« Bonfire of the Vanities #121 | Main | The only dead Muslim is a good Muslim »

Some Gave All

http://wizbangblog.com/images/2005/10/image18_AF_jpg-thumb.jpg





TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some Gave All:

» Sortapundit linked with For Those Who Gave Their Lives...

» Bring It On linked with New Video: 2000

» Don Surber linked with Which Headline?

Comments (47)

Yep, here's a perfect study... (Below threshold)
kbiel:

Yep, here's a perfect study of the difference between the Left and the Right. To the Right, it's important because another individual sacraficed themself for something better. For the Left, it's "2000! Woohoo! Cake and ice cream for everyone! See you in 2006."

kbiel:I try to be ci... (Below threshold)
Chris:

kbiel:
I try to be civil on this board, but since I'm one of the people you are referring to, I'm calling you an asshole. You don't have the market cornered on caring about the troops, or recognizing their sacrifice. Please tell me on what you base your bullshit remarks.

I'm sick of sitting by and letting jerks like you make these kind of outrageous statements, and I have every reason to be pissed off.

A little light reading for ... (Below threshold)
joe:

A little light reading for Chris:
http://instapundit.com/archives/026403.php

Damn.... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Damn.

Chris, I'm sure you care. ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Chris, I'm sure you care. But Left's brand of 'care' is to mourn & pity them. The Right's brand of 'care' is to mourn & respect them.

Or instead of reading Insta... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Or instead of reading Instapundit....one could browse oh lets see, the Democratic Underground:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2181449

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2181442

Or we can go to Daily Kos and take a quick look around.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/25/12415/862

Firt of all, links to right... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Firt of all, links to right wing blogs are hardly objective. Second, of course opponents of the war are going to say different things than supporters do. But saying "this is sad, when will Bush bring our troops home" is hardly the same as "Woohoo! Cake and ice cream for everyone!" If you think Democrats are using this moment for political gain, then make that point, although I disagree with it. That's not what kbiel said.

Chris:Like links t... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Chris:

Like links to left-wing blogs or websites are objective? Do you really mean to imply that? Puhleez.

And that's the very problem, Chris. Democrats and those on the far left will precisely use the number to say 'look at the bad and murderous Bush Admin.' or '2,000 reasons to impeach Bush' and use it for political gain. If you don't think so, just watch the news or scan the editorial boards or the letter to the editors sections in the NY Times, LA Times, SF Chronicle and papers across the country, they'll largely smack of false and cheap sentiments for the fallen then turn right back to deriding the war and Bush.

It's cheap and feckless political opportunism at it's worst.

Firt of all, links to ri... (Below threshold)
joe:

Firt of all, links to right wing blogs are hardly objective.

The point of the post wasn't Instapundit's take; read what the servicemen and women say. They don't want to be used, in life or death, to undermine the mission.

Chris:"But saying... (Below threshold)
Inquiring:

Chris:
"But saying "this is sad, when will Bush bring our troops home"..."

That is precisely the wrong question to be asking in light of a life lost in service to their country. The right question is, "This is sad, when can we —in good conscience— bring our troops home?" Note the good conscience bit. Good conscience is when the goal that those service men and women have given their life for has been reached. Good conscience means not throwing their sacrifice away. Good conscience means making sure the Iraqi's can stand on their own two feet to defend their burgeoning sovereign nation.

Demanding anything else —anything less— is demeaning to the sacrifice and the continued service of every member of our armed forces.

I never said left wing blog... (Below threshold)
Chris:

I never said left wing blogs were more objective, so I don't know what the point is there. Linking to a partisan blog as a way of supporting your point makes no sense. Also, I'm surprised that no one sees the irony here. You guys are patting yourselves on the back about how respectful you are, yet the very first comment on this thread was about how awful the left is. Look around the web and you'll see the same thing on every right wing blog. Why is using the occasion of the 2,000th death to attack the left respectful, while those who attack the Bush administration are disrespectful? What's the difference? You're using the death of that 2,000th soldier as an opportunity to advance your views, but because you see yourselves as being on the correct side, it's somehow OK.

Wow! 2000! LET THE PARTY BE... (Below threshold)
shark:

Wow! 2000! LET THE PARTY BEGIN!!!!!

