A Warhawk Flies the Coop

I start on a personal note. I would like for the record to show that, today, I formally disavow the Republican Party as well as my past support for the Second Gulf War.

Now, let me be frank: This is something I didn't see coming a year ago. I only saw things through a prism of GOP allegiance back then. I'm a year older now -- a year wiser, I suppose. It shouldn't be easy for an op-ed writer to admit when he's wrong. But I was. And it is. And in light of George Bush's latest State of the Union, saying goodbye to the Republican Party is the easiest thing I've done in quite some time.

This doesn't mean I've gone Democrat, though. Quite the contrary. But let me explain.

There was a time not long ago when the president could do no wrong in my eyes, a time when I was willing to write, as I did in September '02, "I have faith in President Bush." That time ended last summer, however, when I finally got fed up with his fiscally ridiculous ways. Indeed, John Kerry calls the Bush White House "reckless," and when it comes to our wallets I tend to agree. And while I never thought I'd say this, the way Bush spends -- and spends, and spends -- I'm beginning to miss Bill Clinton.

Must we go to the moon, I mean? And must it cost billions in taxpayer dollars? Can't we just build a really tall ladder instead?

Anyway, with fiscal disgruntlement in mind, I began looking over my earlier work a few months ago, hoping to justify just what it was that made me vote Republican. I soon found the truth: I was as much a partisan cheerleader as the Hollywood Lefties I claimed to despise. And at first, I confess, I thought to address this in an Orwellian way -- that is, I thought to erase the past by removing older articles from my Web site's archives. Not wanting to repeat my personal history, however, I've decided to take myself on instead. Thus, this here mea culpa.

My thoughts on my partisan past? In retrospect, it bugs me. It means I ignored the fact that Big Gov't is Big Gov't no matter the name it goes by -- GOP, DNC, or what have you. For a time there, especially when I was first getting started three years ago, I had nary a thought of my own. I was accused a time or two of receiving Republican talking points. I didn't need them. All I had to do was turn on Sean Hannity and I'd end up repeating everything he said. The closest I came to independent thinking was repeating the words of people who claimed to be independent thinkers.

Case in point: In my first ever political diatribe, dated May 7, 2001, I referred to myself as "a non-partisan moderate," then went on to scold anyone critical of George Bush. I compare this now to North Korean girls crying tears of joy at the sight of Kim Jong Il.

More importantly, though, half the things I wrote back then were devoid of actual substance. I didn't have ideas. I had suggestions. I had templates. I applied them to whatever topic was hot, and voila! I had an article. Which is a fine way to make a deadline, sure, but it's really not so fulfilling. Take, for example, this gem from my February 25, 2003, article, "Time, Like France, Is Not On Our Side": "You know, it's not that I've ever taken things for granted, but my deep appreciation for American life only really settled in on September 11th. The feeling has yet to let me go."

Well, that's great and all, but what the hell was I saying? It didn't mean anything. Watch me change the words: "You know, it's not that I've ever taken the Canadian porn industry for granted, but my deep appreciation for it only really settled in when I witnessed Taliban porn firsthand. The feeling has yet to let me go." And you see, much like Mad Libs, a few changed words didn't change the substance one lick.

And I'll tell you the thing that gets me now is I really, truly believed at the time that that was one of my finest articles ever. At the time, it probably was. But I wrote a lot of stuff like that during the build-up to the Second Gulf War. I was still in a woe-is-me, post-9/11 rut back then, and I went along with the war without thinking critically or questioning a damn thing. This bothers me now because, regardless of whether I support my having supported it, I would've done well to have followed less blindly -- as a writer, as an American, as a man.

In that very same article on February 25, I wrote: "I don't want this war… anymore than the next guy." That sounded nice when I wrote it, but it wasn't exactly true. I mean, of course I wanted the war more than the next guy. I was rooting for it with thousand-word diatribes each and every Tuesday. The least I could've done is not lied about it. But, indeed, I was the one I was lying to. It was one of those you're-only-fooling-yourself moments, and I fell for it.

