August 31, 2004

Why do they hate America ?

Posted by John Quiggin

What kind of limpwristed surrender monkey would deride one of his own country’s most important military honours as being a bogus scheme cooked up for political purposes? Morton Blackwell, Republican of Virginia (and dozens of other delegates to the RNC). (hat tip, commenter Peter Murphy)

Personally, I blame Kieran. He was obviously the one who gave them the idea.

Update Just looking around, I haven’t found anyone on the Republican side of the aisle who is at all upset by this. The fact that it might not play well politically has obviously sunk in with the convention organisers, who’ve tried to call a halt, but there’s no-one denouncing this guy in the way that, say, Ted Rall copped it from lots of people on the left, including CT. Perhaps commenters would like to point me to those I’ve missed. (Please don’t bother with arguments that Rall is worse than Morton. I agree that he is. OTOH, Rall is a cartoonist and Morton, along with dozens of likeminded people, is a senior figure in a major political party).

Posted on August 31, 2004 11:24 AM UTC
Comments

Timothy, has this made your jaw hit the floor in amazement? 24 hours later, they’ve broken through the barrier again.

Posted by Barry · August 31, 2004 11:59 AM

Can’t keep a good chicken hawk down.

Posted by David Tiley · August 31, 2004 12:25 PM

How does CNN get away with saying that Blackwell runs a “nonpartisan” foundation?

Posted by scot · August 31, 2004 01:09 PM

To be a patriot you have to think that everyone who received a medal deserved it? Including Frank Burns?

Posted by Nat Whilk · August 31, 2004 02:01 PM

Well, if CNN had not referred to Blackwell’s foundation as being “non-partisan” it would of been another example of the biased liberal media in the US.

Posted by Immanuel Rant · August 31, 2004 02:07 PM

“To be a patriot you have to think that everyone who received a medal deserved it? Including Frank Burns?”

Posted by Nat Whilk

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! You lose!

But thanks for playing.

Posted by Barry · August 31, 2004 02:42 PM

Nat, a quick googling gave us the Frank Burns episode as Season 1, Episode 17. We learn that Frank Burns applies for his Purple Heart when he throws out his back. Once. I vaguely remember Hawkeye stealing it to give to someone more deserving. Sorry, I thought we were talking about John “shrapnel in my body” Kerry. Especially as he got it three times.

To quote Robert Mason (author of “Chickenhawk”): “No one likes being the fool. Especially if he risks his life being one.” And you don’t make fools of soldiers on a televised national conference - it just isn’t done. Of course, Blackwell has the option of visiting the countless veteran hospitals in the US, and explaining his stunt was only directed at Kerry. I’m sure they’ll appreciate it.

Posted by Peter Murphy · August 31, 2004 03:56 PM

Peter:

You’re neglecting the time Frank got a shell fragment in his eye.

As for making fools of soldiers on TV, isn’t that what Kerry supporters like to see when the soldiers in question are Swift Vets like John O’Neill?

Posted by Nat Whilk · August 31, 2004 04:23 PM

Nat, we make fun of Swift Boat Vets qua liars, not qua veterans. (Swearing false witness violates a commandment, doesn’t it?) GOP clowns are making fun of Kerry qua veteran who was awarded a Purple Heart for being wounded in combat. Not seriously, perhaps, but that’s not what Purple Hearts are for.

But you already understood that, didn’t you?

Posted by Matt Weiner · August 31, 2004 05:05 PM

“To be a patriot you have to think that everyone who received a medal deserved it? Including Frank Burns?”

Nat, if you can’t tell the difference between TV and real life, then yep Bush’s yer boy.

Posted by Nabakov · August 31, 2004 05:07 PM

Matt Weiner wrote: “Nat, we make fun of Swift Boat Vets qua liars, not qua veterans.”

And the Swift Boat Vets criticize Kerry, not because he was a veteran, but because (they maintain that) he was a liar, nicht wahr?

GOP clowns are making fun of Kerry qua veteran who was awarded a Purple Heart for being wounded in combat.

More precisely, GOP clowns are making fun of Kerry as a veteran whose status as a war hero is—they claim—overblown.

Posted by Nat Whilk · August 31, 2004 05:18 PM

Perhaps someone would like to distribute small novelty stumps and wheelchairs so that they can have a go at Cleland as well?

