Moore useful idiots

[igloo]

Moore useful idiots

Mark Alexander (archive)

August 30, 2005 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Recommend to a friend

"Patriotism is as much a virtue as justice, and is as necessary for the support of societies as natural affection is for the support of families."

--Benjamin Rush

V.I. Lenin called Western Leftists who sided with Socialists in political debates "useful idiots." He's been dead for 81 years, but there appears to be no shortage of Michael Mooronic idiots lending aid and comfort to those seeking to destroy the "beacon of liberty" today.

Recently, this column warned that re-emerging anti-American movements were gaining momentum. That essay ["Spitting on The Few, The Proud..."] outlined the Left's anti-war modus operandi between 1968 and 1973, noting how elitist politicos like George McGovern and Ted Kennedy, joined by glitterati like Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, came together to rally adolescent fervor. The resulting spectacle -- one created by young protesters and promoted by Walter Cronkite and the Left's nightly newscast dezinformatsia machine -- was a major factor in dissuading public support for the defense of South Vietnam.

That spectacle also, by extension, cast a pall over everyone in a military uniform, including those coming home in flag-draped caskets. American military personnel were viewed with seething glares and subject to spitting and name-calling from "enlightened youth" and their protagonists who tagged all military personnel personae non gratae. The entirety of them were even labeled "war criminals" by none other than John Kerry.

Today, Kennedy, Kerry, Fonda and their ilk are still at it, but they have not had much success since 9/11, when America virtually and rightly united behind President George Bush's campaign against asymmetric Jihadi threats and their host nations -- collectively known as Jihadistan.

In recent weeks, support for the Iraq campaign of the Long War has begun to wane in some circles -- not because of 58,000 casualties as in Vietnam, but because, once again, as America's finest are defending liberty at home by fighting for freedom in critical regions abroad, the beleaguered Left has recruited a pawn to pitch (perhaps hurl) its phony anti-war agenda across the nation. For a solid month, the Leftmedia has focused its broadcasts and headlines on Ms. Cindy Sheehan and her well-funded road entourage. The network talkingheads have in fact awarded her "Peace Mom" heroine status -- which provided a big political break for the Left.

Sheehan's 24-year-old son was killed in action in Iraq last year. President Bush met with her shortly after his death at her request, and Sheehan said of that visit, "I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us. I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss, and I know he's a man of faith."

What a difference a few media lights can make. Now this peacenik poster child says Mr. Bush is an "evil maniac," a "lying bastard," and a "filth spewer and warmonger." In addition, she's asserted that the President and his "band of neo-cons" wanted the 9/11 attack "to get their neo-con agenda through." "We are not waging a war on terror in this country," protests Sheehan, "we're waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!" Sheehan has been hounding the President around the countryside asking for another meeting, but why would President Bush dignify such remarks by meeting with her?

Army Specialist Casey Sheehan enlisted, and then re-enlisted in April of 2004, in order to go to Iraq. Two weeks after arriving there, he volunteered for a rapid-rescue force deployed to help save fellow soldiers from an ambush by Shiite militia outside Baghdad. Casey died valiantly -- heroically serving "the men beside him."

Cindy Sheehan, of course, has every right to free speech, but Ms. Sheehan is also responsible for the exercise of that right. Her crusade is not about "grief," as her Angry Left cronies claim; it is about the arrogance and selfishness that uniformly characterize the Left's causes. Her fallen son deserves the gratitude of all Americans, yet Ms. Sheehan's actions merely minimize his noble sacrifice.

Despite Sheehan's disgracing of her son's sacrifice, the rest of his family issued the following statement: "[We] lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country and our President, silently, with prayer and respect." The statement was signed "sincerely" by "Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and numerous cousins."

Indeed, those closest to the President, and most objective observers, would agree with this assessment of his sense of obligation as Commander in Chief. "I've been with the President of the United States when he has met with the families of those brave young men and women who have sacrificed all," says Senator John McCain. "I have seen his compassion, I have seen his love, I have seen his concern. So any charge of insensitivity or uncaring on the part of this president is absolutely false. ... I'm sure he wouldn't like to hear me say this, but I saw him afterwards. He was very, very grieved."

Objectivity, however, has never been the guiding principle of Leftmedia "journalists." To wit, no headlines have featured or news leads have featured comments from the parents of Army Cpl. Forest Jostes, 22, who served with Casey Sheehan in the 1st Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment, 1st Cavalry. On 4 April 2004, Forest died beside Casey in the same battle with Jihadis.

Last week, Forest's parents, Von and Diane Ibbotson, had this to say about his death: "We were at a crossroads, but we decided from the day he died that we were going to honor him, his sacrifice. We support the President, and we have made a conscious effort to not make this political."

