Wingnuts Shout Down Troops

-->
blogging, Iraq War

There’s a video of Wesley Clark’s Friday morning keynote speech here. It’s not streaming smoothly for me right now, but maybe it’ll work for you. If the video is watchable it is very much worth watching.

I call it to your attention not just because it was an excellent speech, but because it was a very pro-military speech, and conference attendees — and most of the 1,500 or so people attending the conference were present — cheered and applauded lustily whenever Gen. Clark praised the troops serving in Iraq.

After Gen. Clark’s keynote, he and Jon Soltz of Vote Vets remained to moderate a panel called “The Military and Progressives: Are They Really That Different?” I would have stayed for it but that was at the same time as my religion panel (which went well, btw).

Apparently a veteran in the audience stood up and argued that the surge was working, which seems to have drawn some reaction. LGF headline: “Serviceman shouted down at Yearly Kos.” Yes, once again, we lefties hate the military.

Actually, in his speech Gen. Clark said it was “working” in a purely limited sense, meaning that whatever parts of Iraq are patrolled by U.S. troops do tend to settle down. The problem with that is, of course, that the insurgent/terrorists just move somewhere else, since there aren’t enough troops to be everywhere. And the surge is having no impact on Iraq’s political situation, which was the point of it.

The irony is that if you want to see real anti-troops hysteria, you can’t beat the righties themselves. They went after Scott Beauchamp like a school of piranha. Robert Farley at Lawyers, Guns and Money wrote,

…virtually the whole of the right blogosphere erupted in a torrent of the most vile abuse and intimidation against Scott Thomas Beauchamp, based at first on the assertion that he didn’t exist, second on the assertion that he could not be part of the military, and third on the assertion that, even if he were in the military, he must have made it all up. …

… It’s very simple, people. A TNR diarist wrote about a series of events. Righties freaked out, insisting that the stories couldn’t possibly be true. Lefties didn’t assert that it was true, but insisted that it could be factual. Battle ensues. It turns out that the story is, apart from an irrelevant detail, true. Righties claim victory based on that detail, and those who gave credence to the most brutal and idiotic attacks declare the affair over, without bothering to wonder how they got taken in by people who are obviously con artists, and stupid ones at that. TNR diarist, incidentally, is successfully intimidated and effectively silenced.

That last part was, of course, the point. Scott Beauchamp has been shouted down.

Share Button
3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. c u n d gulag  •  Aug 4, 2007 @10:21 am

    Thanks to Kos, you, and others, it’s becoming more difficult for them to shout us down.

    But they will continue to try. Their faces will further distort in anger. More spittle will spew from the pursed lips. Their voices will scream at volumes not thought possible. And they will hurl invectives, distortions, and lies like monkey’s fling their poo.
    We need to fling things back. Logic used in sound bites can work. Hell, if illogic works for them, logic can work for us. I have a few here:
    Republican’s have just announced that they are against the health of children.

    If you’re a fetus, they’ll protect you. But once you’re out, you’re out on your own. Good luck, and God speed…

    What’s a fair share of taxes for people making billion’s/millions a year? Why do I pay a higher percentage than they do?

    What’s next? Tax cuts for their cabana boy’s?

    I want my Republican Senator’s (Congressman’s) medical plan. Why do they get socialized health care while I can’t get any?

    Republicans seem to think war is like RAW, only with real blood. That’s fine with them, as long as it’s not their own.

    Like paying for this war? Then vote for a Republican.

    It’s fine for the Republican government to find out what we’re doing, as long as we can’t find out what our Republican government’s doing.

    America’s bridge’s falling down, falling down, falling down. America’s wages falling down, falling down, falling down.

    Infrastucture? We don’t need no stinkin’ infrastructure… Just ask a Republican or Libertarian near you.

    Using a bridge, a train, a plane, the roadway’s? Then vote Democratic.

    Conservative idea’s are falling bridges to nowhere…

    Please post some of your ideas. Maybe the good ones could be passed on to our candidate’s.

  2. c u n d gulag  •  Aug 4, 2007 @10:35 am

    Oh yeah, I forgot my favorite:
    End the occupation! Our soldier’s already won the war!!!

  3. moonbat  •  Aug 4, 2007 @1:45 pm

    I watched the Clark video to the end – it streamed OK – very worthwhile – thanks for the link. A few takeaways:

    1) Responding to a final question, he defined three levels of diplomacy:
    a) The Stick-Up – I’m going to blow your head off if I don’t get what I want
    b) Horse-Trading – what do you need to get from me so I can get what I want
    c) Sharing of Principles, leading working together on areas of mutual interest – “Diplomacy is about changing people’s perceptions of their future possibilities”

    2) I doubt if the guy is going to run for office, at least not as a front-runner, although he didn’t specifically say “no”. He shared a potent anecdote about the unlimited downside of running for office. That said, it wouldn’t surprise me to see him as somebody’s VP or Secretary of State. He’d be great as the latter.

    3) Righties, including the civilian leadership, use “support the troops” like a human shield, to deflect attention away from the strategies and the civilian leadership who created these failed strategies. This was the main thesis of his speech.

    Just as lefties can make common ground with the right over the seriousness of the threat of terrorism, we should also make common ground with them over our support of the troops (who are the foil to “the seriousness of the threat of terrorism”). Obvious stuff, but this is what the right uses constantly to deflect attention away from the real issue, which is the failed strategies and dubious intentions of the leadership.

    As for the flap about Beauchamp and his articles in the TNR: faulting the whole thing (whatever it is) based on a trivial detail, is a constant right wing tactic, soemtimes known as “nut-picking”. It needs to be exposed, as Chris Dodd did brilliantly on O’Reilly the other day. O’Reilly tried to slam DailyKos, a community of hundreds of thousands, based on a few extreme postings. They use this tactic all the time.

    I’ll repeat the former tagline of a favorite DKos poster, antifa:

    All frames exist within a larger frame. Draw a larger frame around your opponent’s frame, and he will appear wrong or insufficient. This is how wizards play.

    This is exactly what Chris Dodd did to O’Reilly.



    About this blog

    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile