Steve Schippert speaks eloquently about the real argument that is taking place in America between those on the Left and Right, that being not one of how to defend her, but whether to do so. I have heard that some prominent milbloggers are referring to Steve’s post as the Milblogger’s Manifesto. I think it could also be referred to as the Americans For Defending America Manifesto. An excerpt is below, but you really should read it all here.
Why is the defense of this nation a political issue at all? There are those who will argue that it is the manner in which we defend ourselves that is at issue.
That, my friends, is a convoluted disingenuous sheen of reason upon the unreasonable.
A former Attorney General currently vociferously defends a mass murdering dictator deposed by our own forces. An icon of the self-loathing anti-American academic Left, Noam Chomsky, embraces Hizballah, the chief beneficiary of Iran’s terror export, and condemns the War on Terror as bigotry wrapped in fiction. A former Vice President travels to the home of fifteen 9/11 hijackers and professes that Arabs had been “indiscriminately rounded up” by America and its sitting president and held in “unforgivable” conditions.
These are not arguments of the manner in which to defend America. These are sycophantic rantings of whether to defend her. The flood of emotions in disbelieving reaction range from anger and rage to depression and grief.
We dare not rest as the most important front of the War on Terror and for the very survival of Western Civilization lies not upon the sands of distant shores, but in our own common discourse. The most important battlegrounds are around our dinner tables and in intelligent and persuasive common sense discussion among our peers, seeking the discomfort of battle and the very defense of defense rather than the comfort and unproductive endeavor of agreement among friends.
The line has been clearly drawn. Tire not. Engage.
Indeed
But we can’t question their patriotism, can we?
Unfortunately, Lorie, there are two factions of Leftists as well. Those who don’t beleive we’re “in a real war” and those who really, really HOPE we lose.
Sometimes, it’s hard to tell them apart.
That is a good point, Falcon. Congrats on the graduation, by the way.
The Democratic Party, traitors in 1861, traitors in 1971 and traitors today.
Let’s review; most Democrats opposed the first Gulf War even though it passed the global test. mmmmmm
Then Democrats supported bombing Iraq even though it flunks the global test. Three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council wrote that their anger stemmed from the fact they never saw Butler’s report before bombing began. mmmmmm
Then Democrats claim after 9-11 that Saddam is a threat, and then when that threat is removed they complain that he really didn’t need to be removed because he was contained. mmmmmm
The pattern is simple. Democrats oppose military action when a Republican is CiC.
The political party before country scenario is obvious. They have politicized the war enough in hopes of regaining political power this November because of their opposition, not their support of the GWOT. Yet they claim they can do better in the GWOT. Figure that one out.
Jumpinjoe,
It’s easy. If the Dems are in charge, suddenly all objections to and complaints over the GWOT will majically disappear.
The MSM will begin reporting all of the good things happening in Iraq that they won’t report now. AND the MSM will ‘see’ that the economy is great, budget deficits are good for the country, etc., etc….as long as the Dems are in charge.
They won’t actually DO better, but they will get monumentally better PR.