Well, unlike The Who, I can't promise I won't get fooled again, but I can promise you I don't want to.

Before the Second Gulf War, we heard about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'll say now, like I said then, that the actual weapons were secondary to the shady way in which he treated the weapons inspectors. It seemed to prove he was hiding something, and there remains the chance that he was. Either way, I enjoy the fact that he's out of power. But if his sketchiness was cause for war, what, then, can I say about Bush's own sketchiness on this issue?

I've got the State of the Union transcript in front of me as I write this. By my count, the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is mentioned three times. The first regards Libya's voluntary disarmament. Next comes Bush's claim that a report by inspector David Kay "identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." And finally, Bush said, "Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day." Yet the evidence, thus far, indicates Saddam's storied stockpiles were just that: Stories. Dozens of 'em.

So did Iraq really have WMD programs? Colin Powell says "we don't know yet." And David Kay says the evidence suggests "the weapons do not exist." Both men revealed their opinions mere days after the State of the Union. Surely the president knew about them ahead of time. Why no mention of it, then? A simple "Oops," or "I'm as surprised by this as you are," would've sufficed. Instead, he treated this "credibility gap" -- as Tom Daschle might call it -- as a non-issue. Out of sight. Out of mind. What a brilliant PR move. Sort of reminds me of the time Baghdad Bob said coalition troops were nowhere near the airport, when, in fact, they had taken the airport.

Ted Kennedy said of the war on Iraq last September, "There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas." I don't like Ted Kennedy, and I don't want to believe him. There's no denying, though, that a good many members of the Bush administration had been advocating this war for years -- indeed, since before the "new Pearl Harbor" (i.e., 9/11) that they suggested would push forward their plan. I want to believe their intentions were genuine. I want to "have faith," as I said before. But I see the lack of WMDs in Iraq, and I see Bush's reluctance to so much as address the issue, and it starts to remind me of another George -- this one Costanza -- who once drove his in-laws to his house in the Hamptons despite knowing full well he had no house there.

Which brings me back to the reason I'm disavowing the Republican Party. Bush said of the Patriot Act in his State of the Union this year, "Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens." Some in the chamber booed this statement. In a prepared response later that evening, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said, "Democrats have a better way to ensure our homeland security." She explained the dangers of uninspected shipping containers and concluded, "America will be far safer if we reduce the chances of a terrorist attack in one of our cities than if we diminish the civil liberties of our own people."

The president has proven we can't trust him with our wallets. Some would say we can't trust him on foreign affairs. Meanwhile, both parties would rely on government power to wage the war on terror, and this is what scares me the most.

I am an average, everyday American. I used to be able to see the Twin Towers from atop the hill behind my home. When those buildings went down, my heart said, "Give the government free reign." No longer. The CIA failed to stop 9/11. They've failed to find whoever sent anthrax, and the war that I supported because of that anthrax was built on yet more bad intelligence. Now we're supposed to let men in publicly subsidized uniforms break into our homes to "protect" us?

No wonder they send folks to jail for fighting back against petty burglars. With an attitude like that, we'd kick the government out of our homes, too.

So here's the bottom line: I supported the Second Gulf War because I thought we were waging it in self-defense. The lack of WMDs leads me to believe we had nothing to defend ourselves from -- except fear. I see now that the arguments I made in favor of the war were as empty as the arguments made for and against it by our leaders. My error was putting my "faith" in the government. It can't protect me, and it won't. The First and Second Amendments show we're supposed to protect ourselves. As part of this, I'm going to get off my lazy rear end and learn how to use a gun already. I've been meaning to do so for ages. I plan on doing so soon.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that men "are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." For me, this means it's time to declare my independence from the Left/Right dichotomy. If I don't know who to trust, I'll trust no one. It's safer that way.

