George W’s Quagmire

[rexbo 104]

George W’s Quagmire

July 01, 2005, 8:19 a.m.

George W’s Quagmire

Different war, same old complaints.

By Michael Graham

Philadelphia, the American Colonies, July 4, 1776 — Leaders of the self-described “American patriots” movement gathered in this Pennsylvania city today to sign an official declaration of their political intentions, despite widespread criticism of a failing war policy and complaints that their military action was launched under false pretenses.

   

“Here it is, July of 1776, and George W. and his lackeys are just now getting around to declaring what this war is supposedly all about?” complained Loyalist playwright Michael LeMoore. “Washington and his neo-congressionalists rushed us into war at Lexington and Concord, before anyone had ‘declared’ a single word about independence. Face it: George lied, and people died.”

LeMoore was referring to what patriots call “The shot heard 'round the world,” when colonial forces fired on British soldiers in violation of accepted international rules of military engagement.

Supporters of George Washington and the so-called “war for independence” dispute claims from the antiwar movement that their actions are unlawful, and they point to their formal “Declaration of Independence” as proof.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” reads the Declaration in part, “that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The document was reportedly written by Thomas Jefferson, a white, southern slave-owner, and one of the architects of the “patriot” movement.

Critics quickly noted the hypocrisy of Jefferson's reference to “unalienable rights” of liberty and the author's own record of slave-ownership.

“If they really believed in spreading ‘freedom,’ they would free their own slaves instead of killing the British and shelling innocent civilian Loyalist women and children in Boston and New York,” said Howard Deanne, head of the Loyalist National Committee. “And what of the recently uncovered Commonwealth Avenue memos, which would seem to indicate that those closest to Washington were planning for war after the Boston Tea Party back in '73? I'm telling you, the colonists of America have been misled into war!”

Though most colonists agree that King George III is a tyrant, polls consistently show that a minority of colonists support open military action against the British. Many pundits also question whether removing the monarchy will make any fundamental difference in the lives of Americans.

General Washington came to Philadelphia to report to members of the Continental Congress, and anonymous sources report he came under heavy fire over the actions of his army and the costs of the war.

“We lost 140 Americans at Bunker Hill, more than 600 killed or captured in our disastrous attacks on Canada, and there’s no end in sight,” said one congressional staffer who asked not to be identified. “People are asking, ‘When is this war going to end? What is our exit strategy?’ This is George W's war, no doubt about it.”

Indeed, as support for the war among the American colonists wanes, some Quaker antiwar activists are using the other “Q” word in colonial politics: quagmire. Some even suggest that the entire war was manufactured by Gen. Washington to settle a personal score with the British over perceived insults he endured during the French and Indian War.

“Washington was just looking for an excuse to go to war,” said prominent lady activist Rosalind O'Donnell. “Everyone knows little Georgie would be broke if not for his connections to major land speculators pushing out beyond Kentucky. This is just a land grab! No war for Ohio! No war for Ohio!”

Patriot leaders gathered in Philadelphia, however, were determined to ignore the mounting criticism and celebrate their unanimous adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

“I firmly believe that in the future, this day — July 4, 1776 — will be viewed as a great moment for America and for freedom around the world,” John Adams of Massachusetts told a handpicked audience of “patriot” supporters. But neither he nor any of the other speakers said anything new about the costs or justifications of this divisive war policy, returning instead as they often do to the broad themes of freedom and democracy.

The Declaration concludes by stating: “We, therefore…declare that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

“That's the kind of simplistic jingoism one expects to read in Fox's Daily Broadsheet, not in serious political discourse,” said Noah Chommsey, head of the political-science department at King’s College. “But the idea that the American colonists have come up with some superior form of self-government that is inherently more just than, say, monarchy or theocracy, is the height of arrogance.”