Posted by dsquared · August 31, 2004 05:47 PM

Peter:

“And you don’t make fools of soldiers on a televised national conference - it just isn’t done.”

Unless of course, Republicans are doing it. Remember that they are gaining from doing this, so far. In a more fair world, somebody like Dubya would have commited instant political suicide with this ad campaign. In our world, he goes up in the polls.

I just got back from a family event, and every single veteran from my father’s generation (Korea - Vietnam) is an enthusiastic supporter of each and every slander against Kerry. My answer to Dole’s question (IIRC “could there be this many lying veterans?”) is “unfortunately, yes”. Starting, of course, with Dole.

Posted by Barry · August 31, 2004 06:03 PM

Peter:

“And you don’t make fools of soldiers on a televised national conference - it just isn’t done.”

Unless of course, Republicans are doing it. Remember that they are gaining from doing this, so far. In a more fair world, somebody like Dubya would have commited instant political suicide with this ad campaign. In our world, he goes up in the polls.

I just got back from a family event, and every single veteran from my father’s generation (Korea - Vietnam) is an enthusiastic supporter of each and every slander against Kerry. My answers to Dole’s question (IIRC “could there be this many lying veterans?”) is “unfortunately, yes”.

Posted by Barry · August 31, 2004 06:10 PM

This sorry “debate” about whether Republicans are justified in denigrating the Purple Heart as a lame dig against John Kerry pretty well embodies the depths to which America has sunk under Republican rule. People like Nat who defend this kind of crap obviously have a superficial understanding of symbolism, if they’ve ever thought about it. They think that everything plays out on the surface, when most of the human drama plays out in the unconscious.

From Limbaugh to Scaife to Murdoch to Rove to Falwell to Robertson, the Republican propaganda machine has been playing with fire in America’s subconscious for many years now. In November they will either consolidate their power — essentially establishing New America — or the good ol’ USA will reassert itself and W and his loony cabal will quickly fade into a bad memory.

Of course, as in any good horror movie they’ll rise from the dead soon enough…

Posted by robbo · August 31, 2004 07:05 PM

This sorry “debate” about whether Republicans are justified in denigrating the Purple Heart as a lame dig against John Kerry pretty well embodies the depths to which America has sunk under Republican rule. People like Nat who defend this kind of crap obviously have a superficial understanding of symbolism, if they’ve ever thought about it. They think that everything plays out on the surface, when most of the human drama plays out in the unconscious.

From Limbaugh to Scaife to Murdoch to Rove to Falwell to Robertson, the Republican propaganda machine has been playing with fire in America’s subconscious for many years now. In November they will either consolidate their power — essentially establishing New America — or the good ol’ USA will reassert itself and W and his loony cabal will quickly fade into a bad memory.

Of course, as in any good horror movie they’ll rise from the dead soon enough…

Posted by robbo · August 31, 2004 07:07 PM

This sorry “debate” about whether Republicans are justified in denigrating the Purple Heart as a lame dig against John Kerry pretty well embodies the depths to which America has sunk under Republican rule. People like Nat who defend this kind of crap obviously have a superficial understanding of symbolism, if they’ve ever thought about it. They think that everything plays out on the surface, when most of the human drama plays out in the unconscious.

From Limbaugh to Scaife to Murdoch to Rove to Falwell to Robertson, the Republican propaganda machine has been playing with fire in America’s subconscious for many years now. In November they will either consolidate their power — essentially establishing New America — or the good ol’ USA will reassert itself and W and his loony cabal will quickly fade into a bad memory.

Of course, as in any good horror movie they’ll rise from the dead soon enough…

Posted by robbo · August 31, 2004 07:08 PM

This sorry “debate” about whether Republicans are justified in denigrating the Purple Heart as a lame dig against John Kerry pretty well embodies the depths to which America has sunk under Republican rule. People like Nat who defend this kind of crap obviously have a superficial understanding of symbolism, if they’ve ever thought about it. They think that everything plays out on the surface, when most of the human drama plays out in the unconscious.

From Limbaugh to Scaife to Murdoch to Rove to Falwell to Robertson, the Republican propaganda machine has been playing with fire in America’s subconscious for many years now. In November they will either consolidate their power — essentially establishing New America — or the good ol’ USA will reassert itself and W and his loony cabal will quickly fade into a bad memory.

