Support This

Dennis Prager:

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. [SNIP]

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."

I think most people—those on either side of the political divide—realize the truth of Dennis Prager’s assertion. What's so infuriating about this is that such people think that their disguise is a good one; that the military or any of its real supporters buy the act. The left’s antipathy toward members of the Armed Forces is usually couched in condescension--as we have seen from some of my more left-leaning visitors and from challenged columnists like Reggie Rivers.

Actually, overt hostility is preferable, such as this:

So deep is leftist disdain for troops that most on the Left regard the mere presence of military personnel on a university campus as a form of contamination.

Such a situation is far more honest, noble(r), even. The only thing lower than openly despising your protectors is pretending that you “support” them and believing that they are too stupid to recognize the deception.

Outside of the comfy confines of the average college campus, however, the Left is having a tough time trying to Vietnamize the Iraq War and its protagonists, even with the gulag rhetoric from Amnesty International and Senator Richard Durbin. (The fact that either tried to float that epithet shows their contempt not only for the military, but for the American public at large; they did not expect so many Americans to know what the gulags were.)

It’s not 1971 and thanks be to God for that.

Comments

[Steve]

"The only thing lower than openly despising your protectors is pretending that you “support” them and believing that they are too stupid to recognize the deception."

I think that I speak for many people in that these last 4 years have been a real suprise in just the variety of twists, and tactics, and the infantilism of the left during this whole ordeal. When they are pictured, or on TV, I can't help but stare at them and then go and look further for a bigger picture as to what it is that they are up to and where it all might be originating from and for what and who's ultimate purpose. The website discoverthenetwork.com is of some help. If you should go there look up Bill Moyers, just for one example, and read what he and his funders are into and then look at Bill's quotes toward the end of the article. The man is saying exactly what he should instead be listening to. It is so sad and scary all at the sametime. How can a grown up be this lost and clueless and so unaware of issues that pertain to himself. He is a man (by definition) and an impish child all at the age of 70.

[Brad Johnson]

I guess by "Support Our Troops" the Liberals consider that since they pay taxes, they are justified in saying "We support our troops."

:P

[Jay]

They learned the lesson of not supporting troops on the surface back in vietnam when the backlash from dirty hippy spit in the face of our soldiers did them damage. They have learned how to decieve and disguise their feelings better by wrapping them in patriotic phrases. How far do they think they can get with the anti-American stances they are taking. I belive they are only further alienating themselves and dividing the country. Great find on this article. I love it when the truth is bluntly and bravely told, and the veil is lifted to expose the lies of the far lefties.

[Tony Miller]

What these liberals ought to begin to understand is that they sleep secure in their beds because rough men (and some women) stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

[chevy Rose]

I love to see the "looks" on some customer faces at my post office when I go in, loaded down with boxes to soldiers I don't even know. Oh, cheery me, and frowning are they. I can tell they hate me, cause I make convensation "Real Loud" about all the thank you letters I get back and how much I appreciate our soldiers courage and sacrifice for America. I sense the 'watchers' are mad at anyone supporting what they don't. How perfectly sad for them.

[Bill O...]

So basically unless we all go along with how this country is being run into the ground we don’t really support the troops and are unpatriotic. Does anyone remember the lefts prewar criticism of the existence of WMDs, the rosey invasions scenarios, Rumsfelds troop numbers, the looting, etc? Had any of those concerns not been brushed off as mere unpatriotic/unsupportive rantings then maybe this war really would have concluded in 6 weeks like the neo-cons had claimed with straight faces. Instead, according to this line of thinking I should have been supporting all these blunders before, during and after they were committed. Just today I was reading how young educated European Muslims with the help of Zarqawi are using Iraq as a giant terrorist training camp where they learn terrorism skills by fighting Americans. They are returning to Europe with these skills to commit terrorist acts there:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,364661,00.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/12/terrorism_eu/index.html
I guess to point out that "fight the terrorist in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here" is yet another of a long succession of bad ideas that backfired and that we warned about this silly notion long ago would not be “supporting our troops”.

[StinKerr]

Yeah, I remember what the left were saying, Bill.

''If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.'' Bill Clinton, Feb 1998

''If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.'' Secretary of State Madeline Albright February 18, 1998

''He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.'' Sandy Berger February 18, 1998

''Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.'' Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

''We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.'' Al Gore, September 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction.'' Sen Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

''The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.'' Senator Robert Byrd October 3, 2002

''I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.'' Senator John Kerry, October 9, 2002

''He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.'' Representative Henry Waxman, October 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.'' Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Just refreshing your selective memory.

You're welcome.

[StinKerr]

Oops, the first quote from Bill Clinton should have read:

"''One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.''

Apologies for the mixup.

[Bill O...]

And how exactly do your citations of quotes disprove any aspect of my point? Please be specific. Otherwise the only thing this huge non sequiter you put togther has done is taken up a lot of your own time.

[Der Tommissar]

Just today I was reading how young educated European Muslims with the help of Zarqawi are using Iraq as a giant terrorist training camp where they learn terrorism skills by fighting Americans.

You mean, of course, the ones we don't kill. The dead ones, I don't care what skills they learned to take back to Europe.

[StinKerr]

My post was in answer to your question, Bill

"Does anyone remember the lefts prewar criticism of the existence of WMDs"

I thought I'd pierce the myth you were attempting to create or perpetuate. It didn't take much of my time at all, thanks for your concern.

Oh, and it's "non sequitur".