A public service for the hardcore antiwar movement...
By Moe Lane Posted in Democrats — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Or, "Why Charlie Don't Surf*".
I'm sure that most of our readers have been taking innocent amusement at the way that, yet again, the hardcore antiwar movement has demonstrated their Achilles' Heel: to wit, their uncritical willingness to believe any smooth-talking rascal willing to tell them what they so badly want to hear about the Bush administration, the United States military and/or Western Civilization. Indeed, the gentle laughter has been quite obvious, if you know where to look. Which is as it should be, of course.
Read on.
Nonetheless, my heart is moved to pity - shocking, yes, and me a good Republican - at their state. Truly, it's not their fault: they are the product of schools that generally refuse to teach anything but the barest minimum of military history, their social circles do not include all that many servicemen and clearly they spent too much of their formative years protesting and marching instead of doing something useful, like, say, wargaming.
We as a culture have failed these poor souls, in other words - but it's not too late! I offer this post to make good on that failure; let a thousand links bloom of useful and readable texts on military history and practices. Show them the books that they'll need to avoid such obvious howlers in the future. Though many of the seeds might fall on stony ground, there's the chance that one or two may sprout and flower... and, really, isn't that the important thing?
Moe
PS: Note the use of the words 'hardcore antiwar movement'. Ordinary, decent Democrats - well, really, you guys have enough problems with your party as it is, huh? No need for me to add to them...
*Provided for those individuals drawing their metnal images of Vietnam from, say, Apocalypse Now: we want them to feel comfortable, after all.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Ray Nagin Wins — Comments (56) »
A public service for the hardcore antiwar movement... 11 Comments (0 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The "pajamas media" wasn't around for Winter Soldier. I'm glad that they are here today.
I learned a long time ago that anti-war(ism) and todays hardcore antiwar(ism) is, if nothing else, an unwillingness to fight anybody, anywhere for any reason - all tidily wrapped in a thin veneer of moralistic goo, and underpinned by layers of something approximating cowardice.
I think we all are aware (but, of course, could never prove) that hardcore antiwar factions are quietly and shamefully aware of not only their own meekness - but of the soldiers's willingness to carry them along as social supercargo.
Thus, their shrillness.
Ask me sometime about my three returns from SE Asia in the 60's, and interactions with antiwar protestors from the front steps at San Francisco International Airport to the main street of my small hometown in Cambria County, PA. I remember many aspects of those events, but two which are seared (I say: SEARED) into my memory are the looks of self-revulsion and fear in the eyes of many of those poor fish.
Of course, there (as always) are exceptions to this maxim - but not all that many - in my opinion.
When getting caught up debating the virtues of the Iraq war, partisans tend to forget that there were/are republicans who opposed the war in addition to the radical left wing peace activists. To confuse the two groups does a disservice to the debate.
It was none other than former NSA advisor Brent Scowcroft who raised strong objections to regime change in Iraq. There were others within conservative media circles who also raised objections, such as Bob Novak and Pat Buchanan.
And while the democrats who voted for the war resolution before they voted against it have absolutely no credibility on the issue, its time the republican party takes a closer look at what Brent Scowcroft first stated just before the invasion in 2003.
We can go back and forth about all the charges pertaining to WMD's, etc..but that really misses the point. Should we have taken Brent Scowcroft and others words mores seriously and when they suggested an invasion would lead to long term instability in the region, as well as thousands of dead US soldiers ?
I don't claim to know all the answers to these questions, but I do know that partisan bickering doesn't advance the debate.
which informs and animates the "antiwar" left. They are actually overtly hostile to the United States and her national interests.
They are not "pacifists" in any true sense. Notice how they parade around with images of Che Guevara, a sick and perverted murderer and torturer. Notice how they embrace dictators like Castro and Chavez, and rush to defend Saddam and the Taliban when the US attacks them.
They don't hate war at all. They hate America.
did you see anything about Republicans or Democrats?
Generally speaking, running for President on another party's ticket is, as they say, diagnostic. And we certainly haven't let him back in since.
Just to get that clarified.
Moe
Moe, your efforts to "shoot the messenger" (Pat Buchanan) rather than the message are noted. But I noticed you didn't bring up Brent Scowcroft in your response. I wonder why ?
I'll tell you why. Because Brent Scowcroft's words have proven to be true.
Just wanted to clarify that.
...I never particularly cared much about what Snowcroft has said in the past, says now or will say in the future*.
Now, you can have your own opinions on that - or anything else that floats your boat - but not your own facts. Pat Buchanan is not a Republican. He hasn't been one for some time. Simple truth.
Moe
*And you will not presume to tell me - or any other person on this weblog - what my/our true reasons for doing or saying anything are. If you cannot accept that I/we are truthful in our commentary, go somewhere else. Has that been made sufficiently clear?
this is not unusual.
The fact that people like this speaks to two things, first, the credulity of the people who believe them and, second, to the complicity of the news media in carrying their claims without exercising even a vestige of due diligence.
When Cindy Sheehan was still a name recognized by even the anti-war movement she was regularly accompanied by this
buffoon.
Often these frauds travel in packs. For instance, the noted conqueror of Cambodia, John F. Kerry, and Al Hubbard, the Army sergeant turned Air Force pilot on covert missions, collaborated in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
What is so pathetic, is that these people assume identities that are, or should be, heroic yet they never bother learning enough about either the duties or history of those units to pass even a cursory examination. Of course, if you know you aren't going to receive even a cursory examination it would be wasted time to prepare.