Mountain Views News          Saturday, June 21, 2014

B4

OPINION

Mountain Views-News Saturday, June 21, 2014 

OUT TO PASTOR 

A Weekly Religion Column by Rev. James Snyder

JOE Gandleman Independent’s Eye

Mountain 
Views

News

PUBLISHER/ EDITOR

Susan Henderson

CITY EDITOR

Dean Lee 

EAST VALLEY EDITOR

Joan Schmidt

BUSINESS EDITOR

LaQuetta Shamblee

SENIOR COMMUNITY 
EDITOR

Pat Birdsall

SALES

Patricia Colonello

626-355-2737 

626-818-2698

WEBMASTER

John Aveny 

CONTRIBUTORS

Chris Leclerc

Bob Eklund

Howard Hays

Paul Carpenter

Kim Clymer-Kelley

Christopher Nyerges

Peter Dills 

Hail Hamilton 

Rich Johnson

Merri Jill Finstrom

Lori Koop

Rev. James Snyder

Tina Paul

Mary Carney

Katie Hopkins

Deanne Davis

Despina Arouzman

Greg Welborn

Renee Quenell

Ben Show

Sean Kayden

Marc Garlett


FAILURE IN IRAQ: 7 THOUGHTS

Wither Iraq?

That's actually 
a two-pronged 
question. First, 
where will Iraq 
wind up when 
it completes its 
latest, chaotic 
chapter? Second, 
will Iraq's next 
incarnation be as a cohesive nation-state, 
or will it literally wither and splinter into 
two (or more) parts?

There are many points and twists to 
ponder as Iraq (again) dominates the 
news. Here's a partial list. And I'm 
sure that in keeping with how our 21st 
century 24/7 politics operates, I'll get 
more of those charming weekly emails 
containing suggestions on where I 
should put my computer.

Some thoughts:

1. Baby Boomers apparently learned 
nothing from Vietnam. 

Even though it was a bitterly divisive 
issue in the 1960s, the overriding 
historical and political consensus today 
is the Vietnam War was a massive, 
costly-in-terms-of-lives-and-treasure 
foreign policy mistake.

The Greatest Generation's "Best and the 
Brightest" miscalculated on Vietnam, 
and the "Mediocre and Ideologically 
Blinded" Baby Boomers failed to learn 
from their elders' mistakes, despite 
possessing countless history books, 
studies and news articles.

2. Discount conservatives' current "I told 
you so" on Iraq today. 

They were the ones who sold the Iraq 
War to Americans and to the British 
under what turned out to be false 
pretenses. They offered Polyanna-ish 
analyses on how long the war would 
last, wrongly characterized how Iraq's 
population would receive victorious 
Americans and miscalculated on how 
a toppling Saddaam Hussein would 
reshape the Middle East. In retrospect, 
they were brimming with -- and acting 
on -- almost wishful thinking. 

3. Discount liberals "I told you so on 
Iraq" today. 

A segment of the Democratic Party 
rooted in the George McGovern wing 
opposes most military ventures almost 
immediately. They argue we shouldn't be 
the world's policeman, the government is 
lying (usually before there is any concrete 
evidence of that) and/or that military 
action is being propelled by the military-
industrial complex. Yes, some liberals 
did present specific, thoughtful reasons 
for opposing the Iraq War. But many 
merely repeated old recycled anti-war 
riffs. It's like a psychic who makes 200 
predictions and then touts the one that 
comes true as proof of special powers.

4. Televised or reported anger doesn't 
necessary mean widespread support. 

Senator John McCain and what some call 
the "conservative political entertainment 
media" have been blaming President 
Barack Obama for Iraq's woes and 
suggesting it's time for stronger military 
action. McCain is screaming "I told you 
so," contending the U.S. shouldn't have 
withdrawn and should have left a residual 
force in Iraq. But Politico reports: "More 
Americans agree with President Barack 
Obama's views on Iraq than those of Sen. 
John McCain, a new poll says. According 
to a Public Policy Polling survey released 
Tuesday, 54 percent of voters say they 
agree more with the president on Iraq, 
compared with 28 percent who said 
they agree more with McCain." McCain 
is as knee-jerk in his constant calls for 
military action as many Democrats are 
in their calls to avoid it.

5. The Weekly Standard's editor Bill 
Kristol (as usual) needs a reality check. 

Kristol, increasingly the national symbol 
of a neocon political pundit, argued on 
MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that Americans 
could be convinced to support renewed 
military action in Iraq. And VHS tapes 
and pay phones are the wave of the 
future.