Of Ms. Sheehan's behavior, Forest's parents said, "We both lost sons in the same battle, but the similarities pretty much end there. Cindy Sheehan has a right to protest, wave signs, march or whatever, a right she wouldn't have had it not been for men like our sons. My son gave his life for the freedom we enjoy in this country; I hope that the Iraqi people have that someday. We feel sympathy for Mrs. Sheehan, but we're angry because she presumes to speak for so many. I resent the fact that she says she 'speaks for the millions' and is the face of the Gold Star families. That is not so."

President Bush echoed those sentiments on Monday, saying, "She doesn't represent the view of [families of those KIA] I have met with."

Cheers completely overwhelmed the jeers this week as President Bush addressed thousands of military families in Idaho. While there, the President introduced Pocatello resident Tammy Pruett, who now has four sons in Iraq, and whose husband and a fifth son served there last year. "Tammy says this -- and I want you to hear this: 'I know that if something happens to one of the boys, they would leave this world doing what they believe, what they think is right for our country.' America lives in freedom because of families like the Pruetts."

Of course, so do our nation's anti-war protesters. As was the case three decades ago, the revived anti-war movement is casting its long shadow over our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen. Nowhere is this more regrettably evident than at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, DC, where hundreds of Patriots are recovering from severe wounds suffered in Iraq.

This week, protesters marched outside the facility's entrance, chanting amid mock flag-draped caskets with signs reading "Maimed for Lies" and "Enlist here and die for Halliburton." They taunted veterans entering and leaving the facility with angry slogans like "George Bush kills American soldiers." Walter Reed has been a primary treatment facility for American Patriots of all ranks for nearly a century. It's the place where Generals Pershing, MacArthur and Eisenhower died. It certainly should not be defiled by such contemptible rabble.

Protest organizer Medea Benjamin, one of Ms. Sheehan's backers, has also backed communists in Vietnam and Nicaragua and recently said of her visit to Cuba, "It seemed like I died and went to heaven." (Perhaps she should return posthaste!) So, we've come full circle. As was the case decades ago, the so-called "anti-war" movement is really the manipulation of useful idiots like Cindy Sheehan in support of a much larger political agenda -- that inspired by V.I. Lenin.

If Sheehan and her lemmings were really interested in preventing senseless death, their attention is grossly misguided. In the two years since 19 March 2003, there have been approximately 1,450 Patriots killed in action defending our nation as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Consequently -- indeed, since 11 September 2001 -- our Armed Forces have kept the warfront with Jihadistan far away from our homeland. Perhaps Ms. Sheehan should become the spokesperson for the 14,500 men, women and children who died on American highways last year as a result of alcohol abuse.

[destruction]

[igloo]

case closed....yet again

[destruction]

case closed....yet again

Translation:

Support our troops....... Beat up war veterans....... GO BUSH.......

I praise and thank these two fine men for a job well done....... Congrautlations........

So, are you going to invite your new friends over for coffee?

Iggypoo, the #1 resident chickenhawk of CP land. Remember this? You posted this on another thread. Well, I thought I trash your propaganda whore's bullshit with something that OWNS what you posted there:

First I am going to display your moronic article from the world's worst law and history student, then below I have posted the rebuttal thrashing the vomit spewed from the cunt of your right wing "useful idiot".

Here you go yellowboy.... Cluck Cluck....

Why the 'Chickenhawk' argument is un-American: Part I

Ben Shapiro (archive)

August 17, 2005 | Print | Recommend to a friend

Who is qualified to speak on matters of national security? According to the American left, only pacifists, military members who have served in combat and direct relatives of those slain in combat or in acts of terrorism. The rest of us -- about 80 percent of voters -- must simply sit by silently. Our opinions do not matter. You want disenfranchisement? Talk to the political left, which seeks to exclude the vast majority of the American populace from the national debate about foreign policy.

The bulk of the left in this country refuses to argue about foreign policy rationally, without resorting to ad hominem attack. The favored ad hominem attack of the left these days is "chickenhawk." The argument goes something like this: If you believe in any of the wars America is currently fighting, you must join the military. If you do not, you must shut up. If, on the other hand, you believe that America should disengage from all foreign wars, you may feel free not to serve in the military.

This is the argument made by hate-America radicals like Michael Moore, who defines "chickenhawk" on his website thus: "A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person's youth." The "chickenhawk" argument was the implicit centerpiece of John Kerry's presidential campaign -- Kerry hyped his military service and denigrated George W. Bush's military service, all the while focusing on the fact that he, unlike President Bush, was anti-war. Kerry's campaign underling, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, made the argument explicit during April 2004: "They shriek like a hawk, but they have the backbone of the chicken," he said of the Bush Administration. "The lead chickenhawk against Sen. Kerry [is] the vice president of the United States, Vice President Cheney." Not coincidentally, Lautenberg utilized Moore's exact "chickenhawk" definition in making his point.

