For daring to question Iraq The Model, the “Iraqi blog” cited by President Bush as proof of success, the supposedly sane Glenn Reynolds asks:
Is there any enemy of America that the left won’t side with? Or any friend that the left won’t oppose? No.
This is supposed to be the guy lecturing the left about civility and not being crazy. Furthermore, Iraq The Model’s validity has been up for question before. From 2005:
A pro-US weblog by three Iraqi brothers has become the unlikely setting for a huge web spat after conspiracy theorists alleged it was a fake.
Iraq the Model, a weblog detailing the more positive aspects of the US-led occupation of the country, is one of the most popular Iraq sites on the web.
But some anti-war activists said it was a CIA-sponsored propaganda tool.
The brothers strongly denied the claims, but the row has led to severe ructions in the online Iraq community.
But you see, by questioning the fact that this one freaking blog is always the rightie source for how great stuff is going in Iraq is – in the eyes of the venerated Instapundit – grounds for treason.
Just yesterday, people were asking if Glenn Reynolds and Ann Althouse were some sort IEEE-sponsored propaganda tool.
While I don’t fully agree that the left sides with the enemy, I do believe that it sometimes aids the enemy when it comes to morale.
Reynolds often cites evidence which he feels shows the left siding with the enemy. This is just another piece of evidence to him. So when you say:
“by questioning the fact that this one freaking blog is always the rightie source for how great stuff is going in Iraq is – in the eyes of the venerated Instapundit – grounds for treason.”
You really are misrepresenting his views. If this was the only piece of evidence which suggested “siding with the enemy,” then you have a point. But its not, so you don’t.
Exuberant conclusions do not make arguments stronger.
Typical Instapundit.
He links with enormous overstatement to Pajamas Media.
Pajamas Media writes that Mr. Bush’s quote of Iraq the Model was met with “hostile and snarky” reactions in the MSM and blogosphere.
PM links (not just once, but twice in a sentence) to Little Green Footballs where they take note of a Kos diary that says little more than: “Gee, those Iraqi fellows sound just like Karen Hughes!”
Yup, that’s “opposing the friends of America” allright.
“…while I don’t fully agree that the left sides with the freaking ENEMY??..”
Who the fuck do you think you’re talking to?
I have FAMILY serving right now, and I have FAMILY back from honorable service in Iraq. Officers and men who’ve put their lives on the line and almost lost them running a fuel delivery trucking Battalion on the dusty roads from Basra to Nasiriyah on some of the most dangerous days of this war.
Who the fuck are you?
What do you FULLY agree with, that you are going to spout stupid slogans and bullshit wingnut memes here?
You scumbag.
I LOVE my troops, and you don’t freaking say to me I side with America’s enemies.
You want to know who I REALLY think are “America’s enemies”?
Right wing scum like you, who answer to Party and Ideology BEFORE they answer to colors, flag, and country.
I do believe that it sometimes aids the enemy when it comes to morale.
As much as Ann Coulter’s “convert them to Christianity” quote has served as a recruiting tool?
“Is there any enemy of America that the left won’t side with?”
When I read this sort of nonsense, I’m reminded of a childish retort: “I know you are, but what am I?”
What Republicans have been accusing of Democrats is actually a reflection of themselves.
THEY give aid and comfort to the enemy (Iraq recruiting tool). THEY believe in big government (all the spending). THEY are unAmerican (the constitution is just a piece of paper to their leader).
Ad nauseam.
As regards the question of supporting the troops and bullshit wingnut memes, any bets on how long it is going to take for Rush Limbaugh, Instapundit, or any of the other winger pundits to start attacking the Tillman family for being a bunch of whiny nitpickers?
“While I don’t fully agree that the left sides with the enemy, I do believe that it sometimes aids the enemy when it comes to morale.”
Sorry but you are a piss-poor excuse for an American. First, the “enemies” we have created in Iraq didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, al Qaeda or terrorism before we got there. We created them by invading them. Second, the “morale” of our troops is significantly more influenced by multiple rotations, insufficient equipment and frankly being away from their families for 3 of the last four years than anything that is said in internet chat rooms. Third, and this goes to you specifically, how dare you question the patriotism of anyone else. The only reason that there is even a sense of a divided house in these United States is because internet harpies like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin have made it chic to hate their fellow Americans. It is ugly, and it has to stop. You may not agree with my position or OW’s position but it does not give you the right to claim any deeper or more enduring Americanness.
What role does the left have? We want to get our friends and family out of harm’s way so that our enemies can settle their own scores without us in the crossfire. Once back home, I am sure the morale of our returning troops will improve.
Hold up. First, let me make this clear; because someone knocks the left does not make then a right winger. There are other alternatives to political leanings and if you don’t realize that, then don’t talk, because you don’t know the first thing about political beliefs.
Also, when anyone refers to the left or the right, they obviously are NOT referring to everyone. But when a majority of the left votes for a pullout of troops from a battlefield, it is a clear signal to the enemy that we are admitting defeat. I’m not saying its a bad idea or that its not supporting the troops, but letting the enemy know that you realize they are winning the war is a sure sign of enemy aid.
“WHO the fuck do you think you’re talking to.”
Oliver Willis. Is that not clear? He is the author of this blog. He wrote the post that I’m specifically writing about.
