The Illusion of Hope and The Painful Truth

"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."


-- Patrick Henry (speech in the Virginia Convention, 23 March 1775)

Forget Impeachment: Grab The Tar And Feathers by Chuck Baldwin March 13, 2007

(Chuck Baldwin comes up with yet another controversial opionon re the war in Iraq---I do not agree with Chuck's opinion re the death of Sadaam Hussein, however---I do care that such an atrocity and sham of justice occurred without bringing all of the players---Bush, Cheney, most of the U.S. House and Senate and the private corporate individuals---- into the courtroom with him to face charges of crimes against humanity. All of these folks have committed acts as heinous as he did and continue to commit acts of greater debauchery-----This article should be yet another proof to Christian broadcasting facilities that they should be listening to and making available via their facilities ALL of the Christian opinions out there rather than just regurgitating the spin of the current administration's lies and mistruths.

It is undisputed fact that the United States put Sadaam Hussein in power, provided various forms of weapons (including chemical weapons) to him, financed and underwrote his authority and power, while he remained beneficial to the private corporate interests which obviously run our government and its international policy. The list of US erected despots doesn't stop with Sadaam: Manuel Noriega, The Shah, the Mujahadin in Afghanistan and yes, even the CIA trained and funded Osama bin Laden.

Why do these nation makers and breakers believe they have the right to engineer the governments of sovereign nations? Only to depose and murder those whom we initially treated as "friends," though I use that term very loosely. And how do these facts get by the American public at large? (I understand how it gets by the Christian community---and I will refrain from going further with that thought as I only have very unkind things to say in that regard.)

I pray that the Christian broadcasters across this country and the broadcasting facilities would stop with the repetition of the mindless mantra in support of an obviously corrupt and malevolent group of people who use religion as a stalking horse for their own political and financial enurement at the cost of our liberties and the lives of our children. --Editor)

In this column last week, I asked the question, Should President George W. Bush be impeached? The specific precursor for that question was the guilty verdict of former White House insider Lewis "Scooter" Libby. In my mind, that trial and subsequent conviction demonstrated that there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a thorough investigation into whether President Bush willfully manipulated evidence regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq and whether he deliberately lied to the American people in order to justify a pre-determined plan to launch a preemptive attack on that country.

In all the years of writing this column, I cannot recall one that elicited more response, positive and negative. Furthermore, respondents were split evenly down the middle. Half wanted to enshrine my face on Mount Rushmore, while the other half wanted to personally cast me into the lake of fire.

A brief digression regarding the WMD matter is the critically important question as to whether the White House believed Saddam Hussein had WMD CAPABLE OF THREATENING THE UNITED STATES. Emphasis is added on purpose, as most of the "Of-course-Iraq-had-WMD" crowd seem to equate Hussein's use of intermediate WMD against the Kurds with the ability to pose a "clear and present danger" to the United States. The two are not remotely related.

Please don't misunderstand me. I could not care less that Saddam Hussein is dead. He died the way most dictators die. He lived by the sword; he died by the sword. Or, by the rope, actually.

However, please remember that Saddam Hussein killed the Kurds because they staged a violent insurrection against his reign. What do you think George Bush would do if a group of people violently tried to oust him from power? I seem to recall a President and Attorney General sending tanks and helicopter gun ships against mostly old men, women, and children outside Waco, Texas, a few years back. And those poor folks had no intention of overthrowing the Texas capital, much less Washington, D.C.

The relevant question is not, Did Iraq have WMD, but did they have WMD CAPABLE OF THREATENING THE UNITED STATES? Everyone now knows the answer to that question is, no, it did not. But what we don't know is, When did President Bush know the answer to that question?

If our President knew that Iraq did not pose a "clear and present danger" to the security of the United States, and if he deliberately deceived the American people and sent more than 3,000 of America's finest to their deaths for ulterior motives (whatever they were), the man is certainly guilty of "high crimes" and should be impeached, at the very least.

Frankly, I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't know anyone who does (outside Bush and his inner circle). Therefore, I stand behind my initial statement that we need a thorough investigation to find out the truth. It would seem to me that, regardless of where each of us falls down politically, we would want to know the answer to that question. Unless we are afraid of the truth, of course.

All of that aside, there is one grievance that is sticking like a bone in my throat about this administration: its careless disregard for the security of our national borders. President Bush, along with Senators Ted Kennedy and John McCain, are in the process of turning America into a third world country. Their attempt to provide amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens and to virtually vanquish our national borders is nothing short of criminal. As President, Mr. Bush has taken it even further than that.

