February 19, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
NATIONAL GUARD NEEDED HERE
Among the many ridiculous arguments made by supporters of the Iraq war is the claim that we have to fight terrorists there so we won't have to fight them here. Intelligence tells us that most of the people attacking U. S. troops in Iraq are not members of al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups. They're Iraqis trying to drive out an invader. The Bush administration has left a gaping hole in our domestic security by deploying so many National Guard troops to Iraq. We saw some of the effects of that when Louisiana National Guard troops were not available to assist during Hurricane Katrina. This commentary by former Senator Gary Hart is at www.huffingtonpost.com:
Today, more than 40% of our combat and combat support units in Iraq are National Guard and Reserve forces. We cannot continue to maintain and expand our military operations in Iraq without these Guard and Reserve forces. Many of their units have been redeployed multiple times in violation of the agreements Guard members sign when they enlist. We are exhausting not only our regular standing combat troops, we are also exhausting the deployed Guard and Reserve units.
Most important, the National Guard units in Iraq are not in the United States standing post over our nation's security at home. They are not being trained and equipped for this vital mission. If we are in fact at war with terrorism, we are leaving our homeland flanks totally exposed. The Administration and its supporters have excused this dereliction in security with the hollow slogan: We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.
This specious argument fails on several counts. The "them" we are fighting in Iraq are overwhelmingly Iraqi insurgents who have no interest in following us home. And the relatively small but growing numbers of al Qaeda in Iraq can do more than one thing at once, as the people of London and Madrid can testify. It is the United States that cannot fight them there using National Guard forces needed to fight them here.
Showing posts with label home. Show all posts
Showing posts with label home. Show all posts
Monday, February 19, 2007
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
January 17, 2007
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
YOUR HOME IS YOUR CASTLE
The concept that your home is your castle goes back several hundred years. But the reactionary Bush administration doesn't care about things we've taken for granted for so long, things like privacy, not having our mail opened by the government, or having our phone calls kept private. The administration has made serious intrusions against another very old principle, the right of habeas corpus. We can deal with terrorists without giving up our freedoms. This column by Margie Burns is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
On July 25, 1973, Senator Sam Ervin, Democrat of North Carolina, returned to fundamentals and in the process summed up the legal argument against practically every action committed by the Nixon campaign in 1972. Here is part of Ervin’s statement, given during the televised Watergate committee hearings*:
“I do want to take this occasion to amplify the legal discussion and I want to mention a little of the Bible, a little of history and a little of law.
“The concept embodied in the phrase every man’s home is his castle represents the realization of one of the most ancient and universal hungers of the human heart. One of the prophets described the mountain of the Lord as being a place where every man might dwell under his own vine and fig tree with none to make him afraid.
“And then this morning, Senator Talmadge talked about one of the greatest statements ever made by any statesman, that was William Pitt the Elder, and before this country revolted against the King of England he said this:
“’The poorest man in his cottage may bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter. All his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenements.’
“And yet we are told today, and yesterday, that what the King of England cannot do, the President of the United States can.”
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
YOUR HOME IS YOUR CASTLE
The concept that your home is your castle goes back several hundred years. But the reactionary Bush administration doesn't care about things we've taken for granted for so long, things like privacy, not having our mail opened by the government, or having our phone calls kept private. The administration has made serious intrusions against another very old principle, the right of habeas corpus. We can deal with terrorists without giving up our freedoms. This column by Margie Burns is at www.smirkingchimp.com:
On July 25, 1973, Senator Sam Ervin, Democrat of North Carolina, returned to fundamentals and in the process summed up the legal argument against practically every action committed by the Nixon campaign in 1972. Here is part of Ervin’s statement, given during the televised Watergate committee hearings*:
“I do want to take this occasion to amplify the legal discussion and I want to mention a little of the Bible, a little of history and a little of law.
“The concept embodied in the phrase every man’s home is his castle represents the realization of one of the most ancient and universal hungers of the human heart. One of the prophets described the mountain of the Lord as being a place where every man might dwell under his own vine and fig tree with none to make him afraid.
“And then this morning, Senator Talmadge talked about one of the greatest statements ever made by any statesman, that was William Pitt the Elder, and before this country revolted against the King of England he said this:
“’The poorest man in his cottage may bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter. All his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenements.’
“And yet we are told today, and yesterday, that what the King of England cannot do, the President of the United States can.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)