Love of Country - a Foreign Concept for Liberals
MF Ogilvie
Love of Country
Paul Walfield
"There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is
room here for only hundred per cent Americanism."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), 26th U.S. President (1901-1909)
April 7, 2003
Bashing America, giving the benefit of the doubt to ruthless dictators
and totalitarian regimes rather than your own government in times of
crisis and of war, is far from patriotic.
Looking for American military mistakes, when massive military
victories are blatantly clear, is not patriotic if you emphasize or
fabricate mistakes while you minimize or ignore the reality of success
on the ground.
Declaring unequivocally that even if weapons of mass destruction are
found in Iraq and/or the Iraqi people eventually greet American
soldiers as liberators, America was still wrong to war with Iraq, is
not patriotic ... as your obvious intention is to add another
"aggression" by American "imperialists" to your list.
Determining that your point of view has a monopoly on First Amendment
rights of free speech and is protected from criticism, is not
patriotic in that it is an attempt to stifle debate and freedom of
speech in the guise of protecting it.
By anyone's definition, love of country is patriotic. Love of country
does involve criticism and even dissent; however, when dissent is
merely a front for anti-American sentiment, it is anything but
patriotic.
Nowadays, we are all inundated with the ranting of individuals and
groups who claim they are being patriotic when they call for "regime
change" in America when it is not an election year, or demand we get
out of Iraq, or more to the point, should never have gotten involved
militarily in the first place.
What is most striking is the notion these folks want to instill in
others, which is that they love America so much, they are willing, and
mustering all their courage, to voice their opinions in opposition to
government policy and the will of nearly 80% of their fellow
Americans. How brave.
On a cable news show a few days ago, a member of the loyal opposition
explained how, as a true American, he was opposed to the war in Iraq.
And unlike the usual touchy-feely liberal, he based his views on
"realism". You see, he knows from a CIA report that Iraq is not a
real threat because there was no connection between Saddam and bin
Laden. The CIA report was from 2001. When asked about new findings
of the CIA and State Department as presented by Secretary of Defense
Colin Powell to the U.N. in 2003, with CIA director George Tenet
sitting at the Secretary's side, the "realist" feigned ignorance.
When pressed, the "realist", said he would look over the new evidence,
but, "war is never the answer". So much for being a "realist".
Assuming some of the "patriotic" Americans believe that war is not the
answer, not ever, how does that make them patriotic? Their dogma is
at best, pacifism, not nationalism. America, its way of life, its
sovereignty and standing in the world takes a second seat to avoidance
of war, and if those liberals are taken seriously, America is not
worth fighting for.
If patriotism is love of country, these people do not fit the
definition. Not that you have to be a patriot, pacifists have their
place, they just need to be more honest in their declarations and
motives.
Of course, there are the America-haters. They generally fit into
three categories: genuine, pretenders, and clueless. Everyone knows
a genuine one when they see and hear one. They include but are no
means limited to some professors at Columbia University and other
colleges, some in Hollywood, some journalists, and even some
Congresspersons and New York State Assemblymen. They spew vile and
hateful rhetoric whenever they mention past or present American
actions. No one can mistake the despicable words coming from Columbia
University assistant professor of Anthropology, Nicholas DeGenova, who
said he wanted not only to see America defeated in war, he wanted to
see American soldiers dead. Easy stuff.
Then there are the ones who claim they love America; they love it to
bits. It is their love that drives them to speak out against certain
American policies. Unfortunately, though, it is love of self, not
country; and the fact that they argue against America fighting to
preserve America shows that they only pretend to be patriots. They
claim they are against the war in Iraq because of their deeply-felt
concern for the innocent lives that will be lost. Yet, they were not
protesting when Saddam slaughtered over a million people during his
reign.
None protested the gassing of the Kurds by Saddam, but now they
condemn America for allegedly giving Saddam the means to have chemical
weapons. A little late for that sanctimonious drivel, in light of the
fact that America is now fighting to ensure that the Hussein regime
can never again threaten or murder his or any other people again.
