October 30, 2006

The Hypocrisy of David Yeagley
by Brent Michael Davids, 10/30/06

“PFC Lori Piestewa, a Hopi Indian from Arizona, was the first female American soldier killed in Iraq, March, 2003. They named a mountain in Phoenix after her, “Piestewa Peak.” Her brother Adam said, “We honor the warriors who have throughout history laid down their lives for their fellow man and preserved the God given right to freedom.” (David Yeagley, 2005)
Regarding the quote above, it is notable for antiwar protesters to support our soldiers but considering the warmongering source above the renaming of “Squaw Peak” is hypocritical. I am personally glad they renamed the peak, it was denigrating to Indian people, regardless of my opinion or your opinion about the meaning or translation of squaw. To Arizona Indians that label is demeaning. Indians there have for years tried to change that peak’s name in protest. I am glad they did. But to hide behind the service of Lori Piestawa as his own personal warrior’s badge, is for Yeagley like hiding behind Lori’s skirt.

Mr. Yeagley, who never served, continually cries foul whenever he sees a racist Indian label changed by Indian activism, negative Indian mascots converted into non-Indian sports names. To him, this is unthinkable. So why is it, that Mr. Yeagley never challenged the name change of Squaw Peak to Piestewa Peak? Because he saw political advantage in looking as if he supports the name change as a way of maintaining his fabricated warrior image. He is not a football or baseball player, so he quickly sides with the anti-Indian factions. But his warrior image is special, and he cannot fathom criticizing the Squaw Peak issue, lest he belittle his own fantasy. To those who see it however, it is simple hypocrisy.

I would support Lori’s service, but I also know she died because some chicken hawks in power, like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, gave no thought whatsoever to sacrificing her life in the selfish pursuit of oil and power by occupying Iraq, a country that never attacked us. Preemptive war is nothing less than premeditated murder. In his writings, we clearly see that Mr. Yeagley supports the murderer-in-chief by clamoring consistently for invading and occupying Iraq.

Take a look at these choice pieces of reasoning from Mr. Yeagley, and compare them to the reality. Mr. Yeagley follows the empty rhetoric of the right-wing “talking points” to a tee, marching in lockstep with all the other chicken hawks crying for war against a country that never attacked us. He reasons that — no questions asked — we must attack Iraq because of 9-11, even though it is factually known Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with attacking New York.

According to Mr. Yeagley’s rationale, America is justified in attacking and occupying Iraq, despite the known fact the 9-11 attack has never been thoroughly investigated, not even by the so-called 9/11 commission (a commission appointed by Bush, overseen by Bush’s buddy, with final editing by that same buddy before publication). One could choke on the stench of Mr. Yeagley’s hypocrisy:
“Our own commercial airplanes were used as missiles, crashing into our cities [alluding to 9-11]... President Bush responded ... ‘Make no mistake: the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for this cowardly act.’ What an utterly disappointing and vacuous remark! ... We want to hear "War!" ... We want war. We've been attacked! ... President Bush could not bring himself to utter the word ‘war.’ It would have been politically incorrect. It would have offended the Left, the feminists, the minorities [advice-attack: political, misogynist, racial]... The government leaders have forgotten what a warrior is and what a warrior does ... We're tired of words, hackneyed adjectives and effeminate dramatizations [advice-attack: semantic and misogynist] ... Well, let them hear it from a Comanche Indian [Yeagley does not represent Comanche values nor culture]. I declare war ... We need warriors! Not complainers [attack against war critics]” (DY, Sept. 2001)
Mr. Yeagley blindly follows the blind into war cries against a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attacks. He cries to march off into battle without any investigation and without knowing who to justifiably attack, and yet manages to use his standard modus operandi of attack-advice: impugning both women and minorities in the screaming process. Why is Mr. Yeagley a hypocrite? Because he ‘resents’ lies, although he champions them if carried out by leaders he favors, like John Wayne and George W. Bush:
“I for one resent lies. I remember what John Wayne said in the movie Cowboys, when some crooks tried to hire on as cowhands. ‘I hate liars’.” (David Yeagley, 2003)

“WAR was the only reasonable response” (David Yeagley, 2003)

“America could easily level Iraq, with just the right bomb or two... I for one am terribly grateful for such a man as President Bush... Bravo, Bush. You are one brave man” (David Yeagley, 2003)
Mr. Yeagley continues in blind faith that American leaders are moral and above reproach, despite the fact the White House and Rumsfeld are guilty of condoning and ordering gross and inhumane practices of torture that the rest of the world finds morally reprehensible:
“we are compassionate, we will liberate and restore Iraq, and we hope the world will see our superior approach to the whole matter... the character of America” (David Yeagley, 2003)

“That fact is, from day one, the way in which the United States and Great Britain and the coalition forces have conducted this military effort make it demonstrably the most humane, considerate war in the history of mankind... the world will see what a great character America has as a country” (David Yeagley, 2003)

“America is about the only major civilization in history not to make a fundamental practice of torture” (David Yeagley, 2003)
It is clear to see, however, that Mr. Yeagley’s rather naive assessment of Bush’s Iraq policy is totally mistaken, and if looked at seriously would in itself be treasonous for White House complicity and for its clear and direct violations against the US constitution, such as the Downing Street Memo has revealed. On orders from Rumsfeld and other senior commanders, US soldiers are purposely torturing and murdering innocent civilians in Iraq, even falsifying evidence:

