Amen, brother, Amen!

Isn't it a great video?

Thanks. That was beautiful!

Thanks --

I knew it needed posting the second it arrived. :-)

Isn't this wonderful?

We think a lot alike, Seth. I posted a link to this for last July 4th. Unfortunately, the site got so busy that readers couldn't view it on Independence Day.

LOL! The price you pay for fame and fortune...

That was awesome... the poem alone is excellent, but John Wayne's reading of it screams "America!"

Well, T1G, he did possess qualities that made him an icon of American patriotism.

When I referred to him as the late, great John Wayne I half expected him to walk into the room and say, "I'll kill the next man who says I'm dead!"

You mean John Wayne the WWII draft dodger?

What a patriot.

Arthur --

John Wayne was not a "draft dodger"., just as Bush did not evade his military duty -- I find that cowardly liberals, including phony "war heroes" like John Kerry, are the fastest to accuse good Americans of the very qualities treasonous liberals espouse.

Actually George Bush did evade his military duty. Bailed on overseas service and failed to complete even his Nat'l Guard stint. Of course everyone had the same opportunity to join the guard as George did at the height of the conflict. Nothing at all to do with personal connections.

And the last time I checked John Kerry didn't award himself any decorations. Only in the upside down world of 'patriots' could Bush be a hero and Kerry not.

Henry Fonda, Clark Gable and Jimmy Stewart (all roughly the same vintage) enlisted. Wayne had a career to consider.

John Wayne did the 'Ameican' thing.

He tended to his career.

Like Dick Cheyne, he had other priorities. Rather than run the risk of becoming a war hero he chose to portray one on the screen. Not quite the same thing.

And I find that Samuel Johnson was absolutely correct.

'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel'.

I've always had a problem with that adage.

It infers that one can be either a traitor or a scoundrel. Personally, I'd rather love my country and run the risk of being called a scoundrel, but then, why not? I've met few liberals in the last few years I'd have trouble calling traitors.

Hi Seth,
Sad, but true, while John Wayne made films,
George McGovern was flying 35 missions as pilot
of a B-24 Liberator. BTW see
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_30/article.html for a true conservative perspective on George
McGovern. No thanks, I don't need Karl Rove to
point out heros or traitors for me!

BB --

John Wayne was in his 30s when we went to war, with a wife and 4 kids to support, and his career was still in the hand-to-mouth stage: Unlike many other actors who were wealthy enough to leave their families cared for, he wasn't.

So he did the next best thing: He made war related movies that contributed to the morale and spirit of the public and the troops. It was during this period that he first became really known for his patriotic roles.

re McGovern: Good link, but despite the man's selfless military service, his political doctrine lists a bit too far to port for me, though his support for states' rights on social issues fits right into my own line of belief.

Seth wrote:

I've always had a problem with that adage.

Hits a little too close to home?

Totally on the contrary, Arthur --

Patriotism is most often the "refuge" of patriots, whereas treason is most often the refuge of scoundrels.

It's exceptionally easy for someone in possession of a way with words to invent an adage that suits a political aim of the moment, and because that weaver of words is famous, people attribute more to the expression than it may merit.

Actually Seth, the casual interchangability of 'Democrat' 'Liberal' and 'traitor' one sees in your comments and many of your posters remarks cause one to question the motives of one who would make such obviously untrue connections deliberately. Deliberate is the key word here. You seem to thrive on the deliberate mischaracterization of political views different from your own.

The sort of thing a scoundrel, like say the former junior senator from Wisconsin the the early 1950's, was notorious for.

The idea that anyone you have met who might be 'liberal' is worthy of the description of 'traitor' speaks more about you than it does who you are describing.

But it's an old ruse. During my lifetime we went through it in the 1950's and we seem to be going through it again these days.

And this sort of willful misrepresentation of one's political opponents would be nothing new to the 18th century world of Samuel Johnson.

He got it absolutely right.

Arthur --

What should I call a large group of politically like minded people whose actions prove without a doubt that it is more important to try to sabotage a sitting President's efforts to defend the country for the sole purpose of discrediting him in an effort to get one of their own into the White House than allowing him to protect the lives of their fellow Americans?

Today's liberals demonstrate about as much regard for other Americans' wellbeing as Hezbollah does for their own fellow countrymen.

Our political left has crossed a line that no patriot would ever cross.

