The American Legion has found the enemy, and it is antiwar protesters. At its national convention in Honolulu, Thomas Cadmus, the group’s national commander, spoke on behalf of a resolution that was passed unanimously. The resolution called for using whatever means necessary to “ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism.”

How do they propose to ensure such a thing? By shutting down the voices of dissent, of course. He did provide an approved means of redressing grievances, if you are unpatriotically disposed to doing so, by saying that, “…we hope that Americans will present their views in correspondence to their elected officials rather than by public media events.” In other words, you can write a private letter to your congressman, but you must not speak your views aloud or join with others who share your views (which in the case of the war in Iraq is the majority of Americans). His opposition to media events parrots the frightening and un-American position of the president that any opinion other than his own is treason. Cadmus comes right out and says it:

Public protests against the war here at home while our young men and women are in harm’s way on the other side of the globe only provide aid and comfort to our enemies.”

The American Legion has not always felt this way about our young men and women in harm’s way. When the Clinton Administration had soldiers in Bosnia, the they passed Resolution No. 44, which states, in part:

Whereas, the President has committed the Armed Forces of the United States…to engage in hostilities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia without clearly defining America’s vital national interests; and

Whereas, neither the President nor the Congress have defined America’s objectives in what has become an open-ended conflict characterized by an ill-defined progressive escalation; and

Whereas, it is obvious that an ill-planned and massive commitment of U.S. resources could only lead to troops being killed, wounded or captured without advancing any clear purpose, mission or objective…

…now, therefore, be it

Resolved, by the National Executive Committee…That The American Legion…voices its grave concerns about the commitment of U.S. Armed Forces to Operation Allied force, unless the following conditions are fulfilled.

That there be a clear statement by the President of why it is in our vital national interests to be engaged in Operation Allied Force;

Guidelines be established for the mission, including a clear exit strategy;

That there be support of the mission by the U.S. Congress and the American people; and

That it be made clear U.S. Forces will be commanded only by U.S. officers whom we acknowledge are superior military leaders; and, be it further

Resolved, that, if the aforementioned conditions are not met, The American Legion calls upon the President and the Congress to withdraw American forces immediately from Operation Allied Force

Sound familiar? That’s because if you convert references of Yugoslavia to Iraq, it is almost exactly the position of the opponents of the war in Iraq. The American Legion has obviously steeped itself in a brew of hypocrisy. But what is most troubling is that they want to tell everyone else to shut up. I propose that the time has come to start referring to them as The Legion, because there is nothing American about them.

Back in June of this year, the President made an appearance before the White House Stenographers Association Radio and Television News Directors Association. Among the subjects he addressed was his obligation to visit with the families of fallen soldiers. Here’s what he had to say:

“The hardest thing I have to do is sit down as the President with loved ones who’ve either lost a soul or have a wounded person, severely wounded. I try to do a lot of it. It’s my obligation as the President. It’s an amazing experience. First of all, I’m a crier, and I weep a lot. On the other hand, when it’s all over, I feel incredibly strengthened by the strength of the parents or the wife or the kids.”

With Cindy Sheehan, and the other Gold Star Families, camped outside his vacation villa, the Crier in Chief is demonstrating just how hard it is for him to fulfill his obligations. While it may be an amazing experience, it’s one he’s demonstrating extraordinary self-discipline resisting. This may just be another example of his well-known steadfastness in the face of massive miscalculation.

Actually, this is really just an example of the most crass form of hypocricy. This President can shamelessly shed psuedo-patriotic crocodile tears before chummy audiences, but in real life, he’d rather meet with a sports hero (i.e. Lance Armstrong) than a grieving mother.

Perhaps if he met more often with the families he has turned into mourners, he could use the strength he says it gives him (ala Lestat) to renounce the members of his party who have been hurling the most despicable insults at Ms. Sheehan. They have said she is hateful, a liar, and is exploiting the memory of her dead son. Bush’s silence can only be interpreted as agreement or, at best, acceptance as a useful political tack.

The stenographers in the White House Press Corpse^©, many of whom personally witnessed the speech above, have yet to even ask the President if he approves of the repugnant remarks of Rush Limbaugh, David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin, et al. The press, it appears, is also in need of a pint of strength.

It’s Hard Work
The President Says So
Also…
Harry Shearer Says So

Robert Novak, CNN commentator and Douchebag of Liberty, became enraged on Thursday’s episode of Inside Politics. After James Carville lightheartedly suggested that Novak was, “…trying to show these right-wingers that he’s got backbone,” Novak belched out that he thought that was “bullshit,” and then stomped off the set.

From my vantage point, it cannot be reasonably deduced that anything Carville said could have provoked Novak’s response. These guys mix it up much more aggressively than that on a regular basis. The explanation for Novak’s tantrum may lie in the comment made by host, Ed Henry, at the close of the show. Henry said that Novak was told that he would be asked about the CIA leak/Plame affair. Novak may have seized on this exchange in order to have an excuse to duck out before the Plame segment.

So how is the media handling this? If you visit CNN.com, which recently launched its video search feature to great fanfare, you can search for “Novak,” and get a link to the clip. But if you click on the link, all you will get is this:


As usual, the only constructive presentation of this event in the media was on the fake news program, “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” Thank God for fake news.

When the anti-Darwin faction of the Flat Earth Society sought to legitimize their biblical belief that God, not evolution, produced the earth and its myriad life forms, they originally branded their sermonology as Creation Science. Apparently, that wasn’t good enough because now they’ve escalated the scientification of Genesis by dressing it up as Intelligent Design (ID). This is a peculiar positioning that is more suggestive of the development of the iPod than the origin of the species.

Common sense notwithstanding, the media is taking up this PR-incubated nomenclature and giving it parity with the time-tested science of evolution. But leave it to Bill O’Reilly to rocket this nonsense into the stratosphere.

In his Talking Points Memo for August 3, 2005, titled “God vs. Science,” he courageously takes God’s side. Presumably because he believes that God can hold his breath underwater longer than Science can.

He goes on to correctly point out that Genesis should not be taught in science class, but curiously, uses that as his argument for including ID because “evolution is not a universal belief.”

Mr. O’Reilly needs to be advised that evolution is not a belief at all. It is a scientific theory. ID is a belief that has no basis in science, hence its rejection by the respected institutions he himself cites. But in his comments he contradicts himself by endorsing the view that evolution is accepted science, then insisting it be compared with faith-based propaganda.

I wish I could ask him why there is a responsibility, in a discussion of biology, to tell students that some people have moral objections to a procedure. Many people have moral objections to vaccinations, organ transplants, or psychoactive drugs. Should medical students have to stop at the end of every chapter and be told that, “this procedure is opposed by Lutherans and Hindus?”

Such disclaimers would be mandatory in O’Reilly’s world where facts have no standing and science is fascism.