In
the 1980 presidential debates, Ronald Reagan — a man no libertarian could
honestly adore but nonetheless a favorite of mine — said to sitting president
Jimmy Carter, "There
you go again!"
The
line was an instant classic, not only for its delivery. As phrases go, it had
legs. Twenty-five years later, Americans my age and older remember it well. It
brings a smile to our nostalgic faces.
Such
is the way of simple truth.
Of
course, you have the other aspect of stories, phrases, and even images. The French
proverb explains that "A lie travels round the world while truth is putting
her boots on."
That
proverb may seem true to the nascent truth movement in this country. But in the
case of the neoconservative conceived and implemented invasion and occupation
of Iraq, it seems as if Truth has already traveled like Paul Bunyon around the
planet more than once, apparently saving her lake-creating, earth-shaking footsteps
in America as the grand finale.
Today
the U.S. Congress
publicly debates the Downing Street
Memo and the rest of the information readily available that supports it. Today,
CNN reluctantly reports that the decision to go to war in Iraq really does seem
to have been made by a small group of Presidential staff long before any valid
rationale was conceived to sell this deadly, expensive and immoral adventure.
Amazingly,
the President still hasn’t indicated why he really believes we are in Iraq. On
this issue, the administration had constructed a wall of silence in Washington.
Mr.
President, tear down this wall! Tell the families of the dead soldiers and Marines
why they died! Explain to the crippled bodies and broken hearts here and in Iraq
why you required the bloody sacrifice of their youth and vitality!
Certainly,
the neoconservative ideologues who conceived and manipulated the country and the
Congress into the endless Iraq fiasco, the neoconservatives who planned neither
for a post war reconstruction nor an exit strategy, and who have yet to be held
accountable, don’t appreciate either Ronald Reagan or an old French proverb.
Reagan
is remembered by neoconservatives as a man who went wobbly on Israel and on communism.
The French, well, we know that old chestnut. While neoconservatives almost to
a man and woman enjoy the finer things in life and embrace themes of revolutionary
liberty, like spoiled children they ungratefully hate and condemn the French.
Perhaps
the folks over at the Hate-and-Lies-Inc.com
would appreciate this Jewish proverb instead. "Opinions founded on prejudice
are always sustained with the greatest violence."
Anyone
who has read the screeds and smears on Frontpagemag.com comprehends that bit of
wisdom. I know I do.
I
figured, with the lessening timidity of the Congress and the new interest by the
mainstream media in the 2001—2003 Iraq cause-and-effect conundrum, Hate-and-Lies-Inc
would rev up their midnight oil-burners. I figured, with the renewed public curiosity
in the words and evidence put forth by millions of people around the world, including
me, it would be time for another slanderous attack.
I
don’t mean to be arrogant, but as usual in cases like this, I wasn’t wrong. Funny
how that works.
Michael
Rubin and his lesser sidekick Anthony Gancarski, have taken off this week on another
half-baked and oh-so-tired smear campaign. It goes like this. Rubin’s latest is
ostensibly about his fear and terror that Princeton University will hire the wrong
guy for the Robert Niehaus Chair in Contemporary Middle East Studies. They are
considering an Arab academic. What is Princeton thinking! Gee whiz, Michael!
But
apparently, a side purpose of his article was for Michael to elaborate and discuss
the theories of Lyndon LaRouche. I didn’t realize Michael Rubin was a LaRouchite,
but apparently it is true. He’s a real expert. In fact, readers of FrontPageMag
have learned more about LaRouche there than from anywhere else. I know I have.
It’s all very interesting.
In
addition to suggesting a LaRouche link — whether with me or Khalidi is not
entirely clear — Michael also suggests, in the subtle way of the coward,
that somehow I might be…how shall we say…er, not telling the truth.
If
I have said it or written it, I stand by it. Period. Not only that, unlike documents
that Michael had a hand in writing in OSP and elsewhere within the administration,
my writings are publicly available on the web in hundreds of locations.
Let
me challenge Michael to release his writings from the period of 2002 and early
2003, from the den of iniquity we now know as the OSP. Heck, I’ll take minutes
from AEI closed-door events relating to the preparation for invasion and new Baghadi
puppet governments. What? No? Wittle Michael doesn’t want to share? Oooohhh, too
bad. Michael is worried that Americans in the heartland won’t understand his work
on behalf of the neoconservative agenda in Washington and elsewhere.
Lastly,
Michael, ostensibly shaming Columbia, but spending as much time on me as on Dr.
Khalidi, suggests for the hundredth time that I am somehow bigoted. What he means
is that I have consistently and accurately portrayed the philosophy and politics
of neoconservatism, in full bloom under George W. Bush.
Funny
how important words are to young Michael. He ought to pay more attention to his
own.
But
the funniest one over at Hate-and-Lies-Inc is poor Anthony. His latest is about
how I deep-throated Bush and ratted out my superiors. I love the "ratted
out" part. But the deep-throated part is kind of nasty, given that I am female.
When
I was in college, there was a friend in our crowd, a nice girl from the sunbelt.
She had a theory about her virginity. While she wasn’t from Arkansas, she might
have been acquainted with Hope, in more ways than one.
She
said oral sex wasn’t sex, and giving it as often as necessary was her approach
to preserving her virginity. Probably a common approach these days, but I always
thought there was something inconsistent about that method of maintaining your
innocence.
I
haven’t thought about her in years. Michael Rubin and Anthony Gancarski, and others
of their ilk, remind me of my friend all those years ago.
Now,
I’m not calling them whores of the anti-freedom, pro-fascist, lying neoconservative
hijacking team, or sluts of the far right wing. I’m not calling them apologists
for falsely advertised preemptive war and facilitators for the obstruction of
the Constitution. I’m not calling them chickenhawks who would sooner run from
a military uniform that don one. I’m not even calling them lying sacks of crap.
OK,
I can’t lie, and never could. I am calling them that. Oh and I almost forgot!
They also like to beat up girls.
June
17, 2005
Karen
Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., [send her mail] is
a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who spent her final four and a half years in
uniform working at the Pentagon. She lives with her freedom-loving family in the
Shenandoah Valley, and among other things, writes a bi-weekly column on defense
issues with a libertarian perspective for militaryweek.com.
