As to the “damn about whether 25 million Iraqis live in a democracy or al qaeda hell-hole”, that’s a lie: the USA cared so little about individual Iraqis that they never bothered to count how many they killed.

DSW

THEY SURE HAVE A FUNNY WAY OF EXPRESSING IT.

As noted – “leading Democrats didn’t just snuggle up to Moore, they even entertained his nuttiest ideas.” Leftwing antiwar groups and people (including Cindy Sheehan) embrace Lynn Stewart, terrorist-enabler (just do a google).
False, inflammatory statements, like Dick Durbin (“GIMTO is like Gulag”) or Ted Kennedy (“torture chambers opened under new management”)spout on the Senate floor, or Howard Dean spouts on a regular basis, make it clear they think “enemy” is more associated with the administration than the Jihadist terrorists.

Such rhetoric excesses squarely aimed to undermine the administration, but leaving the military and our war effort as collateral damage, do deserve this kind of retort:

“A house divided against itself cannot stand. A nation where the political opposition stands against our foreign policy, and even secretly (and not so secretly) hopes for its failure, cannot reform a region as recalcitrant as the Middle East.”

The examples show only that some commentators aren’t taking the double-standards and hypocrisy of the left anymore. They can’t be like the leftist marchers who had the inflammatory
“We support the troops, when they shoot their officers” – and expect not be held responsible for it. They are employing a level of rhetoric COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE to the challenge of the issue.

If you REALLY want the US to succeed in Iraq, SHOW IT … go ahead and actually lift a pinkie finger to help out, rhetorically or otherwise. When a fellow Leftist lies about it being all about oil – refute it – don’t wallow in the lie because deep in your heart you want the President to be politically wounded more than you care about Iraq.

State the truth: That our side in the war in Iraq is the good side, that our actions in Iraq liberated it from a terrible dictators, that the enemy is the bad side, and it would be a good thing if our side succeeds in helping make Iraq a democracy and the terrorists are crushed and defeated. And that we need the country to be united in order to win in that effort.

If you can’t do that, then you’ve proven the conservative critics right.

It’s been a dog’s age since I heard any statement remotely like that from the Left. (And Chris Hitchens doesn’t count, but read his recent column and go ahead – place him in your ‘hall of shame’ for speaking the truth about the “anti-war” hypocrites who don’t give a damn about whether 25 million Iraqis live in a democracy or al qaeda hell-hole.)

JAMES TARANTO:

The whole [Cindy Sheehan] kerfuffle was, however, informative in some ways. For one, it reveals that very few people on the antiwar left have any compunction at all about making common cause with someone who espouses virulent anti-American and anti-Semitic views. For another, it showed something we’ve long suspected: that some on the left—and not just the America-hating fringe—want America to lose this war.

I wish this weren’t true, but I think it is

The anti-war left was right about the incompetence of the Bush administration to do anything in Iraq – and as we all know, the rationale for why had to go/had to stay kept changing.

Because I love my country, I feel I have no choice but to oppose Bush. Just because some on the right (some who have posted here in the comments as well as those quoted in the post) can’t understand or comprehend that my opposition to the utterly incompetent and deceitful Bush administration in no way translates as support for America’s enemies doesn’t make it less true. The Bush administration should be opposed. Our enemies should be opposed. I don’t think we should hunt down and capture the Bush administration, I just think they should be retired from public life and carry the shame of their failures around for the rest of their natural lives.

America’s enemies should be hunted down, captured and brought to justice. Bombing Iraqi civilians doesn’t make us any safer.

“You can support the troops but not the president.”—Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.”—Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”—Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”—Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

My personal favorite, given the present “discussion”:

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”—Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

All of the above in reaction to Clinton’s commitment of US troops to Bosnia. I don’t remember any of the above speakers being referred to by fellow right-wingers as being ON THE OTHER SIDE, but maybe functional will let me know if I’m wrong.

Even more here.

“why wouldn’t you be DAMN PROUD to be on “the other side”

Because there aren’t just two sides? Because the temporary control of the American government/military by a handful of opportunists isn’t synonymous with the will of the American people? Especially when that will is polluted with lies, so that what decent Americans want is being channelled into things they wouldn’t want if they knew the truth of what was happening?
It isn’t a football game, and even if it was there’s always more going on than the teams on the field. Those men in the skyboxes for instance, the owners, who come out ahead no matter who wins the game.

perhaps the way to understand this phenomenom is not in terms of the fascistic tendencies of reynolds & co., although these tendencies do exist [and probably are playing a minor part]. it seems to me these comments are motivated more by a belief that figuratively violent rhetoric is just as important to the war effort as soldiers are. somewhat counter-intuitively [in that he had actually been a soldier in spain], this is the lesson these commentators have taken from george “pacifism is objectively pro-fascist” orwell.

also, in australian parlance, “rooting” means “having sex”.

By and large, I find that people oppose the war because it hurts the country that we live in. America is no safer from terrorism—probably less so, now that terrorists have such a superb proving ground against America’s military might. Our credibility abroad is severely damaged, weakening any case we could make in future about acting in our own defense. And I think people tend to have a gut reaction to being lied to.

But, again, “America” did not lie to us, just the current batch of incompetent crooks and liars. Perhaps we want them out so that we can try to return America to something resembling its original noble ideals?

There is nothing more American than dissent. We have elections so we can heave out the bums in charge (theoretically, anyway). We have a Bill of Rights so we can speak out against them without fear of reprisal. The instant you try to equate the President with the ideal of America, you set yourself down a narrow, twisty road that leads to totalitarianism.

That, above all, is what we oppose.