In the conservative world, the United States is bastion of Glory. All nations look to America, and none that are truly free have lost respect for us in the past eight years. In the conservative world the President, George W. Bush has done everything correctly. That is with the exception of expending monies towards such wasteful spending as Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and a host of other appropriations not related to defense or homeland security.
In the real world; that place that has both conservative, progressives , and those independent of ideology something stinks in Denmark. The National Review Online (NRO) ascribes that there exists a need to defend the past eight years. Bear with me; this takes a little bit revision to comprehend.
First when faced with the growing concern in the world that the US Global War on Terror has let loose far too much destructive behavior such as numerous innocent civilian lives destroyed, the National Review Online replies “well that’s war”. Later the editors of the venerable conservative mouthpiece claim that a Bipartisan Committee that declared issue with the enhanced interrogation methods had erroneously not considered the efforts that the Bush administration made to avoid torture. Furthermore, The National Review has decided:
” The Bush administration did not negate the Geneva Conventions’ Common Article 3, which requires that captives be “treated humanely.” CA3 simply did not apply — or at least it did not until the 2006 Hamdan case, in which five Supreme Court justices ignored its terms. As the plain language of the law makes clear, CA3 governs civil wars: “armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties.” The war on terror is a global conflict, not a civil war. True, U.S. military doctrine recommends the observation of Geneva protections even for non-qualified captives, but that is a policy choice — it is not, as the Levin committee disingenuously asserts, a legal requirement.”
According to the editors of the NRO the 2006 case of Hamdam vs, Rumsfeld declared that Common Article Three applied to detainees. Until 2006, the NRO asserts that they did not apply, simply because the case had not come to court. Never mind that originally the Bush Administration adhered that detainees such as Hamdam had no right to trial. How then could the court rule on the correct application of the Common Article Three of the Geneva Convention? In any Case, the NRO stated that the Supreme Court arbiters of all laws in America erred by not affirming the Bush administration policies.
Now Mark Hemingway reports that the shoe throwing Iraqi is a sign of progress. Mr. Hemingway contends that liberals do not understand the context of the shoe-throwing incident. In his own words, “There’s an undeniably comic aspect to this particular tableau. But let’s remember: It wasn’t that long ago that the preferred projectiles for expressing discontent with the powers that be in Iraq were bullets. With the hurling of shoes at Bush, the relationship between the people and their government has moved in the span of five years from a murderous tyranny, through armed resistance to a temporary occupation, to symbolic acts not any more threatening than you’d find in an unhappy marriage.”
“It ain’t pretty, but it’s progress”
To Mr. Hemingway I reply, you do not understand culture. You do not understand Iraqis, and you certainly do not understand safety. Since you do not need to live in Iraq, you can safely stand on the sidelines and declare that this is progress. To be fair there is a lessoning of violence, but this is not as Representative Mike Pence was want to say a “Sunday stroll in Indiana” Bombs are still going off, the likes of which if they had happened once in America we would be a high alert hiding in our bathrooms behind plastic barriers.
The throwing of shoes in Iraq is not symbolic of a lovers spat in a bedroom as the writer has suggested. This is especially true when enjoined with the epithet “a farewell kiss you dog!” This behavior is emblematic of severe disdain, and is echoed in the Arab street and the world today. We are not always welcome, where we send our troops.
I remember the 1967 riots; armed national guardsmen placed there by the governor to protect the people were not exactly welcome. Think about this, men with machine guns and tanks who spoke our language and knew our customs still scared the bejebbers out of us and we were not the enemy. Imagine how that would feel if there were foreign soldiers who we could not understand and of whom did not respect our culture. Add to this if our sons and daughters were killed, if men had battered down our doors at four am, and many had been detained without explanation, would we not be resentful. Would we claim fewer bombs blowing people apart was progress. The reporter from Iraq had family members killed because of the war, he had been kidnapped and tortured he was expressing more than his own sentiments. In Iraq, the sole of a man’s foot is never to face another man, as this is the highest form disrespect!
In conclusion, let me re-encapsulate what we have noted today from conservative commentators: A man hurling epithets and throwing shoes at our President in Iraq is a sign of progress. Five highly learned Supreme Court justices are completely wrong, a bipartisan committee is completely wrong, everyone but the Bush Administration and the those who cling to it are wrong. Do you know what they call people who believe that every one else is wrong about everything, delusional. The Greeks had a place for these people, they were said to live in cloud cuckoo land. Nothing, even a healthy dose of reality can cure these people and at last, count there may be 58 million of them.
We should welcome all discourse. I know the strength of our country comes from multiple voices.
We are all different. We need the Left and Right to work together.