The president is a politician. He is not the nation and he serves at our pleasure. He is not immune to criticism and criticism is something he richly deserves for his disastrous foray into Iraq. Rather than merely trying to 'discredit' the president, the opposition has a lot more to do with ensuring our security, saving lives and halting the flow of hundreds of billions of dollars squandered.

The Liberal/Hezbollah is a nice touch.

You know better. But each of your posts proves Johnson's timeless wisdom.

You and he both speak to the same sort of 'patriot'.

Richard --

There is criticism and there is criticism.

Whether you like it or not, we have troops in Iraq and they will not be leaving until the Iraqi forces have been brought up to spec.

That said, the anti-war/ anti-Bush rhetoric spewing from the left is also heard/ watched/ read by the terrorists our troops are fighting over there, and the only purpose it serves is to prolong the war because the terrorists see the divide in America as one they can widen even more by killing more Americans over there and eroding the resolve of more Americans at home.

What the left is doing now follows exactly the same formula they used to help us lose the Vietnam war without their even having to go there. General Giap and others have said that they would have surrendered five years or so before we ended up pulling out, except for the hope given them by the ranting of our liberals.

Liberals have also always been the pool from which orgs like the American Communist Party draw their recruits. While the Cold War was still going on, thousands of liberals here were joining the Communist Party.

Liberals, no matter what they say, prove by their actions that they forever support our country's enemies, whoever they might be at a given time.

Well Seth,
I would guess, "What should I call a large group of politically like minded people whose actions prove without a doubt that it is more important to try to sabotage a sitting President's efforts to defend the country for the sole purpose of..." a majority, based on the latest polls.

BB --

There is a vast difference between citizens participating in opinion polls and, say, major newspapers publishing military secrets or politicians and celebrities publicly slandering our troops and the President.

There is also the fact that millions of people are fed biased, false, spun and incomplete information by the mostly liberal news media -- so many of the people who believe that they are answering polls with the authority of knowledge are only doing so based upon disinformation.

Seth-

Read the most recent piece by Sy Hersch in last weeks New Yorker then tell me if it doesn't suggest a more plausible reason for our failure in Iraq than criticism by the 'left'. Specifically, a military 'solution' to a mainly political problem based on lousy strategy from the Joint Chiefs compounded by war on the cheap advocated by Rummy and such like. Then think back to the 'best & the brightest' in the 1960's McNamara, Bundy et. al.) guilty of the same hubris we see in Washington again during this conflict.

Revisit those halcyon days just prior to the invasion where Dick & Rummy spoke of being greeted as liberators. When George gave endless reasons for invasion (all since disproved) and when Feith & Wolfowitz spoke glowingly of paying for the whole thing with Iraqi oil revenues. All reported uncritically by a hugely gullible press. Remember the rabid pro-invasion tub thumping of Judy Miller in the NY Times?

Then get back to me regarding the 'spin ' by the 'mostly liberal' media.

Arthur --

If you can read all the war and politics "news" in any given issue of the New York Times with the opinion that there is no one-sidedness in evidence, that you believe you're getting unbiased or even complete reports, or that you perceive no liberal political agenda being vigorously served up, well...

I know of no "failure in Iraq" -- I probably would believe there was one, though, if I depended upon the media you seem to infer are fair, impartial and unbiased -- and of course honest.

Seymour Hersh is unquestionably a tenacious journalist with an amazing information network, but he's also an expert at spin -- he has admitted that in public speaking venues, he modifies the truth where necessary, then said that what he puts into actual print is different, it has to be the truth. Okay. But he does tend to "emphasize" with great skill. The article was, if you're referring to the one that discusses the Israel-Lebanon situation and its ties to the Pentagon, Bush, etc., an interesting read, I'd already read it prior to your comment via an email I received - though my own take on any behind the scenes activity in that regard is perfectly acceptable -- ever heard of the concept of two allies being aligned against a mutual enemy? We pay those people to do a job that's considerably different, in the scope of potential consequences for failure, from, say, managing a small box factory. Millions of lives are at stake because a malevolent enemy is in power, and from that perspective most of us have absolutely no problem with those we choose to protect us from that enemy "do what they gotta do".

"...endless reasons for invasion (all since disproved)..."

Back we go to those recent years of "No WMD! Bush lied! Let's go sit in an intersection and disrupt traffic!"