Of course, as in any good horror movie they’ll rise from the dead soon enough…

Posted by robbo · August 31, 2004 07:09 PM

woah — sorry — i kept getting a “page not found” message when I posted…

Posted by robbo · August 31, 2004 07:24 PM

And the Swift Boat Vets criticize Kerry, not because he was a veteran, but because (they maintain that) he was a liar, nicht wahr?

Well, there’s that nitpicky distinction between the true claim (ours) and the false one (the Swifties’). But that’s not the issue, because the criticism that started this off is the Republicans who mock the Purple Heart. And they’re not seriously claiming that Kerry wasn’t wounded at all. They’re mocking him qua veteran who got a Purple Heart, and has the effrontery to discuss his war service:

It is not in any way defaming of them, because I know people who have received Purple Hearts and I know that they’re not boasting about their war record. They’re proud of their serving their country.

As if Kerry isn’t proud of serving his country. There’s no limit to how much you can slime a veteran, if the veteran is a Democrat.

Posted by Matt Weiner · August 31, 2004 07:34 PM

Nabakov wrote: “Nat, if you can’t tell the difference between TV and real life, then yep Bush’s yer boy.”

I see. So if Frank Burns were a real person, it would be bad to joke about the purple heart he won for the shell fragment in his eye? Is it okay to joke about the Purple Heart Bob Dole won for the self-inflicted wound he said was patched up with mercurochrome?

Robbo wrote: “This sorry “debate” about whether Republicans are justified in denigrating the Purple Heart as a lame dig against John Kerry pretty well embodies the depths to which America has sunk under Republican rule.”

As I understand it, the Vietnam Vets who are attacking Kerry are largely motivated by their perception that Kerry denigrated their own service there. As far as the lameness of the dig, I think it is at least less lame than it would have been if Kerry hadn’t played up his status as a war hero. As for the depths to which America has sunk, my opinion is that that is better demonstrated by the comment threads at Atrios.

Robbo wrote: “People like Nat who defend this kind of crap obviously have a superficial understanding of symbolism, if they’ve ever thought about it.”

People who can’t follow simple posting instructions probably shouldn’t be casting aspersions on the quality of others’ thinking.

Matt Weiner wrote: “Well, there’s that nitpicky distinction between the true claim (ours) and the false one (the Swifties’).”

So you think your beliefs are true. Should this tautology surprise us?

Matt Weiner wrote: “There’s no limit to how much you can slime a veteran, if the veteran is a Democrat.”

What limit is there to how much Republican veterans can be slimed?

Posted by Nat Whilk · August 31, 2004 08:28 PM

Nat, during the 1996 Presidential campaign the Nation ran a cover story denigrating Bob Dole’s wartime heroism, and I was disgusted. I don’t think the Democratic Convention picked this up. If you can find Democratic conventioneers attacking anyone’s war wounds in similar fashion, I will admit that there is no limit to how much Republican vets can be slimed.

Except that I suspect that when you talk about sliming Republican vets, you mean our accusations that the SwiftVets are lying. Nat—it’s not sliming to point out that someone’s lying, if they are lying. You refuse to consider the overwhelming evidence that they are, which is the sort of silly postmodernism I wouldn’t have expected to find in engineering departments.

Posted by Matt Weiner · August 31, 2004 09:35 PM

Matt Weiner wrote: “Nat, during the 1996 Presidential campaign the Nation ran a cover story denigrating Bob Dole’s wartime heroism, and I was disgusted. I don’t think the Democratic Convention picked this up. If you can find Democratic conventioneers attacking anyone’s war wounds in similar fashion, I will admit that there is no limit to how much Republican vets can be slimed.”

So when it comes to slime limits, you were only talking about conventioneers, not about opinion journals? It seems to me that our expectations of the latter should be higher than of the former. Most conventioneers apparently don’t even have the good sense to shut up and let the speakers speak.

“Except that I suspect that when you talk about sliming Republican vets, you mean our accusations that the SwiftVets are lying.”

Actually, I was thinking about the attacks on Dole and Bush Senior.

” Nat—it’s not sliming to point out that someone’s lying, if they are lying.”

So if Kerry knowingly made statements that do not agree with the facts, it would not be sliming to call him a liar?

“You refuse to consider the overwhelming evidence that they are, which is the sort of silly postmodernism I wouldn’t have expected to find in engineering departments.”

