Fear and Patriotism

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Dick Cheney would hide behind our military—it’s what he has done since the first moments of the American invasion of Iraq. There should be no questions regarding the prosecution of the war, he seems to say, as that would “undermine” the troops. (He used that exact word earlier this week.)

What should surprise us is that he still has no shame doing so, considering how disgracefully his administration has supported the troops fighting his war.

I am referring, of course, to the scandal unfolding at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The horrid and pathetic treatment of our uniformed men and women—who haven’t merely given their service, but their limbs, eyes, their ability to speak, to think, to hear—is not merely a scandal, but a national shame.

Yet Cheney says that those who challenge the policies that maim these brave young men and women are “validating” the “al Qaeda strategy.” Question those policies, and you are “undermining” the troops; implicitly, he is questioning the patriotism of any who question his judgment.

I think it’s high time—especially given the developments at Walter Reed—to question the patriotism of his administration, and whether its policies “support the troops.” Would a true patriot pursue a policy that sullies the American standard, that makes United States a pariah in the civilized world? Would a true patriot place thousands of American troops in harm’s way, knowing that hope for success in their mission is long since passed? Would a true patriot have sent thousands to war, knowing that he is sending them under false pretenses?

Most of all, would a true patriot attempt to chill free debate when so many American lives are at stake, and therefore deny the very principles of our Republic? Or would that be “a full validation of the al Qaeda strategy”—to grip us in such fear that we are willing to forget ourselves?

This is nothing new for the Vice President. Cheney has been head of the Orwell Administration’s Department of Euphemism since day one. When asked if he meant to question Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s patriotism when he said that her opposition to “the Surge” was helping al Qaeda, he responded, “I questioned her judgment.” He continued: “The terrorists don’t expect to beat us in a stand-up fight. They never have. They’re not likely to try. The only way they can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission.”

This inflated and meaningless statement is devoid of argument and substance; it is meant to do only this—excite fear, and impugn the patriotic resolve of his opponents. He invokes “the terrorists”—perhaps the sectarian militia at war with one another, each jockeying to occupy the power vacuum that we created—to make you think that this war has anything to do with the War on Terror. He invokes “nerve” and “a stand-up fight” to remind you that the Democrats have no nerve, and would lose a stand-up fight—and to remind you that Nerve is “Five-Deferment” Cheney’s middle name. He wants you to fear debate—a sign of weakness; he wants to remind you to be afraid. Above all, he wants you not to question; if you do, your patriotism is itself in question.

Cheney has hidden behind the rhetoric of fear and patriotism from the moment he stepped into office; he, like too many politicians, uses words not to elucidate, but to obscure and misdirect. The really mind-numbing thing, though, is that we let him get away with it—again, and again, and again. This is not so much his failure as it is ours. It’s time that we take responsibility, and demand that he behave in a manner worthy of his office.

To quote the President: “Fool me once, shame on…shame on you; …fool me—you can’t get fooled again.”



Peter C. D. Mulcahy ’07, a Crimson editorial editor, is a government concentrator in Cabot House.