protest (meaning marches, demonstrations, and the like) is only legitimate under very specific and rare circumstances. Otherwise it's just a low level of insurrection.
In a liberal representative democracy there is no freedom to get your own way. Convince, cajole, persuade, lobby, organize, elect. But if you fail to get your way by doing these things raising hell until you do get your own way is just tyranny.
They ruled it could not be held illegal, which I agree was appropriate and correct. They did not say it wasn't unpatriotic.
mikeca,
Well, I think the main criticism in this regard was the fact Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq on the eve of his impeachment. If Bush had ordered a major military operation to grab headlines on the same day he was indicted I'm sure no one would accept that as mere coincidence.
Seeing how anti-military Clinton was and how he quickly blamed 9/11 on virtually anyone but the attackers I see that missile attack as nothing more than an attempt to make himself look more macho to the American public.
Tu Quoque Fallacy
Red Herring
They were pretty ineffective. Whether they embolden al Qaeda I think is very debatable.
What is clear is that the criticism of the first Clinton attack on al Qaeda made Clinton reluctant to escalate the attacks, particularly after the Cole. That criticism was basically that al Qaeda was just a minor nuisance, not a serious threat to US security, and Clinton was just trying to direct attention away from his political trouble.
IMHO, you are absolutely wrong. The criticism of the Clinton attack on al Qaeda was unpatriotic and seriously endangered the US national security. It directly led to 9/11. The people who made those criticisms recklessly endangered US national security for purely partisan political advantage.
On the other hand, I believe that the decision to invade Iraq was one of the biggest strategic errors in US history. It has recklessly and needlessly endangered US national security while strengthening our enemies.
It is the patriotic duty of the citizens of the US to demand an explanation and accounting from our government.
If he had kept the attacks up, rather than stopping, I certainly would have cheered him on. It was the fact that he only ordered the two attacks--which were demonstrably ineffective--and then stopped after (coincidentally, I'm sure) the scandal event of the moment (Monica's testimony in August, and the impeachment vote in December the same year) had passed that raised a lot of suspicions.
Repetition does make not lies and propaganda true. In fact it is a standard propaganda technique.
#2) I believe news stories should give an accurate picture. I tend to doubt all news stories from Iraq give a very accurate picture, because it is too dangerous for western journalists to move freely around the country and talk to people.
#3) I was opposed to the Iraq war, before the invasion. Now that we have invaded, this is our war, whether we like it or not.
#4) I think on average the American voters get things right. As Lincoln said “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
#5) Fahrenheit 9/11 is clearly propaganda. I’m not sure I would call it “fascist” propaganda.
#6) Burning a flag is an insult. Our founding fathers gave us the constitutional right to insult each other. This is what allows talk radio and cable TV news scream shows to exist.
#7) My first reaction to 9/11 was that we needed to find out who did this, and get all of them. Unfortunately, the head man is still out there, and we don’t seem to be putting much effort into finding him.
#8) Hardly the “primary explanation”.
#9) Both sides throw “liar” around a lot, not just the critics of the war. There certainly were a lot of things said before the war which turned out not to be true.
#10) I have no idea anymore what people who call themselves things like "conservative," "right-wing" or "Republican" stand for. The current administration certainly has not been what I think of as "conservative" or "Republican".
#1) Most obvious way: Be a long-haired, dirty, stinking, dope-addicted beatnik screaming obscenities in noisy mob demonstrations, burning America's Flag while waving the flag of your country's enemies.
More subtle ways:
#2) Accumulate a long record of Communist-front affiliations and activities and then scream "McCarthyism!" if anyone dares to mention that fact.
#3) Actively support and participate in so-called "Christian" organizations (e.g., Federal Council of Churches, National Council of Churches, World Council of Churches) which preach not the Body and Blood of the Christ (John 6:47-58) but instead collectivism, socialism, Communism, a One-World government and a One-World apostate church.
#4) Actively support and participate in other organizations (e.g., the Council on Foreign Relations) which work to promote the surrender of American sovereignty to a One-World government.