Meanwhile, the war effort continues. Loyalist supporters among the American colonists continue to support the British military, particularly in the South, and hopes are fading that a major European power will come to the aid of the Americans. Military analysts suggest that the American “War for Independence” could last another seven years and result in the death of up to one percent of the entire American population.

“Is a free, democratic America really worth such a price?” demanded playwright LeMoore. “I certainly don’t think so. The world shouldn’t look to America for leadership. They should look instead to courageous nations truly endowed with greatness. Like France.”

— Radio-talk host Michael Graham covers southern politics from his home in Virginia. He is an NRO contributor.

[alexgreatau 0]

Rexbo,

Thanks for sending that column our way! Neal Boortz read that column on his radio show last week. I will download it on my computer now that I have it.

Actually, I just finished reading David McCullough's "1776." What a great book. What predicaments and desparate situations those brave men went through to preserve freedom and liberty in this country. It really does make you put your daily life problems in perspective.

I shrill at the thought of the mainstream media being around in 1776. With the media around back then, George Washington would have been dismissed as commander-in-chief of the American forces after his army's disastrous loss at the Battle of Long Island, and the Continental Congress would have sought peace terms with King George III. Instead of being referred to as the Founding Fathers of our country, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and John Hancock would have all been hung on a gillet by George III and would have been seen today as abysmal failures.

I would still be a Frenchmen, considering how my forefathers decided not to emigrate to America because America was controlled by the inexorable enemy of France, the UK.

As a Frenchmen, I would be speaking German today, because the Nazi's would still control France without U.S intervention in WWII.

As a Frenchmen, I would have never attended Auburn University and been a loyal fan. I would not have enjoyed the 1980's, 11-0, and 13-0.

Thank God for some of the great men in this country, like Washington and President Bush, who didn't listen to their detractors and had the bigger picture in mind.

Alex

[WarTim 3,457]

"quagmire"= liberal "buzzword" in attempt to compare to Vietnam. No comparison can be made, but, bless their hearts, that is all they have. No message, no solutions, just bash the conservatives. We control all politics in this Country as of today.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

So does this analogy make Dubya the Father of Iraq?

[rexbo 104]

So does this analogy make Dubya the Father of Iraq?

167262[/snapback]

Better him than Saddam; Bush cares much more about the people of Iraq than Saddam does, that's for damn sure...

[TexasTiger 13,016]

So does this analogy make Dubya the Father of Iraq?

167262[/snapback]

Better him than Saddam; Bush cares much more about the people of Iraq than Saddam does, that's for damn sure...

167265[/snapback]

Saddam as the yardstick sets the bar pretty low. I'd say the average Iraqi off of the street cares much more about the people of Iraq than Saddam.

One thing about this analogy was that Washington was leading American troops for American freedom on their home soil against an occupying force. Other than that, it's brilliant. Dubya and Washington are virtually indistinguishable. But I'm confused. During the election we were told that Dubya was the next Reagan. And the next Truman. Now he's the next George Washington?

[rexbo 104]

Actually, the only real comparison to George W himself was the similarity in name in the title; the real intent of the article was to speculate on how today's mass media would have potrayed the American Revolution. From that, you can put today's coverage of Iraq's fight for freedom and democracy into perspective, the article wasn't really about Bush.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Great article and right on the mark, rexbo. I have contemplated several times starting a thread where we recreate newspaper headlines of famous historical events as they would be written by todays tabloid journalists.

Saddam as the yardstick sets the bar pretty low.  I'd say the average Iraqi off of the street cares much more about the people of Iraq than Saddam.

One thing about this analogy was that Washington was leading American troops for American freedom on their home soil against an occupying force.  Other than that, it's brilliant.  Dubya and Washington are virtually indistinguishable.  But I'm confused.  During the election we were told that Dubya was the next Reagan.  And the next Truman.  Now he's the next George Washington?

167269[/snapback]

Well, since the liberals have always compared the President to Hitler, I guess you guys could lump him right into the group with Saddam. That would fit perfectly in the liberal idiom.

