Chapel Hill's War on the President
The Chapel Hill Town Council Attacks the Conflict in Iraq
Brendon Anderson
Summer 2006
Welcome to Chapel Hill, the haven for the Far Left in North Carolina and now in the national news for pursuing another blatantly liberal agenda. On Monday, May 8, the Chapel Hill Town Council unanimously passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush. The resolution was adopted from a petition originally created by a grass-roots group called Elders for Peace. According to The News and Observer, the resolution outlines three charges to justify its call for impeachment of the president. It charged the president with:
1) Lying to Congress and the American people to launch an illegal war of aggression,
2) Violating human rights by torturing prisoners at home and abroad and detaining suspects with no due process, and
3) Unleashing a massive unconstitutional wiretap and spying operation against the people of the United States.
This resolution passed by the Chapel Hill Town Council is indicative of the political environment and ignorance surrounding this town and campus. There is undoubtedly an extreme liberal bias in local politics and in University classrooms. The resolution was passed to gain national recognition for the town and respect from liberal admirers across the country for Chapel Hill’s progressivism.
In reference to the charges presented, Nancy Elkins from the Elders for Peace said, “I think this compels us, you and all the thinking people in the United States, to move for impeachment.”
The charges listed by Elkin’s group are old hash at best, “crimes” the left has whined about ever since our entrance into Iraq. Elkin mentioned that thinking people would be compelled by these charges to join the movement for impeachment. Upon truly thinking about the charges presented against the president, one should be persuaded otherwise.
The first charge accused the president of “lying to Congress and the American people to launch an illegal war of aggression.” There are two parts to this charge: The first part deals with “Lying to Congress and the American people.” This accusation demonstrates a vast misunderstanding of government and intelligence practices in this country. In reality, The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are ultimately responsible for collection and presentation of intelligence information to the president. According to the FBI Web site, the FBI’s primary goals are, “To protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.” The CIA pursues similar goals, as do military intelligence agencies. The fact that only small amounts of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq does not prove one way or another that the president lied to the country. It only proves that there was either a lapse in intelligence conducted by the FBI and CIA or that the weapons were hidden or relocated prior to the invasion. Accusing the president of lying to Congress and the American people is an outright attack on his character without any regard for human error or proof of facts. This first charge is based solely on popular disgruntlement and lacks facts or consolidated evidence.
The second part of the first charge is untrue as well. It states that the president lied to “launch an illegal war of aggression.” The term, “illegal war,” immediately strikes one as questionable. Members of the town council presume that a country should not launch a war against a dictator that has committed genocide, violated United Nations weapons sanctions for twelve years, broken surrender treaty terms and directly mishandled Oil for Food funds meant to feed his starving people. Those three charges have been proven accurate, yet are often ignored by groups more in favor of falsely accusing leaders in our country instead of truly corrupt dictators such as Saddam Hussein. The town council’s first charge demonstrates that its hatred for George W. Bush has blinded its members from seeing the truth.
The second charge supported by the town council accuses the president of “Violating human rights by torturing prisoners at home and abroad and detaining suspects with no due process.” A valid argument for torturing terrorists could be made here (The Geneva Convention does not protect the rights of terrorists since they refuse to wear uniforms or represent a country), but instead I’d prefer to focus on the responsibility aspect once again. This charge assumes that the president had full knowledge of the practices at every American prison camp around the world and that he advocated that torture.
In reality, when the human rights violations were exposed, the president immediately condemned the practices and said in a June 26, 2004 address that “America stands against and will not tolerate torture. We will investigate and prosecute all acts of torture and undertake to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment in all territory under our jurisdiction. American personnel are required to comply with all U.S. laws, including the United States Constitution, Federal statutes, including statutes prohibiting torture, and our treaty obligations with respect to the treatment of all detainees.”
That investigation promised by the president yielded seven convictions so far. Those convictions combined with an ongoing investigation into the torturing of detainees leads a reasonable individual to believe that the only people responsible for the actions of abuse are the abusers themselves. To directly affiliate President Bush to the few cases of prisoner abuse demonstrates ignorance on the part of the council and a repeated rejection of common sense.
