Skip to main content

View Diary: Quotes from GOP About Bosnia War... (100 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Quote list old ... but timely ... (none)
    While I have seen these quotes multiple times over the years, must admit that they arrived via your diary at a good moment for me.  Sadly, part of my 'spam' is from freeperville.  Below is something from the material that was filtered into my Junk e-mail folder that came, evidently, from "".  (Note: this was sent unsolicited to me and did not have any copyright statement in the mailing to me, thus I've inserted the entire thing as there was no assertion of copyright.)

    If one reads through this (hold your nose), it is one of those amusing moments to find appropriate places for W, Tom DeLay, etc Rethug comments from the 1990s.  Reinforces the point that these people can't see -- and certainly can't acknowledge -- their hypocrisy when it is staring them in the face (as it is virtually every waking moment).

    Text The Left doesn't support the troops and should admit it
    Dennis Prager

    July 12, 2005  

    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."

     One example is the claim made by Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and almost all other Democrats and liberals that the war in Iraq is "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." How does one support troops that are fighting a wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time? A few leftist writers have been honest enough to say, "Nothing personal, guys, but I sure don't support you." But the vast majority of the Left and all Democratic politicians have not been honest on this matter.

     A second example is the oft-repeated line, found on liberal bumper stickers, "War is not the answer." Aside from the idiocy of this claim -- war has solved slavery, ended the Holocaust, destroyed Japanese Fascism, preserved half the Korean peninsula from near-genocide, and saved Israel from extinction, among other noble achievements -- the claim offers no support to those who do engage in war.

     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.

     A third example is the Left's opposition to military recruitment on most of the elite and many other college campuses. 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. Yet, the Left claims to "support the troops."

     Many on the Left express far more contempt than support for the troops.

     A Democratic senator compares our interrogators to the Nazis and Communist torturers; the head of Amnesty International in America defends likening Guantanamo Bay to the Gulag; and liberals routinely speak of troops as coming from the lowest socio-economic rungs of society (maybe that's one reason they oppose recruiters on campuses, lest the best educated actually join the military). But, hey, the Left supports the troops.

     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.

     Many on the Left angrily accuse the Right of disparaging their patriotism. That charge, too, is false. I have never heard a mainstream conservative impugn the patriotism of liberals. But as regards their attitude toward our troops, the patriotism of those on the Left is not the issue. The issue is their honesty.

    •  it is nicely written (none)
      But I don't believe much of it especially the part where the author claims "I have never heard a mainstream conservative impugn the patriotism of liberals.".  I guess it could be true if you narrowly define 'mainstream conservative'.
      •  in all respect... (none)
        Not nicely written at all, in that it's a thoroughly dishonest argument.  

        He speaks English.  That's all I'll grant Prager.

        •  Well stated, (none)
          here is a very good example of how those who fly the Elephant above the Stars and Stripes are blind to their hypocrisy when they see it in the mirror in the morning.

          It is "a thoroughly dishonest argument."  Love your summation that "He speaks English.  That's all I'll grant Prager."

          Sent the quotes to the Rethug who sent me the article.  His response was "Without detail as to the particular circumstances for every quote this is meaningless propaganda that you've sent me."  Again, staring at their hypocrisy in the mirror and, rather than the hypocrisy, they see some idealized virtue.

    •  Prager = Wanker (none)
      Wanker = Prager.

      Just another GOP cult member.  

      Another moral relativist with only one value:  POWER.

      •  We're now in Muskogee, OK... (none)
        interviewing people about politics.

        Tomorrow we're interviewing a woman who runs a non-profit that drives vets to and from the VA hospital. She's having an auction soon because she can barely afford to pay for gas! Her non-profit drives three hours to pick up one vet three times a week so he can go to physical therapy. We're also interviewing a few vets who say the VA healthcare system is horrible. Meantime, energy companies score $14.5 billion in tax breaks.

    •  Because going to war is exactly like baseball! (none)
      I reject first his definition of what "supporting the troops" means.  Supporting the troops goes beyond whether they win or lose.  To us, supporting the troops means that we actually care about them as people. To us, supporting the troops means that we want them never to be put in harm's way for lies.  Supporting the troops means that we want as many of them as possible to come home safe and sound.  Supporting the troops means that we want, if their lives must be lost, that they be lost for the reason that they are there for: to protect our nation and our people from a real and imminent threat.

      Well, they were put in the way of harm for lies, which means that they are all in the way of harm for no good reason.  And yes, because we think of the troops as people, with lives and families, rather than expendable pawns in a game of global chicken, we oppose this war.

      Prager is equating the war policy with the actual people who comprise the troops.  That is whacko looney toons false.  He also says that opposing the war means that none of us want it to be won, now that we're stuck there.  That is also false.  Most liberal people I know hope that since we're there, that some good comes out of it.  We're just not too sanguine that such a thing will be possible given the realities of the situation.

      Prager also makes the claim that the people who comprise the troops all want to be there, that they all "wish to fight."  This is manifestly untrue.  If it was true that they all were hyped to the eyeballs with battle ardor and desire to fight, then why is the military having to force thousands of them to stay against their will through stop-loss measures?  Why are the armed forces so behind in their recruitment goals?

      Then Prager sets up the straw man of university campuses rejecting recruiting stations and says it's because the "rich elites" want poor people to go to war instead of them.  (And with the demonstrated history of both his president and his vice president, I'm kind of dumbfounded that he would even go there, but at this point, these people's shamelessness is so far from rare that it really just gives rise to a feeling of weary contempt rather than hot rage in my chest.)  

      The reason many campuses refuse to allow recruiting stations on their campuses is because the military's institutionalized prejudice against gay people violates many universities' policies forbidding such prejudice.

      Then he trots out this whopper: "I have never heard a mainstream conservative impugn the patriotism of liberals."

      The dishonesty of that last statement is so absurd that I will let it stand on its own, without comment.  I think if anyone needs bald proof of Prager's double-speaking mendacity, no clearer proof can possibly be offered.

      Shorter Rumblelizard: Dennis Prager.  What a fucking jerk.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site