July 24, 2008

A Deafening Silence from Leftwing Bloggers as Obama Says He'll Keep Troops in Iraq, and Maybe Invade 180 Million Strong Pakistan While He's At It
— Ace

All very obvious, but that doesn't mean it's not important to write:

AM I the only one who's noticed the silence? Mere months ago, left-wing bloggers and demonstrators were wailing Support our troops, bring them home! seven days a week.

Now their presidential candidate has announced that he won't bring all those troops home, but will simply transfer combat forces from Iraq to Afghanistan - expanding that war. (He's discussed possibly invading Pakistan, too.)

And the left's quiet as a graveyard at midnight.

Where are the outraged protests from MoveOn or the DailyKos? I thought the extreme left felt sorry for our service members in harm's way and wanted to reunite them with their families.

What happened?

We all know exactly what happened. The left has nothing against foreign wars (as long as they don't have to fight in person). They just want to pick our wars themselves.

The problem with Iraq wasn't that America toppled Saddam Hussein, but that George W. Bush did it. I've been saying it for years: Had Bill Clinton done the job, the left would've celebrated him as the greatest liberator since Abraham Lincoln.

...

So here are three straightforward questions for all the march-in-step lefties who howled, "Support our troops, bring them home!" before their new messiah decided that war's not so bad, after all:

* Given that your candidate acknowledges the need for more combat troops in Afghanistan, will you enlist and do your part? Or do you expect other young Americans to continue to bleed in your place?

[etc.: Chickenhawk argument continues.]

I know, I know: Educated people like you are too smart and too important to serve in uniform. The military's for dummies, for losers. Serious players stay home and blog and bitch over double espressos.

Inhabitants of the left-wing blogosphere, have you no shame? Was your pacifism nothing more than a hipster pose? Bush is on the way out - are your principles leaving with him? Have you stopped to wonder if BHO might not be your LBJ?

You told us that "War doesn't change anything," and "War is never the answer." Shouldn't you be lobbying your candidate to give peace a chance?

Shame, shame, shame. You've elevated hypocrisy to an art form.

How about a new slogan: "Support our troops: Enlist!"

I'm not a big fan of the chickenhawk argument, but the left has long made it. And I asked similar questions a hundred times in the past: Fine, you're against the Iraq War. But you claim to be in favor of the Afghanistan War and even, on occasion, in favor of the Great Overmountain Invasion of Pakistan. So, um, Chickenhawk? How's blogging from Kabul?

Since their reason for not serving -- while insulting others for not serving -- has always been "Because I don't support this President and I don't support his wars," well, now that your Beloved Leader is supportin' some war, how about taking that long-delayed trip to the recruiting station? (And not with pink spray paint this time, either.)

Thanks to RobG.

Posted by: Ace at 08:31 AM | Comments (32)
Post contains 553 words, total size 3 kb.

1

The problem with Iraq wasn't that America toppled Saddam Hussein, but that George W. Bush did it. I've been saying it for years: Had Bill Clinton done the job, the left would've celebrated him as the greatest liberator since Abraham Lincoln.

Quoted for qoutey quoteness.

Posted by: Eleven at July 24, 2008 08:37 AM (7DB+a)

2

More NY Post, less USA Today.

Posted by: Eleven at July 24, 2008 08:39 AM (7DB+a)

3 The Lefty blogosphere does not give two shits about war. They would have been whining no matter what George Bush did. Democrap Underground didn't start because of the Iraq War, after all.

Posted by: Dirk at July 24, 2008 08:42 AM (76Oxk)

4 such nuanced nuance that my heads about to asplode.

Except dumas, the left is never responsible for and never has to account for any policy position it adopts or advocates. 

I second 11, er, uh 22, with this quotey quotable quote:

The problem with Iraq wasn't that America toppled Saddam Hussein, but that George W. Bush did it. I've been saying it for years: Had Bill Clinton done the job, the left would've celebrated him as the greatest liberator since Abraham Lincoln.


Posted by: joeindc44 at July 24, 2008 08:43 AM (QxSug)

5 As a practical logistics matter, I don't think we could inject much more than say an additional 30,000 in the Afghan theater.  Lacking ports and an extensive highway system, loaded with very tall mountains, etc Afghanistan is a much larger logistics nut to crack than Iraq. 

