Nothing But Love :: golf blogger

Braveheart Redux

What do we stand for? The First Amendment’s prohibition against restraint of speech was written by the Founding Fathers of this country to directly address the restraints on political speech, speech of protest, and debate on government policies imposed in pre-Revolutionary War America by Britain.

And here we are. We have reached a point where Bush the Lesser has decided that he needs to curb spirited debate on the subject of the war in Iraq. We must watch what we say or we might be accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, of abandoning the troops that are fighting this unjust and illegal war, a war which has fomented extreme anti-American sentiment in the Mid-East and throughout the world.

A woman named Tammy Duckworth is running for Congress. I don’t know where; doesn’t matter. She is highly critical of the President. She believes that there needs to be a concrete timetable to bring the troops home. For her, it is not inconsistent to be supportive of the troops and to vehemently oppose the war, something that is anathema to the philosophy of Herr Bush. I wish that W. would dare confront Duckworth, engage her in debate about the course of the war in Iraq, and his vision of the future, and then accuse her, with that derisive laugh under his breath and smug leer, of aiding the enemy and demoralizing the troops in Iraq.

Perhaps he can ask her how long it took her to learn to walk on her titanium legs, the legs that replace the two she lost in a helicopter crash in Iraq, serving her Commander-in-Chief.

And then he can tell her to her face how she is aiding the enemies of freedom and democracy.

What do we stand for? When Bush found out that Sen. John McCain had more than enough votes to override Bush’s threatened veto of the ban on torture, despite the fact that Cheney called every Republican senator personally to lobby for support of his errand boy, Bush said, “We've been happy to work with him to achieve a common objective - and that is to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture.”

Bush then issued a “signing statement” in which he asserted his apparent authority of Commander-in-Chief, although Congress has never declared war on “terror,” Afghanistan, or Iraq, to protect “the American people from further terrorist attacks” (whether he means all Americans, or just North Americans, as opposed to South and Central Americans, I don’t know). It’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that Bush doesn’t give a damn about any kind of torture ban imposed by Congress.

So, what do we stand for? Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (Don’t you love those British names of places?) recently said, “Torture is an unqualified evil. It can never be justified. Rather, it must always be punished.” And Lord Rodger of Earlsferry pointed out in debate, “The torturer is abhorred not because the information he produces may be unreliable, but because of the barbaric means he uses to extract it.”

I am reminded of the movie “Braveheart,” in which William Wallace is tortured in an attempt to make him pledge his loyalty to the Crown … what does he cry out?

What do we stand for? The enemies of freedom are the very people who are in power in this country because they seek to curb our freedom, to impose tyranny by using fear as a weapon.

Posted by Bill at January 12, 2006 11:46 PM