.......wait a minute? You mean it's a sad occasion? Huh, I've been reading the MSM and the "mainstream" lefty sites, you'd have thought it was a day for celebration.

Sorry Chris. You and your fellow travelers don't care 1 whit about the troops, just how you can exploit them. Go chain yourself to the White House with your patron saint, Mother Sheehan.

Also, I guess the soldiers killed in Afghanistan just don't rate....

For the most part, politica... (Below threshold)
epador:

For the most part, political blogs find themselves easily over run with disrespect. Chris, kbiel, et al, so ass easy to take off on diatribing and missing the sober points here.

1) original estimates of casualties for the invasion were over 2k. Since the SOB's didn't cooperate by standing their ground and being mowed down, taking us out in last ditch stands, this longer attempt at attrition should be no surprise. So now that we've hit this point of sacrifice, what have we got? Elections, Sadam on trial, continued ugly attempts by a minority of thugs to intimidate the general populace that are slowly decreasing.

2) How far were we when we had 2k casualties in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam?

3) Who started and perpetuated this whole body count thing, which endangers troops and emboldens the enemy to add to this propaganda tool?

War is a nasty, ugly thing. Something best resorted to when the alternatives are uglier. All we have to argue about is whether the alternatives were indeed uglier, and despite all the rhetoric about whether one side misrepresented their case or not, I see no real evidence posted by the Left that the alternative to attempting to control Sadam without war was going to be less ugly.

One chemical or bio attack against our troops in the sandbox could have left us with a whole lot more than 2k casualties. And one would have surely come, eventually, if we stayed there twidling our thumbs for long enough. If not from Iraq, then AQ, Iran, etc. Maybe even by this year. While its still a threat, we have a hold of what had been one major source of that threat.

[And splitting the front on terror has had a weakening effect on the strength of AQ in Afghanistan/Pakistan.]

You may disagree with my premises, but lets argue from this hill, not the silly, demeaning and insulting premises so many stand on above.

How many innocent deaths ca... (Below threshold)
Ed:

How many innocent deaths caused by Islamic terrorists will capture the attention of the MSM or the Left like the "2000th" American death in Iraq??? 3000, 5000, 10000??? BTW, 400 of those deaths were non-combat fatalities. So "only" 1600 troops died in combat. That is about 2 casualities per day to keep America safe. That is extremely low. In fact, its safer to be a U.S. soldier in Iraq than drive on U.S. roads. But it sure is good to know that the left supports the troops. Right???

Chris,Yes, I was b... (Below threshold)
kbiel:

Chris,

Yes, I was being an asshole when I made my comment and, you know, I don't care. I'm tired of the "We support the troops, so bring them home crowd." My comments are hardly bullshit. You need only spend a day on The Daily Kos or Democratic Underground to see that. You only need to listen to 5 minutes of Cindy Sheehan to know that the left no longer cares who they use or how they use them to bludgeon their opponents. When the left in this country start counting the deaths of innocent people caused by Islamic terrorist activities with as many "this is sad" commentary then I won't have any basis to make the kind of comment I made earlier.

As I tried to make clear, I... (Below threshold)
Chris:

As I tried to make clear, I am usually respectful on this blog, despite the fact that I am usually quite outnumbered. I think most would agree with that. I didn't call kbiel an asshole because I disagreed with his point. He was personally insulting me and everyone else who supports the troops but opposes the war. I'm not going to have some jerk accuse me of celebrating American soldiers dying without telling him what I think. I idsagree with most of what has been subsequently posted on thsi thread, but I'm not calling names, so I do resent being lumped in with kbiel as "diatribing". Ever since this war began, the right has vilified anyone who opposes it. I acknowledge that a lot of lefties say ridiculous things about Bush (the Nazi stuff embarrasses me) but the right unloads on anyone who questions the war in the most personal terms. As I've said before, it used to be a big deal to question someone's loyalty to the country, but the right had turned it into a parlor game. I don't believe in sitting still for that, and I'm going to speak up.

So you can keep posting all of your rationales for the war, but that wasn't the point of my original post. And I notice no one has acknowledged that the right is using the occasion to attack their enemies as much as to honor the fallen. Read the right wing blogs (hell, read this thread) and tell me I'm wrong.

