Unpatriotic?

One has to buy his assumptions in order to swallow the rest of the argument, then it's broad brush stroke to paint anyone else trying to get elected as unpatriotic.

There are so many lunatic right wing assumptions in his writing, it would take several pages to rebut every one of them. I'll go with the second or third one - "But then I watch the steady campaign of the national news media to try to win this for the Democrats..."

Then he makes the one story in the media's comparison of Iraq to Vietnam as representative of all the coverage and pretends that proves his case.

Excuse me, but most of the "Mission Accomplished" coverage was pretty fawning, as was most of the initial Wag the Turkey coverage in the American media.

The only blatantly negatively slanted coverage I see comes from overseas. If one considers just reporting of deaths to be negative, he's full of it. The Army is already suppressing American injury reports, it appears we are supposed to swallow this war hook, line and sinker sans any coverage at all in order to be *patriotic* in Card's view.

 

Originally posted by Woofer

One has to buy his assumptions in order to swallow the rest of the argument, then it's broad brush stroke to paint anyone else trying to get elected as unpatriotic.

<b>It's not broad; it's very specific.</b>

There are so many lunatic right wing assumptions in his writing, it would take several pages to rebut every one of them. I'll go with the second or third one - "But then I watch the steady campaign of the national news media to try to win this for the Democrats..."

<b>Apparently, we have a lot of lunatics in this nation...</b>

Then he makes the one story in the media's comparison of Iraq to Vietnam as representative of all the coverage and pretends that proves his case.

<b>How did he pretend it proved his case? It illustrated his argument, didn't it?</b>

Excuse me, but most of the "Mission Accomplished" coverage was pretty fawning, as was most of the initial Wag the Turkey coverage in the American media.

<b>I'm not sure exactly what you are referencing here... Help me.</b>

The only blatantly negatively slanted coverage I see comes from overseas. If one considers just reporting of deaths to be negative, he's full of it. The Army is already suppressing American injury reports, it appears we are supposed to swallow this war hook, line and sinker sans any coverage at all in order to be *patriotic* in Card's view.

<b>Seems to me it has more to do with an overall winning strategy due to the nature and method of the enemy. I daresay that this war has had more complete coverage than any previous war.</b>

 

I'm not into calling anyone unpatriotic. I could make the argument that those that really love this country and what it stands for are the ones opposed to the war. The people including the President and his staff, who support the war are trampling down the name of our great nation. They have dishonored the country that I love. They have lied in order to justify STARTING a war.

America should stand for war only as last resort. America should honesty in facing the issues, especially on an issue as serious as war. America should stand for people being able to voice different opinions and not be labeled unpatriotic even when it comes to issues such as war. America should spread democracy through good deeds, and the merits of a superior system, not the barrel of a gun.

Because I'm a patriot and love my country, I hate this war. (If I was attack minded like some of those that support the war I would add) Anyone who supports this war obviously isn't a fan of what America stands for. Though I'm a Republican I can't vote for the president because he's trashing our my country.

Do the attacks make sense? No. People can see things different ways, and it doesn't make either unpatriotic.

 

So let me get this straight...

If you question the run-up to the war in Iraq, focusing on what the President told the world were the reasons for invading Iraq compared to the rationale given after the actual invasion, you are unpatriotic...

...yet...


...If you put an American flag sticker on the rear window of your SUV, or if you put a sign in your yard, printed by the Harris Country Republican Party, that reads "We Support President Bush and Our Troops, then you are a patriot.

Give me a freaking break.

Our founding fathers are no doubt doing somersaults in their graves. Look what this country has been reduced to...paying lip-service to the Constitution while simultaneously using it as toilet paper. Pathetic.

 

Sorry but I can' t let you all persist with this WMD-only lie that you tell. There were always multiple reasons given and ample justification for each one.

I'm not sure that Card would even hold his assertion regarding the "run-up" to the war. He seems only to be addressing the activities of politicians during the war.

So America should stand for war "only as a last resort." Watching the twin towers crumbled in flame wasn't enough for you? Saddam was part of the problem no matter how you slice it. He had to go.

 

I was in New York where I lived when the towers collapsed. Sadly I'm very much aware of what changed on that day, and the seriousness of the issue. I supported the U.S. in Afghanistan, as did most of the world, who still station a lot of the troops there. Yes striking at the U.S. by attacking the twin towers was justification for war. I think we were left no choice but to retaliate after that happened. That's why I was all in favor of going after those that did it. Sadam was not part of that problem and there has been no evidence produced to the contrary. The Bush administration less than a month after it happened presented a list of all the country's where Al-Qaeda was active, they highlighted those countries on a map. Guess which country wasn't on the list or highlighted on the map? If you guessed Iraq, you are correct. This is information from the Bush whitehouse.

Because Japan attacked on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. response wasn't to invade Thailand. Why? Because Thailand didn't have a thing to do with that attack, just like Iraq didn't play a role in the twin towers.

It's been presented time and time again that Bush made the statement that if Saddam disarmed his WMD's there would be no war. If doing that would prevent war, that must be the cause for war. Bush NEVER said that if Saddam didn't treat his people better there would be no war. There was only ONE way Bush ever named for Saddam to avoid war and that was to disarm the WMD.

Now if you want to pretend like the rest of us that heard that and follow the logic of it are making stuff up that's fine. Bush did mention other bad things that Saddam did, and even tried to tie Saddam to 9/11 or use 9/11 as justification for going into Iraq. But Bush all along used WMD's as the one way to either go to war or not go to war.

 

Too bad for Saddam that he played coy with the WMD issue. How would you rank his level of cooperation? I'd say about 37%? It cost him his regime. What an egomaniacal fool.

Perhaps the decimation of Saddam's regime was just part of an overall strategy. We also whipped up on Germans and Italians in WWII... and they had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor.

In the 40's we could afford to wait until we heard the rumbling of Panzer tanks or the engines of the Luftwaffe. Now just beyond the turn of the 21st century where some are asserting a new kind of terroristic war with different kinds of weapons that can get out of hand very quickly.

These are complex times and you seem to be stuck on simplistic arguments and simplistic solutions that fall short of adequacy in my opinion. But then I have four children to think about.

 

Will you please describe how we will know this "war" is over? Please be specific. This is a serious question. Are you really saying that we shouldn't question the foreign policy of an administration while the "war on terrror" is ongoing?

 

It ain't over till it's over.

 

Well Germany, unlike Iraq, was at war with our allies, they were also in an alliance with the Japanese and Italians. I do agree that terrorism is a different kind of war, and we need to fight it differently. But I still think part of fighting the war on terrorism is fighting against those that are terrorists and present an actual threat to you. I don't think an effective way of fighting the war on terrorism is to divert resources that go towards fighting the terrorists to invading another nation unrelated to that war. Especially when doing so alienates allies that are currently helping you fight terrorism. This is especially true of the allies that are supplying troops in a country where the leader of the terrorist group who attacked our nation is reported to be.

I also don't think any of thos views make me less patriotic than those that stand by the deception that lead us into this war which detracts from our war on terror.

 

This is for you, giddyup. I hope your laundry went well. **** Card. Let's concentrate on something important.

 

Really? I saw the number at just over 50% approve of Bush's handling of Iraq. That doesn't mean that they see this as part of the war on terror. I haven't seen a poll recently on who believes ousting Saddam was an effective part of the war on terror. The only thing close to that was the poll were people mistakenly believed some of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq.

So if the Dean Wing of the democratic party is almost 50% of the pople in the country then I think the election is over and Dean would win in a landslide.

Of course we will no truer numbers on these issues should an anti-war candidate be nominated and have decent time to make the points that could be made.

 

basso,

Nice post overall. If one can extract the point of democratic strategy from card's article, then that's an interesting topic. Two cavils for your post though.

1) You say that a strategy can be "morally wrong," and in this case you mean taking a stance against pre-emptive wars. I hope you will see that many people, including many religious officials of many faiths, believe it was absolutely morally wrong to launch a pre-emptive war. I work at a religious (Jesuit) institution, and the "moral" view of the war is overwhelmingly one-sided here, in opposition. Just for what it's worth, I wanted to add that perspective.

2) I see your point about the new nature of war or what not, but this does not really address my concern. If we are fighting an abstract noun that stems from lunatics and from people who hate the US, would you agree that this "war" will never truly end? We may get the strong upper hand, but there will always be terrorists, right? So in that picture, would you and Card tell us that it is morally wrong *forever after* to criticize anything the president claims is related to "the war on terror?" I hope I'm making this concern clear.

