Nobody, not even the President of the United States. is always right. So there will always be people, at some time, who will disagree with his decisions, or voice their opposition to his policy.
Does that make them traitors, as some contend?
Not if this is still the America that our forefathers fought to give us.. Theirs, above all, was a resounding “yes” to liberty, which includes the freedom to differ in viewpoints, even with a president, without fear of being labeled a radical; a troublemaker, or a traitor.
If differences of opinion about war with Iraq, or any other country, makes one a traitor, then a lot of people better get ready to be blindfolded and shot. That’s a traitor’s payback, you know.
So who do we blindfold first? Let’s start with the Left.
About Bush’s push toward war, Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle opined: “Above all, it makes people think there is no guiding principle. At a time when we have just begun to fight terrorism, the American people deserve to hear why we should put hundreds of thousands of American troops at risk, spend perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars, risk our alliances, and inflame our adversaries to attack Iraq.”
Tough words. But do they mark Daschle as a traitor? If so, we’ll have to blindfold and shoot half the people in America.
Now let’s move to the Right.
Except for Congressman Ron Paul, (R-Tex), I can’t think of anyone else who differs more with the administration’s policies at home and abroad than Pat Buchanan.
In a recent article in WorldNetDaily, Buchanan stated. “If suicide-warriors of Islam are willing to die in great numbers to drive us out of the Islamic world, we are one day going to be driven out, as the French and British were. And the sooner the imperial powers go home-including the Americans—the sooner the anti-colonial wars, and the terror that goes with them, comes to an end. There is nothing over there worth risking an atom bomb on U.S. soil. Having won in Afghanistan, let’s declare victory and bring the troops home.”
Both Buchanan and Paul put American interests first. If that’s mutiny, I vote we hang up the Jolly Roger.
Now, on the news front.
“America Needs a Clearer Sense of What War Might Mean.” That was an article by John C. Bersia, an Orlando Sentinel columnist. The theme of Bersia’s piece was a menu of the terrible things Saddam Hussein might do if America attacked Iraq. Among them: unleash weapons of mass destruction against our troops; deliver weapons to enemy agents for use in the U.S; aim the weapons directly at Israel.
Bersia thinks that the Bush administration needs to make it clear to one and all about the danger we’re in if we don’t heed the call to give UN inspectors more time.
Has Bersia made the leap from columnist to traitor? I don’t think so. Pseudo-patriots, however, will disagree (and that’s their privilege). They will beat their breasts, demanding that the author of such an inflammatory article be branded with a “T” –as if questioning the president is tantamount to membership in the 666 Club.
And here’s an average American speaking.
In a “letter to the editor” of our local newspaper, a gentleman wrote, “I spent 22 years in the military protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. The Constitution I swore to protect gave only Congress the right to declare war. When pressed for evidence of the justification for war, all we get is ‘trust me’ or ‘national security’.”
This gentleman had the audacity to demand that we adhere to our Constitution!
Should his statement be considered treasonous? Not in my book. Anyone who calls it that probable considers the First Amendment a Marxism.
Finally, a military man…
None other than the U.S. commander of Desert Storm, Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf said that he hasn’t seen enough evidence to convince him that the administration is correct in moving toward a new war now.
“Candidly,” Schwarzkopf says, “I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made.”
The general thinks that Rumsfeld and the people around him lack the background to make serious military judgments by themselves.
Do these remarks indicate that General Schwarzkopf is a traitor? Don’t even suggest that if you don’t want a Desert Storm in your living room.
The only reason I harp on this is because it is such an obvious “error of reason” that today so many otherwise patriotic Americans are caught up in. They wrongly misinterpret every dissenting opinion, opposing view, legitimate criticism, everything that does not conform to their idea of what our government should do, as an act of treason or anti-Americanism.
It all strikes me as very hypocritical, if not downright dangerous.
People who call honest dissenters, traitors, are the same people who tear down symbols of the historic South, honor M.L. King but not G. Washington, allow the government to re-write history books, invite anti-American speakers to college campuses, give a “free ride” to illegal aliens, take God out of the American equation, and try to twist the Constitution around to fit their warped idea of American heritage and jurisprudence.
Yes, we all have a right to an opinion. And yes, we also have a right to call people with other opinions, traitors.
But I submit to you, that if the British had hung the “traitors” who wrote the Declaration of Independence before they had a chance to write it, we’d still be genuflecting to a king instead of disagreeing with a president.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”