If you think Democrats a... (Below threshold)
Slublog:

If you think Democrats are using this moment for political gain, then make that point, although I disagree with it. That's not what kbiel said.

Okay, Here. They're using this moment for political gain.

Happy?

And their ideological allie... (Below threshold)
Slublog:

And their ideological allies are using it as a fundraising opportunity.

No, they weren't looking forward to this death at all.

Now there is also this list... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Now there is also this list too.

Link

This list stands in stark comparison with the list of today's landmark.

Respectfully,

Robert

Well Chris...if you rally a... (Below threshold)
Robert:

Well Chris...if you rally around those who politicize the deaths of our brave soldiers...you should take action to distance yourself form such scum and dare I say, traitors. I think the Democrats are traitors to this country. I think the looney left moonbats are traitors to this country. If you associate yourself with them...well then it comes to the saying, it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..it must be a duck. Because, they consistantly say, they "support our troops", yet their actions state clearly the opposite. IF you supported our troops would you use their deaths for fundrasing? Would you use those deaths to try to bolster your base? So, the ball is in your court. Are you going to associate with these sort of people?

Slublog... good catch. </p... (Below threshold)
Synova:

Slublog... good catch.

And Chris, the big 2000 is an accident of the fact that we use a base 10 number system. The only thing significant about the "toll" is that it is unbelievably tiny considering the scope of the conflict.

And Chris, the big 2000 ... (Below threshold)
kbiel:

And Chris, the big 2000 is an accident of the fact that we use a base 10 number system.

Good point Synova. I, personally, am going to wait until number 800 (hexidecimal since I am a programmer by trade, 2048 for those of you with 10 fingers, instead of 16) until I begin to unfairly blugeon those who are supporting our troops by using their deaths to campaign and raise funds.

Chris,I will virtu... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Chris,

I will virtually guarantee you that if NONE of the far lefty groups were trying to use this to political advantage, then none of the righty blogs would be using it to pummel them.

Also, why don't you try taking your respectfulness to one of the lefty blogs and try disagreeing with their use of this occasion as a political weapon and see how far it gets you. I double dog dare you.

Some cold, hard facts to co... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Some cold, hard facts to consider and present perspective. Caveats abound due to statistics and data sourcing, but interesting nonetheless.

Death rate (deaths/1,000 population) 2005 est. [as of 4 October, 2005]

001 Botswana...... 29.36
011 Afghanistan... 20.75
110 United States. 08.25
181 Iraq.......... 05.49
225 Kuwait........ 02.42

US Forces Order of Battle - 4 March 2005
"...the total figure of US troops in Iraq may be higher than the official count of ~150,000 by multiple thousands."

Very rough estimates from limited data:
Expected per annum death rate from sustained total of 150,000 military agents using current estimated death rate in U.S. as the relative base [150 x 8.25 = 1238/year]. I've used "per annum" but this may be an incorrect interpretation.

So, the death rate of soldiers in the Iraqi theater is actually lower than that found in the "safe" U.S. Also, the overall death rate is lower in the country of Iraq taken as a whole. Kinda surprising if these estimates are validated at the end of the assessment period. Granted, age/health demographics taint these numbers but overall, this back-of-the-napkin computation shows that hysteria is unwarranted. Every death is tragic, every injury is saddening, every sacrifice heroic... but let's keep the big picture in mind when we consider the alternatives not taken.

How many of those deaths we... (Below threshold)

How many of those deaths were caused by terrorists who find support in the fact that so many on the left take their side, or anyone else's for that matter, against the United States? If you don't believe the terrorists are emboldened by the left's anti-war protests you are wrong.

bullwinkle,No doub... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

bullwinkle,

No doubt they are emboldened to some extent. In fact they count on the Left and some of its media minions to spread the anti-America word. Exhibit A? Monday's bombing at the Palestine Hotel.

These terrorists, despite periodic boosts from partisans, become increasingly ineffectual and are being rebuffed by an expanding and confident electorate. So, to staunch the their bleeding, they attack a soft target of media personalities in full light so that their semi-sympathetic target may carry the message of "chaos","failure", and "quagmire".

