Carpeicthus reminds those brave GI’s like Tom DeLay (who apparently waded ashore at Normandy when he was 2) of some American history. It’s true that France might be speaking German if not for America (although I don’t think even the Nazis could have accomplished that) but even more importantly,
Without the French, we’d be eating crumpets right now.
Yes, as embarrassing as it is, without those cheese-eating, chain-smoking, sex-having bastards the United States of America wouldn’t even exist.
On August 14, 1781 Washington and the French general Rochambeau received word from Comte de Grasse, the admiral of the French fleet, that he would be arriving off the coast of Virginia in mid-September. De Grasse would remain in the Chesapeake area for a month, until the expected seasonal heavy weather forced him south again.
Here was an opportunity to trap Cornwallis in Virginia, but to do so meant that not one, but two armies—one speaking English, one French—would have to travel 500 miles over local roads in a coordinated assault with a navy that was, at the time de Grasse’s letter arrived, sailing somewhere in the Atlantic.
So, Tom, do you sing “God Save the Queen?” De rien, motha-fuckah.
Update: Via Ampersand and Atrios, a great new blog, VeryVery Happy gives another little history lesson about those hapless French cowards in WWII. The day that Tom and Denny face down the 2nd SS Panzer Division outside their gated community in Sugarland, Texas with a couple of 22 rifles, then maybe they’ll be in a position to criticize. ‘Course, as we all know, Tom wasn’t even allowed to join the service during Viet Nam because all the Blacks and Mezkins stole the good combat slots.
Power consists in one’s capacity to link his will with the purpose of others, to lead by reason and a gift of cooperation.
Woodrow Wilson
Matthew Yglesias asks anti-war protestors a very good question. The war is inevitable (since August 2002, in my opinion) so what will happen to this “movement” once the bombs start dropping?
I think that you have to ask a different question before you can answer that one, which is, “What are these protests really about?”
I believe that the energy and the commitment that brought average people into the streets in rather impressive numbers yesterday was about mistrust of American power in the hands of this administration. Diplomacy by bludgeon, the flatulent public proclamations of “unilateralism” and “benevolent hegemony” and the ham-handed, ever changing rationales for the invasion have served to confirm in many minds that disarming Iraq is merely afirst step in a much larger global agenda. These documented ambitions (which, granted, most people only sense rather than know,) combined with a dubious election, an eccentric if not downright radical foreign policy team and a President whose childlike rhetoric and blindingly obvious lack of qualifications for the job of world leader make America appear to be slightly unstable and potentially threatening. We are the most powerful country on earth and yet something strange and unnerving is going on with our politics. This worries people.
For 50 years, the United States contained the Soviet Union. What seems to be becoming apparent, at least in terms of the global ambitions and bellicose threats of policymakers in the current administration, is that for 50 years the Soviet Union may also have been containing us.
This, I believe, is what the protests are all about — a growing movement to counter the aggressive ambition and yet frightening ineptitude of the current American government. If Iraq is the last breath of the neocon fantasy, and there are no more proclamations of American determination to “go it alone” (or conversely pull our troops out of South Korea in a fit of pique) and if Rumsfeld can contain his plans to punish our allies for deigning to disagree with his lordly utterances and if the administration is chastened and becomes mature and reasonable in its thinking, then perhaps the anti-war movement will be just a blip on George W. Bush’s trip to Mt Rushmore.
If, however, we continue on this track, leveling threats of retribution against all who question our absolute authority to wage war (even preventive war), if we persist in believing we have no necessity to exercise our enormous power with discretion, humility and respect for our allies, then we are going to see more than an anti-war protest movement. We are going to see an ongoing Anti-American protest movement.
Here in the United States, for many months it was considered anti-social if not unpatriotic to even broach one’s disagreement with the administration during these troubled times. I believe that yesterday began to fundamentally change all that. Despite some of the unintentionally hilarious commentary by reporters and pundits, who appeared to be gobsmacked by the realization that Junior is not as universally beloved by “normal” Americans as he is by Sally Quinn’s e-mail web ring, it is now quite obvious that Bush is NOT perceived by one and all as a heroic figure of Churchillian proportions, here or around the world. The sheer numbers of the protesters have given people permission to dissent without the threat of broad social opprobrium and if nothing else we are free of the notion that it is unpatriotic to criticize the President.
What’s next? The war with Iraq is a done deal and who knows what the aftermath will be. But, the real issue is this notion of aggressive American hegemony and the pathetic inability of the current administration to explain their goals in a believable fashion, bring our historical allies along or re-evaluate policies in light of changing circumstances. They have failed the test of a decent civilized superpower and they must go.
So, the next move is political. In my opinion, this anti-war movement will likely result in an energized anti-Bush movement in the United States, regardless of the outcome of the war, and continued resistance from allies like France and Germany and former adversaries like Russia and China. The Bush administration has put the world on notice that the United States has become dangerous, not just because of Iraq, but because they cannot be trusted to wield our mighty power with intelligence and integrity. Iraq may turn out ok in the end (I certainly hope so) but I have no faith that the next adventure will.
