The article below was posted yesterday, of all places, in a Philadelphia newspaper. For shame. He is giving the finger to all those who have served in the past, who are serving now, and will serve in the future. The sacrifices these men and women have given to keep this country free, will this man ever know? Of course not. He is just giving his one sided, biased opinion of how he sees the world through the blue colored lens of the liberal world. Did he stop for one moment and think, "Hmm, now can I thank my Founding Fathers for giving me the ability the write what I want in a newspaper? Can I thank my soldiers, and the current administration, for keeping that right alive? For, hmmm, there have been no more attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 and the Bush administration and the soldiers and the CIA and those other lettered institutions have seen to it. So, I can pick up my pen and paper, or type on my laptop and send this ridiculous column to the paper where I can look like a complete fool in front of the entire nation."
Somehow, I don't think those thoughts crossed his mind. For you see, all he is thinking about is the so-called rights of the "alleged" terrorists. Oh my goodness, what if one of them is not a terrorist? Well, why was he in the wrong place at the wrong time? Apparently the government had good reason to believe that he might be a terrorist. So, he is being held. What if we let him go? What happens then? Might he go back to his friends and family and have a big old party and celebrate his freedom? Or, more likely, he was a terrorist after all, and goes right back to the training camps to plot out more sinister plans. Yes, folks, the Supreme Court have now given these people rights to bring their cases to court. And guess what may happen?
I can't quite understand why this author wants to equate "the evil atrocities" this country has committed to not celebrating the Fourth of July. The Fourth of July is meant to commemorate our independence from Mother England in 1776. It has nothing to do with what is going on now with the War on Terror or the War in Iraq. The Liberals see what they want to see – always have and always will. Theirs is a world distorted through blue lenses of social injustice and environment gone amok. They see the way to fix this by taking away money from the rich and giving it to the poor. Does anyone recognize this? It is called socialism, or more commonly, communism. It was tried in former Russia when it became the U.S.S.R. and look how that turned out. That country still has problems. The best form of government is democracy, where capitalism is free to its course. The Founders of our country understood this, and that is why they created our country as a democratic republic.
In conclusion, don't listen to the naysayers on not celebrating the Fourth of July. That's just a bunch of hogwash. Go out, have fun with your family. Be safe. Don't drink and drive. And remember, be patriotic.
God Bless,
Andrea
Chris Satullo: A not-so-glorious Fourth
U.S. atrocities are unworthy of our heritage.
By Chris Satullo
Inquirer Columnist
Put the fireworks in storage.
Cancel the parade.
Tuck the soaring speeches in a drawer for another time.
This year, America doesn't deserve to celebrate its birthday. This Fourth of July should be a day of quiet and atonement.
For we have sinned.
We have failed to pay attention. We've settled for lame excuses. We've spit on the memory of those who did that brave, brave thing in Philadelphia 232 years ago.
The America those men founded should never torture a prisoner.
The America they founded should never imprison people for years without charge or hearing.
The America they founded should never ship prisoners to foreign lands, knowing their new jailers might torture them.
Such abuses once were committed by the arrogant crowns of Europe, spawning rebellion.
Today, our nation does such things in the name of our safety. Petrified, unwilling to take the risks that love of liberty demands, we close our eyes.
We have done such things, on orders from the Oval Office. We have done them, without general outrage or shame.
Abu Ghraib. Guantanamo. CIA secret prisons. "Rendition" of prisoners to foreign torture chambers.
It's not enough that we had good reason to be scared.
The men huddled long ago in Philadelphia had better reason. A British fleet floated off the Jersey coast, full of hands eager to hang them from the nearest lampposts.
Yet they pledged their lives and sacred honor - no idle vow - to defend the "inalienable rights" of men. Inalienable - what does that signify? It means rights that belong to each person, simply by virtue of being human. Rights that can never be taken away, no matter what evil a person might do or might intend.
Surely one of those is the right not to be tortured. Surely that is a piece of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
This is the creed of July 4: No matter what it costs us, no matter how it scares us, no matter how foolish it seems to a cynical world, America should stand up for human rights.