Yes, the terrorists studied the Vietnam model well and it is their only hope of "winning" against superior forces and determination. The old media has tried to accommodate their desperation to some degree but, due to alternate media, that message no longer trumps all. We'll see how far the politicians run with the sentiment too. Despite protestations from Sheehan-like sycophants, today's constituency can more readily recognize their folly.

Chris,I think the ... (Below threshold)
MikeB:

Chris,

I think the point of the first article linked was that the 2000th soldier voluntarily put his life at risk to fight for something he believed in. Unfortunately, it did cost him his life. So, he gave his life to advance a cause he believed in. What's disrespectful about what some of the left will do is that they will try to use his sacrifice as a point to work against the goal for which he so unselfishly gave his life. I can't see how that's respectful for what he chose to do.

- MikeB

Chris, I just want to respe... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Chris, I just want to respectfully add that here in Philly the media (a sort of liberal institutuon) has been saying for the past couple of days that the death toll in Iraq is close to reaching 2000. It's like they were preoccupied with preparing us for the headlines that appeared today. It's a little weird how the 2000th death merits a different font compared to the 1873rd death.

The media and the left don'... (Below threshold)
shark:

The media and the left don't seem to give a shit about the dead in Afghanistan. Wonder why? And it really doesn't matter, if Scooter Libby gets indicted, the left will oh so quickly forget this and jump all over that. Then the troops will be forgotten by them again, until something happens they can use to hurt Bush.

Yeah, you support the troops. But you don't support their commander, you don't support their mission, you don't support the way they do their jobs, and you don't support their goals. You ran a candidate for president who slandered the troops mercilessly during his hayday! Your presumptive nominee in 2008 said she "loathed" the military! So please, stop the pretense, ok? We know that the one CYA lesson you scumbags learned from Vietnam was to pretend to like the troops next time you protested, and it still doesn't work. You go apeshit over Abu Ghraib, while Americans are strung up and butchered on a bridge and your master Kos says "screw them" with nary a dissent from you, and Kos is affiliated with Howard Dean. Guess Dean supports that message. We saw a million pictures of some idiot with panties on their head, but beheading videos are off limits. You demand the pictures of the dead being offloaded at Dover, but heaven forbid they show the poor bastards forced to jump from the WTC. That idiot communist Italian journalist Segrena runs a checkpoint and gets shot, you jump down and blame the military with both feet. The left claims over and over that the military is DELIBERATELY targeting journalists. Yeah, some support. They can do without that support.
You take offense to this post? You don't like being "lumped in"? TOO FUCKING BAD. If the shoe fits, cram it.

The number is tragic for ... (Below threshold)
DUDACKATTACK!!!:

The number is tragic for everyone. So both sides should take a minute, stop the finger pointing and shut up.

DUDATTACK, you have a point... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

DUDATTACK, you have a point that this is tragic for everyone. But a significant part of the Vietnam War was lost in the media. I personally don't feel that shutting up is a good option.

When Mother Sheehan ties he... (Below threshold)
bamlotte:

When Mother Sheehan ties herself to the White House Fence, we can hope no one unties her. Perhaps volunteer could tie her cohorts along side her and leave them all there until the troops come home! (I'm really getting tired of the far Left crap.)

So let me see if I've got t... (Below threshold)
Chris:

So let me see if I've got this straight. The minute the President commits troops somewhere, we give up all rights as citizens to voice our opinion? Thta's bullshit, and certainly wasn't the case when Ton DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Gary Bauer, Judd Gregg, Richard Lugar and Geoirge W. Bush, among others, criticized our mission in Bosnia. And Bush would love to keep making the point that if you don't support him, you don't support the troops, but that just ain't so. The most important cost of this war is the lives of our soldiers, and you folks want us to just ignore them. You're the oones who are willing to keep feeding these young men and women into the machine in order to advancde your political aims. These men and women are dying so the Iraqis can have a constitution? That's ridiculous.

And let's be real, 2,000 is a milestone, whether you like it or not. We always observe things in milestones. "the big 2000 is an accident of the fact that we use a base 10 number system." Are you shitting me? And your comment is an accident of the fact that we speak English. The 2,000 casualty number means something to both sides. Of course the Republicans aren't going to play it up. They'd rather people never thought about the human cost of the war.

