The Brutally Dishonest Left and their alleged support of our troops

Dennis Prager nails many of the anti-war left, but good:

Liberals, Democrats and others on the Left frequently state that they "support the troops." For most of them, whether they realize it or not, this is not true. They feel they must say this because the majority of Americans would find any other position unacceptable. Indeed, for most liberals, the thought that they really do not support the troops is unacceptable even to them.

Lest this argument be dismissed as an attack on leftist Americans' patriotism, let it be clear that leftists' patriotism is not the issue here. Their honesty is.

In order to understand this, we need to first have a working definition of the term "support the troops." Presumably it means that one supports what the troops are doing and rooting for them to succeed. What else could "support the troops" mean? If you say, for example, that you support the Yankees or the Dodgers, we assume it means you want them to win.

But most of the Left does not want the troops to win in Iraq. The Left's message is this: "You troops may think you are winning; you may think you are doing good and moral things in Iraq; you may believe you are fighting the worst human beings of our age and protecting us against the scourge of Islamic terror. But we on the Left believe none of that. We believe this war is being fought for oil and for Halliburton and other corporations; we believe you are waging a war that is both illegal and immoral; we believe you have invaded a country for no good reason and have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis [the Left's generally mentioned number] for no good reason; but, hey, we sure do support you."

Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable. A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."

There's much more and it's all good.  Really.

Tip of the fedora to Juliette for turning us on to this jewel.

Comments

[HarryTick™]

I know several died-in-the-wool liberals who were very supportive of me for the sake of my physical and emotional well-being while I was in Iraq. They are tremendous people with amazingly open hearts.

[saketini99]

I'm liberal, I support the troops.. why is this so hard for you to understand? I disagreed with the justification for war, which has turned out to be false. I would have been more comfortable if this administraton had been more upfront about their reasoning for war, ie: the installation of a friendly, stable regime in order to secure future access to oil... that in fact IS in the national interest.

However, NOW that we're in there, we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we caused. We HAVE to remain committed to helping the Iraqi's build a stable nation (remember that bad old word "nation building" that Bush used to be soooo opposed to?) so that they can, hopefully, live in a free, democratic, self-determined nation free from violence. And one that is inclined to sell us oil. And there's nothing wrong with that. Liberal Democratic administrations since WW2 were all about that. Access to cheap oil has made the American way of life what it is, and as a side benefit, has usually spread Democratic ideals around the globe along with it.

And as for the "scourge of Islamic terrorism", it didn't fester in Iraq until after we gave it cause to. That's a fact.

I just don't like being lied to. I would think Clinton haters could understand that.

So, I support the troops, I support getting the job done; it's our moral duty now to assist the Iraqi's. But I do NOT support the way the war was packaged and sold to the American public. I do NOT support being lied to.

And I'm a liberal.

[chuckels]

saketitni99, you must be joking when you say, "And as for the "scourge of Islamic terrorism", it didn't fester in Iraq until after we gave it cause to. That's a fact."

Where did you get this fact from? Check out the following site for a little more information that might make you question your 'fact'.

Here is a quote:
"Actually, Saddam Hussein knew plenty about terrorism. In essence, he owned and operated a full-service general store for global terrorists, complete with cash, diplomatic aid, safe haven, training, and even medical attention. Such assistance violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 687."

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

One thing for sure, you have followed the liberal by-line to the 'T'. They are also in the article, it's almost like you were quoting from them?

chuckels

[Rick]

Harry,

I've modified the post slightly to allow that not every liberal fits within that mindset targeted by Prager.

I don't doubt that you were supported as an individual. And knowing some of those died-in-the-wool liberals myself (via the magic of the internet), I've been witness to that sort of support.

But I also believe (otherwise I wouldn't have posted it) that Prager makes sound logical arguments. Do those died-in-the-wool liberals want us to win? Can they set aside the unsubstantiated (and tired) Bush-lied-people-died mantra and find ways to support the troops by supporting the overall war on terror? And if the answer is no, can they, collectively or individually, suggest what else the civilized world can do to overcome the evil that is willing to kill, maim and oppress innocents as a means of spreading their hatred?

I think the answer to those questions will go a long way toward bridging the gap between people who think like I do and those who think like died-in-the-wool liberals.