Even an additional 30K would tax Air Mobility Command very heavily, since an Iraq pullout won't eliminate the need to logistically support the IA's who take over.  Their combat chops are gaining rapidly, their combat support and logistics not so much.

For decades I've been saying our military needs more heavy airlift capability.  The Messiah's "plan" will finally prove it definitively.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 24, 2008 08:51 AM (uhncL)

6

Good point about how Bubba would have been hailed as the savior of mankind if he had deposed Saddam, Ace.

But, under what circumstances could he have ever done so?  The first time some supply column got ambushed and our folks started getting killed, he would have asked Murtha what to do, and then he would have run away!  A big part of the reason they hate Bush is because they know their guy couldn't have done it!

Which brings me to the bottom line question.  If we have a President Obama, just because he says he won't bring the troops out precipitously is no reason to be confident in him.  What soldier would be crazy enough to follow him into any battle, knowing that the first accidental bombing of a civilian (real or contrived) will mean he turns tail!?  Lefties need to be kept away from national security, because the have no principles, just agendas.

Posted by: sherlock at July 24, 2008 09:02 AM (xqzGc)

7 Yeah, right, Purple Avenger!
Logistics?
Combat Support?
Heavy Air Lift?
Mountains?
Nice try, I think I will take Maureen Dowd's word that what we should have done in 2001 was invade Afghanistan with a quarter million troops.  I think she knows what she's parroting.   Since the BDS playbook is to tack to the opposite of W, this has got to work. for them. in their dreams.

Posted by: joeindc44 at July 24, 2008 09:03 AM (QxSug)

8

Had Bill Clinton done the job, the left would've celebrated him as the greatest liberator since Abraham Lincoln Jimmy Carter.

Such is the world in which we live.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at July 24, 2008 09:05 AM (B+qrE)

9 The Post (NY) is my paper of choice. Great sports section and the tabloid format belies on of the best financial sections anywhere.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at July 24, 2008 09:06 AM (zpaDL)

10
They're not silent so much as busy.  You know, filling urine bottles for the convention can really maximize ones time.

Posted by: electricferret at July 24, 2008 09:09 AM (9zMOM)

11 5. For decades I've been saying our military needs more heavy airlift capability. The Messiah's "plan" will finally prove it definitively. Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 24, 2008 01:51 PM (uhncL) Perhaps he plans on feeding the troops with loaves and fishes? There isn't enough airlift, and unless the AF buys a lot more a lot sooner than they have announced, there won't ever be enough. I don't think ports would help much. The interior is hot and high or very high and very very cold-- not good helicopter country, no roads, nothing helpful at all. Even Alexander had trouble keeping an army fed, and he wasn't worried about ammo or POL. The only way to 're-inforce' Afghanistan would be to replace the NATO deadwood with soldiers. That won't look like pretty math on the front page.

Posted by: Potosi Joel at July 24, 2008 09:22 AM (TPRbZ)

12 Nuance, people!

Posted by: It's the war, stupid at July 24, 2008 09:31 AM (AQj/2)

13

We could build a pipeline and a highway across Iran, then resupply would be a piece of cake.

Posted by: Tim at July 24, 2008 09:52 AM (3Wewy)

14

Afghanistan isn't any kind of easy roll-over, as the former USSR can attest.

I have a lot of concern about putting all of our eggs in that basket, after the horrible defeat the "second" most powerful country in the world bought there.

Sure, we were supporting the Afghani troops at the time, but it was more than materiel, it was also the *spunk* those wacky Afghani guys brought to the field as well!!!

If only the next (or current, depending on the 8-10 year statements that come out) president could see that Iraq, on the map, is the one place we need a presence for the next...oh, 8 to 10 years...

 

Posted by: rick at July 24, 2008 10:07 AM (8nB5X)

15 What happened?

They're busy stockpiling piss.

Posted by: grc at July 24, 2008 12:50 PM (NhH5C)

16 "Enlist"??? C,mon. the little shit-stains would get their own personal ass stripes at the mere thought of going near a recruiting station, solo, to sign up.

Posted by: Wear black pants at July 24, 2008 12:50 PM (h/5U0)

17 The only thing that is real is Bush hatred. Everything else is just whatever. Whatever being whatever dems want it to be.

