A WORD ABOUT LOYALTY DURING A TIME OF WAR…

This right is enshrind in the Constitution. Cindy Sheehan is not arming Iraqi insurgents nr is she setting roadside bombs. She differs with the government. This is not trason.

Deserting the army and prosecuting a war against the legal government is. So Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jakson et al were raiotrs. not Cindy Sheehan. She has operated within the law.

Any real American should be ashamed the US has a prison like Guantanamo. This is the type of Nazi type justice with the law being twisted to justify detention without trial, refusal to try someone before his peers, denial of legal reprsentation. I mean come on George Bush and company drv a truck through due prcess and the rule of law. Cindy Shehan did not.

Thanks for your appreciation :-). My references to Iraq and Vietnam were only to serve as an example of how public opinion plays a part in troop morale, enemy morale and public perception. I see no other comparisons past that. Iraq certainly is not Vietnam.

If the Government of the United States, as directed by the Constitution of the United States dictates a course of military action, I believe that the government in obligated to prosecute that action to the best of their ability in the best interests of the nation. In return the Government, military included, should expect and deserves the support of its citizens in executing those actions.

Some things do not belong in the public domain. Prosecution of a war is one of those things. At some point we must trust that the government is fulfilling its obligation in the prosecution of that action and in protecting the national interests of the United States and its citizens.

And here is where the labels come in. Yes, they can be simply incorrect. That is their (and my often exercised)right. If they simply disagree with the policy they have the option of acting on the disagreement at the ballot box.

But when they actively work against the strategy and purpose of the Commander In Chief in his prosecution of the war,to the benefit of the enemy, that is, at the least, disloyal.

Furthermore, back to the original post, why apply labels of “unpatriotic” or “disloyal” to these anti-war protestors? Can’t they be merely incorrect?

Also, let’s set aside the merits of this particular action in Iraq. Would you view ANY military action whatsoever as requiring the full support of the American people? Regardless of provocation, prospect of favorable result or American body count?

Blind support of the government (”my country right or wrong”) is immoral, unpatriotic, dispectful of the men and women who volunteer to put their lives on the line and ultimately not in the best interest of the country.

As far as treason in a time of war…hmmmm…Valerie Plame is an interesting true bit of treason right there in front of you. I guarantee you that the CIA did not enjoy the coverage especially when you consider her international connections that have been exposed. Is it NBC’s fault for covering it.? Or should we really look at why it is a story in the first place?
Lastly, Vietnam was not lost by the protesters at home. Though Ho Chi Minh did say that he read the reports of growing protest in the states, the states themselves should have seen this coming from the french involvement a decade earlier. To be honest to those who cite Viet Nam as an example missed the point altogether. What was the US doing there to begin with? Viet Nam has been at war with foreign invaders for a hundred years. What they did was always the same. Wait it out. Eventually, the invaders grow exhausted and leave. George Washington also knew this.

A recent headline proudly proclaimed: “Anarchy” followed by pictures of New Orleans looters in the aftermath of Katrina. Sadly, this was just another graphic example of the continuing propaganda efforts advocating the swift and unequivocal overthrow of the United States Government. Fortunately, it has also served to expose this plot for exactly what it is: SEDITION and TREASON.

Who exactly is involved in this ongoing effort to make America a Third World barrio, replete with all the amenities one finds in the Sahara. Try CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, CBS, ABC, NBC, Time, Newsweek, AP, Reuters, BBC, PBS, and on and on and on. Last night on MSNBC they ran the caption “Bush Katrina Actions Criminal?” throughout some inane discussion. Was this an accident? Or, part of a concerted and concentrated effort with one goal………….

So, if anyone’s looking for a Katrina investigation, here’s a suggestion. Follow the Spitzer technique of using a task force of highly trained investigators (in this case IRS, FBI, Justice, Treasury, SEC, etc.) to make an irrefutable case against the propagandists. The evidence is right in front of our eyes, just take off the blinders and turn on the TIVO.

The following areas should produce substantial results, and can produce an added Homeland Security benefit by reducing or eliminating those in the treasonous pursuit of providing aid and comfort to our enemies during a time of war (authorized by the U.S. Congress):

Anti-trust

Fraud

RICO

Conspiracy

Sedition

Treason

A special area at Guantanamo should be used for interrogations and for holding those arrested and awaiting trial or military tribunal.

Lastly, can any rational person possibly comprehend what these people are really after? Do they really want an America that resembles South America, Africa, Cuba, Haiti, etc. What possible purpose could there be in bringing American prosperity down to the Third World level rather than attempting to upgrade the Third World. Do you think they want their children drinking contaminated water and eating spoiled food; waiting a year to have a needed operation; living in squalor and filth; attending authoritarian controlled public schools, etc? Do they want a depression to take their jobs and reduce them to sitting on street corners all day?

WHAT DO THEY WANT? Could someone explain it please……………

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,

“We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Will they be less committed or dangerous? No, probably not,unless we succeed in giving them pause by our unity, determination and resolve. By doing that you do take away the incentive that longevity will eventually turn the tide in their favor. You eventually take away their ability to wage war.

If you meet a stronger more determined foe who will fight forcefully to the finish, you will probably loose. If you meet a stronger foe that shows he hasn’t the stomach for a long, strong fight, all you have to do is hold your own and bide your time.