A Random Image

Jett Superior laid this on you on || July 1, 2005 || 7:06 am

Ironic humor pieces like George W’s Quagmire by Michael Graham at National Review Online tend to get a bit precious, but this one’s not too bad and has a few head-nodders, especially in mimicking the media’s spin and leftist slant:

“Here it is, July of 1776, and George W. and his lackeys are just now getting around to declaring what this war is supposedly all about?” complained Loyalist playwright Michael LeMoore. “Washington and his neo-congressionalists rushed us into war at Lexington and Concord, before anyone had ‘declared’ a single word about independence. Face it: George lied, and people died.”

Supporters of George Washington and the so-called “war for independence” dispute claims from the antiwar movement that their actions are unlawful, and they point to their formal “Declaration of Independence” as proof.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” reads the Declaration in part, “that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The document was reportedly written by Thomas Jefferson, a white, southern slave-owner, and one of the architects of the “patriot” movement.

Critics quickly noted the hypocrisy of Jefferson’s reference to “unalienable rights” of liberty and the author’s own record of slave-ownership.

“If they really believed in spreading ‘freedom,’ they would free their own slaves instead of killing the British and shelling innocent civilian Loyalist women and children in Boston and New York,” said Howard Deanne, head of the Loyalist National Committee. “And what of the recently uncovered Commonwealth Avenue memos, which would seem to indicate that those closest to Washington were planning for war after the Boston Tea Party back in ‘73? I’m telling you, the colonists of America have been misled into war!”

Though most colonists agree that King George III is a tyrant, polls consistently show that a minority of colonists support open military action against the British. Many pundits also question whether removing the monarchy will make any fundamental difference in the lives of Americans.

Indeed, as support for the war among the American colonists wanes, some Quaker antiwar activists are using the other “Q” word in colonial politics: quagmire. Some even suggest that the entire war was manufactured by Gen. Washington to settle a personal score with the British over perceived insults he endured during the French and Indian War.

“Washington was just looking for an excuse to go to war,” said prominent lady activist Rosalind O’Donnell. “Everyone knows little Georgie would be broke if not for his connections to major land speculators pushing out beyond Kentucky. This is just a land grab! No war for Ohio! No war for Ohio!”

Patriot leaders gathered in Philadelphia, however, were determined to ignore the mounting criticism and celebrate their unanimous adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

“I firmly believe that in the future, this day — July 4, 1776 — will be viewed as a great moment for America and for freedom around the world,” John Adams of Massachusetts told a handpicked audience of “patriot” supporters.

“Is a free, democratic America really worth such a price?” demanded playwright LeMoore. “I certainly don’t think so. The world shouldn’t look to America for leadership. They should look instead to courageous nations truly endowed with greatness. Like France.”

Go read it all for I had to cut some good stuff to keep it brief here.

3 worked it out »

  1. del 7.2.2005

    Shouldn’t this be written from a 18th century French viewpoint rather than Colonial American viewpoint? France assisted in The US’s founding days. Certainly, the case could even be made that France’s involment in the United States Revolutionary war was motivated by self interest: greed, world position and power.

  2. Jettomatika 7.2.2005

    Dirk doesn’t think about such things, Del. He just cuts, pastes and spews ad hoc.

  3. del 7.2.2005

    Well, it was a amusing enough read and let’s face it, the analogy to 18th century France would have been lost on the majority of the audience.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

(you know you want to)