(Note: For those who do not know, The Daily Oklahoman fortress is located on the Broadway Extension, a highway in north Oklahoma City.)
The Broadway Extension Warmongers (aka: commentary writers at The Daily Oklahoman) have published yet another quasi-fascist editorial supporting Imperial President George Bush’s gruesome Iraq occupation while denouncing those Democrats who want to bring the troops home.
In addition, the newspaper continues to give politico and fringe right-wing extremist Kevin Calvey, a former state representative, prominent space on its online site to distort the Iraq occupation and lie about who the military is really fighting. A National Guardsman, the archconservative Republican Calvey is currently in Iraq. He blogs regularly for the newspaper under the title “Calvey in Iraq.” His posts have nothing to do about his military service in Iraq. He writes almost exclusively about his political support for the occupation.
(As an aside, let us not forget that “large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists have infiltrated the U.S. military,” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that monitors hate groups in the country. This is not your grandfather’s or great-grandfather’s World War II military. Those who serve in Iraq now are primarily (1) poor and have few educational or job choices available to them when they graduate from high school, (2) doing so to obtain combat experience because they are career soldiers or (3) want to go because they get a macho kick killing people and living on the edge. Within this third group, according to organizations such as the SPLC, there are a growing number of militia types and right-wing extremists in the mold of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.)
It is long past time to consider The Daily Oklahoman’s motives. Why does it publish so many editorials supporting the occupation when a majority of American citizens want the military out of Iraq and when a majority of Iraqi citizens want us out? A new poll, for example, shows only 30 percent of Americans support the occupation. Is the newspaper subtly promoting a fascist or American Imperialist ideology and secretly urging people to abandon the country’s historical democratic structures? Does it support the new right-wing military that now accepts skinheads and neo-Nazis into its ranks and routinely tortures prisoners under the tacit approval of the executive branch of government? Do its owners—the Gaylord family—even believe in the concepts and ideals of democracy, free speech and truth? Why does the newspaper remain completely one-sided on this issue? Why will it not present different views about the most important world event in a generation when American citizens are so clearly against the occupation?
Mark Green, in the newspaper’s most recent pro-occupation editorial (Defeatist sounding: Democrats war mantra wearing thin,” June 27, 2007),” argues Democrats have “overplayed their hand” as they “badmouth” the occupation.
Green argues recent low approval ratings for Congress are probably because Americans, in fact, support the occupation even though many experts attribute the low ratings to just the opposite.
Here is a paragraph Green actually wrote: “Then there's the war. No question, lots of liberals are mad Democrats haven't ended it yet. Many experts attribute the low congressional job approval numbers to just that. But maybe part of it is a feeling among centrists and independents that Democrats have gone beyond the mandate they won in the 2006 midterm elections.”
But here is the big fact Green ignores: The Democratic Party, which won majorities in the House and Senate in 2006, primarily based on anti-occupation sentiment, has done absolutely nothing to stop the occupation. Nothing. So, in his twisted logic, Green argues that people do not support Congress because Democrats have “overplayed” what? Overplayed . . . nothing, nada, zilch? How do you overplay when you are not even playing? The Democratic Party has not done anything in any manner to impede Imperial President Bush and his war dogs from escalating the botched occupation. People are against Congress right now because it has not done anything to stop Bush’s occupation, not because it has actually done anything to stop it. That is why an increasing number of prominent Republicans are turning against it as well.
You will not hear anything from Green about U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), who said this about the Iraq occupation yesterday: “In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved. Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.”
According to Green, it all comes down to a couple of things Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have said about the occupation, not anything they have actually done to end it. This is why Americans, according to Green, are not supporting Congress right now because Reid and Pelosi said some bad bad things about poor maligned Bush and his wonderful occupation. People do not like it when Democrats say bad things about Republicans, according to Green’s logic, but they do like it when Republicans say bad things about Democrats.
Meanwhile, Calvey continues his attempts to indoctrinate people into worshipping the corporate-military complex and death over human rights and individuals. And, remarkably, he is such a great history teacher, too!
In a recent post, Calvey compares the tactics of General Robert E. Lee to the tactics of al Qaeda in Iraq with a most telling qualification.
Calvey writes, “An analogy, for students of American history, would be Robert E. Lee's failure to cause despair in the North in the Gettysburg campaign. It is not a perfect analogy, because Robert E. Lee was not evil like al Qaeda. But Lee was an insurgent of sorts, quite a successful one in many ways, and his goal was to get the Federal government to quit the Civil War, since Lee knew he could not win militarily.”
Note here, according to Calvey, Robert E. Lee, who was fighting to uphold the inhumane practice of slavery, “was not evil like al Qaeda.” It is only fitting that the “not-evil” Lee, who some claim ruthlessly punished his own slaves, is an icon of southern pride and contemporary racism. (Reread this post’s third paragraph.) Obviously, the American government’s current polices that encourage the torture of its prisoners are philosophically rooted in the country’s inhumane treatment of slaves. In both cases, “The Other” is deemed subhuman and physically beaten and these acts are presented as “not evil.”
Also, more importantly, American soldiers are fighting insurgents who are NOT affiliated with al Qaeda. These insurgents are people—both Sunnis and Shiites—who want the United States military to stop occupying their country. A majority of Iraqis want Calvey and the rest of the military to leave, according to surveys. Calvey is lying, he knows he is lying, The Oklahoman editors know he is lying, we all know he is lying, he is The Windup Good Soldier that lies and lies and lies, and it goes on and on and on.