Sadly, I also think we'll not get decent answers.

[Mike]

Can they set aside the unsubstantiated (and tired) Bush-lied-people-died mantra and find ways to support the troops by supporting the overall war on terror?

Wait a sec. Which is it? You've just asked for two different things.

[saketini99]

find ways to support the troops by supporting the overall war on terror?

the overall war on terror would be better served if Bin Laden's head was on a stick and we stopped trying to cozy up to the Saudis. We never finished the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban is on the advance again there and Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose.

Saddam Hussein did not blow up that club in Bali, or our Embassy in Nairobi, or those trains in Madrid or in London, he did not attack the USS Cole... he has supported various terrorist groups, mostly funding the suicide bombers in Israel. But Bin Laden and the Saudis manned and financed 9/11. And 9/11 is what we should be avenging.

I'm all for the "war on terror" but let's pick the right targets please! The Iraq war has been a diversion from that at best.

So to re-iterate my earlier comment, we need to support our troops in Iraq because we have a MORAL responsibility to help the Iraqi people now. BUT the war has been a diversion from what should have been our original goal... Bin Laden, dead or alive.

[Rick]

Mike,

I'm somewhat amazed to see that while you disallow my participation over at your blog, you have the gumption to come over here and post.

Then again, I'm not.

After all, doesn't it underscore the hypocrisy?

As to your question. Allow me to answer with questions that Prager has asked and allow me to direct them toward you.

Do you Mike want the troops to succeed in their mission?

Do you Mike want them to win?

Do you Mike think John Kerry was correct in painting this war as "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and if that be the case, how can you then support the troops? Wouldn't logically it mean that you don't want them winning a "wrong" war fought at the "wrong" time fought in the "Wrong place"? How can that be supportive?

Many of your ilk Mike run around the country side with "war is not the answer" bumper stickers. As Prager puts it so articulately:

How could one believe that "war is not the answer" and also claim to "support the troops," the very people waging what is "not the answer"? The answer is, by being dishonest.

An honest leftist would say: "Because I view this war as immoral, I cannot support our troops." What is not honest is their saying, "Support the troops -- bring them home." Supporting people who wish to fight entails supporting their fight; and if that fight is opposed, those waging it are also opposed.

We await your answers Mike. As we await the ending of the hypocritical act of disallowing my participation at Waving or Drowning while you engage us here at Brutally Honest.

We won't be holding our breath.

[Rick]

Saketini99,

Chuckels asked that you please spend an adequate amount of time here. Did you?

If so, what rationale have you adopted to dismiss the information found there?

Please let us know.

Please be specific.

[saketini99]

Rick-

Yes, I read the link chuckels provided.

Here is my rationale for insisting that the war in Iraq has been a diversion from the "war on terror" and has distracted us from more fully avenging the 3000 dead from 9/11: while Saddam did provide funding to various terrorist groups in the region, according to finding of the federal trail judge Harold Baer, Jr-

As Baer stated on May 7, 2003:

“I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, ‘by evidence satisfactory to the court’ that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.” 22

I believe the operative word here is "barely".

I think it would not be too difficult, if so pressed, to find that most of the other national leaders in the Mideast, at one time or another, also "barely" supported al Qaeda. We certainly know the Saudis have, it would not be too difficult to imagine that the Syrians, the Iranians, even the newly reformed Libyians(?) have at certain times lent both money and shelter to al Qaeda, as well as a host of such groups.

However, as much as some perhaps would like, we can't bomb and occupy all the countries in the region that have provided support and institute some regime changes.

We CAN however, bomb and occupy the country where we had indisputible, primary, not "barely" acceptable, evidence that the mastermind behind 9/11 was located... namely Afghanistan. His name is Osama bin Laden. He still has to answer for his crimes.

If he is captured or killed and his organization dismantled, then I would be willing to concede that the war in Iraq has NOT been a distraction from that goal. But it's going on 4 years now since 9/11 happened. And bin Laden is still at large. This is why I insist we have deviated from what should be our primary target in the "war on terror".

I believe I have answered your request.

Perhaps I misread the information that was posted on the site chuckels suggested. Maybe you could point out for me what you found there that leads you to believe the regime change in Iraq has brought the prosecution of bin Laden closer to hand.