The other world powers, sadly, now feel they must bind themselves together to contain these strange neocon Imperialists until right thinking Americans can institute a regime change at home. It didn’t have to be this way.
…not only does Bush make no effort to persuade the folks on the fence, he actually goes out of his way — whether deliberately or not I don’t know — to alienate them. A lot of protesters, both in the U.S. and abroad, are reacting more to Bush himself than they are to deposing Saddam Hussein.
I don’t believe that Bush or his key advisors believe that they have the responsibility to persuade (see Kieren Healy’s excellent post on collective action.) In their view “leadership” is action and because they have a very loose interpretation of democracy they believe that the American people are required to follow and support simply because they hold the office. Bush himself often makes the mistake of saying that he is Commander In Chief of the American people and I think he actually believes that. Their attempts at persuasion have been half hearted at best and they seem quite confused that citizens and allies believe it is not enough to take their word that they are right in this.
Ultimately, what they fail to understand is that there exists a huge amount of doubt about this President’s ability to lead this country and the people who advise him are showing themselves to be erratic and inept. Demonstrably stupid leaders often have trouble inspiring confidence. It’s something the Republican establishment should have thought of before they endowed a sub-standard intellect with such power. They are reaping what they sowed.
Atrios notices the baby elephant just starting to find its legs over in the corner of the room.
The Bush administration filed a brief in support of a city government’s attempts to suppress a march which was protesting their policies.
Let’s say that again.
The Bush administration filed a brief in support of a city government’s attempts to suppress a march which was protesting their policies.
But, you have to understand something citizens. We are under threat from terrorists. The government hasn’t got enough money to defend our cities because it needs to cut taxes for the rich people who are the most productive members of our society. Therefore, it is not in the national interest to allow people to gather in these threatened cities and drain the few precious resources we have left.
If you can’t shut your mouths, the government will have no choice but to take some duct tape and wrap it around your heads. We’re at Code Orange, fergawds sake. It’s for your own good.
Kevin Drum links to an article in the Washington Post about a couple of lawsuits against Dubyah’s favorite InnerChange Freedom Initiative, run by evangelist Charles Colson’s Virginia-based Prison Fellowship
So, the bottom line is this: the Iowa program gives prisoners special privileges as long as they agree to become Christians.
And that’s not a violation of the First Amendment? That’s not using coerceive government power to promote one religion over another?
And if it isn’t, what is?
I think the Bush argument is that this misses the real point. They say the government has been using the coercive power of the state to discriminate against religion. According to them, by funding this program the government is not establishing a particular religion because if the Muslims or the Moonies want to start a prison outreach program, the constitution is obligated to allow them to “compete” in the marketplace of religious ideas in state institutions. There is no separation of church and state. In fact, the state should be enmeshed with as many different permutations of faith as possible because all people will benefit from some kind of religion. We know this for a fact. (Atheists can piss up a rope.)
In other words, religion has been oppressed by the big bad secular government and the conservatives are going to set it free. It’s an equal protection issue and like so many conservative causes these days it is framed as if Charles Colson is the Rosa Parks of the thoroughly downtrodden oppressed Christians who are just trying to become part of the mainstream.
And once again, the liberal monolith is bent on keepin’ the voices of these minorities down. As with the news media, the “man” works overtime to silence and marginalize the sad, struggling conservatives.
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but seeing paunchy millionaires whine about their supposed victimhood just makes my gorge rise.
To any of you folks who live in the Santa Monica environs, the above linked peace gathering will feature Ron Kovic and Tom Hayden as speakers.
PLUS:
FORMATION OF PICASSO INSPIRED PEACE SYMBOL
** DARK BLUE OR SOLID COLOR SHIRT WILL HELP AERIAL PHOTO**
The UN recently covered Picasso’s “Guernica,” a painting depicting the horrors of war, as Powell addressed the Security Council. You can’t cover thousands of people on the beach. Aerial artist and environmentalist, John Quigley, will guide and shape over a thousand people on Saturday, as they become Picasso’s “Face of Peace.
It’s supposed to be about 70 degrees tomorrow…
There are worse ways to spend a Saturday afternoon even if you are consorting with a bunch of commie Priests, socialistic soccer moms and Pro-Saddam military veterans.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities
– Voltaire
MWO posts John Breaux’s use of the RNC talking points on Lou Dobbs:
BREAUX: Well, Lou, I respect the right of Democrats to filibuster a nominee, but I differ on this particular nominee. I think that at a time in this country when we’re under orange alert and we have advice on stockpiling water and buying duct tape and who in the heck knows what’s going to happen in North Korea and Iraq, that this is not a time that we should be filibustering a nominee who has been called well qualified, the highest recommendation the American Bar Association can give a nominee…
Doesn’t it occur to anyone that maybe it’s Bush who should table this nominee while he’s trying to rally the country around his cause? Why on earth is the President pushing controversial judicial nominees during a time of national crisis and causing unneeded partisanship? I thought he was going to change the tone.
