Beauprez: Executing war opponents would be "good old Western justice"

Beauprez: Executing war opponents would be "good old Western justice"


On Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show, guest host Bob Beauprez -- a former Colorado Republican congressman and gubernatorial candidate -- responded to a caller who suggested that people opposed to the war in Iraq are "traitors" and "ought to be shot" by stating that doing so would constitute "good old Western justice."

Beauprez was discussing a proposed bipartisan U.S. Senate resolution against the Bush administration's troop increase in Iraq, which he called "a cut and run document." Beauprez then spoke to a caller who said, "I remember World War II. People who wanted to cut and run back then were called traitors." When Beauprez asked the caller, "What's that word mean?" the caller responded, "It means that they ought to be shot some place. You know, be put up in front of the firing squad." Beauprez replied, "That's good old Western justice."

From the January 18 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show, with guest host Bob Beauprez, a former Republican congressman and gubernatorial candidate:

BEAUPREZ: We're talking about the United States Senate and this resolution that they are kicking around. A resolution of no-confidence -- that's my words, not their words -- in our troops and, rather obviously, our commander in chief's plan, George Bush. I went through the "whereases" just a little bit ago before the break. Now some of the "therefores" -- that's where the meat's supposed to be. So, I'm not going to read you every single word or we'd be here until 2 o'clock this afternoon, but here's a summary of it.

The first "therefore": It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly in escalating the United States' military force presence in Iraq. Now, I understand that a lot of people think that it's a mistake to send more troops in there, but to suggest that it is not in our national interest to deepen our involvement in Iraq -- whose interest is it in, then? The U.N.? Why don't they say the U.N.? What they're saying here, folks, in congressional-speak -- especially Senate-speak -- is that we don't like it, we don't enjoy it anymore, it's not our problem. So let's see if we can't clear our desk and make it somebody else's problem.

They go on in another "therefore" to say that greater concentrated regional and international support would assist the Iraqis in achieving a political solution and national reconciliation. Well, of course it would. So who we going to call there? Call the new secretary-general at the U.N.? Ban Ki-moon? Maybe we could call his predecessor, Kofi Annan; he seemed to be a brave soul who'd step right up to the plate in the tough conflicts -- like he didn't do in the Sudan, nor in this one. Yeah, let's call the U.N. Maybe they'd be our friend.

No, it gets even better. Another "therefore": The United States should engage nations in the Middle East to develop a regionally sponsored peace and reconciliation process for Iraq. What a swell idea -- can't we all just get along? Where do you think the support for the terrorist activities have come from? Maybe, maybe from Iraq's two closest neighbors, Syria and Iran. [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and [Syrian President Bashar al-] Assad -- sworn enemies of the United States. Sworn to destroy not only the nation of Israel, but the United States of America and our allies along with us -- with it, with it.

This, this is a cut and run document, folks. It is a non-binding resolution so that senators can vote for something, go back home, and say, "Yeah, I don't like George Bush either, look what I did." Well, the fact is, we are where we are and we've got close to a hundred and fifty thousand of our troops over there right now. I tell you what, folks -- for my money, what we ought to be doing is supporting those troops and making sure that they can come home victorious.

[Caller, Caller's] got something she wants to say. [Caller] from Broomfield, I believe. [Caller], what's on your mind?

CALLER: Hi there, Bob. Sorry to have you back in Colorado again. I liked you in Washington.

BEAUPREZ: Well, you know, it's not -- it is not all bad, [Caller]. If you've got to be somewhere, I'll take Colorado almost any day. And as much fun as it is to serve in the United States Congress, being in Washington is not necessarily fun every single day. What's on your mind, [Caller]?

CALLER: Well, I'll tell you, several things. I'm a little bit older than you are. And I remember World War II. People who wanted to cut and run back then were called traitors. That is, just -- cut, you know? That's the only way you can put it.

BEAUPREZ: What's that word mean, [Caller]?

CALLER: It means that they ought to be shot some place. You know, be put up in front of the firing squad.

BEAUPREZ: That's good old --

CALLER: They do not --

BEAUPREZ: That's good old Western justice.

CALLER: You betcha.

BEAUPREZ: Well, we --

CALLER: Maybe we should get the rope out again. But, you know, they, they -- I remember when December 7th happened everybody rallied behind it, just like the few days after September 11th. Oh, what a horrible thing to happen. But back then, they wrote songs. We did it before, we can do it again. Let's get rid of the guys who did this horrible thing to us. And though we had a lot of setbacks in the beginning, we rallied behind it. We rallied behind the troops; we did what was necessary. Everybody got behind them. And the ones who didn't -- they were, shall we say, were well remembered years and years and years later.

BEAUPREZ: You bet.

We've changed our commenting system to Disqus.
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.