The Uncomfortable Truth

I read an opinion in the Wall Street Journal the other day by Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton University, and the author of “From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East.” (Please click HERE to view the article.)
Mr. Lewis states that the Islamic radicals once saw the US as weak; that we would not respond to terror. He says that our reaction to 9/11 changed their way of thinking. He opines that now the Islamic radicals are reverting to their former belief partially because of “[T]he public discourse inside the US.”
Essentially, Dr. Lewis is saying that people like me who speak out against this war are helping the other side. He misses the larger picture though. If the things I say are hurting our efforts, then what the president does to undermine the troops must have an even larger effect.
The House Armed Services Committee is proposing to give our troops a 3 ½% pay raise. According to a story in the Army Times (please click HERE to view the article.), the Bush White House wants to give the troops only 3%, and “strongly opposes” the higher amount, calling it “unnecessary.”
Hmmm.
It is hard to determine what an “average” salary is in the armed forces. I figured the average soldier is an E-4 with 4 years or less of service. I could be wrong, but it makes sense you would have more privates and corporals than sergeants and lieutenants.
I went to Army.com and found that the above-mentioned soldier gets $1978.50 per month. A 3% raise is an extra $59.36 per month; adding that extra ½% would get that soldier another $9.89.
The White House apparently doesn’t think our troops are worth that extra $9.89. I guess maybe it’s too much money. After all, they’re just getting killed—they cannot make Bush even wealthier when he’s out of office. Besides, they volunteered!
NPR has been talking lately about the billions of dollars wasted in Iraq. The White House is not doing anything to stop that flow of cash, however.
If Dr. Lewis is right; if the Islamic radicals are looking to see how much backing our troops receive, what might they think of the president niggling over less than ten bucks a month?
Bush is supporting the rape of our treasury, but he does NOT support our troops.
The title of Dr. Lewis’ essay is “Was Osama right?”
Well, if Osama is thinking that Gee Dumbya Bush is a tool of the corporations—or is just a tool, period—he’s right.

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 06:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Last Wednesday, a great American, Cindy Sheehan, came to Chico.
Unless you are spending time under a rock, you know that Cindy’s son, Casey, was killed in Iraq. In what might be seen as an overreaction, she traveled to The President’s Texas ranch to ask him why her son had to die.
At no time did the president come out and give her an answer. In fact, President Bush seldom meets with the families of the fallen. Not getting her answer, Cindy camped out across the street, drawing thousands of protesters to join her; all of them looking for answers.
Since then, Cindy has traveled the country speaking out against the war in Iraq; strongly criticizing President Bush and his handling of the war as well as his reasons for going to war.
Why do I consider Ms. Sheehan to be a great American?
Because she dares to question!
She dares to speak out!
She dares to stand up to the professional liars—and their legions of brain-dead followers-- who have the gall to say she is dishonoring her son!
Cindy Sheehan was told—as we all were—that this war was about WMDs; and then toppling Saddam; and then restoring democracy; and then . . . . . . . . .
Apparently feeling lied to, Cindy asked a question. “Why did my son die?”
For this, she is pilloried. She is accused of giving aid and comfort to our enemies. The President has coined a new word, saying she is “emboldening” the enemy. Others have said she is un-American.
Why?
Because she doesn’t stay home like all the good volk, trusting Der Fuehr—I mean—The President to do the right thing?
Aren’t we, as Americans, supposed to question the actions of our government?
“Of course, but not in time of war!”
This isn’t a war!
The President never asked for, and Congress never gave proper, Constitutional authorization for this conflict. When would be a better time to ask questions than when the President is unilaterally sending troops to die?
Let’s talk about “emboldening” the enemy. (Sheesh, it’s hard to believe that man went to Yale.) Sending mixed signals to our troops emboldens the enemy—according to President Bush. What kind of signal does it send to the enemy that our soldiers don’t get the recuperative care they need when wounded? What kind of signal does it send when your top General has never seen combat? What kind of signal does it send when you establish free-fire and no-fire zones; when you are not willing to wage total war to achieve your goals?
Speaking of goals, what does it say to the enemy when we keep changing ours?
What does it say when we put our own soldiers on trial?
If anyone is emboldening the enemy, it’s President Bush.
The most amazing thing I saw at Children’s park last Wednesday was these two ladies, holding a sign which read, if you like freedom, thank a veteran. I wonder if the ladies holding the sign will ever realize just how much freedom they have lost since 9/11. If Casey Sheehan “died for freedom,” he died in vain—as have ALL of our veterans!
I think the most ignorant and hurtful thing said about Cindy is that she dishonors her son with her quest.
On the contrary, the best way to honor her son is to keep other's sons from dying without cause.
The person who dishonored her son is the man who sent him to die. When you ask someone to lay down their life in the service of this country you had damn well better be honest with them as to why.
Anything less is dishonorable.

Posted by Quentin Colgan at 06:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)