And please, be specific.

[Rick]

Saketini99,

The site establishes that Hussein's regime was linked to terrorism. In essence, state sponsored terrorism.

Bush never said that Osama Bin Laden was the end all in the war on terror.

In fact, he was pretty specific about saying that the war would be long, hard and not easily won.

Do you believe that if Osama Bin Laden were to be killed or captured, that terrorism would end?

Osama Bin Laden is but one piece of the terrorist puzzle. It's an ideology we're at war with. And I think Bush was pretty clear on that.

Now perhaps you're one who thinks that we should adopt the oft-quoted "turn the other cheek" strategy to dealing with terrorists.

How does one play that out?

When the twin towers were felled, should we have offered Bin Laden the empire state building? Or perhaps the Sears tower in Chicago (so that New York might be spared the horror)?

I'm not completely stupid (although there are more smarter than me than there are dumber) but I'd like for someone like yourself to specifically spell out how we're to deal with those who are willing to kill women and children to advance their perspectives?

Do you really think that pacifism will discourage these fanatics?

And do you honestly believe that this is more about economics?

Reports out of Britain suggest that affluent middle class muslims are being recruited to carry out suicide missions. Should we be giving these folks more money to discourage them from blowing themselves and women and children into the next kingdom?

I don't understand the mindset. I never will.

[saketini99]

Rick-

Where in my comments do you see me advocating pacifism? Am I advocating to "turn the other cheek" when I state that I want to see bin Laden's head on a stick? When I say that we need to MORE aggresively pursue the complete removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan? When I repeatedly state that we need to finish the job in Iraq, which by the way means killing more insurgents? Where in my statements do you see me advocating a non-violent response to terrorism? Where do you read in my comments that I think we should hand out milk and cookies to potential suicide bombers?

What I don't understand is how you can keep avoiding my central point, which is that we picked the wrong target!!??!! OK but you asked what i think we should do? Here's what I think:

Kill or capture bin Laden.

Sanction the Saudis, hell let's just take over the damn place.

Settle the Israel/Palestinian problem.

Finish the job in Iraq.

And on and on.

What I don't understand and never will, is a mindset that believes the ONLY proper response to terrorism is the one only spelled out by Bush. And that by disagreeing with it, I'm somehow pacifist and "pro" terrorist.

Did you even read what I wrote? Or does your "mindset" not allow for differing opinions?

Saketini99,

You have still not answered my question of your first statement that asserted:

"And as for the 'scourge of Islamic terrorism', it didn't fester in Iraq until after we gave it cause to. That's a fact."

What in the world did that mean?

chuckels

[Rick]

Saketin99 (interesting name),

My apologies.

You're right, you hadn't made any references to pacifism or turning the other cheek. I was mistaken, made some wrong assumptions.

My mindset certainly allows for opposing perspectives and opinions (I don't regularly ban commenters as long as they're substantive and aren't spammers).

Bottom line is I screwed up.

Again, sorry.

[saketini99]

chuckels-

OK, perhaps I should clarify that. Iraq, before the war, was no more or less, a scource of terrorism than any OTHER country in the region. And as documented in the link you sent me to, www.husseinandterror.com the VAST majority of terrorists and acts of terrorism that Saddam funded were associated with the PLO. And while the funding of suicide bombers in Israel is morally reprehensible, it is NOT a direct threat to our national interest. It's tragic, yes, but so are the many, many, many acts of politically inspired acts of terrorism that occur around the world by various factions on a near daily basis. And i will re-iterate again, that Saddam was not unique in this... Syria supported Hamas and Hizbollah in Lebanon for decades, Iran also funds suicide bombers in Israel and the Saudis even held of telethon(!) to raise funds for them. An even cursory knowledge of currents events makes this clear.

And to clarify a bit further, there IS a difference between the kind of political, secular terrorism of the PLO and the fanatical religious terrorism of al Qaeda. The PLO, while using morally reprehensible tactics, have a clear political goal.. the establishment of a Palestinian state. The fanatical religious terrorism of al Qaeda has no such goal. They only want to spread terror as wide as possible. And al Qaeda in Iraq now, does NOT have a coherent political goal. They just want f*ck up the situation as much as possible in the hope that we will leave. That kind of fanatical, religiously inspired terrorism did NOT exist in any kind of significant numbers in Iraq before the war. And now.. well you can read a newspaper.