You need to go back to history class. The British soldiers the Continental army fought against weren't occupiers. "America" was their land up until their surrender at Yorktown on October 19, 1781. The peace treaty that officially ended the war (Treaty of Paris) wasn't signed until January of 1784.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Great article and right on the mark, rexbo. I have contemplated several times starting a thread where we recreate newspaper headlines of famous historical events as they would be written by todays tabloid journalists.

Saddam as the yardstick sets the bar pretty low.  I'd say the average Iraqi off of the street cares much more about the people of Iraq than Saddam.

One thing about this analogy was that Washington was leading American troops for American freedom on their home soil against an occupying force.  Other than that, it's brilliant.  Dubya and Washington are virtually indistinguishable.  But I'm confused.  During the election we were told that Dubya was the next Reagan.  And the next Truman.  Now he's the next George Washington?

167269[/snapback]

Well, since the liberals have always compared the President to Hitler, I guess you guys could lump him right into the group with Saddam. That would fit perfectly in the liberal idiom.

You need to go back to history class. The British soldiers the Continental army fought against weren't occupiers. "America" was their land up until their surrender at Yorktown on October 19, 1781. The peace treaty that officially ended the war (Treaty of Paris) wasn't signed until January of 1784.

167296[/snapback]

Well, since the liberals have always compared the President to Hitler, I guess you guys could lump him right into the group with Saddam. That would fit perfectly in the liberal idiom.

The only consistent thing is how wrong you are. A military man who can't recognize "the enemy."

You need to go back to history class. The British soldiers the Continental army fought against weren't occupiers. "America" was their land up until their surrender at Yorktown on October 19, 1781. The peace treaty that officially ended the war (Treaty of Paris) wasn't signed until January of 1784.

I don't need to go back to history class. Even expected that comment from someone just looking to be contrary or who was perhaps confused. A matter of perspective, really. You, strangely enough, take the British perspective. You're not British, are you? What did we celebrate yesterday, anyway? Since you're throwing around dates, do you remember what year we declared our independence?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

The only consistent thing is how wrong you are.  A military man who can't recognize "the enemy." 

167312[/snapback]

Can't recognize the enemy? Heck, I counter their arguments every day on this site!

I don't need to go back to history class.  Even expected that comment from someone just looking to be contrary or who was perhaps confused.  A matter of perspective, really.  You, strangely enough, take the British perspective.  You're not British, are you? What did we celebrate yesterday, anyway?  Since you're throwing around dates, do you remember what year we declared our independence?

167312[/snapback]

No sir, I take history's perspective. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was endorsed by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. From there, copies were sent to the 13 colonies. The actual signing of the document didn't occur until August 2, 1776. Therefore, what we as Americans celebrate, is our declaration of independence from Britain. Actual independence occurred with the defeat of the British at Yorktown. Official recognition of the United States as a sovereign nation didn't occur until the signing of the Paris Treaty.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

The only consistent thing is how wrong you are.  A military man who can't recognize "the enemy." 

167312[/snapback]

Can't recognize the enemy? Heck, I counter their arguments every day on this site!

I don't need to go back to history class.  Even expected that comment from someone just looking to be contrary or who was perhaps confused.  A matter of perspective, really.  You, strangely enough, take the British perspective.  You're not British, are you? What did we celebrate yesterday, anyway?  Since you're throwing around dates, do you remember what year we declared our independence?

167312[/snapback]

No sir, I take history's perspective. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was endorsed by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. From there, copies were sent to the 13 colonies. The actual signing of the document didn't occur until August 2, 1776. Therefore, what we as Americans celebrate, is our declaration of independence from Britain. Actual independence occurred with the defeat of the British at Yorktown. Official recognition of the United States as a sovereign nation didn't occur until the signing of the Paris Treaty.

167314[/snapback]

Official to whom? Great Britain? We recognized our independence in 1776. France, as much as you hate them, recognized our sovereignty in 1778.