These folks who claim to have higher motives in their trashing of
America do not explain, at least coherently, how trashing America's
attempts to free a brutally-oppressed people in Iraq, remove a brutal
dictator, and create a less terrorist-friendly Middle East makes them
"patriotic", but they do try. They even claim they are protected from
criticism. Well, they are not, and that really is the "give away".
It gives away their true nature.
It is a bit difficult to say you love America, that you are a true
patriot, while you also claim that no other point of view that
contradicts yours or is critical of your point of view is allowed.
These folks claim any criticism of their trashing of America is
"chilling". Meaning it is un-American because it stifles debate by
intimidating the speaker. How clever. They stifle opposition by
claiming it is un-American to oppose them.
Stalin would be proud and Kafka would be ecstatic.
Finally, there are those who just jump on the bandwagon. America's
education system, public and private, ensured that no one was taught
or even exposed to the greatness that America was or is. They have no
footing and simply jump onto any group, even despicable ones, if they
seem willing to have them as a member. People fall into this group
who spout off without thinking and simply repeat slogans without any
of their neurons actually firing. Lots of Hollywood folks who don't
quite make it into the previous category fall into this one.
One of the reasons that America is great is that we are a tolerant
people. While other nations and peoples profess that virtue,
practically none but America practices what they preach.
However, while we are a tolerant bunch, it is also important to
remember that freedom, and all of what America stands for is not
invincible. We cannot live in the ivory towers built by those in
academia, tinsel town and some others.
We must recognize and shun those who intentionally, or by effect, do
America harm.
B. Nice
"MF Ogilvie" <matthew....@lmco.com> wrote in message
news:fe17a99.03040...@posting.google.com...
> http://www.americasvoices.org/archives2003/WalfieldP/WalfieldP_040703.htm
> Love of Country
. . .is not the same thing as loving the President.
> "There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is
> room here for only hundred per cent Americanism."
> -- Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), 26th U.S. President (1901-1909)
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we
are to stand by the president right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public."
-Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), 26th U.S. President (1901-1909)
> Bashing America
Dissent against a Presidential administration is not the same thing as
"bashing America".
> giving the benefit of the doubt to ruthless dictators
Promoting alternatives to all-out war is not the same thing as "giving the
benefit of the doubt to ruthless dictators".
> and totalitarian regimes rather than your own government in times of
> crisis and of war, is far from patriotic.
Then there's a whole passel of Republicans this guy will want to talk to,
including Ron Paul (R, TX), Tom Campbell (R, CA), Roscoe Bartlett (R, MD),
Bob Barr (R, GA), Dan Burton (R, IN), Philip Crane (R, IL), John Cooksey (R,
LA), Walter Jones (R, NC), Donald Manzullo (R, IL), Charlie Norwood (R, GA),
Thomas Petri (R, WI), Marshall Sanford (R, SC), Joe Scarborough (R, FL), Bob
Schaffer (R, CO), and Thomas Tancredo (R, CO).
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press99/pr050199.htm
> Looking for American military mistakes, when massive military
> victories are blatantly clear, is not patriotic if you emphasize or
> fabricate mistakes while you minimize or ignore the reality of success
> on the ground.
On the other hand, covering up for military mistakes not only detracts from
the credibility of the mission, it is criminal behavior.
> Declaring unequivocally that even if weapons of mass destruction are
> found in Iraq and/or the Iraqi people eventually greet American
> soldiers as liberators, America was still wrong to war with Iraq, is
> not patriotic ...
Obviously, since the intention of this author is to paint anyone who
disagrees with the Bush administration as "unpatriotic".
> Determining that your point of view has a monopoly on First Amendment
> rights of free speech and is protected from criticism, is not
> patriotic in that it is an attempt to stifle debate and freedom of
> speech in the guise of protecting it.
Agreed. So why is the Right doin it?
> By anyone's definition, love of country is patriotic.
Not merely "love of country", but it's people, it's history and traditions,
and it's values. Nowhere in that definition is it necessary to profess love
for an administration or it's policies to remain a patriotic American.