Soldiers are trained to believe in their mission. That's the only way you can maintain a disciplined military. The fact that a soldier believes in his mission doesn't automatically justify the mission.

As for this constantly repeated bullshit that the insurgents are emboldened by dissent in this country, I call bulllshit. Do you really believe that these guys would lay down their arms and give up the fight if all of the left-wing bloggers closed up shop?

What I primarily see here is a strong tendency on the part of the right to stifle dissent. If you don't like what the left thinks, then argue against their policies. All of this bullshit that we don't support the troops, we give strength to the enemy, we don't like this country, that just reflects your inability to defend your position.

I didn't want the first soldier to die. You giuys say 2,000 is no big deal (exzcuse me, an accident of the fact that we use a base 10 number system.) I want them to come home and stop dying. You want them to stay and get shot at. Some support you're offering there.

First, I'd like to know why... (Below threshold)
Ed:

First, I'd like to know why a leftist troll bothers to post here. However, no matter.

Second, I'll ask the leftist troll one question: Do you believe the U.S. and its allies are fighting against evil (or terrorists or murders) in Iraq???

So let me see if I've got this straight. The minute the President commits troops somewhere, we give up all rights as citizens to voice our opinion? Thta's bullshit, and certainly wasn't the case when Ton DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Gary Bauer, Judd Gregg, Richard Lugar and Geoirge W. Bush, among others, criticized our mission in Bosnia.

Look troll, Bosnia was not in our national interest, and did not threaten our national security. It was purely a humanitarian effort. Were you for that conflict???


And Bush would love to keep making the point that if you don't support him, you don't support the troops, but that just ain't so. The most important cost of this war is the lives of our soldiers, and you folks want us to just ignore them.

The PRESIDENT of the U.S. is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. If you don't support him, then yes, you don't support the troops. Supporting the troops means supporting the mission too. You can't separate the warrior and the war. The cost of war is the lives of soldiers. But they are defending our freedom and security. Would you complain about the loss of U.S. soldiers in Normandy or Iwo Jima??? Get a clue, defending a country, changing the Middle East to be more civilized is not a trivial matter to be left to pussies like you.

You're the oones who are willing to keep feeding these young men and women into the machine in order to advancde your political aims. These men and women are dying so the Iraqis can have a constitution? That's ridiculous.

Why??? Are you too dense to figure this out??? I'll spell it out for you: Invading Iraq has caused lots of would-be jihadis to fight there. Killing them there is a lot easier than killing them here. Furthermore, once the swamp of Iraq is cleaned out and a form of democracy established, the Middle East will be less volatile. Certainly, Iran and Syria have to be handled too. What do you think Zarqawi would be doing now if he wasn't in Iraq planning suicide bombings??? Selling used cars in Jordan??? You're naive.


And let's be real, 2,000 is a milestone, whether you like it or not. We always observe things in milestones. "the big 2000 is an accident of the fact that we use a base 10 number system." Are you shitting me? And your comment is an accident of the fact that we speak English. The 2,000 casualty number means something to both sides. Of course the Republicans aren't going to play it up. They'd rather people never thought about the human cost of the war.

How come you leftists never have candlelight vigils for the VICTIMS of terrorism: Like the 50 in London, the 200 in Madrid, or the 1000 Israeli women and children since 2000??? I guess because dead Jews, Brits and Spaniards don't help your political agenda. Now, who never thinks about the human cost of the war on terror???


Soldiers are trained to believe in their mission. That's the only way you can maintain a disciplined military. The fact that a soldier believes in his mission doesn't automatically justify the mission.

You're obviously a military expert, I mean, having been in the military and all. Right??? No?!?! I'm shocked. Listen, punk, soldiers aren't robots you turn on and control. They're well aware of the meaning and consequences of the mission. Every soldier abides by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. You are just fuckin' stupid.


As for this constantly repeated bullshit that the insurgents are emboldened by dissent in this country, I call bulllshit. Do you really believe that these guys would lay down their arms and give up the fight if all of the left-wing bloggers closed up shop?

