Moe Lane

Reading between the lines, Reason TV is kind of upset about the way that the Democratic party has abandoned the antiwar movement:

…and that’s reasonable.  Sort of.  I have no real beef with libertarian antiwar types, as long as they aren’t being crypto-anti-Semites or whatnot.  Your average libertarian has a laudable desire to stay out of other countries’ business; I don’t fault them for that, although I do not think that they fully grasp the consequences of not having a world hegemony, and how much it would truly suck if it wasn’t us being the world hegemon.  At least there’s a certain basic consistency there. (more…)

OK. I need to apologize in advance for this video footage, given that it ends with some pretty foul things said about the wife of the Israeli Prime Minister.  While I think that it’s important that people see what kind of attitudes and language is considered acceptable by the antiwar movement, I also recognize that actually being exposed to it without warning is unfair to decent human beings.  That’s why I put the video after the fold: the sexual slurs are at the end, right after the conspiracy theories about the Gaza flotilla and wild-eyed accusations of Israeli genocide without bothering to provide any, well, truth.

The good news?  There weren’t many of these fools on the streets of Chicago.  The bad news?  As it stands, they’re all smugly aware that they’ll never suffer any kind of ill effects in their liberal social circles for trying to destroy the nation of Israel.  The worst news? Apparently, some of these folks are Jewish themselves, and I can’t really comment on that without risking a violation of Godwin’s Law…

Oops.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

(more…)

The two being, of course, Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan. The Other McCain [link fixed: thanks to Constant Reader BigGator5 for catching the oops] has the links – I don’t feel like disinfecting my computer this morning, sorry – but the gist of it is that Sullivan (who is doing his best to keep people from remembering that he actively worked to ensure the defeat of John McCain in 2008) is getting very bombastic on the war (topic: assassinating terrorists), and Greenwald (who is doing his best to keep people from remembering that he actively worked to ensure the defeat of John McCain in 2008) is stamping his feet and pouting about how anybody could possibly think that it’s a good idea to specifically target American citizens actively engaged abroad in acts of war and treason against their former country.  It’s all very… dramatic; but then, so is high school.

I had a sneer written out at this point, but what can I say about the antiwar Left that is more cutting than the vision that greets them every day when they look in a mirror?

Glenn Reynolds, on watching yet another babbling leftist idiot* snap out of it and realize that he was fed antiwar porn by the current administration:

This keeps happening. Ah, but remember when you now-disappointed Obama supporters were lecturing us about the fierce moral urgency of change? With such overweening self-righteousness? Even as you resolutely failed to look at what was going on, or to inquire into what Obama was actually like? So pardon me, now-disappointed Obama voters, if I point out that you’re rubes. Again, and again.

Indeed.

Indeed, indeed, indeed, indeed, indeed, indeed, indeed, indeed, indeed.

Moe Lane

(more…)

Hot Air Headlines categorized yesterday’s vote to sustain war funding as “Wikileaks docs can’t stop Congress from passing war funding bill:” it honestly surprised me that this could have been the reason for the leak in the first place.  I assumed general petty nastiness; after all, the leak was undoubtedly instigated by members of the organized antiwar movement, which means that they don’t need a specific reason to be evil and vicious.

Not that it made any difference, of course.  And it won’t make a difference in the fall, either.  Back in 2006, I – like most of the Right, really – still took the Democrats seriously when they ostensibly took the organized antiwar movement’s position on the GWOT.  Fortunately for the planet, we shouldn’t have: once in power Establishment Democrats fairly blatantly broke every promise that they made to the organized antiwar movement.  Not that the organized antiwar movement deserves more (or any) consideration in that regard: they combine having fairly vicious and bigoted policy goals with a remarkably masochistic willingness to submit to humiliation after humiliation, just as long as the kicks and beatings are interspersed with the occasional almost-kind word.  Still, it’s been over three years of degradation; you’d think that those people would have noticed by now. (more…)

John Hawkins went trawling through his picture archives to find some examples of the classy, logical, loving antiwar commentary that we were all so blessed with, for so long.  To give you a calibration check: this one…

…is easily the sanest of the bunch.  And yes, the most infamous one of the time period is on that list.

Moe Lane

PS: I’d say that someday somebody’s going to have to explain to me what the Hell the antiwar movement has against Jews with guns Israelis, except that I suspect that if I even look like I’m soliciting an actual answer I’ll be inundated with a lot of badly-spelled screeds trying to justify/excuse the practice.  Which screeds will all die unread and unlamented in my spam filter, of course.

