Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?

mcg wrote : " Doesn't say much about Gore or Kerry, does it? He kicked both their a$$es...".

so mencken's prophecy has been fullfilled, has it ? hbg

Lash only agrees with what Lash writes.

"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." (Dennis Prager)

Hmmm... Does the wacko Ann Coulter qualify as a "Mainstream Conservative"? From her book "Treason": "Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason. You could be talking about Scrabble and they would instantly leap to the anti-American position. Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy." I'd say that pretty much questions the patriotism of those on the left.

Glad you are here, enjoyed your take on things. GB

But then, that's the point isn't it....

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

That has got to be one of the most over used and feeble excuses that i've seen in a month of Sundays . . . we are attacked on September 11th, and appropriately invade Afghanistan. Then the idiot in the White House gets suckered into supporting the PNAC agenda and invades Iraq. So now, if you don't support the idiocy of an incompetent administration screwing up every aspect of managing a war we had no business launching, you are not patriotic.

It is the height of conservative stupidity to continue to assert that invading Iraq was doing something about September 11th. I haven't the least doubt that conservative idiots will continue to assert that lie, and grow indignant when challenged on it.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Those who do not support the war in Iraq do not, in my opinion, support our troops there. This has nothing to do with morals save for the fact that Lefties who oppose the mission but argue that they support the troops are dishonest.

Another statement from authority, offered without a supporting rationale. You have never answered the contention that it is possible to support the troops by the very act of criticizing the lame-brained mission and incompetent execution of those responsible for sending them in harm's way.

Ah, but those states did no humiliate the Shrub's pappy, and we don't have video of Rummy shaking hands with a big sh*t-eatin' grin with the dictatorial leaders of those states. So many bodies to get buried in a hurry, so many energy industry cronies to pay off, so much of the PNAC agenda left unacheived. Where's a poor all hat and no cattle boy to begin?

This is quite bizarre, if you don't mind me saying so. If you do, sorry, I'm going to say it anyway.

What does it all mean? For mine it has a bit of the "support your local law enforcement" about it. That too is a meaningless propaganda statement. I always feel like asking "what if I don't?" when I see that. Is something bad going to happen to me?

No, nothing bad will happen to you. Your local law enforcement will continue to do their jobs. Gratitude and grace are never mandatory.

This supporting the troops thing is babble. No doubt it has its origins in the Vietnam War and the disgraceful way in which some returning servicepeople were treated. But here the idea that the left doesn't support the troops is being floated as a form of treason.

By whom? Certainly not the author of the originally cited article.

What a load of cobblers. That assumes that the left will pick and choose whether or not to "support the troops" (again whatever that means) depending on whether or not they support the particular campaign.

Yes, that is what it assumes, just as it will pick and choose what military campaign to support based on the political party of the commander in chief. To be fair, the Right is capable of this sort of hypocrisy as well. Consider Bosnia, Kosova, Somalia, and Haiti for both conjectures.

Let's assume that the left says that the invasion of Afghanistan was a good thing. So the left says yep, good, go after the bastards who perpetrated 9/11. Is there an issue of "supporting the troops" here? Does it come up at all?

This is precisely what many of us are saying. To the extent the Left supported the invasion of Afghanistan (an assumption I am not prepared to accept) there was no issue of it supporting the troops.

Now we know the left is opposed to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. So they attack the administration for what they consider is a strategic mistake. Is there an issue of "not supporting the troops" here?

Yes, and your invocation of the Afghanistan experience doesn't offer some sort of undeniable rebuttal.

In the Afghanistan theatre the left says, well the troops have to go in, they will be put in harm's way but such is the nature of their duty. The military after all is a policy tool of government.

In the Iraq theatre the left says, the government should have never sent the troops in (forget the myriad excuses for them going there in the first place, we'll now the truth in a few years). The left didn't want the troops put in harm's way in Iraq. How can that be interpreted as "not supporting the troops"?

How it can be interpreted as such has been articulated.

The left's argument is with the government, not with those who have to do the killing and dying.

Yes, that's true. The Left is not about to make that mistake again. Please explain, though, how someone who witnessed the Left argue with those who had to do the killing and dying in Vietnam should now accept that the Left's declaration of support for the troops in Iraq is unquestionable.