Jaysus dude, you're fuckin' dumb. Of course they wouldn't lay down their arms if you leftists closed up shop!!! But they WOULDN'T close up shop if you were running the country either!!! That's the hole point, they want sharia. There, and here. And they are willing to die for it. And they don't care if you're a left-wing nutjob appeasement pussy, or a clear thinking American patriot.


What I primarily see here is a strong tendency on the part of the right to stifle dissent. If you don't like what the left thinks, then argue against their policies. All of this bullshit that we don't support the troops, we give strength to the enemy, we don't like this country, that just reflects your inability to defend your position.

Oh, but it is true that you give strength to the enemy, you don't like this country, and you are traitors. The North Vietnamese were defeated in every battle they engaged U.S. troops. Contrary to what the media reported, the Tet offensive failed. The only reason the NVA and VC fought on was due to the radical hatred of this country from the left. Usually run by communist organizations. The left is doing the same thing now. Fortunately, the alternative media offers intelligent Americans the clear, objective picture. This ain't gonna be a repeat of Vietnam, like uncle Walter hopes for.

I didn't want the first soldier to die. You giuys say 2,000 is no big deal (exzcuse me, an accident of the fact that we use a base 10 number system.) I want them to come home and stop dying. You want them to stay and get shot at. Some support you're offering there.

We offer support. You offer ignorance.

Chris, if there is a strong... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Chris, if there is a strong tendency on the part of the right to stifle dissent then I would say that the right appears not to be very good at it - at least for the past couple of years even in their own ranks. It seems to me that Democrats (liberals) as a group have more of a tendency to walk lock step behind their leadership than Republicans (conservatives or the right). I also don't think you can say that I want to see these young people remain in Iraq and get shot at. I accept that there are very good reasons out there for why we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place. But I truly believe that cutting and running at this point is not a viable option. I think there are many people who are serving on the front lines there who would agree, as well as there are those who would disagree.

My God help our brave men a... (Below threshold)
JAT0:

My God help our brave men and women, who die in the defense of our country, rest in peace!

The RIGHT tries to stifle d... (Below threshold)
shark:

The RIGHT tries to stifle dissent? Sheesh. I know that since your patriotism is in question you have to try to question ours, but comon. Wasn't it the left just recently that was saying that Cindy Sheehan has absolute moral authority and the rest of us couldn't argue with her statements? Or how about about pushing that chickenhawk crap designed to stifle us? No, we're not against dissent, but when it crosses the line into irresponsibility, then we call you on it. And you people crossed that line LONG ago.

<a href="http://porkopol... (Below threshold) Ed your a poet.LWN... (Below threshold)
Mark:

Ed your a poet.

LWNJAP : Left-Wing-Nut-Job-Appeasement-Pussies

Cris,The right is su... (Below threshold)

Cris,
The right is supporting troops and a war that is fighting those who stifle dissent and would be more than happy to stifle ours. 2,000 damn fine American soldiers have died so dissent won't be stifled, protecting the rights of even those who don't support them. You can call bullshit on the claim that your anti-war protests don't embolden terrorists all you want you idiot, Osama disagrees with you, I think he's qualified. You certainly aren't.

As an active duty MSgt in t... (Below threshold)

As an active duty MSgt in the USAF I find anyone paying attention to the numbers vs the individuals that have given all kinda creepy. We've just had a death in our immediate family though so my thinking's kinda scewed.

Hey EdI post regul... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Hey Ed

I post regularly on this board, and always back up what I say, whether people agree with it or not. Maybe you should find out what the term troll means so you don't look like such a fucking retard next time.

And I can't believe that you're going with that ignorant spiderweb theory, that the terrorists are being drawn to Iraq so we can kill them there. Jesus, Bush tried floating that one months ago and was greeted with so much ridicule he dropped it like a hot potato. Christ, read a paper, will ya?

And calling me a pussy and a punk is just laughable. Yeah, I guess your typing is so much more manly than mine. What, are you wearing your Sgt. Rock jammies while you're typing?