6. Former Vice President Dick Cheney 
needs to look up the meaning of the 
Yiddish word "chutzpah." 

In an op-ed co-written with his daughter 
Liz, the former Vice President, who 
left office with a poll approval rating 
a tad above jock itch, delivered Iraq 
war criticism and all blame to Obama. 
Cheney offering sound Iraq strategy and 
accurately assessing blame is like Mel 
Gibson teaching a course to rabbis on the 
meaning of Judaism.

7. The world is a dangerous place and 
what happens in Iraq does matter. 

Serious policy makers and thoughtful 
Americans have to be concerned over 
what Al Jazeera calls the rise of "Syraq." 
Whatever happens in Iraq could create 
significant ripples throughout the region 
and in the U.S.

There are more aspects to ponder so this 
list is just a beginning. 

P.S. to those who plan to email: My 
computer won't fit up there.

SWALLOWING PRIDE OR 
EATING CROW ARE BOTH BITTER 
PILLS TO SWALLOW

 I have noticed 
lately that I have 
been getting in 
trouble with the Gracious Mistress of the 
Parsonage, at least more than normal. I am 
at the stage of life where this kind of thing 
needs to be brought to a bare minimum.

 At the end of each month my wife will 
quiz me as to if I have paid all of the bills. 
In my rhetorical answer is always, “I sure 
did, my lady.” Then I will bow before her. 
For some reason she does not get the humor 
of that.

 My job is to pay the bills and her job is to 
make sure the end of the month I have paid 
the bills. This has been our relationship for 
longer than I can recall.

 Every once in a while I get in a little tickle 
mode and dramatically declare that I forgot 
to pay the bills for the month. “Oh my, what 
will we do?”

 The first time I did that, she threw a smile 
in my direction. I dramatically would catch 
it and put it in my pocket.

 I notice she has not been throwing smiles 
at me lately. Honestly, who can blame her?

 It was towards the middle of the month 
when the cable went dead. We had no 
telephone, TV or Internet service. The first 
thing my wife said was, “You did pay the 
Comcast bill, didn’t you?”

 I put on my regular show and assured 
her that I did.

 We had to call the Comcast Company, 
but as it stood, we had no telephone service. 
Fortunately, my wife had her cell phone and 
called the Comcast Company to see what 
the problem was, maybe the service had 
gone out in our neighborhood.

 One thing about my wife getting on the 
telephone for such a thing as finding out 
why we had no service is that she does not 
have patience. She hates being put on hold. 
I hate her being put on hold because she 
usually takes out her frustration on me.

 Now, what do I have to do with that? 
After all, I did pay the bill. In fact, I went to 
the checkbook and showed her the number 
of the check and the amount of the check. 
“There,” I said most adamantly, “I paid the 
bill.”

 After about 45 minutes of waiting rather 
impatiently, my wife finally connected with 
the service representative who was able to 
help her. I did not hear the conversation, 
but I knew it must have been quite serious 
because I could see in her face that she was 
getting angrier by the minute.

 “We paid our bill on time,” she protested 
in a very stern manner. “My husband has 
the check number to prove that he wrote 
the check out.”

 I was sitting in my easy chair going 
through my briefcase enjoying the drama 
that was unfolding before me. I love it when 
somebody is in trouble and that somebody 
is not me. I must confess it does not happen 
that often, but when it does happen, I take 
full advantage of it. I was gloating just a little 
bit and feeling pretty good about myself.

 I had my briefcase and was sorting out 
some papers and getting ready for the next 
day when I ran across a bunch of envelopes. 
I looked at them, then looked over at my 
wife, and then looked back at the pile of 
envelopes and all of the color drained from 
my face. I could not believe what I found in 
my briefcase.

 There in a neat bundle where all of the 
bills I had written out for the previous 
month. The checks had been written, signed 
and placed in the proper envelope with a 
postage stamp on it. All of the bills for the 
month were there staring at me with such 
vicious eyes as I have never seen before.

 What will I do now?

 I knew I had to face the music and it 
was not a song I enjoyed. I picked up the 
envelope with the Comcast bill address 
on the front, took it over to my wife as 
she was on the phone to the Comcast 
representatives, laid it on her lap and then 
walked away.

 “I know my husband paid the bill because 
he pays this bill every month.”

 Then she noticed the envelope I had 
placed in her lap, she turned around and 
stared at me a stare I have not had from her 
in a very long time.

