On a regular basis, we hear people say how they “support the troops but are against the war.” This has never made much sense to me, but then again, I’m not as smart as actors and comedians. Is there anything they don’t know?
Richard Belzer helped hash this out recently. The Law & Order actor and long-time comedian let the cat out of the bag during an appearance on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher.
The bottom line for Belzer: The troops aren’t the best qualified to comment on the war because they don’t have time to read 20 newspapers a day, can’t know the truth because too busy trying not to die, and are “19- and 20-year-old kids who couldn’t get a job.” (Read the exchange or watch the video for yourself here.)
At least Belzer lets it fly unabashedly. Usually the left is a little more tactful in camouflaging the truth as it concerns their view of the troops.
The reason why they believe that the U.S. soldier is an empty-headed dupe isn’t tough to figure out.
Consider Casey Sheehan, for example. He joined the military on his own accord, willingly re-enlisted during this conflict, and fought and died for something in which he believed. Casey’s mother Cindy, founder of the Crawford KOA and rabid collector of frequent protester miles, has said he died “for nothing.”
To use the deaths of U.S. soldiers who joined willingly as an anti-war statement is to discredit their beliefs and judgment, not to mention their intellect. These are all things that liberals do with artful virtuosity. They just don’t usually come right out and say it, like Belzer.
Take Belzer and Sheehan out of the equation for a moment and look at some of the others who “care about the troops.” Observe protests by the group called Code Pink. An organization so named, presumably, because of all the Pepto Bismol you have to drink to keep them from turning your stomach.
Code Pink members have hung around the Walter Reed Army Hospital, which houses many wounded soldiers, and waved signs such as “Maimed for Lies” and “Enlist here and die for Halliburton.” This sounds like a bunch of people who obviously respect the soldiers, doesn’t it?
You’d be hard pressed to find another group of people who are more abusive than those who seek peace for a living.
Adding fuel to the “they’re so stupid” fire is the fact that these same morons in question are also overwhelmingly pro-Bush.
Much of the left views the U.S. soldier as having discovered an entirely new level of dim-wittedness — a doofy outlook perhaps deserving of the mockery that has taken place at the Walter Reed Army Hospital, not to mention worthy of the applauded insults that rocketed from the moonscaped mug of Richard Belzer.
To be led into an unjust war by a moron is one thing, but for those same people to vote for that moron in droves makes the military reprehensibly imbecilic in leftist eyes.
For a moment, let’s consider the people Belzer insults. Americans like these have helped put an end to slavery, oppression, genocide and all manner of craziness put forth by every spiral-eyed deranged dictator and tin-pot wanker on the planet.
The military can be sent to fight in some of the biggest dung-heap, dirt-bucket and generally scummy areas on the face of the earth — places that make a septic tank look like the Presidential Suite at the Bellagio. They perform tasks — from the incredibly dangerous to the intolerably mundane — without complaint or plea for recognition.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
H/T to National Review Online