Forward Biased (Less-than-current Events)

Evil and treason

Email and comments are going to have to wait a few minutes today.  I just can't stand this any more.

Just in case there was ever any question, there are evil people in the world.  They choose to be evil for ther own reasons, and I therefore cannot excuse them for "difficult childhoods" or any other such folderol.  The vast majority of people who grow up under deplorable circumstances choose, rather, to overcome the temptation to turn evil.  I'm not saying it's easy—I am saying it's possible, even the normal thing to do.  It certainly is the civilized thing.

Some evil people are easy to recognize.  Sadaam, for example.  Feeding your suspected enemies feet-first into a shredder isn't likely to win you a nomination for 2001 "Beloved Dictator of the Year." 

No, I take that back—he had elections all figured out, having won with a 99% vote last time.  (Iran's "Mad Mullahs" have done similarly.)

Anyway, evil.  There's always the quintessential and over-utilized Hitler, Stalin, Caligula, people of their ilk.  They're the ones people mention when asked to name evil people, because they're easy.  Crib question, right?

Not at all.  Many, if not most, evil people are not as easy to spot, as they masquerade as people who are out for our best interests.  Public servants, you know.  Leaders of public institutions that have existed for years, often with historically admirable roots.  People who still can gather thousands of "votes" for themselves, whether literal votes (for a politician) or economic votes for, say, a newspaper.

They typify the most dangerous kind of evil because it's the most deceptive—and seductive.  Very seductive.  And while they might not be the same kind of evil as, say, Hitler, they can be much more destructive.  They're more destructive and dangerous because, for one thing, they live and work among us—and, worse, they govern us.

As I've mentioned before, I'm not one normally given to schadenfreude, but in the case of the Legacy Media I make a well-deserved exception.  I also make room for politicians who make their country's interests, even the lives of her citizens and defenders, subordinate to their own political careers.

The first has been typified lately by the LATimes (among many other papers), the second by Rep. John Murtha (D-Traitorous Scuzzbucket) and all who support him, on both sides of the political aisle.

Just so that I'm clear and confuse no one with any incorrect implications, I'm not questioning anyone's patriotism, least of all the Times or the good Rep. Murtha.  No, no.  I'm unequivocally denying their patriotism.  I'm also stating that, having the approximate morals of the average cockroach, they are outright traitors to their country along with everything she represents.

Not being able to politely use stronger terms than those, I think I am actually understating the case.

Murtha, who has stated that "our troops have become the enemy," is a "hawk" and "a respected 37-year Marine veteran," we are told over and over—even more frequently than we were informed a year ago that John Kerry, incidentally, "served in Vietnam."

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Principled Leader), on the other hand, who actually visited Iraq four times in the last 18 months to assess the situation and came to an opposite conclusion from Murtha, has been virtually ignored.  Evidently, this is one of those times when only a veteran has any "credibility" when commenting on an issue which just happens to be politically polarized.  Eyewitness accounts and qualified advice don't count for squat next to the "politically correct" opinion.

Sen. Lieberman is reminding me of this year's Zell Miller—someone whose convictions are so strong that he's willing to dissent from the party line when he believes that the party line is wrong for the country.  Would that we had more conscientious politicians like them!

Actually, Miller went much further than mere dissent: he publicly acknowledged the depths to which most of his party had sunk in explaining why he had to support the other guy for president.  We'll see whether Lieberman does anything similar.

Let's be clear.  Anyone who calls for a troop withdrawal "timetable" to be made public is calling for aid to the enemy.  In past wars there was such thing as "classified" information, kept secret from enemy planners using complex codes with keys that people guarded with their lives.

Now we have politicians, particularly Democrats, insisting that the "the public" must be consulted on each major war policy, thus informing the enemy of our intentions.

Make no mistake about this newfound "concern" for the public's sensibilities and wisdom.  These politicians are hardly concerned about doing the right thing—they're concerned only with covering their backsides with a dense, protective coating of public opinion data.  They've already seen a principled decision, namely, a vote to use force against Sadaam, come back to bite them popularity-wise, and, not having the courage of their convictions to deal with the tide of public opinion turning against them (well, at least according to some polls), they want to make dang sure that it never happens again.  These men are not only evil, they're cowards.

Murtha has also said:

We cannot win this militarily.

Demoralizing our troops while simultaneously encouraging the enemy is treason, as far as I'm concerned.  In a war with terrorists, both sides are particularly sensitive to the state of morale, and when any leader uses the occasion of dissent to pierce the hearts of our own soldiers, he does not deserve their protection.  Propaganda has always been a vital tool of war because it works.  Both ways.

The soldiers can't speak for themselves.

Oh no?  Seems to me the ones coming back are doing a pretty good job of it, and they say they can't even recognize Iraq in the news they're getting from Legacy outlets.

And his most infamous comment to date:

[T]he Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth."

Listen up, sir.  You may be broken and worn out, you pusillanimous, pus-filled, festering boil on the backside of Humanity, but our armies are not.  Just ask them.  You should summarily be propped firmly against a wall and shot, along with any of your Congressional colleagues who have made so much as a whimper in support of your vile statements.  And I request the honor of personally being on the firing squad.

If you aren't a traitor, sir, then there is no such thing as treason.

UPDATE:  Is it a felony to make such statements (two paragraphs up) against a member of Congress?  If so, this is one of those times that it's actually good to be an obscure little blog...

Election 2006 update

I just posted a very important update to this post, but it's important enough to merit a post of its own.

Here, again, is Mark Tapscott's list of how each Senator voted concerning the Coburn Amendments.

Here, for your perusing pleasure, is a list of the 33 Senators up for re-election in 2006.  The list includes NY Sen. Hillary Clinton, for whom defeat in this Senate race would mean quite a setback in her plans for the White House in 2008.

Of those up for re-election, only George Allen (R-VA), John Ensign (R-NV), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and Jim Talent (R-MO) voted in favor of the Coburn Amendments.  Remember, George Allen is a potential presidential candidate for 2008, and at least for now I support him in that endeavor.  (I just scanned these lists manually, so I may have inadvertently missed someone.)

We've got to get to the point where we're no longer intimidated by a Senator's being called "safe" because his or her district has, historically, reliably voted for his/her party.  Anyone can be vulnerable if their constituency can be made to see what they've been voting for.

Please help me spread the word about this by sharing the two Senate links above.  Of course, a trackback and link back to this post would be nice, but not necessary if you'll just help propagate those two links and what they're all about.  Thanks.