Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The beating heart of the anti-war left
Every now and then, the activists among the anti-war left open the kimono a bit too far.
Somebody needs to tell these guys to crank up the message control. Pretty soon, people are going to get the idea that the left is disingenuous when it claims to "support the troops."
12 Comments:
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Tue Mar 20, 10:31:00 PM:
Oh, as the right supports the troops by this travesty at Walter Reed, the fracturing of military health care systems, the strain on reservists, their families, the utter disregard for these people as consumers (debt relief, clean air and water, gas prices)...and you seriously talk tough with silly words like "retreat" in Iraq, as if it ever was a serious war on terror? Hell, what about the real war...in Afghanistan, remember? I'll use one of your John Wayne words there. "Defeat." A real possibility.
And then gay and lesbian troops, do they get "support?' Often they are many of the higher skilled folks, skilled in Middl Eastern language, culture. But who needs that, right? Just recruit more skinheads and high school dropouts.
All the while this sick farce in the White House with Rove and this fool Ganzales continues. Bush says he's going to Hang Tough. Talk to Rove but not under oath. No, lest they fall into the prosecution trap that Libby did...even Bill Clinton in a stupid, innocuous civil action deposition. I wonder, as one of my blog commenters said, if Newt would have held up had his dying wife had the wherewithall to hire a lawyer and depose him over his lies? More lies? Perhaps the vast left wing conspiracy would have kicked in and hired proxies and cyphers to force a prosecution over dumb-ass misstatement in that deposition. The right wing cartoon bloggers and radio buffoons then catch the talkign points, spring into action...Fox News gears up the command and control and boom...Newt's out. But wait...Newt was out anyway, because he was a corrupt pol. My bad.
I am curious what it would take--perhaps a soul mirror--for you all to just stop, takea deep breath and just cogtitate on the hateful, often silly crap that wafts from the right wing. Not hard to see the fruits of that in other place, place past and present. Your evangelical wing is nothing more than white southern male Taliban. And everything else, Have mercy, I have seen before in accounts from Chile in 72, Cuba, Spain, Italy, Germany. Oh and those latter three--those were mythic tyrannies of the right wing? Once you strip away the silly good-versus evil trope, you see they got their start on notions, language etc. very, very much akin to the flavor of the comments on this blog, and sadly, the posts.
Meaning, I will have to visit moe often, and stay longer. I'll bring the Aerobed and replenish any beer I drink, I promise... ;-)
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Mar 20, 11:27:00 PM:
Getting real Malkin, are we? Links to LGF?
I guess it's time for me to post some more Klansmen supporting Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.
The right wing is all racist, haven't you heard?
By 
, at
Tue Mar 20, 11:48:00 PM:
The antiwar crowd were far out ni=umbered by the GATHERING OF EAGLES but as usial the left-wing liberal lie a day bull kaka news media would rather show pictures of the antiwar jerks EAGLES ROCK TURKEYS SUCK
By Jeremiah, at
Wed Mar 21, 12:14:00 AM:
Mr. Chambers,
As long as you're imbibing, I guess we can understand your confusion about the role of the Executive branch of government in a document called "The Constitution of the United States of America". You should read it over from time to time, in preference to simply swallowing the rant of the MSM. But here's my challenge to you:
Identify that Article and Section of the Constitution that provides for the Executive branch to have absolute and unfettered authority over the appointment and retention of attorneys in the Justice Department. Compare and contrast with unsupported views that argue no such right exists. Cite examples with particular emphasis on W. J. Clinton's mass dismissal of 93 US Attorneys in the early days of his presidency and MSM's lack of interest then vs. apparent concern over motivations now. Assess implications for quality of discourse in modern American political life.
By Purple Avenger, at
Wed Mar 21, 12:24:00 AM:
I guess it's time for me to post some more Klansmen supporting Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.
Which relates to troops exactly how?
By Cassandra, at
Wed Mar 21, 05:42:00 AM:
Screwy, your arguments would be more persuasive if you'd abandon meretricious arguments like:
"Our side doesn't do things like that!"
And stop squealing when the Right points out, "Oh yes your side does... all the time" ... with evidence! Don't dish it out if you can't take the return fire.
You want the "right" to call your opponents bad names and then denounce them for being mean spirited poopy heads when they rightfully point out people on your side do exactly the same thing you accused them of doing!
That's the rhetorical equivalent of demanding the right to throw stones at someone who can't throw them back at you.
Not terribly fair, is it?
By K. Pablo, at
Wed Mar 21, 07:30:00 AM:
Judging from the intemperate (to say the least) responses of Chris Chambers and Screwy, my guess is these photos really touched a nerve. Is it something you two libs are ashamed of, by any chance? I'll go ahead and volunteer that I am ashamed of conservatives when they get all righteous about e.g. Terry Schiavo....
Come on. Admit it. This is the left at its most shameful. The whole "deny and make counter-accusations" trope is played out, yo.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Mar 21, 08:42:00 AM:
Guys - let's break the left down into its more granular segments, to be fair. The pacifist left clearly does not support the troops. They think the projection of force is immoral. What troops do is immoral. So whatever fraction of the left is pacifist does not support the troops. Any troops.
