'An Attack on Freedom Itself?'

Email Print

I first heard that phrase I wrote it off as merely an unusually
silly bit of verbiage from a man who was justifiably angered by
the attack on the World Trade Center. Wrong, Michael! These leaders
of ours may be silly, but our George was right on target. He has
indeed begun an attack on freedom unparalleled since Lincoln's mercenaries
drove old Dixie down.

take the pulse of this war, and determine just what is really
happening and to whom.

off — who are the targets, who are the enemy? Have to have an enemy
to fight a war, right? Our troops have sent the Taliban back to
the bushes in an attack that predictably bogged down once those
folks got a taste of First World firepower and went back to their
guerilla roots. Having scattered the Taliban, a disagreeable bunch
who happen to have NOT destroyed the World Trade Center, it's on
to the war against that guy, what's his name, and "sixty thousand"
Al Queda "fighters." A sin really, to have to use so many
words in quotes but then in honesty we have simply no idea how many
of those dolts are running around nor are those bozos anything remotely
near what I'd call "fighters."

troops are now arriving in all sorts of arcane little countries
but managing to stay far away from places where what's his name
might be. I call him that since the "War Leader" has declared
that the former Osama Bin Laden no longer matters. But wait — if
he is the guy who took down the towers, how can it be that he no
longer matters in a war on terror? We are not supposed to think
about that, in the Brave New World of Tom Ridge and Donald Rumsfield.
We fight because, well, because!

leadership has no coherent foreign policy that I can discern unless
we are simply playing "good cop, bad cop" with the whole
world. We may or may not attack Iraq, a country that had nothing
to do with the Towers coming down. We may or may not support Israel,
a country with a military force which ranks about fourth in the
world and needs our help like a hole in the head. We have not said
so much as an unkind word to our wonderful Saudi allies — even though
most of the terrorists appear to have been Saudis and what's his
name hails from that neck of the woods.

where is this fabled "attack on freedom itself" unfolding?
Why that at least is an easy question to answer. It's happening
right here in the US of A and the "enemy" consists of
those pesky American citizens like you and me. If you happen to
live in the South you've had a taste of it long before the Trade
Towers were hit. But if not, Uncle is playing catch-up at the airports
so all you have to do is park your dignity at the door and get in

of course, you are of Middle Eastern extraction… No body will pick
on you at the airport — after all, it was Granny who blasted those
Towers, right? No, get serious folks — you know who the enemy is:
it's those rascally white European males that go around looking
for minorities to pick on — who else could have committed such a
dastardly act?

anyone still naïve enough to believe this is a real war, simply
consider what is going on. Airline pilots were disarmed just before
the attack — that disarmament of the pilots confirmed last week
by that pathetic government flunky Mark Steyn calls "non performin'
Norman," Norm Minetta. Were this a real war, the pilots would
be armed and Minetta would be in jail for treason — it's just that

various states including occupied Georgia, have "given"
the governors power to set up police roadblocks and confiscate guns
from natural born citizens. Could someone please tell me of a "war"
were disarming friendlies occurred? The Japanese, Germans and Soviets
all rejected a land invasion of the USA because we are so well armed.
Are we making sense yet? Will we ever?

inoculations are planned to protect us from the biological threat
that was traced back to whom? Why, our own government labs, where
else? Funny how the investigation stalled at that point. But the
mass inoculation plan did NOT stall so roll up your sleeves folks.

we are at war, one might assume the borders of the nation are well
protected. One who assumes that is awfully darn silly. Yes, Mexican
troops have violated our borders pretty routinely of late, but then,
someone has to protect the drug runners or the War on Drugs will
get off track. Hold please, I have to reboot again. My word processor
only handles so many contradictory statements and then overheats!
The War on Drugs is about as meaningful as the war on terror — both
are being "fought" for the same reason: to finish up the
job of flushing our Constitutional Republic down the hopper.

that respect, you might conclude that we are successfully fighting
two wars simultaneously. Or, on the other hand, you might conclude
that as a nation, we have gone stark raving bonkers.

we be attacked again by terrorists? Surprisingly, after all the
unconstitutional laws that have been passed to "protect"
us of late, the consensus among our leaders is that we have no way
to stop such an attack. What they fail to mention is that our
terrorist enemies are incompetent at a level that Americans
are only familiar with when government is involved so that question
remains an open one.

our borders remain open as well, even the most pathetically incompetent
terrorist will ultimately get the chance to blow up something. Be
of good cheer — the government officials are now well protected
so it will only be us nobodies that get hurt.

back at the holocaust, our "ally" Pakistan is preparing
to fight our "ally" India in a war that is almost certain
to go nuclear and lest anyone fail to notice just how dangerous
this is, our friend / enemy the Chinese are sitting right next to
them. How come no shuttle diplomacy guys? Or is a pending nuclear
exchange not important enough to justify it? Unlike say, a "real"
problem like Israeli troops in a three story "refugee camp"?
Pakistan is a major player on both sides of the War on Terror
so I can only assume our leaders truly aren't sure how to play this
so they merely stand back and hope for the best. Has Tom Ridge come
up with a color-coded security alert for incoming radiation? Probably
not, but give him six months.

Osama bin what's his name watches all this on TV and perhaps we'll
get him at last — he may well die laughing!

25, 2002

Mr. Peirce [send
him mail
] fought with the Rhodesian freedom fighters (the Ian
Smith side, of course).

Peirce Archives

needs your help. Please donate.

Email Print