#5) Serve on the board of a foundation (e.g., the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) which subsidizes One-World, socialist, collectivist, and Communist or Communist-front organizations.
#6) Actively support and participate in an organization (e.g., the Institute of Pacific Relations) which has as its goal the surrender of the most populated nation in the world, which is also the seat of a great and ancient civilization, to the Communists, resulting in the murder of tens of millions of human beings.
#7) Work to abolish Congressional committees investigating Communist, Nazi, and other subversive activity.
#8) Smear a Senator who is working to expose Communist infiltration in the foreign-policy-making departments of the executive branch. Carry out a propaganda campaign to make that Senator's name into a "dirty" word so that no one else will dare to expose Communist perfidy.
#9) After being a famous General in the great War against Hitler, deliver millions of refugees into the hands of the Stalin to be murdered or sent to slave-labor camps in Siberia (Operation Keelhaul). Then run for President as a "Modern" Republican. (Never, of course, mention Operation Keelhaul during your campaign.)
#10) After having done #3, #4, #5, #6, serve under the aforementioned President as Secretary of State. Get the media to characterize you as a "conservative Republican anti-Communist". Then, quietly, do everything you can to sell out China, Taiwan (Free China), Korea, Viet Nam, Lebanon, Cuba, Suez, Hungary, to the Communists. Get the media to continue calling you a "conservative Republican anti-Communist" while you are doing this.
#11) Shortly after Soviet First Deputy Premier Anastas I. Mikoyan crushes the rebellion against Communism in Hungary through murder, rape, and sending sixteen-year-old-girls in boxcars to slave-labor camps in Siberia -- throw a big party for him at the State Department. Treat him like royalty. Get the media to continue calling you a "conservative Republican anti-Communist" while you are doing this.
#12) Invent "conspiracy theories" about Zionists, Jews, Halliburton, U.F.O.'s, your tooth fillings, etc..
Conspiracy: "a planning and acting together secretly, especially for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason"
-Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (college edition) (New York, World Publishing Company, 1956)
Conspiracy: "an agreement, manifesting itself in words or deeds, by which two or more persons confederate to do an unlawful act"
-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield Massachusetts, G &C Merriam Co., 1951)
#13) Using #12, ridicule the very idea of conspiracy, i.e., that men act intentionally and in concert to accomplish evil ends. Spread the idea that everything happens by accident. Spread the idea that riots, revolutions, military defeats, acts of terrorism, "wars of national liberation", etc., are accidental, isolated, spontaneous incidents, and/or that the "root cause" of these is poverty, ignorance, disease, and inequality. Spread the Big Lie that Communism is a spontaneous uprising of the downtrodden masses, rather than a global Conspiracy created, financed, and controlled by the most affluent of "intellectuals", a Conspiracy whose goal is to destroy America and the West and to bring about a One-World Socialist Social Change -- in other words, to enslave the world, including you and me.
-John Foster Dulles (The Vital Letters of Russell, Krushchev, Dulles, London, Macgibbon &Lee, 1958)
"Well, I don't like to make charges about the motives of other people. But there is a legal doctrine which says that 'a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts.' I think that perhaps this is a situation where the legal dictum is applicable."
-John Foster Dulles (U.S. News &World Report, Vol. 41, No. 10, September 7, 1956, p. 110)
"The consequences of Communist conquest are now so demonstrably evil that to abet the conquest is a supreme crime."
-John Foster Dulles (Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 24, No. 618, May 7, 1951, p. 728)
What I would say, however, is that while such allegations may have been scurrilous, the scale of the Clinton operations were infinitely smaller, and they were not part an officially declared war with troops on the ground. At the time, I gave those accusations against Clinton a small amount of grudging acknowledgement, but I didn't like them. Yet if we had been under a declared war (like we are now) with boots on the ground, I'd have wanted to find the people who were saying those things and punch them repeatedly in the face.
Seriously. To a bloody f*cking pulp.