A clear, concise analysis of the facts (along with a can of whup ass) is what's needed to combat the kind of terrorism al Qaeda represents. Not the continual, unexamined, parroting of whatever muddled thinking the Bush administration is currently doling out. Because clearly, they've done such a bang up job already...

And Rick, thanks, apologies accepted. Just keep an eye out for those assumptions. You know what they say about assumptions.... ;-)

[chuckels]

Hey saketini99

Thanks for being more direct, but I do want to question another assertion in your response. You said:
quote

"The PLO, while using morally reprehensible tactics, have a clear political goal.. the establishment of a Palestinian state. The fanatical religious terrorism of al Qaeda has no such goal. They only want to spread terror as wide as possible. And al Qaeda in Iraq now, does NOT have a coherent political goal. They just want f*ck up the situation as much as possible in the hope that we will leave. That kind of fanatical, religiously inspired terrorism did NOT exist in any kind of significant numbers in Iraq before the war. And now.. well you can read a newspaper"

Don't you think that if we weren't facing the 'insurgency' in Iraq that we would be facing it in Afganistan? Seems that there is an effort to raise the resistance in Afganistan right now, and if we hadn't taken Iraq only God knows the kind of support 'insurgents' would have received from Saddam and his Iraq.

Also, the former Taliban control in Afganistan tends to give us some idea about the al Qaeda political intentions for Iraq, Afganistan and, shucks, the rest of the world for that matter. I don't think for one second that if the Iraqi 'insurgents' were to be successful in forcing us to leave Iraq that they would then just drop their arms and allow Iraq to make her own governmental decisions? Seems to me they want total control, they want to cause the Arab world to rise up in arms and join with them in taking the fight not only to the US, but to the western world. They have declaired war on us and we are going to have to fight them somewhere...either 'over-there' or here.

Again I think that if we weren't fighting them in Iraq then we would be facing them in Afganistan.

chuckels

[saketini99]

Chuckels-

Your welcome.

However, while I agree with your statement that al Qaeda "want total control, they want to cause the Arab world to rise up in arms and join with them in taking the fight not only to the US, but to the western world.", that is an ideological goal, NOT a political one like say, the PLO wanting a nation state or the IRA wanting the British out of Northern Ireland or even, us, Americans when we wanted the British out of America and our own nation state.

And I will restate that the vast majority of terrorism sponsored by Saddam was of the political, NON al Qaeda kind. Using the same source material you pointed me to, you have yet to refute this.

As for the situation in Afghanistan... I think your recall of recent history is a bit off. We invaded Afghanistan while Saddam was still in power and there has never been any evidence that he supported the Taliban or al Qaeda during that time. There IS however plenty of evidence that Iran did, and still continues to support them. And now, as you point out, the Taliban and al Qaeda are on the advance again in Afghanistan.

We had a golden opportunity to avenge 9/11 in Afghanistan and nip al Qaeda in the bud. To get them where they live, so to speak. We had the justification, the means and the support. And we've squandered it. We should have sent MORE troops to Afghanistan, more aggressively pursued al Qaeda in their own backyard and then we wouldn't have the same al Qaeda presence in Iraq that we do today. The quest to remove Saddam from power was a diversion from this.

And while I agree with you that with al Qaeda, we'd have to "fight them somewhere...either 'over-there' or here." it's all a matter of picking the right "there" to engage them. I don't disagree with the strategy of battling terrorism, but I certainly question the Bush administrations tactics.

But I have a question for you. And it's about the little piece of political theater that started off this discussion, namely that as a Liberal, if I disagree with the tactics this administration is using in it's prosecution of terror, that I not only don't support our troops, but that I'm being dishonest when I say I do? When I have been repeatedly stating that our troops MUST stay in Iraq now to finish what we started? Is it only the Bush way or the highway? Or to misquote, do you not only disallow what I have to say, but my right to say it, by painting me a liar?

[E. Nonee Moose]

So a lack of support for the Commander-In-Chief is by default a lack of support for the troops he commands? You people seriously believe that?