Then there is the "capitalist rejectionist" camp. I think of these types as Luddites -- anti globalists, isolationists, antitrade, anti capitalist, socialists, even marxists. This crowd still clings to life, every shred of empirical economic evidence notwithstanding. They wear Che t shirts. They dig Castro. Or, as Chris Chambers said the other day, they dig Chavez. This crowd thinks they are really smart, but in actual fact, they are as dumb as hammers. Debating them is almost hilarious because they don't see (or hear) their own dissonance. They are hard to deal with, because they are invariably passionate, just ignorant and wrong. They are permanently 16 years old, worried about a draft that doesn't exist.
That faction(s) of the left definitely does not support the troops. They don't support America, and its projection of force, ever. They equate that with "imperialism" -- now there's an out of date term.
Those 2 (is it only 2?) crowds alone account for a not insubstantial percentage of the American left. They detest the troops, would undermine them at every turn, hate what they stand for, etc etc. If they say they support the troops, it is a fiction. Pure tactical lying. Horse manure.
Then there is the mainstream left. They are pro-capitalist. But they believe in a broad social welfare net. They do subscribe to the notion that, while imperfect, America is the greatest nation on Earth. In the main, they believe -- wrongly I think -- that the Iraq War was a tactical error in the execution of our middle east policy. Having said that, they appreciate and value the American military. They no longer bother much with the Iraq war debate. It's over. The war has for the most part been fought. They just can't stand Bush, and hang onto the Iraq war argument just to score political points -- like the stupidity going on in Congress on non-binding resolutions and the like. They vote for Petraeus, give him the money and troops he needs, and then whine about Bush, making his life miserable.
And then there are those few left leaners who actively support the effort - Lieberman, Nelson-types. Not too many of those. I saw the Governor of Arizona just joined that crowd too. Good for her. They don't hate Bush. They stand by certain principles. They love the troops.
And therein lies the political dilemma faced by Democratic politicians. they are, for the most part, in the latter 2 camps. But they have to cater to the first 2 camps.
CP
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Mar 21, 03:26:00 PM:
CC: I really can't say this any other way without losing meaning.
You're an ignorant jackass spewing opinions and myths as facts, and it's obvious from your posts that you know exactly *shit* about the military.
If you want to find a scapegoat for the shitty state of military infrastructure, you're going to have to go back to the Clinton years, when the mass funding cuts and kilometers of additional red tape thrown onto the armed services happened. President Bush inherited a starved and shrunken military. Funding has gone up since, of course, but it's all being spent on things like ammunition and fuel and replacement combat equipment, (not infrastructure) and there still isn't enough. They don't even have enough spare grenades for basic training anymore. When I myself was in basic training, my rifle was an M16A1. You honestly have no idea, cannot fathom, how much much of our stuff is just crap and we're told, "make it work, there's no money." Health system included. I don't know how many times I've slept in billeting that was built during World War II, and shows it. Troops who go to sick call for real injuries are told, "take Motrin and drink water. Next!" Seriously. I know of two careers which have ended because of this kind of malpractice. It's routine.
But you just fixate on a buzz word, "Walter Reed," and reflxively apply it to a caricature of your political opposition, the evil, ignorant, and insidious "Right."
I've got a reality check for you. The whole military health care system is like that. Everywhere I've been, it's the same. (with the sole exception of Fort Sam Houston, where they train medics and therefore have kind of a local surplus) We have what is essentially a peacetime medical capability, (from the 90s) placed under quasi-wartime strain without wartime funding or expansion. And all these people who pretend outrage at "The Walter Reed Scandal" (it's no secret that the military medical system sucks, it's been briefed to Congress at least once that I know of since 2003) include the same ones who are threatening to cut our funding. And it ain't the "Right." And neither are these... people.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24853_Leftists_Supporting_the_Troops&only
"Often they are many of the higher skilled folks, skilled in Middl Eastern language, culture. But who needs that, right? Just recruit more skinheads and high school dropouts."
Wow, really? I had no idea such a high number of Middle Eastern specialists were gay! I've certainly never met any, but being an Arabic speaking soldier with a degree in Middle Eastern Studies, I'd better have a long chat with my wife just in case. Maybe she can tell me if I'm a skin-head, too.
But maybe that's unncessary. Since, you know, not belonging to any extremist organizations and having a high school degree are both *required* to enlist in the Army, maybe I've got those angles covered.
By Gary Rosen, at
Thu Mar 22, 01:14:00 AM:
Typical Screwy sophistry. He can't deny the reality of the pictures so he takes a cheap shot at LGF.
By Cassandra, at
Thu Mar 22, 08:35:00 AM:
What Dawnfire said.
And the same folks who are screaming "Bush doesn't care about our troops!" b/c of Walter Reed and trying to use the budget to stop the surge are the very same ones who are always trying to CUT DoD's budget in the first place because if they had their way, we wouldn't even have a military.
IOW, they're the "someday we'll live in an America where the Air Force will have to have a bake sale to buy a bomber" type. And THEY caused this problem in the first place.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 22, 03:52:00 PM:
DF 82 - you can stop shooting. It's not moving anymore.