No, not even the brave men who picked up a quill, dipped it in ink and signed the parchment that summer day in Philadelphia lived up perfectly to the creed. But they did something extraordinary, founding a new nation upon a vow to oppose all the evil habits of tyranny.
That is why history still honors them.
But what will history think of us, of how we responded to our great challenge? Sept. 11 was a hideous evil, a grievous wound. Yet, truth told, it has not summoned our better angels as often as our worst.
We have betrayed the July 4 creed. We trample the vows we make, hand to heart.
Don't imagine that only the torturer's hand bears the guilt. The guilt reaches deep inside our Capitol, and beyond that - to us.
Our silence is complicit. In our name, innocents were jailed, humans tortured, our Constitution mangled. And we said so little.
We can't claim not to have known. The best among us raised the alarm. Heroes in uniform, judges in robes, they opposed the perverse logic of an administration drenched in fear, drunk on power.
But did we heed them? Hardly. Barely . . .
We were so busy. Soccer practice at 6. A credit card balance to fret. The final vote on Idol.
We left it to those in power to keep our precious selves from harm. Whatever it took.
We took the coward's way.
The world sees this, even if we are too dim to grasp it. We've lost respect. We've shamed the memory of Jefferson, Adams and Franklin.
And all for a scam. The waterboarding, the snarling dogs, the theft of sleep - all the diabolical tricks haven't made us safer. They may have averted this plot or that. But they've spawned new enemies by the thousands, made the jihadist rants ring true to so many ears.
So put out no flags.
Sing no patriotic hymns.
We deserve no Fourth this year.
Let us atone, in quiet and humility. Let us spend the day truly studying the example of our Founders. May we earn a new birth of courage before our nation's birthday next rolls around.
csatullo@phillynews.com. To email http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/chris_satullo/20080701_Chris_Satullo__A_not-so-glorious_Fourth.html?adString=inq.news/chris_satullo;!category=chris_satullo;&randomOrd=070108102155
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 38
Couldn't disagree with you more. And I'm a little puzzled by your "blue lenses" reference. I don't agree with Satullo about not celebrating the meaning of July 4th. But I do agree with the sentiments of his article. The Bush administration has trampled the Constitution and the inalienable rights of citizens in their rush to contain terrorism.
I don't believe anyone is dishonoring the courage or fortitude of the men and women who serve in the armed forces. We just don't agree with the politicians who have sent them on this mission.
"Why was he in the wrong place at the wrong time"???? Maybe he was driving a cab and supporting a family of five or six when a guy he doesn't know gets in and asks to be driven to a destination.
And, by the way, the "socialism" you write about is the reason we have things like a military and highways. Everyone contributes, everyone prosper in theory. I totally agree with you that some spending on social programs is wrong or has taken a good idea to the wrong extreme, but I don't think a person as good as you seem to be wants to completely decentralize the government.
These are frightening and unsettling times. But we shouldn't let our fear drive us to become the very thing we despise. I'm going to celebrate the 4th of July, because I'm proud that America is a nation where all are welcome, where we value human life and human rights no matter how difficult the course, and where we all have freedom of speech to vocalize our opinions.
However, I got off topic for my article. My point was that this author was drawing the wrong comparisons with today's situation and the founding of this country. Go out and celebrate the Fourth. We live in the greatest country in the world!
I also doubt that taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is socialism or communism. Actually, the resources of the Earth should not belong to anyone, but to all equally, and this is what our founders understood. If elitists want to run things, such as dictators and wealthy folks, shouldn't they at least pay for it?
Still, I do acknowledge July 4th as being unrelated to what the columnist said, and I do honor our ancestors for their call to freedom, where all men should be treated as equal, not classes, not races, just people.
Bush rushed to war? How many times must it be screamed that the weak kneed congress failed in its MANDATED duties under the Constitution to demand a declaration of war? That permission to use force farce had bi-partisan support until things got sticky...those screaming the loudest were those quite willing to go along with the use of force as long as it seemed painless and costless...
Never mind the stupidity of our elected "leaders" who didn't bother to even read the Patriot Act before voting on it...