[chuckels]

Hey saketini99

From your last post:

"...as a Liberal, if I disagree with the tactics this administration is using in it's prosecution of terror, that I not only don't support our troops, but that I'm being dishonest when I say I do? When I have been repeatedly stating that our troops MUST stay in Iraq now to finish what we started? Is it only the Bush way or the highway? Or to misquote, do you not only disallow what I have to say, but my right to say it, by painting me a liar?"

I think you might be projecting here, I don't think I have called you a 'liar'? You did accuse the current administration of lying when you said:

"And as for the "scourge of Islamic terrorism", it didn't fester in Iraq until after we gave it cause to. That's a fact.

I just don't like being lied to. I would think Clinton haters could understand that."

Bush's administration as well as our congress looked at the same information on Iraq and our congress voted for us to go to war with Iraq. If congress would not have voted for us to go to war we would not be at war. John Kerry voted for us to go to war with Iraq. So don't blame just Bush, throw congress in there as well for lying to us about Iraq and the justification for going to war.

I never said a word about your opinions concerning killing terrorists and staying the course we have set before us, I simply asked what in the world you ment by saying what I took as there weren't terrorists in Iraq until we got there.

chuckels

[saketini99]

Chuckels-

Actually I was referring to the title of Rick's post, "The Brutally Dishonest Left and their alleged support of our troops". Being referred to as dishonest is being called a liar. And I do not lie when I say I support the troops. I think that should be pretty clear by now.
And when I defend my right to assert a different political opinion than the blind followers of Bush.

It really chaffs me that political discourse in America has been reduced to shouting and name calling. Not here though, it's been very civil. But, even when I clearly state my position as a Liberal initially my opinion is dismissed out of hand. Without even reading what I have to say. I do not like having to constantly battle a mindset that automatically discounts me because I don't fall in lockstep with the Party line. Because the default setting is to automatically suspect anyone who doesn't fall over themselves to recite, verbatim, what the Bush administration spouts.

So I don't think I was projecting, but I was, and am, mightily peeved. Common sense has fallen by the wayside and it's all just ideological posturing now.

[Rick]

Saketinni99,

Is my apology not enough? Would you rather I grovel?

I changed the post to allow that there may be some who don't fall under Prager's charges... but let's admit that you have a burr under your saddle for those like me who support what Bush is doing.

There are many who deem to speak for the left in this country who are rightly targeted by Prager. You've established that you'd like to distance yourself from those people.

Good.

What else would you like us to do?

[saketini99]

Woah!

Rick, easy there.. no one has to grovel.

I just felt it neccesary to expound on what it feels like to be on my side of the Left.

And as for "having a burr under my saddle" for Bush supporters... hell, you could say I've got the whole damn thornbush up there. But especially when I'm dismissed out of hand. I've even been known to exercise my constitutional right to free assembly to get my position heard.

But this has been a refreshing debate, so no grovelling required.

Thanks

[geckocrane]

I am a liberal. I support the troops. How and why? Well I am a high school teacher and several of my former students are in Iraq. These kids are like my own sons and daughters. Why do I support the troops? Cause their my own. Do I believe that they should be there? Hell no! Do they think they should be in Iraq? For the most part, no they do not. Marines are trained to use overwhelming force to kill and control the enemy, not to police a street.
I support the troops. One of my kids needed a better weapon. His mission was to be to fight room to room. I helped him buy a long barrel revolver that wouldn't jam in the sand and dust. The Army issued M-16 is too big for house to house combat. I support the troops by sending my kids food, soap, and other care packages. I listen to them when they come home and tell me about killing an unarmed Iraqi because he was running towards them holding a something. My kid thought it was a bomb, so he shot him. The man had stole some food and was running away. Since my kid thought it was a bomb, the man died. I have talked to my kids in Iraq on the phone. They tell me about driving through the city in a Hummer that they had wired on some iron, cause the Hummer wasn't armoured. I support the troops by questioning why the hell they are still there, and demanding that they come home. This is how I support the troops. What do you do? Buy a stupid sticker made in China??? Put your money where your mouth is. Send packages, demand that ALL vehicles are armoured, demand a plan to get our sons and duaghters home!

[Rick]

God bless your support Geckocrane...

And you...

And the troops...