The "chickenhawk" argument is dishonest. It is dishonest because the principle of republicanism is based on freedom of choice about behavior (as long as that behavior is legal) as well as freedom of speech about political issues. We constantly vote on activities with which we may or may not be intimately involved. We vote on police policy, though few of us are policemen; we vote on welfare policy, though few of us either work in the welfare bureaucracy or have been on welfare; we vote on tax policy, even if some of us don't pay taxes. The list goes on and on. Representative democracy necessarily means that millions of us vote on issues with which we have had little practical experience. The "chickenhawk" argument -- which states that if you haven't served in the military, you can't have an opinion on foreign policy -- explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy.

The "chickenhawk" argument also explicitly rejects the Constitution itself. The Constitution provides that civilians control the military. The president of the United States is commander-in-chief, whether or not he has served in the military. Congress controls the purse strings and declares war, no matter whether any of its members have served in the military or not. For foreign policy doves to high-handedly declare that military service is a prerequisite to a hawkish foreign policy mindset is not only dangerous, but directly conflicts with the Constitution itself.

The "chickenhawk" argument proves only one point: The left is incapable of discussing foreign policy in a rational manner. They must resort to purely emotional, base personal attacks in order to forward their agenda. And so, unable or unwilling to counter the arguments of those like Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and President Bush, they label them all "chickenhawks." By the leftist logic, here are some other "chickenhawks": John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton.

American soldiers fight for the right of all Americans, regardless of race, class or past service, to speak out on foreign policy issues. If they fight for the right of pacifist anti-military fifth columnists like Michael Moore to denigrate their honor, they certainly fight for the right of civilian hawks to speak up in favor of the highest level of moral and material support for their heroism.

Chickenhawk in Whine Sauce

Young Ben Shapiro, fondly known to some as America’s Worst Law Student™, has had it, had it, just had it with being called a chickenhawk. So Ben whipped up a new column — “In Praise of Chickenhawkery: Part I†— to defend himself:

The favored ad hominem attack of the left these days is “chickenhawk.†The argument goes something like this: If you believe in any of the wars America is currently fighting, you must join the military. If you do not, you must shut up.

Of course, nobody is telling Ben to shut up — least of all people like me who devote a weblog to ridiculing what people like Ben say. We’re just calling Ben a hypocrite. It’s Ben who’s telling people who are calling him a chickenhawk to shut up:

The “chickenhawk†argument is dishonest. It is dishonest because the principle of republicanism is based on freedom of choice about behavior (as long as that behavior is legal). . . .

Um, unless of course we’re talking about legal homosexual behavior which Ben thinks is all icky:

The rise of the homosexual movement is a textbook example of societal amorality devolving into societal immorality. The rationale behind societal amorality is the myopic question: “How does my immoral behavior hurt you?†The answer is: It may not, in the short term. But when society sanctions your immoral behavior, that does hurt me.

Ben now pulls out what he thinks are his big guns, so to speak:

The “chickenhawk†argument also explicitly rejects the Constitution itself.

Go get ‘em, Tiger! Argue that calling you a hypocrite is unconstitutional!! (Now you know why we like to call Ben America’s Worst Law Student™.)

Ben, of course, saves his best argument for last:

By the leftist logic, here are some other “chickenhawksâ€: John Adams [and] Benjamin Franklin . . . .

At the time of the Revolutionary War, Adams and Franklin were, respectively 41 and 70, both a bit long in the tooth to be expected to enlist in the army. Ben, however, is 21. I don’t think its unfair to say that Ben may also be America’s Worst History Student.

*...And America's worst chickenhawk next to yourself, yellow boy....*

I don’t know about you, but I just can’t wait for “In Praise of Chickenhawkery, Pt. II.â€

-------------------------

PWN3D!!11!!!11!1!1111111111!!!!!!!!11111111111

R3515T4NC3 15 FUT1L3!1!!1111!!1111!!!!1!!!!!11111111

So, when are you going to sign up to......

1. Help the war effort with your contribution by helping in fulfilling the required quota recommended of your recruiter who desperately needs people like YOU to enlist since there is a shortage of enlistments, lose your yellowboy chickenhawk status and join your relatives and friends who are already there and...

2. Fight the same unjust and illegal war you happily support??

If you believe in any of the wars America is currently fighting, you must join the military. If you do not, you must shut up.

Yes Igloo, Join the fuck up or shut the fuck up! This is YOUR freedom of choice. One or the other! You made the bed, you must sleep in it!

Take this advice literally, yellowboy.

Ba bak, cluck cluck cluck ba BAK..........