Anyway, nothing new with these instant Constitutionalists. You know, people who have no problems with the wars on drugs and poverty which have done far more damage to the Constitution than even Bush has done. They are just mad the waste is overseas rather than in places they think are critical or that the trampling on the Constitution (this time) bothers them suddenly.
This was done by YOUR elected reps, kids, not the President. They read it, Charles, and they passed it, in a fervor of protectionism. If you're unhappy about it, vote them out in November.
I really appreciate your thoughtful reply to my comment. I agree with you COMPLETELY that there should be more self determination and a great deal more compassion in the private sector. I'm put out no end that the prevailing attitude is "sit back, let the government handle it". Citizenship has just as much to do with responsibilities as it does with rights. We can respectfully disagree and I'm glad I have a better understanding of your opinions even though I don't agree with some of them.
Charles, I was an "instant Constitutionalist" during the 60's and I'm happy to have marched, written letters and protested to achieve the right of 18 year olds serving in the military in Viet Nam to have the vote, among other things. I agree with you, as I said before, that social spending in this country is out of control and really angry that my fellow citizens and elected officials behaved like sheep when it came to passing legislation that deprives us of our rights (wait, that's giving sheep a bad name). One lesson I learned from the 60's is that apathy is the enemy. I'm happy you have an opinion and that you share it with us; that's what America is about. What would be really helpful in these discussions is if you would stop using "they" in the way you do above. I'm an individual, not a "they". We all try to do what is right, we just disagree about what that is sometimes and debate is a sign of good health in a democracy.
I may not agree with the decisions that Mr. Bush made but the congress could/should have stopped him. We have managed to alienate ourselves from almost all of our allies. I shudder to think what will happen if we need them soon.
You have to say to yourself, would you want this to happen to you?
No one should be tortured or held without counsel or a way to defend yourself.
I don't care if you're a terrorist, kidnapper, whatever.
Everyone should have basic human rights to life, liberty and happiness.
You should have your day in court.
To have a jury of your peers deem you guilty or not guilty.
That's my opinion.
I am surprised Tony (lol) S is still asking this question. Tony (lol) S. asked this same question in the article below. Of course he had his ass handed to him (again)
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977380759&nav=Namespace
Iraq Liberation Act and other crazy ideas...
"In the 2000 election, both candidates spoke openly about the need to deal with Saddam Hussein. Al Gore was actually more emphatic on the topic than George Bush was. In 1998, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Just to show how conspiratorial they were, they put it in the Congressional record. In 1995, the CIA tried to organize a coup against Saddam Hussein and it failed. The coup was secret, but it has been written about in 5 or 6 books that I know of. In 1991, representatives of President George H. W. Bush went on the radio and urged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam Hussein. So America's policy on Saddam has been consistent. What we have been arguing about for years are the methods. First, we tried to encourage a rebellion in Iraq, that didn't work. Then we tried coups; that didn't work. Then in 1998, we tried funding Iraqi opposition. That might have worked, but the money never actually got appropriated. Then, ultimately we tried direct military power. The idea that Saddam should go has been the policy of the United States since 1991." - David Frum
George Bush made that clear in his Sept 20, 2001 speech to the nation when he said,
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated....
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach". Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, "Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland,"Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer," & "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan" who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq. Quite frankly, any war on terrorism that didn't tackle that nest of vipers would have been a war in name only.
Moreover, as devastating as 9/11 was, a terrorist attack featuring weapons of mass destruction could be infinitely worse. Much has been made of the fact that we have not found the stockpiles of WMD that we expected in Iraq. But, there are three points worth making about that.
First of all, there simply was no significant difference between the position the Bush administration had on Iraq's WMD and the position held by prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, or John Kerry. In short, the overwhelming majority of Democrats & Republicans in Washington believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Secondly, given the size of Iraq and the fact that Saddam Hussein's totalitarian regime was not cooperating with the UN inspectors, there was no way, even had they been there for a hundred years, that Hans Blix and the rest of the UN inspectors could have confirmed to anyone's satisfaction that Iraq was not producing WMD. Even a year after the war, when our inspectors have had the run of the country, access to "secret documents", and have been able to interview Iraqi scientists without Saddam's"minders" being present, our WMD teams have still not been able to definitively say there are no remaining stockpiles of weapons in Iraq although we certainly suspect that to be the case.
