That was my wife’s immediate response to my mentioning that Rush Limbaugh responded to Ms. Sykes
But she is smart. Smarter than me, in fact; I had already worked out that Limbaugh has bigger fish to fry, but she connects the dots very quickly, sometimes.
Moe Lane
Crossposted to RedState.
James Carville is, by the way, a gutless coward.
Via Hot Air, the explicit quote:
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”
[snip*]
Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: “Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!”
We’ll hold up the inevitable knee-jerk defenses of Carville here – which will probably not start until 8:46 AM tomorrow morning – with a tart comment that hypocrisy is not going to cut it this time. If Carville is to be allowed to use the defense that he merely wished for Bush’s policies to fail, than so should Limbaugh; contrariwise, if Limbaugh’s comments are simply unacceptable, any time, any place, and with no mitigation, then Carville’s must be treated similarly. And Carville is assuredly aware of how that comment would have played out: the way he begged the reporters to not repeat that suddenly-inflammatory statement is diagnostic. So is the way that they covered up Carville’s mess, but never mind that right now. Continue reading James Carville explicitly expressed a wish for Bush to fail.
…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.
