Loose Lips

Griffin Internet Syndicate ^ | January 14, 2003 | Joseph Sobran

[LiberalBuster]

“Loose lips sink ships,” said a ubiquitous World War II slogan. It meant that Americans should be guarded in their speech, lest the ubiquitous Enemy overhear some conversational nugget that would enable him to kill America’s fighting men.

In wartime the Enemy is inflated to satanic proportions. He is everywhere, he is an evil genius, he has limitless goals, he seeks world conquest, he wants to extinguish our freedoms (and everyone else’s). And of course he is quite capable of achieving all this. It must be flattering to have such preternatural powers ascribed to you.

It follows that our own leaders are wise, courageous, heroic men, fighting for the principles of freedom. They possess knowledge we don’t have, and we must obey them without question, for they know what they are doing. We are in no position to criticize them; besides, it would be unpatriotic to do so, since it would weaken morale and help the Enemy. In order to help our leaders protect us and our freedoms, we must put the government above ourselves, even when it abridges the freedoms it is trying to save.

Writing in the ...

The rest @ http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030114.shtml

[gcruse]

As long as we are afraid to offend Saudi Arabia,
As long as we subject old ladies to pat searches at airports,
As long as swarthy characters pass airport security untouched,
As long as we see Iraq as a greater threat than North Korea,
As long as we allow massive illegal immigration from the south,
As long as we think blowing up Americans is different from blowing up Israelis,
We are not 'at war' and have not learned the lessons of 9/11.
Maybe the next attack will do the trick.  Maybe not.

[marron]

In wartime the Enemy is inflated to satanic proportions.

No need to inflate anyone. All you have to do is read Saddam's resume. The complete one, not the abridged version you get on TV. If you stop and think about it, it will make you ill.

It follows that our own leaders are wise, courageous, heroic men, fighting for the principles of freedom.

There are, if we have chosen well, and by the grace of God.

They possess knowledge we don’t have,

Sometimes, but we don't rely on that...

and we must obey them without question,

Bollocks. Who here hasn't taken the opportunity to pound away at the president, not only our previous wretched example, but even the present one, when he has disappointed us? Any of us can name several occasions where W. has gone wrong, and we have been very ready to pound away at him. If we support him, it is because he has spoken for our beliefs. He leads because he has placed himself in front of us, at least on this issue, we are not following him.

In order to help our leaders protect us and our freedoms, we must put the government above ourselves, even when it abridges the freedoms it is trying to save.

Bollocks, again. We here never place the government above ourselves. We never place it ahead of conscience. We see ourselves at war. If some of our enemies have found themselves penned in a cage, it is probably safer than being released into our care.

Writing in the New York Post, Frederick U. Dicker, who holds a master’s degree in American history, assails Martin Scorsese’s new film, Gangs of New York, for its “anti-American” view of New York City during the Lincoln administration. He says the movie “demeans Lincoln’s efforts to save the nation, mocks the Union Army, sneers at volunteer soldiers, derides native-born New Yorkers, pours scorn on firefighters and police officers, and fails to find a single person of quality among all New York City’s leaders, circa 1863.”

True. The movie was a piece of crap.

Worse yet, and somehow related to all this, is the fact that Scorsese has recently denounced, on BBC radio, President Bush’s plan to make war on Iraq. He says the real purpose of the war is “the oil.”

Scorcese is typical of the Hollywood left. He is not the only one to make that charge. Some of the people at this website actually know something about the oil business, and recognize in an instant the juvenile distortions of reality embedded in that charge. But few people from Hollywood, or Academia, have any clue at all.

Suffice to say, for the French, for the Russians, it is about oil. For the Saudis, it is partly about oil. If it were about oil, for the US, we would also be allied with Saddam. We were invited into his oil industry at the end of the Iran-Iraq war. Backing Kuwait meant giving up access to Iraqi oil. Maintaining the embargo has cost us access to the oil.

Thus Scorsese, as both film director and Hollywood celebrity, is, in Dicker’s view, “anti-American.” He has joined the Enemy.

Scorcese and much of Hollywood has effectively joined the enemy. They may not want to admit it, but the effects of their posturing is to help Saddam remain in power.

As Dicker sees it, “America today is the nation that is leading the fight against world terrorism, rooting out the vicious cells that would destroy our freedoms, paying back the butchers of 9/11, and taking on the outlaw nations who invade their neighbors, gas their citizens, and would, if they could, enslave the world.”

This is a truism.

Since 9/11 we have seen new restrictions on our freedoms; but they have been imposed not by the terrorists, but by our own “leaders.”

Bollocks. I speak as freely as I ever did. So do you.

If they have a coherent purpose, it may be to drive us out of their world.

I don't think we intend to be driven anywhere.

But Iraq is in no condition to invade even its feeblest neighbors. Its army is reportedly a mere shell of its former self, when it had no more than regional aims of conquest.

How did that come about? It came about because the US confronted them, and removed from them the capability of invading their neighbors.

To say that Iraq aspires to “enslave the world” is a bit like saying that Jack the Ripper wanted to be king of England. This is not to defend Jack the Ripper; it is to define him.

We, at least, have no intention of backing down from Jack the Ripper. Nor are we going to allow him to continue his rampage. We will confront him, and we will finish him.

Personally, I thought he might have been stopped early by some preemptive spanking.

After 10 years its a little late to refer to anything as "pre-emptive" but yes, we are going to deliver a serious spanking, and he will be stopped, later if not earlier.