Can’t we just pretend to dress up the naked Boy Emperor and his Boyz in some fancy uniforms like Idi Amin and throw a big parade and bow down to their huge swinging machismo and just skip all the actual killing? I’d do it gladly if it would cure these frustrated eunuchs of their need to prove their manhood. Clearly, they didn’t get the yellow ribbon treatment after fighting the Battle of Bureaucracy to “win” the cold war, so they desperately need some affirmation that they are the true heroes of their time. Fine.
But what with everything else about this administration being such total bullshit, I’m sure nobody would even notice if we just skipped the war and went directly to the ceremonies and parades. How about we just put on a pageant?
MOSS
What do we have that they want?
BREAN
“Freedom.”
MOSS
Why would they want that?
HAKAN
They’re Oppressed.
MOSS
No, no, no. Fuck Freedom. No. Fuck Freedom.
They…. They Want… They Want To Destroy the Godless
Satan of the United … They want to destroy our Way of
Life. Okay, okay, okay, could we … okay: the
President is in China. He is dealing with a Dispatch
of the B-2 Bomber to Albania. Why?
(HE SHRUGS, HOLDS UP HIS HANDS, TO SAY,
“YOU TELL ME…”)
AMES
Alright, well, alright: geopolitically…
MOSS GESTURES FOR SILENCE.
MOSS
We’ve just found out They Have the Bomb. We’ve Just
Found Out They Have The Bomb, aaaand… No, No wait a
second, no, no, wait a second, No. The Bomb’s not…
it’s not there — because they’d have to have a
rocket and that shit n’they’re a buncha wogs– it’s …
it’s a suitcase Bomb. Ooookay. It’s a suitcase bomb,
and it’s …. in Canada! Eh? Albanian Terrorists have
placed a suitcase Bomb in Canada, in an attempt to
infiltrate the bomb into the USA.
AMES
You know what? This is good. This is terrific, and
I’ll tell you why: it’s cost effective. This is….
MOSS
(SHRUGS)
It’s producing.
Unfortunately, we’re going to inflict “Shock and Awe” instead.
BREAN
We remember the slogans, we can’t even remember the
fucking wars. Y’know why. Cause it’s show business.
That’s why I’m here. Naked girl, covered in Napalm.
Five marines Raising the Flag, Mount Suribachi.
Churchill, V for Victory, Y’remember the Picture, fifty
years from now, they’ll have forgotten the war. Gulf
War? Smart Bomb, falling through the roof. 2500
missions a day, 100 days, One Shot of One Bomb. The
American people bought that war. M’I getting through
to you? War in the Balkans, don’t mean nothing, till
some G.I. flyer, went down, Eating Snakes for Ten days.
As best as I can understand it, the case for war against Iraq rests primarily on what Aristotle—these old Greeks, they understood things—called the argument of future fact, or the possibility that a thing might occur in the future based on events that have happened in the past.
So we are preparing to decimate Iraq based on the possibility that the Iraqi government might in the future provide Al Qaeda or other terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has been a bad actor in the past, this argument goes, and it is likely they will continue to be a bad actor in the future. Indeed, they will likely try to kill all of us, hence we should get them first. That is basically the administration’s argument: The U.S. should invade Iraq on the basis of what they might do to us—and to Israel—in the future. The events in the past on which we base these future possibilities are fuzzy and riddled with contradictions, but never mind. The very possibility that Iraq might do something bad is proof enough.
[…]
But here’s the thing. The argument of “future fact” is one you make when the outcome of a path is not certain, and when you are not sure how things will turn out. In such cases, you argue on the basis of the probable, on what’s most likely to happen, given the situation. You strive for the correct and prudent course, even when the outcomes are unclear.
But if we go this way, commit to war, then some things become inevitablly and inescapably certain: Appalling numbers of people will die, and a great many of these dead will be children.
First there was the plagiarized British “intelligence” dossier, and now this:
“ABC News reports that a key piece of the information leading to recent terror alerts was fabricated, according to law enforcement officials.
The officials said that a claim made by a captured al Qaeda member that Washington, New York or Florida would be hit by a ‘dirty bomb’ sometime this week had proven to be a product of his imagination.
The informant described a detailed plan that an al Qaeda cell operating in either Virginia or Detroit had developed a way to slip past airport scanners with dirty bombs encased in shoes, suitcases, or laptops, sources told ABCNEWS. The informant reportedly cited specific targets of government buildings and Christian or clerical centers.
But upon subjecting the informant to a polygraph, he flunked. “
Apparently, the interrogations are being run by the cops who interrogated the central park “wilding” gang.