 “Just a minute,” I heard her say to the 
other person on the phone, and then she 
looked at me. Then it came. “Is this the bill 
you were supposed to send out last month?”

 Lying at this moment would not have 
been productive in any fashion.

 She opened the envelope and there 
was the check dutifully written out to the 
Comcast Company. She was able to pay the 
bill over the phone and then it would be my 
turn to pay.

 David who got in a lot of trouble 
understood this when he wrote, “I 
acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine 
iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess 
my transgressions unto the LORD; and 
thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah” 
(Psalms 32:5). 

 Swallowing pride or eating crow is not 
my idea of a delightful repast but it can be 
the beginning of something good.

Mountain Views News 
has been adjudicated as 
a newspaper of General 
Circulation for the County 
of Los Angeles in Court 
Case number GS004724: 
for the City of Sierra 
Madre; in Court Case 
GS005940 and for the 
City of Monrovia in Court 
Case No. GS006989 and 
is published every Saturday 
at 80 W. Sierra Madre 
Blvd., No. 327, Sierra 
Madre, California, 91024. 
All contents are copyrighted 
and may not be 
reproduced without the 
express written consent of 
the publisher. All rights 
reserved. All submissions 
to this newspaper become 
the property of the Mountain 
Views News and may 
be published in part or 
whole. 

Opinions and views 
expressed by the writers 
printed in this paper do 
not necessarily express 
the views and opinions 
of the publisher or staff 
of the Mountain Views 
News. 

Mountain Views News is 
wholly owned by Grace 
Lorraine Publications, 
Inc. and reserves the right 
to refuse publication of 
advertisements and other 
materials submitted for 
publication. 

Letters to the editor and 
correspondence should 
be sent to: 

Mountain Views News

80 W. Sierra Madre Bl. 
#327

Sierra Madre, Ca. 
91024

Phone: 626-355-2737

Fax: 626-609-3285

email: 

mtnviewsnews@aol.com

 

 LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

GREG Welborn


HOWARD Hays As I See It

INDIANS AND EMAILS

 
“The threats of aggression 
by any group, anywhere, can 
no longer be tolerated . . . Your 
choice is simple: join us and live 
in peace, or pursue your present 
course and face obliteration. 
We shall be waiting for your 
answer. The decision rests with 
you.”

 We’ll begin with a 
game of “guess the attribution” for the above 
quote. Here’s a hint: It didn’t come from 
Greg Welborn, who last week suggested the 
United States assume the role of the world’s 
policeman. (Answer later.)

 The idea of world cop was a hot topic at 
the Second Presidential Debate in October 
2000. George W. Bush accused Al Gore of 
supporting the concept, and he nailed it: “If 
we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us.”

 Referring to Vice President Gore, Bush 
said, “He believes in nation building. I would 
be very careful about using troops as nation 
builders.” He went on, “I’m not so sure the role 
of the United States is to go around the world 
and say this is the way it’s got to be . . . I don’t 
want to be the world’s policeman.”

 Despite this common sense, Bush lost 
the election to Al Gore (later reversed by the 
Supreme Court). 

 Once in office, with Vice President Cheney’s 
buddies ogling Iraq’s oil resources, Bush 
knew he couldn’t go after Saddam Hussein 
simply because he was a thug. As soon as 
we were attacked on 9/11, the focus of the 
administration (and especially Dick Cheney) 
was not on finding who was responsible, but 
on how to link it to Saddam.

 There were those bogus ties to Al-Qaeda, 
Saddam’s “imminent threat” to the U.S., Condi 
Rice’s “smoking gun” becoming a “mushroom 
cloud” and, of course, the WMD. “We not 
only know Saddam Hussein has weapons of 
mass destruction”, assured Donald Rumsfeld, 
“we know where they are.”

 (The fact that the hijackers’ funding came 
from Saudi Arabia, an ally, laundered through 
Dubai, another ally, didn’t come up.)

 It was only after folks stopped buying into 
those rationales that the justification for our 
Iraq occupation became, “Freedom is on the 
march!” Nation-building was now what we 
were all about. According to polls at the time, 
though, most of our soldiers stationed in Iraq 
still believed they were there fighting those 
who attacked us on 9/11.

 Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) last week sent a 
re-tweet: “It took nearly 4,500 American lives 
to win freedom for Iraq. It took one president 
to lose it.” It’s been dubious “freedom”, at best, 
under Prime Minister al-Maliki; especially for 
journalists, activists, Sunnis and females. The 
Status of Forces Agreement calling for all U.S. 
troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011 was 
signed in 2008 – by George W. Bush. President 
Obama tried to get it extended, but the Iraqis 
wouldn’t have it - and kicked us out. 

 We did not sacrifice “4,500 American lives to 
win freedom for Iraq.” We went there because 
of lies concocted by the Bush Administration 
to gain access to Iraqi oil fields.

 What’s especially galling is being subjected 
to so many who were so tragically wrong 
(and/or intentionally misleading) about Iraq 
now being given media platforms to chastise 
President Obama and proffer advice.

 Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is on Fox News 
proclaiming it’s all Obama’s fault. Back in 
2003, he was on Fox News with this prediction: 
“We’re going to win . . . it will be brief, we’re 
going to find out massive evidence of weapons 
of mass destruction”. He assured that Sunnis 
and Shiites will play nice with each other. In 
2011, he lauded the withdrawal of our troops 
from Iraq as Bush’s “victory”.

 Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard is all 
over the place blaming President Obama 
for not charging right back in. In 2003, he 
promised it was “going to be a two month war”, 
and in testimony before Congress promised 
our “forces would be welcomed in Baghdad as 
liberators”.

 Douglas Feith now writes that President 
Obama “didn’t take seriously the warnings” 
and forms policy according to “political 
benefits”. In 2003, as Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy, he headed the Office of 
Special Plans – an outfit created to gather 
its own “intelligence”, because the CIA and 
established intelligence community wasn’t 
telling them what they wanted to hear.

 Paul Wolfowitz, Bush’s Deputy Secretary 
of Defense, shows up on interview shows to 
school the president. In 2003, he testified 
before Congress about Iraq’s potential oil 
revenues, explaining that “we’re dealing with 
a country that could really finance its own 
reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

 Paul Bremmer is another who’s now 
explaining the complexities to the president 
and the rest of us. One of his first acts as head 
of the new Coalition Provisional Authority, 
taking control after the invasion, was to purge 
most all professionals from Iraq’s government 
and military. (What could go wrong?). Later, 
nearly $9 billion in reconstruction funds went 
missing under his watch.

 As for the former vice president, Sen. Harry 
Reid (D-NV) had the best response; “Being on 
the wrong side of Dick Cheney is being on the 
right side of history.”

 If you haven’t gotten it by now, the opening 
words are Klaatu’s warning coming at the end 
of “The Day The Earth Stood Still” (1951). If 
there’s one thing to take away from that classic 
science fiction, it’s that it’s fiction; when we 
start massacring each other, there will be no 
planetary police force of Gorts arriving in 
their saucers to save us from ourselves.

 The only upside to a country here on earth 
acting as “world policeman” is that nothing 
would more assuredly unite warring factions 
around the globe than if a single nation 
presumed entitlement to the role.

 The responsibility for saving us from the 
madness is one we have to take on ourselves. 
And, a good first step would be to stop giving 
credence to those who brought on such 
madness in the first place. 

 I want to weave together two events of 
the past week into a coherent theme. While 
they may seem a bit unrelated, and perhaps 
even a bit insignificant or “dated”, the 
theme connecting them is among the most 
important we can address. What rights 
do we truly possess if the government 
is allowed to run roughshod over them 
without consequences? Put differently, 
if the Washington Redskins team can be 
stripped of their property rights and True 
The Vote can be denied their free speech, 
what rights do the rest of us really possess?

 First, the facts behind each event. The 
Washington Redskins were informed by 
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that 
they have been stripped of their rights to 
the “Redskins” trademark and copyright. 
The brand which is the Washington 
Redskins no longer belongs to the owner of 
the team. The reason they lost the rights is 
because a small group of Native Americans 
claimed that use of the term offended them. 

 True The Vote faces a different, but 
nonetheless related, breach of their 
rights. They are one of the conservative 
organizations which was harassed by 
the IRS. They sued the IRS and, in 
pursuing evidence to prove their case, 
requested copies of ALL emails from or 
to the IRS concerning the handling of 
their request for tax-exempt status. We 
need to understand that attainment of 
tax-exempt status, and thus the ability 
to solicit donations which would fund 
political advertisements and programs, is 
a straight forward first amendment issue. 
If the government can deny me the ability 
to place political advertisements, they have 
in fact denied me my right to free speech. 
The IRS responded by informing True The 
Vote’s attorney that 6 separate individual 
computers, which collectively contained 
all the requested emails, have suffered 
hard drive crashes simultaneously with 
no backups available. Thus, no evidence 
relating to the IRS’ handling of True The 
Vote’s request can be made available, and 
correspondingly the government will have 
stifled free speech without suffering any 
consequences. Do I really need to add 
that nobody in their right mind believes 
6 separate computers crashed or that no 
backups exist? Perhaps I do, but if so, it 
would itself be a significant violation of law.

