don't let 'em shush you. if they think this war's so great and they have four functioning limbs, they should be fighting it. the end.

As the most vocal supporter of the war (as the "least worst option" in this case) around these parts, I would like to clarify that I have never called those who oppose the war traitors, and cowards only in the context of the form of arguments they choose to take, not in their opposition to the war.

To make it abundantly clear, I believe that those who oppose the war are wrong, misguided, short-sighted, allowing their dislike of the current administration to outweigh their concern over the nation's self interest, foolish, ignorant, stupid, or any combination of the above -- but I recognize their sincerity.

I believe that the term "traitor" is one of the "big guns" of language, and should be used only very carefully. The Constitution gives a clear definition of treason -- "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" -- and I believe that has to be an overt act, not mere speech. To call such people "traitors" for giving voice to their sincere beliefs is to dilute the meaning of treason, and is giving cover to those who do plot such acts.

To give an example, I'd like to see Michael Moore (who compared the terrorists in Iraq to the Minutemen of the American Revolution, and said the 9/11 terrorists should have hit Texas, because New York didn't vote for Bush) ought to be doomed to fade into long-overdue obscurity and be swept into history's dustbin, but I was gravely disappointed when John Walker Lindh didn't get the needle.

J.

Boiled down to the essence, David. Very well done. I am especially amazed at the hypocrisy...I liked what I read in one post you did when you said something like, "The Bush twins are healthy. If George Bush believes in the war so strongly, why don't they go to put democracy on the march in Iraq?"

Frank, that's EXACTLY my point. I spelled out why I won't use the terms "coward" and "traitor," and I stand by them, but you do tempt me to renounce it when you toss around "hypocrisy." Why can't you make the argument about the issues, and not the people? Have you no faith in your own position, that you need to go after the people who disagree with you?

J.

"To make it abundantly clear, I believe that those who oppose the war are wrong, misguided, short-sighted, allowing their dislike of the current administration to outweigh their concern over the nation's self interest, foolish, ignorant, stupid, or any combination of the above -- but I recognize their sincerity."

To make it abundantly clear, I believe that those who oppose support the war are wrong, misguided, short-sighted, allowing their dislike blind allegiance to the current administration to outweigh their concern over the nation's self interest, foolish, ignorant, stupid, or any combination of the above -- but I recognize their sincerity And I dont think many of them are sincere at all. I think they realize at this point that they have elected an idiot and gotten in a war that is proving dissasterous. Rather than admit their error, like their President, they insist on trudging along.

Well my strike out did not work, but you get the idea.

J, you're assuming I read your comment and was remarking about it. I hadn't and I didn't. Please feel free to continue your monologue. No one is out to get you.

Couldn't leave well enough alone, could you? Had to toss in the "I dont think many of them are sincere at all."

Gee, that sounds almost like a mirror of what Karl Rove said. But he had two advantages over you -- one, he had concrete examples to point to; and two, those examples are from those the liberals have freely chosen as their leaders.

Howard Dean: Said he wasn't certain Bin Laden was behind 9/11, wanted to wait until after he had been caught, tried, and convicted, then he'd judge. Also said that Tom Delay deserves to be behind bars for offenses that have YET to be considered suitable to bring before a grand jury. Recently elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Nancy Pelosi: Announced that "since the war in Afghanistan is over, the war on terror is over." Recently demonstrated her utter incomprehension over the Supreme Court ruling on the Kelo case, mistaking their permission for states to take private property for private development as a mandate to do so and fought moves to ban federal funding for such takings. Current Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, elected leader of the Democrats in the Lower House of Congress.

Michael Moore: After 9/11, said the terrorist should not have struck New York, but Texas, because New Yorkers didn't vote for Bush. Compared the terrorists in Iraq with Colonial Minutemen. Given a place of honor next to President Carter at the Democratic National Convention. Democrats flocked to see his lie-filled film "Fahrenheit 9/11," with then-DNC chair Terry McAuliffe attending the premiere and praising it.

Harry Reid, Minority Leader of the United States Senate: In an effort to encourage more civil discourse at the highest levels of government, called the President of the United States "a loser and a liar," then offered to retract the "loser" part.

Moveon.Org: In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, assembled a petition calling for the attack to be answered by "international judicial institutions and international human rights law ," not by force of arms. (Translation: let the UN settle the disagreement, not attack Afghanistan.) Later honored with a substantial role in the 2004 Democratic campaign, and still a major player in Democratic politics.

I'm not questioning YOUR sincerity, David. But it seems like an awful lot of those on your side are far more interested in bashing Bush and defeating the Republicans at any cost -- even if that is our own national interests or national security.

There's a meme among right-wing web sites about BDS -- "Bush Derangement Syndrome." It describes people who are driven stark raving bonkers at the mere thought of George W. Bush that all reason deserts them and they are left ranting and raving about Chimpy McBusHitler, who is one-half psychopathic evil genius out to destroy the world, one-half retarded imbecile too stupid to tie his own shoes, one-half cowboy looking for a showdown with imaginary bad guys, and one-half arrogant plutocrat out to steal every penny from everyone in the world and divvy it up among all his corporate masters.

(Yes, I know it adds up to more than one. For him to do all these things, he'd HAVE to be more than one person. And I didn't even touch on the religious issue.)

No, David, I'm not questioning your sincerity. But it seems like a lot of those who agree with you are pretty divorced from reality -- and that must've been a hell of a bitter divorce, with no visitation or anything.

