A Response to the Left

Due to the overwhelming responses to the November 26 posting:

http://therobb7.blogspot.com/2005/11/but-can-you-prove-it.html

I decided that since the subject matter was quite important, and since the volume of information that I have in my reply is considerable, it would be better to create a new post to continue the discussion.

The reader would be well-served to read the "comments" at the above link first before continuing here.

A reader named "s9" commented "We always knew the Army were a bunch of pansies who like to dress up in kinky boots and tight pants"

My response was "I wonder if s9 has ever called a current Army soldier a "pansy" to his face....."

It was a legitimate query to see if s9 had ever actually done something so bold. I'd be willing to pay good money to see the out come.

In fact, my nephew (Army) should be stateside around the first of next year. I could arrange a meeting ......

The next response by s9 puzzled me, however:

"Let's just say I'm a firm believer in the practical value of allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military."

How did THAT enter the conversation?
Anyway, I digress.

When I asked for "irrefutable evidence, the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law, that pre-war intel was manipulated" was that too much to ask for????

The response from s9 was quite telling:

"While you're at it, why not ask Santa Claus for a pony?"

Apparently, no such evidence exists.

However, to their credit, s9 stated that any hard evidence "will require an investigation."

OK, fine.....but atleast wait unitl you have the actual evidence IN HAND before making accusations.


Now let us move on to what appears to be the larger bone of contention with s9.
On November 26, 2005 I made the following statement:

"I don't mind dissent, but something must be made clear:

Dissent that is used as propaganda by the enemy is sedition in the hands of the enemy."

The aforementioned reader, s9, took that to mean that I was calling " for the summary field execution of a decorated veteran and sitting member of Congress for treason."

s9 went on to say the following:

"You're the one who called the military ineffectual when you called out a decorated veteran and sitting member of Congress for sedition— or was it treason?— and left hanging in the wind whether the U.S. Armed Forces should now be preparing to perform a battlefield execution of an openly declared domestic enemy of the Constitution. "

First of all, let's dial down the rhetoric here.

I am NOT advocating a battlefield execution of a sitting member of Congress.

Critical speech, political organizing, or suspicious association between individuals may be considered as "sedition."

Though such behaviours may be common in a free society, in societies where sedition laws exist the acts and behaviours which qualify as sedition are highly subjective.

By "subjective" I mean that it is my opinion that Rep. Murtha's comments do not need to be aired publicly, but rather privately, in closed-door meetings with those who make the decisions (the President, Joint Chiefs, SecDef, etc.)

Let's consider my original statement in it's proper context.

Speech that endangers American lives can be restricted in wartime, censorship in wartime is standard for all countries, including all democracies, and speech has led to trials – and convictions – for treason, Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally being two obvious examples.

The subversive left and its liberal allies are far stronger and more dangerous to our security now than they were in the 1960's.

I do not think the Bush Administration could politically enforce censorship now. This means we are that much more vulnerable to our enemies both at home and abroad.

The WWII era slogan “Loose Lips Sink Ships” was designed to encourage American civilians to be discreet, that is to censor themselves lest they endanger the brave men and women defending them on the field of battle.

In other words, even if the government does not have the political strength to impose wartime censorship, citizens should exercise reasonable restraint in the way they conduct their criticisms of war policy.

Those who denounce their own democracy as a “fascist” and “terrorist” and maliciously “lying” and an “outlaw state,” are inviting others to hate us and attack us, and they must accept responsibility for their acts.

This confusion is more than dangerous. It is undermining the morale of our troops and encouraging our terrorist enemies to think that they can win this war if they kill enough Americans and Iraqis in the Middle East.

If Rep. Murtha and the left are successful in their seditious effort to force an American surrender to the terrorists in Iraq, we will be forced to fight them in our own country.

In that case tens of thousands of Americans may die, and the Cut-and-Run Caucus will be in serious need of soap and water.

I have no problem with critics of the war.

My complaint is with those in elected leaders squabling in public, where their comments can be used as propaganda by the enemy.

Bottom line: Our elected leaders need to show a united front in public, and save the disagreements for the boardroom...away from the cameras.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: For those of you that are late to the party, this post has been edited to clarify my OPINION.)

It is in the crucible of debate that ideas are forged that can stand the test of time.

I do not and have not ever claimed that my opinions are superior to anyone else's.

If I have conveyed that impression to any visitor, I honestly apologize.

I welcome comments to The Perspective because debating the issues keeps me sharp.