By Eric Groves
Disspelling myths, demanding facts
I really was hoping to pen a vivacious little piece about the school’s stunning, rain-soaked win over Florida State on Thursday night. (Was that AWESOME or what? I’d like to abuse my column space by giving a special shout out to my lovely wife for enduring the deluge. God love ya, honey!) But as usual, I watched the news, read some columns in The Cardinal and had to scratch my head again. What is it with people? Have your opinion. State your opinion. But for the love of God, at least say something substantial! Let’s take the war, for instance. The common rallying cry from the right is, “By crackee, we’ve got to get this Saddam character! He’s a baddie! He might even be working on WMD!” Has anyone unearthed any substantial evidence convicting Hussein, or are we just itching to kick some Arab buttocks since we’ve failed in our quest to eradicate former public enemy numero uno, Osama Bin Laden (or “Usama” for you Fox News lovers)?
I must ask one thing before I get to the crux of my column, and that is: where is it written that members of the American armed forces are required to be card-carrying members of the Republican party? (In case you’re wondering, these slanderous accusations come from an individual that has no idea who I am, what I am like, etc. Odd someone can formulate such sweeping estimations about a person based on a weekly opinion column, isn’t it?) I could have sworn that when I signed up many moons ago, the oath never stated that I must swear allegiance to both my country and the GOP. But then again, with all of these indiscriminate suppositions about everything, maybe that did happen and I just didn’t realize it. (Sarcasm, “off.”)
The notion that all liberals are meek tree-hugging pacifists isn’t true at all. A moderate liberal like myself believes in a strong defense, the key word being “defense,” as in “fight back if we’re going to be or are being attacked.” (And yes, I did support the “war on terror” as an attempt to stamp out despicable terrorists like those in al-Qaeda.) If international laws are broken or sovereign states are violated by rogue nations, or if indeed our national safety is threatened by anyone, by all means, we must defend ourselves. However, in the Bush Administration’s recent “National Security Strategy of the United States,” there are some startling declarations that our “defense” will be used in an unprecedented offensive manner. Page seven states, “”Our best defense is a good offense.” Perhaps this statement holds some water if we’re talking about a football game, but not if we’re talking about unnecessary war that is against the best interests of the American public.
What troubles me the most about Bush, Cheney, and their band of hawks is that each of them is so willing to risk the lives of young Americans, but not a single one of them were anywhere to be found when his time was called to serve. When it was prime time for a visit lovely Vietnam, Bush magically got into the National Guard, thanks to a phone call by a rich family member, even though there was an 18-month waiting list for new volunteers. Also worth considering is Dubya’s actual whereabouts during the time period. There have been numerous reports that claim he was AWOL (Absent Without Leave) and never served a minute with his Guard unit. This is not the least bit unbelievable from a man who will not even entertain a discussion about an entire decade of his life. Dick Cheney’s excuse isn’t even that good! A newspaper in New Hampshire quoted Cheney, when asked why he didn’t volunteer for service in Vietnam, as saying he had “other priorities.” So do you think when the Bush Administration reinstates the Draft, the young men in my family can use that as an excuse? (If you’re curious to see where your favorite “chicken hawk” was during his or her chance to volunteer for service, check out the New Hampshire Gazette’s website. Be sure to note why chief conservative blowhard Rush Limbaugh wussed out of his call to duty.)
The bottom line in this ongoing debate about war with Iraq is that substantial evidence that Iraq has the unequivocal ability to launch a strike against the U.S. or our interests must be produced before we carelessly waltz into a bloody melee. Tony Blair’s “dossier” was a start, but it still didn’t produce any hard datum that leads one to believe a SCUD is aimed at Washington. Condoleeza Rice’s latest revelation that Iraq and al-Qaeda are in cahoots is nearly unbelievable considering that: 1) no evidence has been presented to substantiate this claim, and 2) it is common knowledge that Saddam Hussein loathes Islamic extremists, exactly like those who champion al-Qaeda. Speculation and rumors about a supposed weapon that Saddam Hussein possesses are not nearly enough grounds for spilling more blood, neither Iraqi nor American
