More than 142 years after a band of state militia volunteers massacred 150 sleeping Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians in a misdirected act of vengeance, a memorial to the tragic event was officially dedicated Saturday.
Even in 1864 there was a conservative neocon mentality. This is from the testimony of Colonel J. M. Chivington April 26, 1865
From the best information I could obtain, I judge there were five hundred or six hundred Indians killed; I cannot state positively the number killed, nor can I state positively the number of women and children killed. Officers who passed over the field, by my orders, after the battle, for the purpose of ascertaining the number of Indians killed, report that they saw but few women or children dead, no more than would certainly fall in an attack upon a camp in which they were. I myself passed over some portions of the field after the fight, and I saw but one woman who had been killed, and one who had hanged herself; I saw no dead children. From all I could learn, I arrived at the conclusion that but few women or children had been slain. I am of the opinion that when the attack was made on the Indian camp the greater number of squaws and children made their escape, while the warriors remained to fight my troops.
In fact most of the dead were unmistakably women and children and the male Indians that were killed had nothing to do with some recent attacks on white settlers. What mattered to Chivington was that something bad had happened. The bad was perpetrated by Indians. Indians were killed, whether they were or were not directly involved didn’t matter as long as some group was portrayed as the enemy and the enemy had to pay. Washington Post Scrapes Bottom Of Barrel To Find People Who Think War Isn’t “Lost”
No. Many said Anbar province was “lost” six months ago. Today, local tribes are cooperating with us to fight al-Qaeda. Iraqis, with our help, are confronting the sectarian violence in Baghdad, seeking to take back their capital so they can pursue political reconciliation.
— Stephen J. Hadley, national security adviser
No. The war is not lost — no more than it was in winter 1776, July 1864, December 1945 or November 1950. The challenge is winning back hearts and minds at home, rather than in Iraq, where brave thousands join us each day to fight an evil sort the likes of which we haven’t seen in recent memory.
— Victor Davis Hanson, military historian, Hoover Institution
VH is confused again One would think that would be a fatal flaw in a war historian but to conflate the creation of the world’s first modern democracy with the middle-east that hasn’t given rise to a single democracy in fifty years ( Israel, a non Arab state being the exception) with the U.S. running interference in a civil war is apple and oranges. Again I suspect he knows better, but his ideological zeal prevents him from making honest comparisons. “Evil” we haven’t seen recently – like the Va. Tech shootings or the Oklahoma City bombing. Some people might consider a president that lied a nation into an unnecessary war a touch evil. Then there’s that reference to 1945, generally considered to be the end of WW II. Wars against state actors that had either declared war on us or attacked us. Iraq had done neither. Maybe he’s referencing 1945 as the beginning of the Information Age. Who knows, he has a tendency to throw these dates and absurd comparisons out like popcorn to pond ducks. Hadley and Hanson’s “evil” are, to keep the historical analogies going the stuff of Colonel Chivington. “They” are evil and “they” must be fought until everyone of “them” is dead. If evil is actual ideologues, committed terrorists they would be the ones that as in Colorado actually made unprovoked attacks against settlers and the general population of Iraq – not every Iraqi – man, woman or child is a terrorist – and heresy to point this out, but the insurgency is just that – people that want invaders out of their country – not the same as the perpetrators of 9-11. At this juncture one cannot claim that the innocent victims are collateral damage – the maliciousness of the Bush administration and its failures at political and economic solutions are to blame. Now as always the we need more blood crowd like Hadley and Hanson claim that the deaths of these innocent people are the price they have to pay for the march of democracy. The moral problem is that no plurality of Iraqis has before the invasion up until the present come forth to say that Bush should invade and stay. No majority of Iraqis has said that they would be willing to give up the one life alloted to them for an ill conceived neocon experiment in nation building that has become only been connected to actual jihadism against the west by the rabid Right.
The Queen of Fabrication is at it again. Rice can spin so hard and fast she would embarrass most merry-go-rounds, Rice backs off Iraq ‘imminent threat’ claim, then redefines term
“George, the question of imminence isn’t whether or not someone will strike tomorrow, it’s whether you believe you’re in a stronger position today to deal with the threat or whether you’re going to be in a stronger position tomorrow,” replies Rice. “It was the president’s assessment that the situation in Iraq was getting worse from our point of view.”
Rice’s redefinition of the term “imminent threat,” comes just over a month after former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton appeared on CNN claiming that the President never made the argument that Saddam Hussein posed an “imminent threat.” As RAW STORY reported last month, a number of Bush administration officials used the term in the run up to the Iraq war.
Since Rice cannot keep her own spin straight it would behoove her not to try and rewrite history and put words in other people’s mouths, Rice Falsely Claims U.N. Inspectors Thought Saddam Hussein Had WMD
Chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council that his inspection teams had not found any “smoking guns” after visiting some 125 Iraqi sites. [1/9/03]
Also Rice makes acts as though preemption against Bin Laden in Afghanistan would have been a ridiclous idea – this would be in contrast to the preemtive war against an Iraq that had nothing to do with 9-11,
“The idea of launching preemptive strikes into Afghanistan in July of 2001, this is a new fact.” Rice then said, “I don’t know what we were supposed to preemptively strike in Afghanistan. Perhaps somebody can ask that.”
They could have at least tried a cruise missile strike or that and a combination od special forces. Simple straight forward responses to threats to our national security are incomprehensible to Conservatives, yet getting us mired down in a senseless war seems to make perfect sense.
“The soldiers never explained to the government when an Indian was wronged, but reported the misdeeds of the Indians.” – Geronimo