Listening to liberal attacks on the president, one might think that President Bush has acted similarly to Franklin D. Roosevelt who signed Executive Order 9066 in 1942, effectively filtering Japanese-American citizens into militarily controlled camps on the west coast. However, Bush has done no such thing. And interestingly, liberals like those in the Chapel Hill Town Council would never label their hero FDR as a human rights violator, let alone accuse him the same way they have accused our current president.
The third charge in the resolution reflects the most ignorant and blatant avoidance of the truth. It accuses the president of “Unleashing a massive unconstitutional wiretap and spying operation against the people of the United States.” The truth is that massive wiretap and spying operations have been conducted in this country since the late 70’s through a program known as Project Echelon. The computer-based global surveillance program has been documented and utilized by Reagan, Bush Sr., beloved Clinton and George W. Bush. The accusation that our current president spontaneously launched a surveillance program couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, a May 27, 1999 NY Times article defended the use of government surveillance to keep an eye on suspected terrorists.
Niall McKay wrote, “While few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists, many are concerned that the system could be abused to collect economic and political information.” The only concern addressed in the article was potential use of the program for economic and political purposes, while its intended use for foreign surveillance was clearly promoted. Of course, the article was written during the Clinton years.
This resolution to impeach President Bush is merely another weak stab by liberals who obviously have nothing better to do with their time in office. This political extremism is an accurate representation of the feelings shared by community members in Chapel Hill and university faculty at UNC. The town and university are trademarked as liberal turf. After conducting research through the archives of the Daily Tar Heel, numerous other attacks on Bush resurrected themselves. These events offer new students a taste of the political environment in Chapel Hill.
1. October 27, 2001 – Following American military engagement in Afghanistan in response to the attack on 9/11, a group of anti-war protesters marched down Franklin St.
2. March 2, 2003 – More than 750 people gathered in the Quad to protest potential military action in Iraq. UNC student groups United for a Responsible Global Environment and Campaign to End the Cycle of Violence sponsored the event.
3. March 20, 2003 – Anti-war protesters gathered outside Wilson Library holding umbrellas and lighting candles in the rain.
4. October 8, 2003 – Chapel Hill Town Council unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the Patriot Act.
5. September 19, 2004 – “Run Against Bush Day” attracted students and community members focused on one agenda: defeating Bush in November 2.
6. October 6, 2004 – A homeless anti-war protester attempted to burn the American flag hanging from the College Republican’s table in the Pit.
7. October 24, 2004 – The Festival for a Better Future is held at McCorkle Place. The festival served as a rally for John Kerry and allowed for public protest of Bush’s policies. UNC School of Law dean Gene Nichol spoke out against the administration as well.
8. September 19-23, 2005 – Student anti-war activists staged a week long protest at Polk Place on campus, then traveled to Washington, D.C. on the weekend to protest there.
9. January 17, 2006 – UNC Kenan professor of law emeritus Dan Pollitt joined the “Think Globally, Act Locally” forum to lobby for the impeachment of the president.
10. March 21, 2006 – Mark Miller, author of the book “Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why they’ll Steal the Next One, Too (Unless We Stop Them)” spoke at the Great Hall with University sponsorship.
11. May 8, 2006 – Chapel Hill Town Council unanimously passed a resolution to impeach President Bush.
Let me clarify that there is nothing wrong with peaceful assembly or protest on public property despite the political message. However, Chapel Hill has a distinct history of liberal bias as a community, and this council has merely continued that tradition of extremism. To any conservative parents or potential students reading this article, you can rest assured that this pattern of liberal bias will continue throughout the duration of your college years. Come this fall, be prepared to engage your fellow classmates and professors in debate over conservative values that they despise.
I challenge you to maintain your individual conservatism while at UNC and avoid becoming assimilated into the darkness of the Leftist mindset that surrounds the few conservative voices here.