…(as can be found via here) is someone who has forgotten, or never knew, that the phrase “Not In Our Name” originated as a slogan against the liberation of Afghanistan.  in other words: I’ve known for half a decade that the antiwar movement lies when it suits them, so I was hardly surprised when the mask slipped on this one.

Contemptuous, but hardly surprised.

In other news, General McChrystal is possibly threatening to resign if the White House doesn’t start listening for his requests for more troops.  For the sake of pretty much… everybody… I hope to hell that’s a garbled report; mostly because I don’t think that the President has ever handled a situation like this before, and I have precisely zero respect for his ability to learn how to do things right on the first try.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

While I agree with Tim Blair that karma is… kind of entertaining, sometimes… I think that the most important thing that should be taken away from this video is the frustration and worry in our soldiers’ voices as they try to line up a shot that doesn’t endanger either a kid, or some guy just walking along.

By the way: using kids like this is an actual war crime.  I note this because those elements of the Left that are now calling for abandoning Afghanistan (a sentiment that I, like POWIP, do not share, and never mind who the President is) can always use this kind of moral and ethical calibration.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

…and he thinks that Rush Limbaugh will help him with that.

By now, you’ve probably read Stranahan’s little attempt at self-justification for cheering on the death of American troops (you can read it via Glenn Reynolds, if you must: it’s not worth the direct link to a pro-torture site*) by seeking to associate it to Limbaugh’s often-repeated observation that he wants Obama’s economic plans to fail.

I’d just like to establish this point for the record: no, Stranahan can’t actually do that, and for a very simple reason. Our military personnel have voluntarily given up some of their right to choose their own actions in order to serve the country.  That gives us the collective responsibility to ensure that the choices that we make for them are the right one. It is perfectly acceptable to think that our collective choice was wrong; not so much to work to minimize the chance of it being the right one after all. The antiwar movement chose to do the latter… and those miserable wretches lost anyway, which is why they’re trying to avoid the consequences of their moral failure. Limbaugh and Obama (to use the usual examples), on the other hand, are merely having a policy dispute… and the Right swore no oath signing over our right to choose. We recognize and respect the authority of the President of the United States, but he does not command us in the same way that he commands the troops – and we will not concede the difference.

Particularly when doing so will give cover to people like Stranahan.

Moe Lane

*Repudiated Obama yet, HuffPo? No? Going to support him in 2012? Yes? Then that’s what you are. Deal.

Crossposted to RedState.

No, really.

I read with some interest this article which describes a supposed Blue-on-Blue fight looming over the upcoming reduction of troops:

Congressional Democrats’ misgivings about President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce troop levels in Iraq has set the stage for potentially major conflicts between Capitol Hill and the White House in the months ahead.

Obama’s announcement Friday that he will leave between 35,000 and 50,000 troops in Iraq after August 2010 brought lukewarm responses from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Both leaders have publicly questioned the decision to leave that many troops there indefinitely.

Also causing consternation is the president’s decision to finish the drawdown in 18 months. As a candidate, Obama had promised a complete withdrawal within 16 months.

Being a kind and generous soul who understands that we’re all in this together, on behalf of the neoconservative movement I am here to offer the President a little advice on how to keep antiwar legislators in line. We did it for eight years, after all; two of which were years where our party was ostensibly not the one running Congress. Heck, our best work was done between 2006-2008. So you can believe that we know that we’re talking about. (more…)

Please, by all means: assume that I’m equating them with dogs.

[UPDATE]: Welcome, Instapundit readers. Interested in DC School Choice Rally videos?

Whipped ones, in fact, as Environmental Republican demonstrates (via Glenn Reynolds). You see, he went looking for the Usual Antiwar Suspects’ outrage at the drone strikes in Pakistan, and discovered… well, that apparently it wasn’t really worth noting at all, really. His conclusion?

So what con we surmise from this little investigation? How about the left-wing of this country is populated with hypocritical ideologues who not only hated Bush but had a severe dislike for America. Now that they have a leader who they feel a kinship with, well, it’s all good.

You shouldn’t be surprised: the terrorists that got attacked weren’t Europeans – which is my polite way of saying that they weren’t sufficiently white and Western for the groups running the antiwar movement to particularly care, especially since caring might embarrass a President who isn’t a Republican. Was that too harsh? No? OK, let’s try again: the antiwar movement is run by racists who only like brown people when they can be used as clubs with which to beat anybody to the antiwar movement’s Right.

Well, anyone to their Right, and Jews. A quick perusal of the major players in question indicates that they’re all really upset that Israel isn’t baring its collective neck for the knife.

Moe Lane

PS: If you won’t respect yourself, don’t expect me to respect you, either.

Crossposted to RedState.