The left's alternate universe
Joe Conason writes in the New York Observer about the Democrats sense of victimhood and unknowingly at the same time proves Ann Coulter's point about the Democrats use of props that are supposed to be immune from criticism.
This is from his lead, "... Even though they avoided military service, they will denigrate the records of decorated veterans like John Kerry and Jack Murtha. They will even accuse the war’s critics of providing “aid and comfort” to the enemy, which is the legal definition of treason."
This combines the left's chickenhawk argument with their unassailable prop arguement. I don't know whether Conason is a veteran which would give him credentials to criticize the war I guess. If not he should just shut up by his own standards. And while he is showing concern about the denigrating of decorated veterans, I think he is being a disengenious phony on that subject. Take for example Kerry who implied that all Vietnam vets were war criminals who particpated in Genghis Kahn type destruction of innocent South Vietnamese. Or how about Murtha who has accused Marines of being cold blooded killers. If Conason has been critical of Kerry and Murtha's denigration of veterans and active troops I have not seen it.
In terms of defining treason, it is the conduct of critics like the NY Times not their criticism that fits the definition of treason. It is the illegal disclosure of classified information that clearly gives aid to the enemy to help him avoid our attempts to stop his next attacks. The other stuff just shows their ignorance of warfare and their bad policy positions.
Later he throws in another Dem canard. "...The unfortunate reality is that President Bush has no 'plan for victory.'..." Democrats have been telling themselves this a lot lately at the same time we have been winning. As in most military operations the planning for victory is the responsibility of the military that has to fight for it. Democrats want to take that responsibility away from the military and have a politically ordered a retreat. When they has the President has no plan, what they are really saying is that they do not like the military's plan for victory in Irag. There they go again denigrating decorated servicemen.
He also accuses the Bush administration of opposing a broad amnesty in Iraq, however, the most vociferous opposition to a broad amnesty proposal has been from anti war Democrats who want a forced retreat.
His factual assertions come from the anti war left's alternate universe and can be Fisked at some other time.
This is from his lead, "... Even though they avoided military service, they will denigrate the records of decorated veterans like John Kerry and Jack Murtha. They will even accuse the war’s critics of providing “aid and comfort” to the enemy, which is the legal definition of treason."
This combines the left's chickenhawk argument with their unassailable prop arguement. I don't know whether Conason is a veteran which would give him credentials to criticize the war I guess. If not he should just shut up by his own standards. And while he is showing concern about the denigrating of decorated veterans, I think he is being a disengenious phony on that subject. Take for example Kerry who implied that all Vietnam vets were war criminals who particpated in Genghis Kahn type destruction of innocent South Vietnamese. Or how about Murtha who has accused Marines of being cold blooded killers. If Conason has been critical of Kerry and Murtha's denigration of veterans and active troops I have not seen it.
In terms of defining treason, it is the conduct of critics like the NY Times not their criticism that fits the definition of treason. It is the illegal disclosure of classified information that clearly gives aid to the enemy to help him avoid our attempts to stop his next attacks. The other stuff just shows their ignorance of warfare and their bad policy positions.
Later he throws in another Dem canard. "...The unfortunate reality is that President Bush has no 'plan for victory.'..." Democrats have been telling themselves this a lot lately at the same time we have been winning. As in most military operations the planning for victory is the responsibility of the military that has to fight for it. Democrats want to take that responsibility away from the military and have a politically ordered a retreat. When they has the President has no plan, what they are really saying is that they do not like the military's plan for victory in Irag. There they go again denigrating decorated servicemen.
He also accuses the Bush administration of opposing a broad amnesty in Iraq, however, the most vociferous opposition to a broad amnesty proposal has been from anti war Democrats who want a forced retreat.
His factual assertions come from the anti war left's alternate universe and can be Fisked at some other time.
Comments
Post a Comment