Engineering math is typically taught by math departments, not engineering departments. By and large, mathematicians have little interest in postmodernism—Tasic’s and Howell & Bradley’s books notwithstanding—except that many do get a kick out of Sokol’s pun about the Axiom of Choice and the Axiom of Equality.

Posted by Nat Whilk · August 31, 2004 09:57 PM

Hey, who’s the goofball using my handle??? Can’t figure out how to post right… :-(

Posted by Robbo · August 31, 2004 10:09 PM

The bottom line is, Kerry asked for this. Whether or not what the Swift Boat folks are saying is true they are mad, as are a lot of Viet Nam vets. This is not to justify what they do, but merely to say “Hey, if you had fought for your country, watched some friends die, and then came home to listen to one of your compatriots accuse you of war crimes, how would you feel about it?” Even 30 years doesn’t heal those kind of wounds very well…

Posted by Robbo · August 31, 2004 10:13 PM

Swift Vets: Lying

Kerry: Not Lying

Nat Whilk: Effectively Lying Through Lame Use of Cheap Debating Tricks

Posted by JP · August 31, 2004 10:40 PM

Nat, I don’t remember the attacks on Bush Senior’s service—no, sorry I just did, something about whether he strafed a boat in violation of war crimes laws. I have no idea whether that had any factual basis or who promulgated it. The only attack on Dole’s service I remember is the one I’ve described and condemned. And no, I don’t think conventioneers are held to a higher standard than opinion journals, but these conventioneers represent one of our two major political parties, while the Nation tends to associate with the loony left.

If you’re alluding to the Christmas in Cambodia thing when you talk about whether you can call Kerry a liar, give me a break. He may have misremembered the occasion; he may even have polished up a story to make it sound better. That’s different from the Swifties making up shit out of whole cloth. I’m not going to discuss that one any more.

Sorry about getting your department wrong.

Posted by Matt Weiner · August 31, 2004 10:43 PM

Matt Weiner wrote: “And no, I don’t think conventioneers are held to a higher standard than opinion journals, but these conventioneers represent one of our two major political parties, while the Nation tends to associate with the loony left. “

This is what I don’t get. Lots of the bloggers in “The Lumber Room” seem just as far to the left as (and much meaner than) the Nation. Why doesn’t Crooked Timber similary disavow them?

“If you’re alluding to the Christmas in Cambodia thing when you talk about whether you can call Kerry a liar, give me a break. He may have misremembered the occasion; he may even have polished up a story to make it sound better.”

Ah. I misremember and polish. The other guy lies. Tragedy is when I get a paper cut. Comedy is when the other guy falls in a manhole and dies. Let’s call the whole thing off.

Posted by Nat Whilk · August 31, 2004 11:05 PM

Horseshit, Whilk. I don’t give a rat’s ass what department you’re in. Back up some of your crap or shut your mouth. The Christmas in Cambodia thing is a prime example of how completely dishonest the Swift Boat Vets are.

Read this, as if you care.

You’ve provided not a single fact in all your self-important whinging and hedging. I pray to God you’re not teaching students.

Posted by nate-dogg · September 1, 2004 12:26 AM

Shouldn’t Dole give back his Purple Heart if he admits it was totally not-deserved? If he truly thinks Kerry does not deserve his, then he should go first. What a hypocrite. I really thought he was one of the four or five grownup Republicans.

Posted by Anna in Cairo · September 1, 2004 08:48 AM

Is no one a unsettled by that military cult in the us politics?

Democrats and republican playing who’s got the biggest, army as that undisputablegoodheroicthing, the glory of the vietnam war…

I’d like to believe that what we see is the result of some maechanics particular to that precise campaign, or that the-9/11-changed-everything effects are still lingering.

But the campaign turned that way because the one enduring theme in s politics seems to be the macho posturing. And the 9/11 is three years and two wars ago now.

O_°

… Threadjacking? Who, me?

Posted by yabonn · September 1, 2004 01:42 PM

Is no one a unsettled by that military cult in the us politics?

Yes. Enormously.

Posted by Steve · September 1, 2004 02:04 PM

By the by, and as i’m already threadjaking, just found that good read :

http://kenlayne.com/2004/08/god-of-war-death-madness.html

Posted by yabonn · September 1, 2004 02:13 PM

“Is no one a unsettled by that military cult in the us politics?”

Yes, it’s all so 20th century isn’t it?