According to Bush, "the state of our union is confident and strong." I say it's too strong. Please stay tuned as I try to prove it to you.

I am posting this with some misgivings but I believe the author has some important things to say. I suspect that this article will prompt some "passionate" responses - pro and con. As for me, I disagree with the drunken sailor spending ways of the administration. However, at the end of the day, I believe it is far better for this nation to have a Bush win in November than a Bush loss. A vote any other way will contribute to the democrats. I hope that I need not tell you that that would be potentially disastrous with respect to national security, SC appointments, circuit court appointments (yes, I know about the filibusters), etc. And, from a strictly political poin-of-view, I understand that some overtures must be made to people traditionally outside the party for the party to survive. The trick is maintaining your core values while doing it.

So, here it is. I plan to keep up with the author's folow-up articles. I'd be glad to ping anyone who would like to read them. FReepmail me accordingly.

Lando

The question should not be "did Saddam have WMD's", it should be "Did SADDAM want you (Americans,Christians,Non-Muslims,Infidels) DEAD, and was he prepared to make his desires into reality?"

The answer then becomes glaringly obvious.

Remember, 3000 people died in the WTC on 09/11 due to a razor blade less than 3 inches long. There's your WMD.

This writer's comments about comparisions with Bush and then Kim Jong Il's North Korean girls crying was a sure clue that he is insincere or a closet solicist blind to the horrors of North Korea.

Where is the Gag alert or Barf alert!?

I'm with you...sort of. I'm probably going to register Libertarian unless things change. That's right, quite possibly leaving the GOP for many of the reasons you stated. I will still vote Bush in November, b/c despite his flaws, his adminstration is at least willing to crush our islamist enemies. A demo-rat president will insure we're hit again in a major terror attack.

However, I never really bought the WMD argument. It was a smoke screen for our overall Middle East strategy, which amounts to total change in the region. I don't have a problem with it. I'm glad we're doing what we're doing in Iraq. We're sending a strong message to the rest of the world that we're not playing around anymore.

I'm just at a loss with the President's spending, his stnace on immigration, his willingness to kill the islamists but his unwillingness to bully the dims. I appreciate and fully understand his tax cuts, but can't abide his position on the "assault weapons ban".

I like George Bush, but somethimes I don't understand him at all.

"Remember, 3000 people died in the WTC on 09/11 due to a razor blade less than 3 inches long. There's your WMD."

Thanks for the reminder. I'm passing this around my emergency management network.

Unbelievably, one of the managers said in a meeting yesterday that there will never be another terrorist event in the US and it was a waste of money to plan and train for one. We're in one of the highest ranked areas in the US for an event. She was hooted at, but it goes to show you that some of the people in place to protect you have a biased viewpoint and a short memory.

The only person to blame for Iraq War II is Saddam. If he had been open and forthright with the U.N. weapons inspectors, Hans Blix could have told us then what Dr. Kay is telling us now.

But no, Saddam had to tweak the tiger's tail. He kept everything secret, gave the inspectors a hard time. And intelligence services around the world believed he had the WMDs or was on the verge of getting them.

So now Saddam lives in jail in some undisclosed location. He gambled and he lost. Simple as that.

Anyone who follows the news closely already knows the truth. Passion isnb;t a factor.

Did the UN weapons inspectors file highly detailed and complately bogis reports for 12 years? Was even Blixie's last official, written report a lie? Did you know the president has quoted those reports when "making the case for war in Iraq"? Why has nobody questioned the source? Did UN weapons inspectors perpetrate a successful, decade long racketeering scam against the best intelligence of every single developed country in the free world?

The answer is "no" that isn't possible. Oh the racketeering is. Every member of the administration intimated UN oil-for-food on the record at some point. However, they obviously KNEW, or they wouldn't have been saying it. A scam of the proportions we're talking about, perpetrated for this many years would have been detected by at least one intelligence agency from one Western country.