A Camp Pendleton Marine will plead guilty next week for his role in the killing of an Iraqi civilian last April, his attorney said Friday. Pfc. John J. Jodka, 20, of Encinitas, would be the first Marine to plead guilty in the case, in which six other Marines and one Navy corpsman were also charged with murder... Bacos said the squad took him to a roadside hole and shot him before planting a shovel and AK-47 to make it appear he was an insurgent planting a bomb.
This is yet another example of Mr. Yeagley’s treasonous murderer-in-chief, George W. Bush, who recently signed away the right of the accused to proclaim their innocence, or even talk to a lawyer about it before being tortured and disappeared. Bush’s new legislation for the war on terrorism is a bogus attempt to garner absolute control over America’s own population as would be afforded a monarch. Bush’s war on the US constitution is nothing short of treason, and Mr. Yeagley’s support of the current administration is 100% un-American:

It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court ... the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death.”
However, no sooner did he champion American warmongering and war profiteering as moral “American” virtues, did Mr. Yeagley remained true to his usual attack-advice m.o. to slander people of color. Mr. Yeagley’s efforts are nothing but a game of contextual pile-on: to see how much added denigration can be piled onto the original slander to increase its rank stench:
“Perhaps, in the future, being an American black Muslim will provide the perfect "draft dodging" manoeuver. Such men are proving to be great risks to their environment... It's a bigger shame that black Muslim men are creating such a nasty image of black Muslims. Murderers they are...Beware, all.” (David Yeagley, 2003)
Just like his personal savior George W. Bush, Mr. Yeagley would never question the need to make war, nor think too much about which country to destroy and occupy. For Mr. Yeagley, however inconceivable this logic remains, he actually champions war as a means to achieve peace, as if this type of pseudo-peace could ever be lasting or genuine. Just as Bush calls incessantly for America to “STAY THE COURSE,” Mr. Yeagley advises us all to destroy and occupy other countries to end terrorism? The ill-logic of this notion is breathtaking in its recklessness. Then he adds another bit of attack-advice, slandering all Muslims as somehow anti-American. And to top it all off, he attacks the media for not reporting the so-called good news from Iraq, like if “one toilet flushes successfully,” conveniently forgetting or purposely ignoring the fact that America’s occupation of Iraq is and has always been an utter failure:
“War, real war, can end “terrorism’.” (David Yeagley, 2003)

“Everyone knows Islam represents the antithesis of American values” (David Yeagley, 2003)

“What we really need is more news about what is actually being accomplished in Iraq in the way of progress. We don't need daily reports of bombings. This is how the media turn everyone against Vietnam, and demoralized our troops there... I want to hear about it when one toilet flushes successfully... only enemies of truth will discount it as irrelevant” (David Yeagley, 2003)
What Mr. Yeagley would have readers ignore can be easily seen in this report below, that Iraq was physically better off before America destroyed and occupied it. Casualties are rising monthly, and Iraq residents are increasingly fleeing from their homes in ever greater numbers. Education is worse off than before the invasion, and the US has failed to oversee the war spending, allowing corporate warmongers and profiteers to loot the US treasury at the taxpayer’s expense:
GENEVA -- At least 914,000 Iraqis have fled their homes since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, more than a third since an increase in sectarian bloodshed at the start of this year, the U.N. refugee agency said Friday...1.5 million people are currently classed as internally displaced, though that includes 800,000 from before the 2003 invasion. Unlike casualty figures, which vary widely and have been the subject of much criticism from governments and non-governmental organizations working in Iraq, nobody has disputed the overall number of internally displaced...
BAGHDAD, 17 Oct 2006 (IRIN) - Mounir Zeid, 32, says he likes to remember the good old days before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Then, most people were employed and his income was enough to afford holidays abroad. Today, however, poverty has struck and he finds himself sharing one room with his four brothers. “We were having a good life in Iraq [before 2003] - good food, nice clothes and we enjoyed travelling - but everything went out with the occupation,” Zeid said.
BAGHDAD, 18 October (IRIN) - Thousands of students have been forced to stay at home due to escalating violence across the country. Attendance rates for the new school year, which started on 20 September, are a record low, according to the Ministry of Education.
(CBS) More than half a billion dollars earmarked to fight the insurgency in Iraq was stolen by people the U.S. had entrusted to run the country's Ministry of Defense before the 2005 elections, according to Iraqi investigators... Iraq's former minister of finance says coalition members like the U.S. and Britain are doing little to help recover the money or catch suspects...
The point I am making here is that Mr. Yeagley, rather than appearing patriotic, actually appears anti-American by supporting the murderous behavior of the criminal-in-chief. Mr. Yeagley’s pseudo-arguments are mostly racial and misogynist attacks that are cloaked as advice, ‘attack-advice,’ that serve only to denigrate people of color and women. Mr. Yeagley appears to be following the standard ‘talking points’ coming from the right-wing warmongers and war profiteers, without any serious examination. His trumpeting for the US-led invasion into Iraq is clearly similar to his current diatribes against Iran and Muslims. The m.o. is identical. What Mr. Yeagley appears to say is contrary to what he appears to actually do. And what he does appears to directly coincide with those whom he wishes to please in order to keep his fake warrior facade alive. If he were consistent, he would be calling for the return of "Squaw Peak" but he has been found out.