Now, as for those who responded a bit more reasonably, I do think the administration was quite good at stifling dissent. And I'm not sure how that conflates to me questioning anyone's patriotism. But the Democrats all lined up to support Bush after 9/11 because it was the right thing to do, and Bush and Rove used their support like a cudgel when election time came. Anyone who had opposed any administration policy was declared disloyal. Remember Ari Fleisher saying "people need to watch what they say and what they do?" The only reason they're losing their grip now is because other Republicans are no longer afraid of them, and are trying to distance themselves from the White House. But it's taken them five years to do it.

And Bullwinkle, I read that entire article and still don't know what your point was. First of all, the interview was from 1998, before there was even an anti-war movement (or a war, for that matter.) Second, about the most relevant comment was bin Laden saying the Americans shouldn't elect politicians who will support the Jews and bring war down on their heads. By the way, he also supported the assasination of Bill Clinton, so I guess he didn't think Clinton as President would make his life any easier. What exactly was your point?

Oh, and by the way, I guess the left aren't the only ones who see 2,000 deaths as significant. "In Washington, the Senate observed a moment of silence in honor of the fallen 2,000. “We owe them a deep debt of gratitude for their courage, for their valor, for their strength, for their commitment to our country,” said Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist." Why those Republican Senate bastards. I guess they had a party after their moment of silence.

Of course you wouldn't see ... (Below threshold)

Of course you wouldn't see the statement, "The American government is leading the country towards hell. ... We say to the Americans as people and to American mothers, if they cherish their lives and if they cherish their sons, they must elect an American patriotic government that caters to their interests not the interests of the Jews. If the present injustice continues with the wave of national consciousness, it will inevitably move the battle to American soil, just as Ramzi Yousef and others have done. This is my message to the American people. I urge them to find a serious administration that acts in their interest and does not attack people and violate their honor and pilfer their wealth. ...", as being Osama sending you marching orders that you gladly accepted , you're doing exactly what he told you to do, you're an idiot. You use the EXACT same claims and complaints, you are a supporter of terrorism.


RE: Chris' post (October 27... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Chris' post (October 27, 2005 02:05 AM)
...I do think the administration was quite good at stifling dissent... But the Democrats all lined up to support Bush after 9/11 because it was the right thing to do, and Bush and Rove used their support like a cudgel when election time came. Anyone who had opposed any administration policy was declared disloyal. Remember Ari Fleisher saying "people need to watch what they say and what they do?" The only reason they're losing their grip now is because other Republicans are no longer afraid of them, and are trying to distance themselves from the White House. But it's taken them five years to do it.

I'll not add anything to the debate of the "I support troops more" claims. Obviously, the Right owns that trophy. (I'm kidding, but just a little.)

But on to the larger point of dissent in the ranks, I tend to think the administration is "losing its grip" because this president abandoned a significant series of conservative ideals: the trifecta of ignoring illegal immigration control and demonizing its advocates, of expansive government with concomitant growth of discretionary spending, and of a failure to advance a known commodity to SCOTUS. I think some Democrats would agree that Bush has failed here, but I have to think a significant proportion of his base feels betrayed and anticipates no movement of his position from his current stance. In other words he is not conservative enough and those who supported him through thick and thin have tired of his lurch to the left. Yes, he still remains socially conservative which satisfies a certain portion and scares the dickens out of those distanced from the Bible Belt; but conservatives in other realms wanted a more libertarian approach to government or an aggressive pressing of mainstream-conservative ideals without the deference to a Left which will demonize him whatever his party presents (e.g. education and prescription drug spending).

Dissent was never stifled regarding the lead up to war and its aftermath. Those who made such claims were always allowed to voice their opinion. If they withheld, it was self-censorship. Worse, it could be called political calculus rather than a belief in ideals. Military conflict is not popular, always risky, and requires compilation of input from many sources - both external and internal; but, this trumpeting of a fear of an oppressive administration that stifles dissent on the matter is bogus. Both politicians and constituents are free to present their argument at any time and anywhere. And let's not forget it is courtesy of those fine Americans who wage "unjust" or "improperly waged" wars to see that we may.

BullwinkleOsama wa... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Bullwinkle

Osama was condemning the Clinton administration. I supported Clinton. How was I taking marching orders from Osama (one of those smears that's hardly worth responding to.) What he said was that Americans should elect a government that would withdraw all support for Israel. I don't recall either side advocating that in any recent election.