Without congressional oversight or knowledge, President Bush committed the United States to a trilateral union with Mexico and Canada. He put his stamp of approval upon a mammoth NAFTA superhighway. He has given the green light for thousands of Mexican trucks to enter the United States. He has turned his back on American Border Patrol agents who were simply trying to enforce our country's immigration laws. And he has done all this with impunity.

What makes President Bush's policy of open borders even more egregious is the argument that some Bush apologists make by saying that Iraq's limited WMD could be snuck into the United States, and, therefore, we had to invade Iraq. Well, duh! If President Bush really believed that Iraq was going to smuggle WMD into America, why did he not close the borders?

Furthermore, countries that most certainly do have WMD capable of threatening the United States include Russia and China. Does anyone (George W. Bush included) believe we should invade those countries? The fact is, if terrorists from any country have smuggled WMD into the U.S., we can thank President Bush and his fellow travelers in Congress for opening the door.

The reason that Congress is unwilling to stop President Bush on the open borders issue is because Democrats and Republicans alike are on the take. Democrats are appeasing their radical, multiculturalist cronies and Republicans are appeasing their Chamber of Commerce sugar daddies. Neither the Jackasses nor the Pachyderms give a flip about what is best for middle-class America or whether what they are doing will eventually destroy the sovereignty and independence of our country.

With or without Iraq, President Bush is a disaster. And Congress (with either party in charge) is no better. If we lived in the old days, we would not be talking about impeachment, we would be grabbing the tar and feathers.

© Chuck Baldwin

Support of the Troops...but not the War in Iraq

Today one of the larger Christian radio networks (VCY America) produced a broadcast with a guest who states that you cannot support the troops in Iraq without supporting their mission there.....the question that remains in my mind is: what is our mission there? Let me quote the blurb from VCY America's web site:

"Major Eric Egland is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and has served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. His experience includes working to defeat terrorism, narcotics trafficking and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Major Egland believes you can't divide support for the troops and support for the mission. He feels we need to succeed in Iraq and to play games with the funding undermines the success of our mission there."

I have not listened to the broadcast yet, however, even allowing such a person on the air really gives me the idea that his position is the one the producers of Crosstalk wish us to take, believe and endorse.

I have in the past counted on the discernment of the producers of Crosstalk, (VCY's nationally syndicated radio talk show), to see past the smoke and mirrors on most issues. (Not all, but most.) It would appear that on this one, the producers of Crosstalk have missed the mark in the face of the overwhelming mountain of mistruths and mistatements of fact by the Bush administration re weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the entire basis for our invasion of a sovereign nation. This current middle east conflict appears very much to be based on a fabrication much as the first Gulf War was based on fabrication and in reality, based on the personal interests of the Commander in Chief at that time---and this time as well.

I really hope that VCY, in the interest of equal time on the issue, would have Congressman Ron Paul on to discuss the war in Iraq. It seems to me that a member of the foreign intelligence committee in Congress might have some salient and cogent remarks on the issue...speaking of which, read the following speech made by Congressman Paul:

"HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS Before the U.S. House of Representatives February 14, 2007

Statement on the Iraq War Resolution

This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.

This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.

The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.

Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war, 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are reasonably estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?

Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century-and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the political left. Seven years ago the Right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged over the failed policy of nation building.

It’s important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to the pre-emptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by de-funding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.

The catch-all phrase, “War on Terrorism”, in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It’s deliberately vague and non definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don’t forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.

Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.

For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess-implying the implausible that if we stay it won’t be a mess.

Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!

Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insist on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient-in this case the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity here at home and peace abroad.

There’s no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and it’s sound today.

We shouldn’t wait until our financial system is completely ruined and we are forced to change our ways. We should do it as quickly as possible and stop the carnage and financial bleeding that will bring us to our knees and force us to stop that which we should have never started. We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now? "

It is a shame that VCY would participate in such one sidedness-----particularly giving air time to such propaganda as voiced by Major Eric England. Dissent is the very basis of the fabric of which this country was formed---especially dissent in the face of the likes of George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney and their kind: puppets and puppet masters.

Surely VCY America, a Christian broadcasting facility, is better than this...we will see. I humbly suggest that if VCY America is interested in promoting a Christian world view they might listen to Congressman Paul and at least have the moral courage to give equal time to patriotic dissent instead of being the voice piece of the NASCAR mentality.