 |
|
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, I'm getting tired of hearing those such as Rush Limbaugh saying or implying that all of those who oppose the Bushniks and the neo-cons are lefties.
Few people who have read my stuff would call me a lefty, but I sure as hell don't support the Bushniks and the neo-cons on Iraq or on their open-borders-flood-America-with-the-Third World crap. And, my guess is that I'm not alone in this. A whole bunch of righties don't like phony baloney wars any more than they like our present open borders.
Limbaugh and other neo-cons are getting desperate as the election nears. They know that Bush and many elected Republicans have been messing up and that the bill may be coming due. You can hear it in their increased shrillness. They can read the polls and they know that many Republicans (and, yes, I'm a Republican) are fed up with the way some elected Republicans have screwed things up both internationally and right here in the U.S.
The fear of the neo-cons is that many Republicans won't vote this year. Limbaugh's approach to try to turn out the vote is to insult Republicans into voting. I don't think it'll work, but I realize he has few options since he doesn't want Bush to change his losing position on Iraq and he can't get him to change his losing position on illegal immigration. Still, if I were Limbaugh, I'd pick up the phone and ask President Bush to at least close the friggin' border with Mexico and start getting all these illegal aliens out of our country and to stop talking about legalizing all the illegal aliens who are here. It might get some Republicans to vote for Republicans instead of believing that it just doesn't matter who gets elected.
The other day on Limbaugh's radio program--that might as well be broadcast from the Oval Office--Limbaugh asked listeners to call in and tell him why they think Limbaugh is not with the "cut and run conservatives"--the term he's now using to attack those who he fears won't vote this year and who say that Bush and the neo-cons are on the wrong track in Iraq and about immigration, and who are disgusted with Bush and his pals largely as a result of these two issues.
Naturally, no callers got through his call screener to actually present any cogent arguments on the air.
Here's my quick answer to his question: Limbaugh, the reason you're not with those who understand a little about the reality of the world today is because you're acting like the propaganda minister for the administration instead of like a principled conservative.
And, speaking of this, Limbaugh often propagandizes by omission.
For example, these days you might hear Limbaugh attacking Democrats for this or that, but then he'll praise Democrat Joe Lieberman as being a good Democrat because Lieberman supports Bush's war in Iraq. What Limbaugh fails to tell listeners is that Lieberman supports the war because he's a neo-con who supports Israel first, just like Limbaugh.
But, the propaganda coming from Limbaugh gets even sillier. The other day, Limbaugh, in trying to push the Bushnik and neo-con propaganda line that says we should stay in Iraq, brought up Vietnam.
He then repeated over and over again the nonsense that the commies lost the Tet offensive. Huh? What did Limbaugh base his assertion on? The fact that the Vietnamese lost so many troops during Tet. Huh, again?
Dear reader, you can probably see right through that argument. Yes, the commies lost many troops during Tet. So what? That's not what determines who loses and who wins a war--which is the real issue. Tet was a battle, not the war. On the surface, it was Tet that seemingly convinced the U.S. to scram out of Vietnam. However, I suspect that the administration at that time finally just did a belated cost vs. benefit analysis and determined that Vietnam wasn't worth what we were putting into it--in blood, in money, and in effort. And, it wasn't. And, neither is Iraq--at least not for U.S. interests.
But, Limbaugh's point is that if we had stayed after Tet, instead of leaving, we would have eventually won in Vietnam--and by analogy, if we all vote Republican in November and then stay in Iraq, we'll win there. I think he's wrong about both countries.
Could we have won in Vietnam? Not really. That's because we can't even define what "win" means in this context. Either way, Vietnam would be pretty much the same as it is today, except a lot of people who were killed would still be alive. Today, Vietnam is our friend, just as if we had never had a war. Vietnam was as misguided a war as our present war in Iraq. It wasn't a war worth fighting and shouldn't have been fought in the first place.
Hundreds of thousands of people died for no reason in Vietnam. We're seeing a repeat of Vietnam in Iraq. We're in the middle of a fiery whirlwind that we unleashed and we have become part of the fuel for much of the violence. The very people we say we are helping, hate us.
News from Iraq this month has not been good for the neo-cons with their screwy views of the world and of the way everything is.
As I predicted several years ago, the situation in Iraq is now beyond U.S. repair. The swirling violence is only picking up speed.
And, Saddam Hussein, the guy who kept Iraq from being the bloody mess that we're now seeing, sits in a jail cell and is undergoing a kangaroo court trial that will no doubt lead to his inevitable execution. We need a scapegoat. Saddam is it. So, we'll put all sins upon his head and ritualistically kill him as we try to extinguish our subjective idea of evil from the Middle East. We'll then feel good about our righteousness. And then, we'll find another scapegoat and another and another as we fail to look in the mirror of reality as we blunder into meaningless conflict after meaningless conflict in the Middle East.
Hussein was and is called all sorts of names by the neo-cons. Remember, in the ramp up to the invasion, how the U.S. people were told that Hussein was a violent dictator who attacked his own people? You heard it from Limbaugh and other neo-cons. Of course, what the American people weren't told was that Hussein was fighting back against those who were trying to tear the country apart and split it up. By removing Hussein, the U.S. unleashed those factions that were in check under his rule. Was Hussein a harsh ruler? Probably. But, his was the finger in the dike that was stopping what we're now seeing in that nation.
It appears that Hussein knew more about his own country and the various factions that exist there than we do. Go figure.
Remember how we were told that Hussein was a butcher? Well, according to recent news reports, more than 650,000 Iraqis and almost 3,000 Americans have been killed since Bush invaded Iraq. Can you spot the real butchery?
What is to be done? Well, as radical as it sounds, if Hussein were put back in charge, the nation would soon become peaceful once again. Of course, that's not going to happen. To do such a thing would firmly establish, even for the most uninformed, that all those thousands of people who died In Iraq for no reason, really did die for no reason.
Still, one of the latest proposals being floated is that the U.S. should put in a strongman to control Iraq. I kid you not. You mean just like when we helped Saddam become the strongman before? Yup. But, of course, we're hoping that any new strongman we put in power will be a pal of Israel--and isn't that what this is all about?
Get ready. As soon as we can find someone to bribe to be our puppet strongman, you'll hear about it on the Rush Limbaugh program as Limbaugh praises our strongman choice as a new George Washington or a new Abe Lincoln. But, I doubt it will work. Our new strongman will fall, but not before we've left the country. Then, Iraqis will sort out their own problems as they've been doing for thousands of years.
So, we come close to an election in the U.S. And, as is so often the case, we have no real choice. The Republicans haven't been doing a very good job, but the fear is that the Democrats will do an even worse job.
I think many real conservatives are saying that we need a government that looks out for the interests of American citizens; not for the interests of citizens of foreign nations. And, this simple desire on the part of real conservatives applies both to Iraq and to the massive immigration into the U.S. that the Bush administration is behind. America First? Why not? It'd be good for a change. |
|
# # # |
|
THREE BOOKS BY HARD TO PIGEONHOLE H. MILLARD All three books are now listed on Amazon.com. The lefties at the OC WEEKLY said Millard is one of OC's most frightening people. "Millard is an important writer" New Nation News |
 |
Ourselves Alone & Homeless Jack's Religion |
 |
ROAMING THE WASTELANDS |
 |
THE OUTSIDER - (ISBN: 0-595-19424-9) |
| Views expressed by guest columnists, reporters and external links not necessarily those of the editor of New Nation News but hopefully of some interest |