The Babe Theory Of Political Movements.
Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM
Iran's Sham Election In Houston.
June 20, 2005 5:36 AM
Yes, Kanye, Bush Does Care.
Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM
Health Care vs. Wealth Care.
Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM
Americans Voting With Their Feet.
Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM
Idea Majorities Matter.
May 12, 2006 6:15 PM
Twilight Zone Economics.
Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM
The "Shrinking" Middle Class.
Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM
From Ashes, GOP Opportunities.
Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM
Battle Between Entitlements & Pork.
Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM
Let Economic Freedom Reign.
Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM
Biggest Health Care Moment In Decades.
July 25, 2007 4:32 PM
Unions Antithetical to Liberty.
May 28, 2008 11:12 PM
Right To Work States Rock.
June 9, 2008 12:25 PM
Social Security Reform Thursday.
March 13, 2008
Caption Contest: Enter Today!
Due: July 29, 2008
The Carnival Of Classiness.
Mar. 14, 2006
Quotational Therapy: Obama.
Apr. 4, 2008
Mainstream Melee: Wolfowitz.
May 19, 2007
Pundit Roundtable: Leaks.
July 9, 2006
A WILLisms.com(ic), by Ken McCracken
July 14, 2006
Powered by Movable Type 3.17
Site Design by Sekimori
WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy):
The WILLisms.com Gift Shop:
This Week's Carnival of Revolutions:
Carnival Home Base:
" . . . But We Support The Troops!"
Joel Stein's column today "Warriors And Wusses" has created something of a controversy, in that he is a Leftist who has basically admitted that he does not support our troops.
Hugh Hewitt had an interview with Stein today on his show, and the transcript is available from RadioBlogger.com.
The upshot of the interview is that Stein was never in the military, does not really know anyone who served, and is stunningly ignorant of military matters in general.
I gotta say, it is refreshing to hear someone from the Left actually fess up to this, and I give Stein points for his honesty and a desire to shed himself of hypocrisy.
Because it is, indeed, hypocritical to claim that you 'support the troops, but not the mission.' As Dennis Praeger points out:
Honest people on the Left need to understand that the two positions are not reconcilable. A German citizen during World War II could not have argued: "The Nazi regime's army is engaged in an evil war of aggression and is slaughtering millions of innocent people, and I therefore completely oppose this war, but I sure do support the Nazi troops."
Maybe this will start some kind of trend among the Left, allowing them to finally show themselves for who they are.
P.S. I should give credit to Rob Port, guestblogging at Wizbang, for tipping me off to this little firestorm. By the way, I am the reader who spotted Rob's two quotes in the dead tree edition of the Chicago Tribune yesterday. Rob is a Pundit Roundtable regular, and we have added Say Anything to the WILLisms.com blogroll of awesome pundits!
Posted by Ken McCracken · 24 January 2006 09:03 PM
That's me! Awesome pundit!
Actually, an even better endorsement is that Will's mom has become a regular over at SA. Can't go wrong when you're attracting the mom crowd.
Posted by: Rob at January 24, 2006 10:28 PM
Seeing you in the Trib put a smile on my face.
It made me think, "we are taking over . . . !"
Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 24, 2006 10:30 PM
How does one interpret "support the troops" in an anti-war context.
It is quite sensible to advocate actions or tactics such as: add troops, withdraw troops, nuke the entire country, fight using only rubber bullets, don't fight and they then will be peaceful too. What to do is always debated.
"Support the troops and the war" is clearly an endorsement of the present policy.
But exactly what is "Support the troops but not the war?" It leaves the reader stumped. Just what is being asked of him?
Why not say "Out of Iraq now. Unilaterally and absolutely." if that is what you want?
I can't recall many politcal successes attributed to unclear messages. Would you elect a guy using the slogan "lower taxes for some deserving people?"
Posted by: K at January 25, 2006 01:10 AM
Posted by: Zsa Zsa at January 25, 2006 07:22 AM
Is it not possible for the right to disagree (and be completely wrong btw) with out attempting to portray their detractors as traitors? Is that all you folks have?
Hate to bring up a Nazi quote here, but you folks make it too relevant to ignore..."Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." Hey, you mentioned Nazis first, fair is fair.
The problem with this line of arguement is that it does NOTHING to convince those who are correct in opposing this farce of a campaign against terror, that they are wrong. All it does is polarize us to think you folks are complete hate mongers who can not be rationalized with. If you think 50% of the country hates America then you folks are brain washed beyond belief. You wonder why Democrats think Republicans are stupid? Did you ever once here a Democrat say, when Tom Delay was giving Clinton a hard time by trying to take out Bin Laden, that the reason the right won't support Clinton's foriegn policy decisions is because they hate America? No, never, because we don't need hate to rally around. Get a grip folks, you are on a slippery slope headed to fascism. Pull yourself up while there is still hope.
Posted by: thomas at January 25, 2006 10:41 AM
Thomas, your post is nothing but an endless line of non-sequiturs and strawmen.
Read my post again.
I did not once use the word 'traitor'. Nor did I anywhere say that those who oppose the war, '50% of America' according to your extremely dubious claim, hate America.
You are far too sensitive to this type of accusation I think, probably because it strikes awfully close to home, and as a result you read far, far too much into these types of posts.
Basically, all I was saying was, wow, here is a guy on the Left who admits he does not support the troops, this is something quite new. You took that and let your imagination run wild with all sorts of criticisms that you fear might be valid.
Posted by: Ken McCracken at January 25, 2006 04:58 PM
Posted by: thomas at January 26, 2006 08:00 AM