As Bruce Sterling pointed out in “Tomorrow Now” the biggest threat to our security now comes from the new world disorder, a squirmimg mass of fundie/narco/terrorist/criminal flashmobs, using failed states, the internet, a glut of munitions washing around the globe, mobile phones and global password-based banking systems.

So instead of crapping on about mobile infantry, carrier groups, the JSF and UAVs, the two parties should be talking up what they’re going to do with financial intelligence services, Echelon, hackers, language and culture training, transnational criminal intelligence networks and some ninja teams in reserve for wetwork.

Whereas both sides now seem caught in a timewarp somewhere between D-Day and fragging officers.

I blame Francis Ford Coppola myself, for coming up with the most testosterone-laden meme carrier for both left and right - Apocalypse Now.

But now Charlie does surf.

Posted by Nabakov · September 1, 2004 02:17 PM

The only right winger that I saw mention it was Orin Judd, and it didn’t seem to bother him at all. He titled his post “Ridicule as a political weapon”, and his only comment was, “If you were a Democrat mightn’t you think it wise to just shut up about the mockability of your candidate?”

Posted by Ted Barlow · September 1, 2004 02:39 PM

Nate-Dogg wrote:

“I don’t give a rat’s ass what department you’re in.”

Unless you’re Matt Weiner, who broached the subject, I wouldn’t have expected you to.

“The Christmas in Cambodia thing is a prime example of how completely dishonest the Swift Boat Vets are. Read this, as if you care.”

Okay, I’ve read it. Was there supposed to be something new there? The author of the book being quoted in that link has said: “[Kerry’s statement about being in Cambodia at Christmas] is obviously wrong. . . It’s a mongrel phrase he should never have uttered.”

“I pray to God you’re not teaching students.”

I hate to break it to you, but students are what most teachers teach. For me it’s been roughly 1500 students at Georgia Tech and at Matt Weiner’s current institution and at my current employer (a Carnegie Doctoral/Research University-Extensive). If it makes you feel any better, the subject of where John Kerry spent his Christmases rarely comes up in class.

Posted by Nat Whilk · September 1, 2004 03:17 PM

I misremember and polish. The other guy lies.

OK, you’ve sucked me back in—how is anything Kerry’s supposed to have done here any worse than Bush’s misstatements about seeing the plane hit on 9/11? I don’t think this is a big issue myself, but if that’s your standard for calling someone a liar, both candidates are liars, as well as just about everyone else.

Posted by Matt Weiner · September 1, 2004 04:32 PM

Nat,

Here’s a quote from Cheney’s acceptance speech at the 2000 RNC:

Just before you settle down on the landing pad, you look upon Arlington National Cemetery…its gentle slopes and crosses row on row. I never once made that trip without being reminded how enormously fortunate we all are to be Americans, and what a terrible price thousands have paid so that all of us…and millions more around the world…might live in freedom.”

He must have made that trip hundreds of times. If I did something over a hundred times, never failing to contemplate it, I’d probably get the details right.

But the markers at Arlington are not little crosses. They’re rounded headstones.

You know what this means. OMFG!!! CHENEY TOTALLY LIED!! CHENEY FICTION CONTEST!!! WHY IS TEH PRESS COVERING UP….

Sorry, I had a touch of the Instapundit for a second there.

Posted by Ted Barlow · September 1, 2004 04:45 PM

Jeez, Ted, it’s getting bad when your blood pressure gets as high as mine…

Posted by Matt Weiner · September 1, 2004 05:06 PM

Nat—it’s not sliming to point out that someone’s lying, if they are lying. You refuse to consider the overwhelming evidence that they are, which is the sort of silly postmodernism I wouldnt have expected to find in engineering departments.

Posted by uioaeu · September 4, 2004 11:14 AM
Followups

→ Anything Goes.
Excerpt: Courtesy of Crooked Timber's John Quiggin: That's a Purple Heart on a band-aid, and Republican delegateMorton Blackwell is distributing these boutennieres to delegates at the RNC. As an admirer of Kerry's service, I'm sure President Bush is plainly dis...Read more at Grammar.police
→ Anything Goes.
Excerpt: Courtesy of Crooked Timber's John Quiggin: That's a Purple Heart on a band-aid, and Republican delegate Morton Blackwell is distributing these boutennieres to delegates at the RNC. As an admirer of Kerry's service, I'm sure President Bush is plainly di...Read more at Grammar.police

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.