Third, it isn't as if our intelligence agencies and the politicians citing them were totally wrong about WMDs and Iraq. As David Kay revealed, Iraqi scientists were working on weaponizing anthrax "right up until the end" and had restarted a rudimentary nuclear weapons program in 2000 & 2001. Furthermore, Kay said,
"Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons."
Those are not comforting words given that an "Iraqi chemical weapons expert" told "Uday Husayn" that mustard gas could be produced for Saddam's Fedayeen in two months.
After 9/11, anyone who doesn't see the potential danger of allowing terrorists like Abdul Rahman Yasin & Abu Abbas to be sheltered by an America hating regime that was working on weaponizing ricin and that could produce mustard gas in two months has an insufficient understanding of the peril facing in our country in my opinion.
Furthermore, there were certainly many other reasons to go to Iraq. Saddam Hussein was an avowed enemy of America who had started two wars of aggression in the region, was steadfast in his support for Palestinian suicide bombers, and brutally oppressed his own people. That last point is especially salient since we justified sending troops to Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia almost solely because of "humanitarian reasons". Personally, I believe in using our military to further American interests, but if "humanitarian purposes" floated your boat in Kosovo or Haiti, I see no reason why it shouldn't still work for Iraq.
Similar arguments could be made about the UN. The UN Security Council averaged better than a UN Resolution per year for over a decade, the last of which was approved unanimously, demanding that Saddam fulfill the obligations he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. While I have an extraordinarily low opinion of the United Nations, there are many people who hold the UN in high esteem and regard it as an essential part of the world order. But, why should anyone take the UN seriously when even a despised dictator can simply thumb his nose at the UN year after year with no response other than impotent new resolutions?
Also, as I mentioned earlier, Iraq is an essential part of the war on terrorism. That's not just because we were able to go after the terrorists mentioned earlier, but because terrorists are coming to Iraq to fight our soldiers. Some people see that as a bad thing, but as Christopher Hitchens recently wrote,
"(I)n my experience, dud theories die only to be replaced by new and even dumber ones. The current reigning favorite is that fighting al-Qaida in Iraq is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida."
Indeed, we are fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. And while none of us are happy that our military is risking their lives fighting against terrorists in a foreign land, it could be worse. Instead of fighting the finest soldiers in the world in Iraq, Al-Qaeda could be murdering unarmed American civilians here in the US, at a time and a place of the terrorists' choosing. Iraq has turned out to be irresistible flypaper for terrorists and quite possibly, we here in the US may have been spared terrorist attacks because of it.
It's also worth noting that after Saddam was gone, we no longer had a need to keep troops in Saudi Arabia, which was something Al-Qaeda had used as a recruiting tool. Furthermore, we were able to lift the sanctions which had given Saddam an opportunity to starve his political enemies to death while shifting the blame for his murderous actions to the United States. Moreover, if as expected, we can actually help the Iraqis achieve Democracy, it has the potential to be the most significant thing to occur in the Middle-East since the Mamelukes effectively ended the Crusades with their victories in 1291.
If a beachhead of democracy can be established in Iraq, there's an excellent chance that we'll see Democratic reforms start to sweep across the region where anti-American tyrants are keeping their populations in control by the skin of their teeth. The influence of a free Iraq could in time help lead to a free Iran, a free Syria, a free Lebanon, a free Saudi Arabia, a free Egypt, etc, etc. We're not just shooting for an Iraqi Democracy, we're hoping to see freedom spread across the entire region.
In summary, what we must remember about Iraq is that it's not simply an optional war like Bosnia or Haiti, it's an essential part of the war on terrorism and the linchpin of our efforts to help bring democracy to the Middle-East. Potentially, what we're doing in Iraq could be as important as the work the "Greatest Generation" did in Japan and Germany after WW2, perhaps more so. The Bush administration's decision to take down Saddam and help the Iraqi people build a better, freer country was not just the right thing to do, it is without question in America's interests.
Tony -- you may not agree here, but you've got your answer. If you have a brain you can only agree that the Iraq war was inevitable. Thanks for playing, moonbat... you lose!