I'm pretty much on record at FR as a "Bush-basher" (Immigration, Saudi-coddling).

That said, sweeping the Saddam regime from the table, I believe, was a necessary step in any War on Terror, and I therefore continue to support this war.

The WMD problem is one of the administration's own making. They just plain hyped that argument too much, and got ahead of the facts.

The question should not be "did Saddam have WMD's", it should be "Did SADDAM want you (Americans,Christians,Non-Muslims,Infidels) DEAD, and was he prepared to make his desires into reality?"

Uh, huh. The question is why the administration kept insisting the weapons were there. Either they were lying or our intelligence totally sucks - and we need to know which for the safety of this country.

You have a lot of guts for posting this article. My hat's off to you.

When those buildings went down, my heart said, "Give the government free reign." No longer. The CIA failed to stop 9/11. They've failed to find whoever sent anthrax, and the war that I supported because of that anthrax was built on yet more bad intelligence. Now we're supposed to let men in publicly subsidized uniforms break into our homes to "protect" us?

FReepers may not like to hear talk like this, but I'm telling you all in a loud voice: "THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE ON THE STREETS ARE SAYING WHERE I LIVE!"

I live in a depressed area, and people are wondering how it is that we can spend billions on "rebuilding Iraq" but not a dime to rebuild America's industrial base.

They thought they were voting for fiscal responsibility, but Bush has outdone clinton as a big spender, as well as a Constitution violator, nation builder and a secret database keeper.

I'm not voting for him again. Fool me once...

This writer has the mentality of a child.

As I watched the WTC towers collapse in flames the morning of 9/11/01 and clips of Palestinians and the rest of them celebrating said atrocity, I wanted every one of them dead. Every bastard who might even remotely be responsible for this, or dance in the streets over it, or even say, with a wink and a nudge, that we had it coming. So - Osama, dead...the Taliban, dead...Arafat, dead...Saddam Hussein, dead...et cetera. I did not then, nor do I now, give a rat's ass whether we have OJ Simpson type proof of WMD's in Saddam's garage or whatever. I am willing to be patient - I didn't expect them all dead in a week, or a year, or even three years. Just dead, for sure, at some point. We didn't invade Iraq to uphold UN resolutions or any of that diplomatic BS. We did it, frankly, because the Arabs, and the scumbags of the rest of the world, need to be taught that they can't pull something like this and get away with it. If Bush hadn't slapped that proof down on the table, I would have wanted him impeached. He did it, and he gives every sign he means to keep on doing it, so I don't care what else he does or doesn't do. He has my vote for that alone.

I detest W's spendthrift habits, CFR and his blind spot toward illegal immigration. That said, I couldn't possibly bring myself to vote for anyone else in November. I don't think anyone else running would continue the War on Terror and this is a war that we'll be fighting for a long time.

I don't think WMD's are in Iraq. I can live with that. Ousting Saddam was a necessary step in the War on Terror and that alone justifies the Iraq war for me. A democratic Iraq will completely shake up the middle east and make several unstable rogue regimes start minding their manners. We're seeing that on Libya now and we'll see it in Iran and Syria soon.

The question should not be "did Saddam have WMD's", it should be "Did SADDAM want you (Americans,Christians,Non-Muslims,Infidels) DEAD, and was he prepared to make his desires into reality?"
The answer then becomes glaringly obvious.
Remember, 3000 people died in the WTC on 09/11 due to a razor blade less than 3 inches long. There's your WMD.

I really like the way you think. You're one of my favorite freepers.

Good to hear your voice again.

"Uh, huh. The question is why the administration kept insisting the weapons were there"

All the admnistrations of every single country in the free world insisted they were there, including nations that fought vehemently against regime change like Germany and France. I remind you that THEIR investigations of Saddam were independant. It was in their interest, financially speaking, to conclude Saddam was clean. They did't. Why would they lie?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.