And by the way, I absolutely hate the right-wingers who run around saying 9/11 was Clinton's fault. I hate them only slightly less than Michael Moore. The Clinton administration treated Al Qaeda like a serious law-enforcement issue, but almost no one in this country really believed we'd see an attack like 9/11. (A few did. A very few. But hindsight is 20/20 and it's incredibly arrogant, not to mention obnoxious, to hold them up in hindsight.)
To the claim that we don't seem to be looking all that hard for Bin Laden: this is exactly the same B.S. claim that was made about the Clinton administration not looking for Bin Laden. It's a false allegation. We have huge resources all over the planet looking for Bin Laden, now more than ever, and we keep nabbing his lieutenants. The fact that it doesn't "seem like" we're looking for him just says more about you than reality.
As for this view:
I believe that the decision to invade Iraq was one of the biggest strategic errors in US history. It has recklessly and needlessly endangered US national security while strengthening our enemies.
I don't know where I come down on such a statement. Intellectually, it's defensible. Morally it's completely bankrupt, and on a logical level it strikes me as terribly myopic. But I admit, logically it can be defended.
But ultimately, unless you are rooting for failure, it's simply irrelevant. Indeed, the term "whiny defeatist" would be the kindest thing I could think to say about it.
It comes to this: the people of the United States, in Congress Assembled, voted by overwhelming majorities to go over there. The Congress--not the President, the Congress--bears ultimate responsibility. Including for any intelligence shortcomings or failures that they're bleating about now.
If someone thinks we're conducting the war improperly, the way to address that is to start making specific suggestions for change, rather than re-arguing a debate that was settled in 2002 when Congress voted.
So stop saying why you think we shouldn't be there. WE ARE THERE. Do you have any suggestions for what we should be doing different, or do you just want to sit around like a wanna-be Cassandra and a whiny crybaby loser talking about how we're doomed and have failed already?
-William H. McIlhany, The ACLU on Trial (Arlington House, New Rochelle, New York, 1976)
Precisely! This is why, while I was against the war in the beginning, that I cannot say much about it now. Believe me I analyze the history surrounding this to the best of my ability and I just can't see another way. I think if you have something to say that is against the war then you may as well offer an alternative solution. I haven't seen a reasonable alternative solution as of yet. I can rack up dozens of things to say about how we should have approached this and what we could have done to get better world support and etc.. However, since this is now and not the past, these statements wouldn't apply towards a solution for now. That wouldn't be very helpful would it?
Not all constitutionally protected speech is inoffensive, nor is all constitutionally protected speech speech which should be encouraged.
#5 is debatable. A person could believe that Michael Moore's crap isn't meant to convince anybody (which might disqualify it as "propaganda"), so long as it makes money and makes him a celebrity.
#8 could be mere foolishness and ignorance
I was referring to one John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State under President Eisenhower, a man who shaped our foreign policy more than has any Secretary of State since. He may well have been the most consummate liar (or actor if you wish) in history. His role was always to say all the things that the American people instinctively recognized as right, and then do the opposite. It was he who, at the time of my birth, planned and started the 20-year Viet Nam No-Win War by betraying our French allies, handing half of Viet Nam to Communist Ho Chi Minh, then overthrowing the revered Emperor Bao Dai and replacing him with another corrupt Communist named Nho Dinh Diem (who was later assassinated by the Establishment after he outlived his usefulness to them).
The lesson from this history is: Never enter a War unless you intend to win. The question, therefore, as to this present War -- and, again, I mean not merely this War in Iraq but the total War Against the Terror Masters, this total War To Save Western Civilization -- is this: Do our leaders intend to win? Or are there yet traitors within our own government who are planning to make us lose?
"Ye shall know them by their fruits."
-Matthew 7:16
Let's see... most of State, some of the older bureaucrats and cynics in DoD (who see McNamara EVERYWHERE), apparently significant portions of the CIA... oh, and loud minorities in the Senate at least ACT like they're part of that faction (due to the fruits of their speechifying).