J.

David, as Frank said ... VERY WELL DONE. It also seems like you have really hit a nerve in Jay Tea. :)

Thanks Rogue and Frank. As for Jay, I dont know. But I still have not seen him address the issue of Body Armor for the Troops.

I also have a little test for Jay. Do a search on Wizbang, tell me how many times the words moonbat, and traitor come up.

I will do a search and tell you how many times the word Wingnut come up. Lets see who practices more insulting behavior of the other side? And let me know your thoughts on why conservatives are not in an uproar over the fact that parents are still having to buy Body armor two years after the war started.

I must be some kind of a masochist, but I actually did search Wizbang:
Mention of "moonbat" by me in the first 150 returns:
1) http://wizbangblog.com/archives/003277.php
"David Anderson is a loony leftist moonbat who, despite those obvious character flaws, is a decent, honest, likable, honorable guy."

Mention of "traitor" by me in the first 100 returns:
1) http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004836.php
"So, once we get everything hammered out, we can set aside this "traitor to your race" stuff and get people to behave exactly as they're supposed to, with everyone's politics clearly categorized by their race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, or whatever else criteria people want to draw up." (Satirical piece)
2)http://wizbangblog.com/archives/002703.php
"Traitor! Blasphemer! Turncoat! Infidel!
(to Kevin) Master, may I burn the heretic for you?)"
Comment on one of Paul's pieces where he disagreed with Kevin.
3)http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004089.php
"Finally, Red Sox fans would have the final chance to face the "traitor" Roger Clemens and defeat him and his team."
4) http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004213.php
"But when one's entire premise for supporting a candidate revolves around attacking the other sides' motivations (i.e. traitor, America hater) politics has devolved to a dangerous, dangerous point."

As for the body armor... I've given that a lot of thought, too. My conclusion: it has its pluses and minuses, and the arguments I put forth and heard back when I was discussing armor on Humvees is pretty transferable to armor on people: in general, you're better off attempting to prevent or avoid the attack than accepting it, but I'll defer the actual decision to those better qualified and more directly involved than I to make it.

I think I've matched every one of your challenges, David. You may not like my answers, but I've given them.

J.

You did not answer my question on body armor. I asked,
"And let me know your thoughts on why conservatives are not in an uproar over the fact that parents are still having to buy Body armor two years after the war started."

I also asked how many times those words had been used on your blog, not how many times you have used them. Your right, I dont like your answers, but not for the reason you assume.

So, you hold me responsible for everything on Wizbang, other posters and commenters as well? I don't even OWN the site. I accept responsibility for everything I say -- no more, no less.

And if you'd even take a STAB at answering my questions, I'd be more impressed.

Here's one: you were outraged at Karl Rove's speech to the Conservative Party convention in New York. Yet every single one of his allegations are thoroughly documented, and can be attributed to leading members in the liberal community and the Democratic Party. If what Rove said was true, what exactly was so outrageous about it? And if what he said was untrue, which statements were untrue?

Here's another. So far the actual evidence of Rove being the source of the Plame leak is minimal and weak. Further, he has signed a statement releasing any reporter he has spoken with from any pledge of confidentiality. He has denied it under penalty of perjury. Why is he still considered the "prime suspect" by so many on the left? Why hasn't anyone simply asked Novak who his source was, especially in light of Rove's signed release? Could it be because Rove is incredibly effective at his job as a political mastermind, and his opponents would stoop at nothing to discredit him and get him out of the Bush administration?

(Damn, I gotta stop defending Karl Rove. I don't really care that much about him. But if you can judge a man by the quality of his enemies, and just how whacko he drives them, he must be amazing.)

Here's a third, but if you want to reject this one as too personal, I'll accept that. You have said that you think that those who support the war should either sign up to fight or take some other active role in doing so. Meanwhile, you currently live outside the United States and have said that you might never return to the US. As an extension of your own position, could it be argued that you have "voted with your feet" and forfeited any right to speak about American policy, since you make it clear that you have no real investment (by your own standards) in the country's future?

And here's a fourth: presume I have a magic wand. I wave that wand, and suddenly you are in the Oval Office. You are the Commander in Chief right now. You have made it abundantly clear that you do not favor the current policies. What would you do about the current situation in Iraq to improve the situation? And the limitation is that you must take the situation as it stands today, not go back and re-do any previous actions.

Answer as many or as few as you like -- it's your site, after all.

J.

I did not say I expected you to answer for what others have written on Wizbang, I am just making the point that the blog you write for uses those terms every day.
You still avoided the issue of the armor, and just changed the subject to Rove.
And as for the things you pose in questions. I will answer them tomorrow. I am trying to be no partisan today in my posts.

Jay,

Stop with the disingenuous bull! I've seen many on the Right having to go as far as Cafe Press to find offensive T-shirts calling Bush 'Hitler', to the paint the ENTIRE Left as extremists! Therefore, we have the right to group your ass with bile spewed by Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, James Dobson, and any of your minions found in Wizbang's comment threads!

You fill comment posts objecting over incendiary rhetoric by Dems, because you can no longer explain or defend against the arguments made by Lefties like David detailing the failures of this government.

Go ahead Jay, explain how the combined quotes of Pelosi, Dean, Reid and Moore have cost us more than the incompetence of one Donald Rumsfeld?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Subscribe to this comment thread.

Comments: