Eagles Gather For Flock Fest

(It's kind of long so grab your coffee)

In case you don't pay attention to the latest right wing conspiracy theories, let me clue you in, this one is good, and even kind of funny.

A group of right wingers who call themselves the "Gathering Of Eagles" (as pointed out by HP's Chris Kelly a group of eagles is not actually a "gathering" but a "congress") are gearing themselves up for the largest assault on American Freedom yet - an anti-war demonstration in Washington D.C. on March 17.

The Gathering claims that on this fateful date in history all hell will break lose when antiwar demonstrators deface the Vietnam Memorial and spit at war veterans. It's like the tribulations only worse for the chest thumping "Gathering of Hawks".

The only problem with this theory? Well, it's just that, a theory.

There has not been any plans made by the "radical left" for vet spitting contests or wall defacing debacles led by the "Hanoi Jane's" and "Cindy Sheehan's" who will be attending the peaceful demonstration.

So obviously the strange paranoia that "The Gathering" is suffering from is quite unfounded and quite delusional. But then again, with the "dedication" (some call it radicalism) of this group it wouldn't surprise me if some of their own "Eagles" defaced the memorial or spit at vets, just to reinforce the rest of the "flocks" point of view.

So however unfounded the conspiracy theory is, that didn't stop fellow flocker Russ Vaughn at Eagle Fest from writing an eloquent and creative poem (?) about the.. ah..umm.. huh.. umm.. imminent disaster that isn't going to happen on March 17.

I don't want to torture everyone with the simple mindedness of the entire poem, but a few lines are just screaming to be pointed out.

Linguistic genius Russ Vaughn at the Flock of Eagles or Gathering of Flocks, or Flock of Seagulls or whatever it is called wrote the following :

"You can shout and scream all you want,
On all that we'll give you a pass;
But you try some Wall-defacing stunt,
And, son, I'm gonna kick your ass."

First, I can't imagine in what world the words "want" and "stunt" would have any rhyming capability in. "Donchu be pullin' no stant" ?? Okay...

Second, it surely doesn't surprise me that a pro-war person would reduce themselves to the level of violence to prove their point, it doesn't surprise me a bit. I mean, it makes logical sense doesn't it?

Anyway, my friend Russy goes on to write in his "poem" (ahem)

"And understand you ain't layin' a hand
On our Wall you leftie mothers."

BOY! This guy has an incredible amount of insight, his writing skills are superb, I mean, all that stuff about Shakespeare being a good writer? Blasphemy! "Leftie motherfuckers" is art, it's poetry! "Ain't layin' "? That's a superior use of the English language right there.

But there is more, I can't stop now, it's just too interesting. Like, WOW, I thought people like this only existed in parodies of right wing lunatics, I didn't know they were actually real.

"And, son, you hear this loud and clear,
Don't even think about spittin'
Less you want that smart mouth busted here,
And believe me, we're not shittin'."

Oooh, more solving problems with violence! That's typical of a right winger for you. I'm glad to know that they are "not shittin'" because otherwise this whole thing could get messy...

OK, I am just going to pop this question ... Is this guy sitting in a splintered rocking chair on a dilapidated porch with a piece of wheat hanging from his toothless grin, wearing rolled up overalls splashed with mud, beat up old banjo in one hand, bottle of whiskey in the other and his shotgun leaned up against the house behind him while belting "Yah- whoo!!" somewhere? Because that is the pik-a-cher (picture in English) Russ Vaughn is painting of himself in my head.

Also, as already written there is not a vast left conspiracy to deface the Vietnam memorial, or spit on Veterans for that matter on March 17. Vaughn is just propagating anger and paranoia towards "the left" (I guess he means the majority of Americans who are now opposed to the war).

In a shift-the-blame-scapegoating tactic Vaughn also writes:

"Because of you losers we lose our wars,"

Really, who is this guy kidding? Or more accurately, who does he think he is trying to kid?

It must be himself, because last time I checked the reasons we lose wars is because we plan them poorly, have morons in charge, or have a flawed foundation for invasion - or all three.

When we win wars it is largely because we had intelligent and strategic planning and men of vision in charge and a justified foundation for war.

We don't lose wars because of protesters, but it is convenient to try to blame the protesters, isn't it? "We could have won the war if you supported it." Is a lot easier than admitting mistakes and failures, a lot easier. What the right wing ideologues fail to mention is that they had everyone support right up until the moment everything collapsed into scandal, corruption and failure. It's kind of hard to support those things, when, you know, you have a conscious.

Anyway, back to Vaughn's articulate and thought provoking "poem"

"So follow these traitors, those loser bitches,
Let them lead you to your fall;
But I promise you, son, you're gonna need stitches,
You even get close to this Wall."

More threats of violence, what a shock!

I was wrong to assume Vaughn was a harmless if ignorant hick, no, he's much more than that, more like the guy who will throw a brick through your windshield for accidentally cutting him off in traffic.

So all this talk of Vaughn, his poem, and the upcoming demonstrations (and counter demonstrations) in D.C. made me curious enough to look up the "Gathering of Eagles" on "the Internets". I had to use "the Google", but I found it, and let me tell you, it blew my mind.

Curiosity compelled me so I clicked on the link. Who are these people? Do they really believe what they are writing? If so, what planet are they from? Why do they claim to be the "Silent Guard of America's Memorials" but appear to be hosting an array of right wing conspiracy theories and talking points? Some of those soldiers must surely be liberals...

In "Answering the Call of Our Fallen" Kit Jarrell uses the cloak of patriotism to assail the left with conspiracies and fallacies such as :

"the American Left called for the defeat and humiliation of our military, even going so far as to support the barbaric hordes of Islam in their quest to destroy America." Do you hear that? Shhh... (coo-coo, coo-coo)

Yeah, I hear the Demoncrats are holding mass conversions, daily now, you know, for those of us who have decided to "support the barbaric hordes of Islam". The statement shows how little Kit Jarrell knows about "the left" or Islam.

Radical Islam is not compatible with the the Liberal left! (After all, according to the Conservative right, the radical Muslims attacked us because of our Liberal values, not despite of them). Radical Islam is, however, compatible with the values of right wing conservatism. There is no such thing as a Liberal Jihadist, they are all extremist conservatives! So to suggest the Liberals and Terrorist are in "cahoots", so to speak, is quite simple minded, their values are as opposite as the poles.

The same writer comments that :

"The college-age hippies of 1969 were now parents and grandparents, with families who didn’t have the faintest idea where Iwo Jima is and wouldn’t dream of enlisting in the “imperialist army” of their nation."

Oh, puh-leaze! Don't forget to mention the fact that the children and grandchildren of the "imperialist" war hawks wouldn't dream of enlisting in the military either, but their reasons are of cowardice and greed, not guided out of principals like the children of the "hippies".

"The antiwar crowd kept marching and declared themselves the majority."

The "antiwar crowd" did not declare itself to be the majority, the majority joined the antiwar crowd and left the ailing pro war "gathering".

The "antiwar crowd" did not grow because there is an alarming amount of anti-American citizens in this country (as the right wing likes to claim).

The "antiwar crowd" grew because successes in Iraq are few and far between, the crowd grows every time new evidence against the Bush Administrations flawed basis for war are unveiled, the crowd grows bigger when US soldiers are killed, when Iraqi children die, when we see the staggering amount of money invested and the new threats on the horizon.

But these vast right wing conspiracies, that become a way of life for some, about "the enemy at home" which blame Liberals for everything but the extinction of the dinosaurs, can get a little out of touch with reality.

Instead of undermining their Liberal antiwar "enemies" these right wing extremist validate them with their offering of assorted conspiracy theories(always a good friend of the right), violent poetry and insane ramblings tainted with endorsements of violence.

Support Or Oppose It, There Needs To Be An Honest Debate On Iraq

Since the beginning the Iraq War has been framed and defined by two points of view in American politics, and neither is wholly realistic.

Side A supports the war and view American and Iraqi sacrifices as worth the long term benefits and also sees Iraq War as the front on global terrorism, though Iraq was not involved in the planning, execution or funding of 9/11.

Side A also believes that a liberated democracy is feasible in Iraq, though many warned Iraq was not fertile grounds for a democracy after decades of oppressive dictatorship.

Side A even supports torture of the same people Side A claims it wants to liberate.

Side A is firmly against "setting a time table" and also believes that "staying the course" (though they don't use that expression anymore ) and accelerating the course will result security at home and in "victory", which we are all assuming is a free Iraq that can protect itself from terrorist.

Side B opposes the war believes the sacrifices being made in Iraq far outweigh the benefits for both Iraqi's and Americans and that the real "War on Terror" is in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden allegedly is, the 9/11 hijackers were trained and the Taliban is making a resurgence.

Side B argues that the basis for the war in Iraq and execution thereof was fundamentally flawed and therefore the continued execution of it is unjustified.

Side B views the torture of prisoners as unacceptable and contrary to the image of a liberator and contrary to the conduct of a democratized nation.

Side B believes that the United States cannot continue to extend itself indefinitely and that a "time table" and perhaps even restrictions should be introduced.

OK, so it's obvious -- Side A are the Republicans and Side B are the Democrats. But it isn't really so clearly defined anymore, an increasing amount of Republicans are coming out against the war, but it is still impossible to get an honest debate where facts, not political poetry or quotes frame the debate.

If this country is to ever move forward in the right direction the issue of Iraq has to be addressed immediately and directly, we cannot keep sweeping this debate under the metaphorical rug.

The answers will not be easy to find, the options will not be favorable, but our commitment cannot be indefinite, no matter how much we would wish to see a free and prosperous Iraq.

In order for the issue to be resolved there must be debate, and it needs to be open and honest and present only the facts before a reasonable course of action can be drawn.