There is sufficient evidence, totally ignored by your friends in the MSM, to suggest that all the U.N.-inspired delay tactics aka Mr. Mag -- oops, I mean Hans Blix and his subserviance to Saddam as to where he was allowed to inspect and when to do so (France, Russia and even friggin' U.N. diplomats were making lots of money off Saddam, "what a coincidence!"). There were some interesting convoys crossing the border from Iraq into Syria under mysterious circumstances. Since the invasion, evidence of various magnitude has turned up that there was WMD over there, also testimonies, that never quite reach the MSM's followers (imagine that!).

What else did he lie about? That Iraq both harbored international terrorists and abetted terrorism? I love the way James Taranto refers to "Al-Qaeda-that's-not-in-Iraq in Iraq", LOL." The liberal line there is that al-Qaeda and Saddam couldn't have cooperated because they "hated" each other. Obviously you haven't heard the "My brother" bit. Where was it that Abu Nidal died, again?

This is the liberal media: If the truth has any positive bearing on anything Bush, even if it stares you right in the face, either ignore it or find a way to spin it in an anti-Bush direction. I've written thousands of reports in the course of making a living, and even though my own were necessarily accurate and "just the facts" oriented, I am well aware how anyone with talent can turn reality into whatever suits his or her purpose, and I'd be the last to infer that there aren't a lot of talented liberals out there.

Lastly, one or two writers at an otherwise heavily biased news agency being of different opinion hardly constitutes "fair and balanced media", LOL! William Safire had a column at NYT right beside rabid hack Paul Krugman and the likes of Maureen Dowd, and I rarely missed it. I'd sometimes read Krugman or Dowd, because there are no comics and one must find ones entertainment where one can. :-)

Ah yes convoys to Syria.

And Mr. Blix in the pocket of Saddam.

Only in your dreams. As is the al-Qaeda/Iraq connection. Pure fantasy.

Equating Judy Millers reporting which formed the basis for the NY Times unquestioning early support for the administrations dubious Iraq venture to editoria writers is mistaken.

The NY Times supported the invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq unquestioningly. Until the facts became known.

Arthur --

Only in my dreams?

I have begun to believe that you are living in your own private Idaho, my fine, feathered friend.

I can only think of three possibilities here:

1. You only read publications that echo your far left delusions, getting only so called "facts" that you want to get, and ignoring any facts presented that don't agree with your bumper sticker outlook on politics and war,

2. You know better, but have no life outside the Blogosphere, so you spend all your spare time, which is probably all your time, disagreeing with everything anybody says just to get attention, or

3. You are either presently being treated for an emotional or other "upstairs" disorder, or are in need of such professional attention.

I hate to use the dreaded T word, but in view of your latest comment, which demonstrates to me that you have done virtually no research on the topic upon which you disagree (I see that in your comments elsewhere as well), I am becoming inclined to believe that is the case.

Seth,
Nice to know you and Dick Cheney know where the
tons of WMD are. Let Hans and I know. Don't know the domicile of Mr. Stone, but yes, I DO
live in my own private Idaho.

BB --

The point is, there has been evidence that the WMD was there before we invaded. Another thing about the "Bush lied" bit was that every Democrat on the Hill and every intelligence agency on earth agreed. Arthur tends to spew without even checking anything out, he denies the existence of evidence he doesn't look for.

I try to be patient with him, but after seeing him do the same trolling elsewhere, one finally realizes what one is dealing with.

Seth,
Yes, Mr. Stone seems to enjoy yanking the chain.
We all interpet the spin to our comfort zones. I
followed the intel/politics leading up to the Iraq invasion and felt so uncomfortable with the
'evidence' that I wrote my congressman to vote
against any pre-emptive action. I thought Hans
Blix was doing credibly and was the victim of a
slander campaign, being sort of a roadblock to
the momentum. Blix is no dummy, and knew he was
fencing with Saddam. I hope you agree that the
diversity of opinion we Americans have (and argue constantly) is actually healthy and gives
us our unique strengths in the world. I try
not to insult my friends on the right, nor 'convert' anyone (as if that were possible). I enjoy your forum because you tolerate opinion and adress it fairly.

I'm hardly a troll.

Nor am I alone in wondering where the WMDs were.

Or what was the connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Or the connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Or wondering why we aren't greeted as liberators by the Iraqi population.

Or why we aren't funding our occupation and the reconstruction of Iraq with their own oil revenues.

Or any of dozens of other assertions made by this administration in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

Just wondering.