 

Wow, 11 posts in four hours is occasional and not having time to read one of the posts in between your 11? You are pretty talented.

Bob,

Your "war" post reminds me...should we call up Joe Haldeman to tell him Card is treading dangerously close to his ground?

 

David Hume:

The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny; flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary government; and the glory of God to the temporal interest of the clergy.

This will probably tick some folks off, especially with the analogies, but bear with me and forgive me...

It seems to me that patriotism, over the last few decades, has been increasingly defined in way consistent with mainstream evangelical Christianity... "Do you know Jesus Christ?" "Do you know America?"

If I can be permitted to delve into a purely rimrockerian distinction between the extremes of belief and faith... to me, belief is unqestionable allegiance to an idea and dismissal of contradictory evidence. Faith is informed and tested by reason, challenged and ultimately enhanced by evidence and experience.

In defining patriotism, it comes down to the two cliches, "My country, right or wrong" and "Our country -- when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."

The first, I would define as a belief, the second, as a faith... faith that this is not just "My" country but "Our" country and we all have an obligation to work hard throughout our lifetimes to make it a better place, faith that the ideas presented to us by the Founding Fathers and tested by the Civil War and the horrors of the 20th Century are worth the sacrifice, faith that even though we can't agree on the definitions of "security" or "freedom" there is a middle ground, faith that through our actions, we can provide an inspiration to the rest of the world and to ourselves.

This is one of the reasons I'm in the occupation I'm in... I did well on the LSAT and could have easily been a lawyer, but I chose to pursue a course where I end up helping people, protecting national treasures, trying to establish a connection in people between themselves and the land, trying to make this a better place. (Of course, there are selfish reasons as well... I like the adrenalin rush of a cranking fire, I don't like being in a cube, in spite of regular Sunday meetings, I think of the woods and mountains and rivers as my church... and I need to worship a lot.)

Here's a quote from Rabbi Sherwin Wine:

There are two visions of America. One precedes our founding fathers and finds its roots in the harshness of our puritan past. It is very suspicious of freedom, uncomfortable with diversity, hostile to science, unfriendly to reason, contemptuous of personal autonomy. It sees America as a religious nation. It views patriotism as allegiance to God. It secretly adores coercion and conformity. Despite our constitution, despite the legacy of the Enlightenment, it appeals to millions of Americans and threatens our freedom.

The other vision finds its roots in the spirit of our founding revolution and in the leaders of this nation who embraced the age of reason. It loves freedom, encourages diversity, embraces science and affirms the dignity and rights of every individual. It sees America as a moral nation, neither completely religious nor completely secular. It defines patriotism as love of country and of the people who make it strong. It defends all citizens against unjust coercion and irrational conformity.

Obviously, I find the second vision much more appealing and representative of the qualities assigned to my idea of patriotism. As James Baldwin said, "I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually. "

The difference, I think, is similar to ignorance vs. courage... if pressed with a dangerous situation, one person acts because he doesn't understand the danger while the other person acts in spite of understanding the dangers, then the second is the only one that can be said to have courage. Likewise, the person that falls towards the "Right or Wrong" end of the spectrum-- the person that cannot see there is both good and bad and therefore does nothing to mitigate the bad-- is not a patriot, but a nationalist.

Sydney J. Harris said it well:

"Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is."

The absence of subtle analysis, the polarization of our discourse, and the increase in information coupled with the seeming decrease in wisdom only bodes ill for us. I know I'm a partisan, but there still has to be common ground. Why do we let someone like Andrew Card define our patriotism and drive wedges between us?

This is my view of the issue and I'm not going to impose it on any one. In fact, I think everyone should come up with a defintion of patriotism that makes sense for them... but think and act, don't just believe.

 

Hi rimbaud, could you do me a favor and have a look at the Saddam captured thread? Trying to understand the French...has been bugging me. Thanks!

 

FYI to everyone -- Haldeman, another sci-fi writer, won a Hugo award in the 1970's (I think?) for his book The Forever War, and I believe he recently won another Hugo in the late 1990's for The Forever Peace. Pretty funny, rimmy. I am going to apply a full-court zone press in the 2nd round of the popularity tournament.

 

Make that it aint over until I get re-elected for four more years.