 How are these two seemingly different 
events related? The answer is that without 
property rights, freedom of speech and 
a set of objective laws equally enforced, 
there can be no real freedom for anyone. 
If the government can take away my 
property, they have the ability to punish 
me for speaking out against them. If the 
government can significantly impede 
my expression of opinion in the public 
square, they have the ability to punish 
me for speaking out against them. If the 
government can arbitrarily decide whether 
laws apply to me vs. to someone else, they 
can, through selective enforcement, punish 
me for speaking out against them. In other 
words, our whole system of governance 
and rights would disintegrate overnight.

 Consider the logical consequences of 
the government trademark office decision. 
The trademark is a property right – every 
bit as important and valuable as the homes 
or the businesses we 
own. The pretext 
for taking away this 
valuable property was 
that a small number of 
people were offended. 
Lest you think 
this is an extreme 
example, I’d point 
you to the University 
of California’s Irvine Campus. The Phi 
Gamma Delta fraternity (nicknamed 
the “fijis’) has held an annual Luau, and 
many participants have come dressed 
in grass skirts. Someone of Polynesian 
heritage complained that he was 
“offended”, and the university cancelled 
the Luau and punished he fraternity. 
Similarly, in a California public school, 
a white student was prohibited from 
wearing a sombrero because a Hispanic 
kid complained that white kids wearing 
Hispanic costumes was insulting. 

 You see where this is going? Forget 
whether or not someone was offended. 
I’m willing to stipulate that people have 
been offended. But freedom of speech 
means nothing if we’re willing to restrict 
it because someone is offended. If that 
becomes the threshold for restricting 
speech, then I’d like to register my sense of 
offense over a host of things – What if I feel 
offended at the concept of gay marriage? 
What if I feel offended at the concept of 
aborting a human fetus? Shouldn’t I, by 
this new standard, have the right to force 
others to stop advocating their opinions?

 The problem, as you can probably 
surmise, is that it would never get to 
that. Because I am a middle-aged, white, 
heterosexual male, no police officer, district 
attorney, or judge would take seriously my 
complaints about being offended. Offense 
can only be felt significantly enough to 
warrant government action by those 
who meet certain randomly proscribed 
ethnic, racial, religious or sexual criteria. 
This is not equal enforcement of the law.

 In this same vein, then, you can see how 
the Redskins’ issue relates to True The Vote’s 
issue. If the IRS selectively enforced rules, 
criteria, or regulations against conservative 
groups seeking tax-exempt status, then 
the concept of equal enforcement of the 
law is ruined. Unless True The Vote is 
allowed to reasonably make their case, 
they’ve lost their rights – as have we all.

 I conclude by again appealing to my 
Liberal and Independent readers. This 
is not a Conservative issue. This is an 
American issue. If you stand aside and 
allow this to happen to us (Conservatives), 
then don’t you think we will stand aside 
when a future Conservative administration 
seeks to crush your right to dissent? Once 
the precedent has been established, all 
of our freedoms are jeopardized. Once 
we go down that path too far, there is no 
turning back. Injuns and emails are more 
related than you think, and certainly 
more important than anyone dreamed.

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn is a 
freelance writer and has spoken to several civic 
and religious organizations on cultural and moral 
issues. He lives in the Los Angeles area with his 
wife and 3 children and is active in the community. 
He can be reached gregwelborn2@gmail.com

Mountain Views News

Mission Statement

The traditions of

community news-
papers and the 
concerns of our readers 
are this newspaper’s 
top priorities. We 
support a prosperous 
community of well-
informed citizens. 
We hold in high 
regard the values 
of the exceptional 
quality of life in our 
community, including 
the magnificence of 
our natural resources. 
Integrity will be our 
guide. 

Mountain Views News 80 W Sierra Madre Blvd. No. 327 Sierra Madre, Ca. 91024 Office: 626.355.2737 Fax: 626.609.3285 Email: editor@mtnviewsnews.com Website: www.mtnviewsnews.com