AnonymousDrivel, you are right, the White House didn't take steps to officially censor people, which wasn't my point (I suppose I could have been clearer on that.) But convincing people that Iraq was directly associated with 9/11, which they knew not to be true, enabled them to use the cudgel of "soft on terrorism" to silence anyone who opposed the war in Iraq, which isn't the same as the war on terror. Knowing that the majority of Americans believed that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis, thanks to the administration's disinformation campaign, made it difficult for elected officials to swim against the tide. So yes, it was self-censorship, but it was also the intended outcome of the administration's policies. The Democrats did the patriotic thing after 9/11 and held off on criticising the President, which Bush and Rove took as an opportunity to gain political advantage. At least one side was sincere. The Democrats were also at fault for letting the Republicans control the message, which is why I weasan't sorry to see Daschle go. But the fact is that Rove, especially, basically said "thanks for your patriotic support of our President in a time of national crisis. Now we're going to shove it up your ass."

The Right does the same thing with Israel, where anyone who criticizes the Israeli government's policies is labeled anti-Semitic.

Whoa, not to be a buttinski... (Below threshold)
Mr. F.:

Whoa, not to be a buttinski, but I'm going to be because the continued dissemination of disinformation bugs me even though it very little to do with the thread.

But convincing people that Iraq was directly associated with 9/11...

Oh vey! Where do you get your information from? At no time whatsoever did the administration ever say Iraq was linked to 9/11. In fact, it went out of its way not to associate the two. If the administration is guilty of anything it's connecting the type of Islamofascism embodied in that of Atta & Co. and the promotion of those ideals by dictatorial states such as Saddam's Iraq (and others, like Syria and Iran) that breeds anti-Western sentiment and hatred. It's a symptomatic disease of culture, if you will, and Saddam's Iraq was indeed and irrefutably a part of that culture; a point many leftists refuse to acknowledge or ignore as being true. To associate the two is perfectly acceptable and logical, and it is the very basis and reasoning behind going to war in Iraq; to begin to change the despotic, repressive nature and culture of Western hatred of the Middle East that leads to events like 9/11.

Knowing that the majority of Americans believed that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis...

Whoa, Nellie. Are you going to cite the poll(s) that showed many Americans believed Iraq was involved in 9/11? Or are you simply making a leap to judgment? Please cite some concrete evidence for this suspect claim because it is highly dubious that Americans believed the hijackers were Iraqis. Do Americans wrongly believe Iraq was involved in 9/11? Perhaps. But many, many Americans believed Iraq was involved in 9/11 shortly after 9/11 itself. Why? The WaPo suggested that Americans at large had a "deep distrust of Hussein", a not too unfounded distrust I'd say. And no one can with 100% certain can either prove or disprove that Iraq was indeed involved in 9/11. (A majority of the evidence suggests not and I personally agree with that. But I firmly believe Iraq's culture of Western hatred contributed to 9/11.

Sorry, Mr. F, but the admin... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Sorry, Mr. F, but the administration took every opportunity to link Saddam and the hijackers. Did he explicitly say "Saddam was responsible for 9/11?" No, necause they know better than to make blatant statements that can easily be disputed. Instead, they constantly referred to the invasion of Iraq as payback for 9/11, and made as many attempts as possible to tie Saddam to al Qaeda.

Like when Bush said The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Or when Bush sent a memo to Congress officially notifying them that he was invading Iraq, and citing as a reason "to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

As for polls, there's a zillion of them. Here's one:
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5051
A 2002 poll from the Council on Foreign Relations that shows 66 % of Americans thinking that "Saddam Hussein helped the terrorists in the September 11 attacks."

Or this:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544
A Harris poll from as recently as Feb. 18, 20005 in which 44% of Americans think at least some of the hijackers were Iraqi.

There's also this from the Pew Center, that found in 2003 that 57% of the public thought "Saddam Hussein provided assistance to the men who carried out the 9/11 attacks."

And here's an article from a foreign news service about Bush linking Iraq and 9/11.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/203C970A-2C8F-4EDE-9CF1-AA7F4D0590C7.htm




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy