► Traitor or Patriot?

Following the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, we were all ready and willing to “jump on the bandwagon” of “zealous” support of our government in the chase for those responsible—later identified as Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaida movement. We waited anxiously for our government to “bring us their heads” on military platters as we watched the invasion of Afghanistan from our living rooms as if it was Monday night football, somewhat reminiscent of David in a coliseum battle with a den of ferocious lions.

Webster's defines a patriot as "one who loves and zealously supports one's own country." It defines a traitor as "one who betrays one's country or friends. . . ."

Not satisfied with limiting themselves to rooting out and destroying Bin Laden's network of terrorists, the warmongers in Washington set out to find new enemies to target under the same guise. Could this have been the pressure for “a head” they were unable to surface from the caves of Afghanistan? For whatever real reason, the Washington ilk began a relentless attack upon Saddam Hussein, which lay the groundwork for attacking Iraq. After all, who could dispute that Saddam is as evil a despot as his “kindred spirits” Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung?

Evidently, for the “D.C. warmongers” to justify an invasion of Iraq, it became necessary for them to engage in a little creative propaganda to further garner public support before Americans got wise to the façade and jumped off the proverbial bandwagon, leaving them holding the politically unpopular, not to mention embarrassing, “ball,” so to speak. Towards that end, the “D.C. Team” proceeded with a deluge of inaccurate reports to the media of Saddam's alleged involvement with Bin Laden. When it was discovered that no direct link between Saddam and Bin Laden could be proven, the Team began spewing a rehash of old facts regarding Saddam's despotic conduct in gassing his own people and summarily murdering those who disagreed with him. Of course, never mind that, during much of his despotic reign, Saddam was our ally and received direct military support from us. Quite a heap swept under that rug!

The final piece of the puzzle in justifying Iraq invasion was to persuade us that Saddam possessed the ominous "weapons of mass destruction," thereby posing a direct threat to our security. Personally, I was not persuaded. I slept well with the knowledge that Saddam's missiles could only travel 120 miles; hence they weren’t likely to land in Columbus, Ohio anytime soon. Was this simply blind naiveté? After all, if he were to just string 60 or 70 of his shortsighted missiles end to end, maybe the last one could reach Columbus. Had the D.C. team supplied him with enough string during those friendly years? Oh my gosh! The duct tape!

Once the successful propaganda blitz set a seemingly safe stage, the Washington warmongers subsequently set about to invade Iraq; however, anticipating the likely wake of criticism focused on their motives, they included on their agenda silencing their critics by ensuring that anyone who disagreed with them was viewed as "unpatriotic," or even worse, “a traitor." Some of the most vociferous critics were the so-called infamous "Hollywood Gang" (i.e., Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, et al.) who were dubbed "unpatriotic traitors" (a “double whammy”) for disagreeing with the Iraq invasion. Those who blindly followed the script of the warmongers without questioning their motives were, of course, rapidly elevated as patriots or even “super patriots,”—a term lending itself to visions of blue tights and red t-shirts proclaiming large “S” configurations. Would this require the resurgence of phone booths for the quick changes many would require?

The Washington warmongers, and/or their anointed enablers, were then neatly positioned to set out to destroy the reputations, and even the future earnings, of the so-called Hollywood elitists (i.e., traitors) who dared to question the actions of their government. The conduct of the Washington elite in attacking those who disagree with them has been reminiscent of attacks upon the “hippies” of the 60s’ and their movement in protest of the Vietnam War. Of course, Washington ensured that the pleas of these protestors—and ultimately there were millions—were also publicized in a manner highlighting them as unpatriotic discontents. Turns out, the hippies were proven right. However, following the sad conclusion of the Vietnam War, I cannot recall any of them being heralded as the patriots, nor do I recall any of the Washington warmongers of that day offering the “flower children” of the ‘60s any apologies after berating them as unpatriotic zealots for years.

As an American veteran, I find it personally offensive when government warmongers attack my fellow citizens as traitors for questioning the efficacy of foreign invasions supposedly initiated on my behalf. I do not recall Michael Moore or Susan Sarandon ever attacking our troops in any manner. They merely questioned—as is their right—the legitimacy of “Washington reasoning” behind the invasion of Iraq. Even if one disagrees with Moore's opinions, it would be difficult to support such a vicious attack on his assertion of his rights to free speech in questioning the conduct of his government.

The vilification and demonization of those who dare to speak out against questionable governmental conduct is, of course, a time-honored tactic used primarily by those who, in most instances, have something to hide. With the most recent terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, attributed to Al Qaida, the question begs to be asked: What are we still doing in Iraq? Wasn’t the top priority to “rid the world” of Bin Laden and associates? Had we spent $100 billion on destroying Al Qaida, Hamas, et al., rather than invading Iraq, could we have prevented the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco, as well as those that are sure to follow?

Were Michael Moore and the legion of so-called traitors on target when they argued that an invasion of Iraq would soon become a recruiting tool for Bin Laden and his minions? If Moore et al. are eventually proven right, will the Washington warmongers admit they were wrong and provide them with "patriot badges" posthumously? Fat chance; history repeats itself.

Questioning the motives and conduct of our government is the only method available to us in discovering the real truth. To suggest that it is acceptable to label dissenters as traitors, or even worse, the act of questioning as perverse conduct, aims only to sweep a bigger heap under that carpet by silencing those who dare to ask questions in order to clear the way for government wrongdoers to avoid responsibility for their acts.

Kudos to Moore and colleagues, and others with the courage and fortitude to speak out when so acting targets them for inhumane treatment by those sworn to protect free speech and the right to dissent. Is it not far more noble to exhibit the willingness to lay one’s head on the proverbial chopping block to question governmental conduct than to lay in stagnant fear of the consequences of so acting? It is interesting to ponder the source of such fear in a free country that prides itself on “freedom of speech and justice for all.” When the Moore’s and Sarandon’s of this land finally outnumber the “patriotic” warmongers, what will become of the D.C. Team? History may not be so kind to these self-described and self-anointed super patriots.

As one super patriot asked many years ago,

"Can't we all just get along?"

~George Washington