Posted by: billypaintbrush at July 24, 2008 12:53 PM (df2ne)

18 We don't want a bunch of pansy-ass, maggot-infested, piss hoarding ass hats disgracing the uniform.

The hypocrisy moniker is appropriate, but let's leave it at that.

Posted by: Bruce in SoCal at July 24, 2008 01:06 PM (J6hTO)

19 Why would the military want these piss throwing asshats? They can't even behave in a adult manner on their own, and you want to give them military training. Thanks, but lets leave the adults to do the work. Maybe BHO's "national civilian security force" will want them.


Posted by: Penfold at July 24, 2008 01:13 PM (lF2Kk)

20 Remember the opening shots of Triumph of the Will? I want to see a tape with Obama's plane flying into germany or the plane from ToW with an obama 08 sticker on it.  Come on! Somebody can do it. I lost my photoshop otherwise I would. 

Posted by: grc at July 24, 2008 01:20 PM (NhH5C)

21 Peters is a schmuck.  The chickenhawk stuff is bullshit, no matter how applied -- and he tries to put it on Bush, too.

Posted by: someone at July 24, 2008 01:26 PM (2z2WN)

22 That deafening silence is millions of Lefties admitting to themselves that political victory is more important than any principles they claim to believe in.  For them, principles are never anything but "positions" used to fool the rubes into voting the way they want.

Posted by: Trimegistus at July 24, 2008 01:58 PM (7HBUF)

23 I like Peters.
 I'd also like to commend the Post for hiring a pro military writer like Ralph Peters. He's a pretty rare bird in the media.

Posted by: aubrey at July 24, 2008 02:26 PM (CELHY)

24

Yeah, enough people cry like babies at boot camp without all these soy-based pussies, so let's hope none of them enlist. Although I doubt that will be an issue.

Liberals make the chickenhawk argument because it's a shallow, unserious arguement and they are shallow, unserious people. It's like screaming "RACIST" whenever someone tries to make a serious debate about race in this country; it's a smoke grenade, a stupid non-sequiter that is meant to distract from the glaringly obvious lack of thought they have put into their position. And yet, a response of a kick in the balls is illegal. How is that justice?

Posted by: UGAdawg at July 24, 2008 03:03 PM (nCZtb)

25 grc @ 20 -

It's not exactly what you requested but the general theme is intact:

Triumph of Tim Robbins' Will


Posted by: monkeyfan at July 24, 2008 05:04 PM (cEE8N)

26 Hi. We rarely think people have good sense unless they agree with us. I am from San and learning to read in English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "High quality white goose down comforters, color down comforter sets and luxury down at discount prices." :-D Thanks in advance. Jiro.

Posted by: Jiro at July 15, 2009 04:33 PM (RwHhp)

27 Interessanter Beitrag, hier ein paar links zum Thema: Flashgames



Posted by: irius at December 16, 2010 11:53 AM (jDn0N)

28 The new Nike mercurial vapor are NIKE CR MERCURIAL VAPOR SUPERFLY III FG set to take the spotlight and ignite to boot world. 

Posted by: Nike Mercurial Vapor at July 30, 2011 10:12 AM (XmVYU)

29 Last year, Nike mercurial vapor introduced to a soccer shoe that set a new standard in signature boot design. The Nike Football Cleats come in elite box with mercurial bags, as the pictures show.

Posted by: Nike mercurial vapor fg at August 16, 2011 08:49 AM (AheUQ)

30 Thanks for post. Nice to see such good ideas

SEO Pakistan

Posted by: SEO Pakistan at November 01, 2011 02:27 AM (Q7nl0)

31 That deafening silence is millions of Lefties admitting to themselves that political victory is more important than any principles they claim to believe in. For them, principles are never anything but "positions" used to fool the rubes into voting the way they want.

Posted by: SEO Dubai at February 20, 2012 01:16 AM (MuL7T)

32 Yes, thank for the details a million! Have to discover anybody organizing Tea Party. I wants to participate in organizing.

Posted by: Miu Miu Watches at May 22, 2012 10:40 PM (tgTPq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
92kb generated in CPU 0.17, elapsed 1.358 seconds.
63 queries taking 1.2748 seconds, 268 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.