> Love of country does involve criticism and even dissent; however, when
dissent is
> merely a front for anti-American sentiment, it is anything but patriotic.
Once again, a Presidential administration is not "America". Dissent against
an administration's policies is not "anti-American".
> Nowadays, we are all inundated with the ranting of individuals and
> groups who claim they are being patriotic when they call for "regime
> change" in America when it is not an election year, or demand we get
> out of Iraq, or more to the point, should never have gotten involved
> militarily in the first place.
We are also all inundated with right-wing radicals who insist than opposing
this war is anti-American and unpatriotic. We are also subjected to people
who believe (vehemently so) that all liberals and democrats are
"communists", "socialists", "traitors", or love Saddam Hussein. Some have
gone so far as to voice the suggestion that suck folk should either be
rounded up and put into concentration camps, or shot on sight.
So who's anti-American?
-b
--
Buck the polls. Have YOUR say. Sign the petition on-line:
http://www.petitiononline.com/bushass/petition.html
A PETITION DECLARING GEORGE W. BUSH TO BE A HORSE'S ASS
Mitchell Holman
news:fe17a99.03040...@posting.google.com:
> http://www.americasvoices.org/archives2003/WalfieldP/WalfieldP_
040703.htm
>
> Love of Country
>
> Paul Walfield
>
> "There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is
> room here for only hundred per cent Americanism."
> -- Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), 26th U.S. President (1901-1909)
>
> April 7, 2003
>
> Bashing America, giving the benefit of the doubt to ruthless dictators
> and totalitarian regimes rather than your own government in times of
> crisis and of war, is far from patriotic.
So Republican Thomas Dewey was "unpatriotic"
by bashing FDR in the presidential election of
1944, when the country was at war?
So Republican Eisenhower was "unpatriotic"
by bashing Truman in the presidential election
of 1952, during the Korean War?
> Looking for American military mistakes, when massive military
> victories are blatantly clear, is not patriotic if you emphasize or
> fabricate mistakes while you minimize or ignore the reality of success
> on the ground.
Doesn't the military look for mistakes
itself? How is doing the same thing they do
"unpatriotic"?
> Declaring unequivocally that even if weapons of mass destruction are
> found in Iraq and/or the Iraqi people eventually greet American
> soldiers as liberators, America was still wrong to war with Iraq, is
> not patriotic ... as your obvious intention is to add another
> "aggression" by American "imperialists" to your list.
All Americans have the freedom to criticize
administration foreign policy, even during an
undeclared "war". But then, that is freedom, a
concept conservatives don't understand.
>
> Determining that your point of view has a monopoly on First Amendment
> rights of free speech and is protected from criticism, is not
> patriotic in that it is an attempt to stifle debate and freedom of
> speech in the guise of protecting it.
>
> By anyone's definition, love of country is patriotic. Love of country
> does involve criticism and even dissent; however, when dissent is
> merely a front for anti-American sentiment, it is anything but
> patriotic.
And who is in charge of determining what dissent
is "a front for Anti-American sentiment"? Will DeLay
be reviving the UnAmerican Activities Committee?
> Nowadays, we are all inundated with the ranting of individuals and
> groups who claim they are being patriotic when they call for "regime
> change" in America when it is not an election year, or demand we get
> out of Iraq, or more to the point, should never have gotten involved
> militarily in the first place.
Imagine that. Domestic criticism of a sitting president.
Boy, conservatives NEVER did that when Clinton was in
office, did they.......
> What is most striking is the notion these folks want to instill in
> others, which is that they love America so much, they are willing, and
> mustering all their courage, to voice their opinions in opposition to
> government policy and the will of nearly 80% of their fellow
> Americans. How brave.
Where was that concern for popular sentiment
when Republicans began their unpopular impeachment
attempt?
Boy, it must really sting to be reminded that
the US supplied the helicopters Saddam needed to
gas his own people.
What part of being "patriotic" includes selling
arms to dictators?