This is a specious, transparent attempt at propaganda which any clear-thinking person can identify immediately.

Propoganda? How so?

As for claims about what "clear thinking" people will or will not identify, we can argue all day on that, and, in fact, that is what we tend to argue about on A2K. Declaring "clear thinking" people believe what you believe is not much of an argument.

Finn, sorry you felt slighted because I didn't scroll back to learn which person made certain claims. I don't know what you do or did for a living, but I was an Intel Analyst for DOD for 32 years. I still do consulting. Perhaps your notion of "wrongheaded" is rooted in the propaganda passed out like candy by this administration. Good for you, at least you are reading something. Even though at core you are reading material from liars who are happy you have temporarily cut off blood flow to your head by wrapping the flag too tightly around yourself. You can light up all the sparklers you want, but it will not make you a better American.

And your prior occupation is relevant because? Intel Analysts are superior to the rest of us in their thought processes? Intel Analysts are unquestionable, by virtue of their occupation alone, in their good sense and righteousness? What my occupation may be is immaterial to this, but not all, topics, and yet I have had enough experience with consultants to not accept that they necessarily are capable of original and accurate thought.

Face it, you believe what Bush says and have ignored all the evidence that followed.

Well I guess I better face it since an Intel Analyst as insisted that I do.

Now, for the last time, (promises, promises) do not try to tell me I don't want our troops to be successful, I was in the business too long to ever want America to fail even though lead by a messianic dry drunk trying to even the score with Saddam. In my businesss, it doesn't matter how we got there, it is only important to provide the troops on the ground with the most specific Intel we can provide.

And why do we do this?????? because we want them to be safe and we want them to win, and to do otherwise would violate the oath we take at the beginning of our employment. We are not allowed to belong to a labor union, our lives are scrutinized periodically to make sure we are still on board with the values of this country, and occassionally we have to pass polygraphs to assure the Intelligence Community we are not involved in any unsavory movement.

Amidst all of this self-congratulatory blather is substantiation of my position. If you work towards and hope for the success of the troops, you are supporting the mission and supporting the troops. Surely you can appreciate that it is not necessary to believe in the mission to support it, and that if you, as an Intel Analyst decided that the mission was wrongheaded it wouldn't prevent you from supporting it...and the troops.

All of this suits me just fine. I believe it is necessary to keep the Intelligence Community strong. Your notion of wrongheaded is laughable. Just admit you think war and mayhem are great and leave the conclusions to the historians.

OK. I think war and mayhem are great.

In the meantime, the soldiers, their families, the Defense Department will do everything in their power to achieve a successful outcome. And they will continue to do their jobs, and actually provide support to the troops (not just smack a magnetic ribbon on their SUV's and concoct opinions you would LIKE to believe regarding that group you keep calling the "left")

You know, if I listen closely, I think I can hear the strains of a Sousa march.

You appear to be a person who is not satisfied with the threat we already face, or maybe you don't understand it. It's really not your fault, you are not being given the information you need in order to be properly fearful. And what the hell, why blame irrational extremists for the threat to this county, let's nit-pick what others have said and play "pick the traitor".

Again the classic dodge. Where and when did I accuse anyone of being a traitor. If fact, I think I was very clear that I don't believe that this is, at all, an issue of treason.

If I met you in the halls at work, maybe then we can compare information and decide who is wrongheaded.

I've already decided, but I wouldn't mind the opportunity to be proven wrong.

This is quite bizarre, if you don't mind me saying so. If you do, sorry, I'm going to say it anyway.

What does it all mean? For mine it has a bit of the "support your local law enforcement" about it. That too is a meaningless propaganda statement. I always feel like asking "what if I don't?" when I see that. Is something bad going to happen to me?

Quote:

Propaganda: The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

It is propaganda, but of a particularly nasty sort.

One could propagandize for charity in community affairs or for cooperative effort in international affairs or for transparency in government. Given an organized effort to propagate agreement with such a cause or doctrine would match the definition above.

What makes this doctrine in question ("support the troops or be a traitor to them and to America") so despicable is its authoritarian and totalitarian coloration, and more particularly so as it seeks to quell dissent on militarism.

Denouncing a position not taken by your opposition --Is that a debate tactic taught in Canadian schools? It comes close to begging the question. Perhaps a true debater can provide us with the name for this technique.