And don’t give me this analogy shit buddy. I have friends and family in Iraq who think the world of Bush and who think Bush is ruining the world. It sounds like to me that you have some military connections who support your already extreme view and you’ve decided to use those to try make me look like the ass. I don’t fold to my own confirmation bias. I wish you wouldn’t either.
The point of my post was to defend Reynolds, a man who has done more for the political blogosphere than any other individual, from a reckless, clearly exaggerated post like the one above by Mr. Willis.
Though please don’t get me wrong, if you only read this comment, you’ll think that I have some fanciful man-crush on the guy, but just because someone is guilty of wrongful thinking in many areas doesn’t make him guilty of ALL wrongful thinking and my defense doesn’t make me some right wing shill.
You call me a “scumbag”, because I don’t fully agree with something?! Is there any doubt in your mind? any doubt about your beliefs? I’m against this war in Iraq, but Mr. Willis making misleading proclamations that a Libertarian is making treason calls over one stupid event is fucking wrong. Plain and simple. That’s the point of my defense, but your bottle of emotions sadly not controlled by your own person spits out defamation.
You scumbag.
Now to someone who will leave a username:
I agree Diamond LeGrande, and I should have originally noted that right wingers do the same , but it doesn’t make the left right in doing the same and surely wasn’t the focus of the post.
P.S. Mr Willis, I certainly disagree with you now and numerous other times. But I read this site, because I respect your opinion and your arguments; you often make convincing posts which is why I’m here writing right now and I know your correct enough of the time to make it worth my time to visit this site.
But when a majority of the left votes for a pullout of troops from a battlefield, it is a clear signal to the enemy that we are admitting defeat.
It could be a clear signal that the military has done what was expected and now it’s time for the next phase, couldn’t it?
Oh yeah, I forgot about z adura.
” First, the “enemies” we have created in Iraq didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, al Qaeda or terrorism before we got there. We created them by invading them.”
We created enemies? That, by, itself is an admission of support for the enemy which by definition is treason. Before this, I didn’t agree with Mr. Reynolds, but now I see his point.
But I’m not saying you aren’t right to be treasonous, I agree with you for the most part. I just don’t care that people call me treasonous by thinking that we should leave because we shouldn’t have been there in the first part and thinking that since we’ve been there, we’ve created enemies. I’m here to defend Reynolds, who attacked me slightly, and others significantly, from false arguments.
Let’s stay on topic class.
“econd, the “morale” of our troops is significantly more influenced by multiple rotations, insufficient equipment and frankly being away from their families for 3 of the last four years than anything that is said in internet chat rooms.”
I’m referring to the morale of the “enemy”, the ones the U.S as a whole are against. I have no disagreements with that paragraph.
“Third, and this goes to you specifically, how dare you question the patriotism of anyone else.”
My entire point is that some people are patriotic by temporarily aiding the enemy. By pointing out that we’ve fucked up and we got to leave in Iraq aids the enemy but is also patriotic, because in the end, it will be whats best for the country. The two are not completely contradictory. A business needs to spend money to make money and that makes perfect sense. A patriot will sometimes have to aid the enemy to benefit the nation which is patriotic even though the cost exists. All businesses have expenses, but that doesn’t mean they don’t show a profit. I’m only defending Reynolds one post in that he did not call for treason based on one piece of evidence. I’m not calling either wing unpatriotic.
But in the future, I’ll call whoever the fuck I want unpatriotic. I just haven’t with this post.
“It could be a clear signal that the military has done what was expected and now it’s time for the next phase, couldn’t it?”
It certainly could but that’s not the reason for a withdrawal in this current situation. Not even a politician would try to say that they are voting for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, because the ‘mission is complete.’
If that were the reason for withdrawal, then that would certainly not be an aid to the enemy, but with this current situation where its obvious things are not going well, a withdrawal approval is an aid.
“…but with this current situation where its obvious things are not going well, a withdrawal approval is an aid.”
um, our presence there doesn’t seem to be doing a damn thing to slow, stop or otherwise discourage the Iraqis from killing each other. Which brings up another point, do you even know who our enemies are anymore? Just who exactly is the “enemy” when shia and sunni are killing each other with equal impunity not to mention our own troops?
A withdrawal is the only thing to do now precisely because we don’t even know who the fuck the enemy is anymore.
frightwingers hate America and everything she stands for. They are all a bunch of snivelling cowardly toads hoping the man who ran away on 9/11 will “protect” them. Like he gives a fuck about pissants like them.
I keep hoping one of these cowards will call me a traitor to my face.
HF, I have studied countries where dissent is treason. The method in the Soviet Union, for example, was to call those who opposed the state enemies of the people. The enemies could be obvious, like people in the White Army or they could be more subtle, like people who questioned its assertion of influence over Eastern Europe. Millions of people lost their lives to this kind of stupidity.
Treason in this country only applies to the first kind of acts. The few times that America has tried to broaden the definition as in the Alien and Sedition Acts, the error was quickly remedied and understood to be against the spirit of the Constitution.
I will forgive you this kind of faulty logic because you are still a student. I will not similarly forgive Glenn Reynolds or Ann Coulter or others of their ilk who wrongly equate opposition to George Bush’s terrible policies with treason.
Is treason necessarily a crime?
Remember, Reynolds only said this:
“Is there any enemy of America that the left won’t side with? Or any friend that the left won’t oppose? No.”
It was Willis who equated that with treason.
—-
Also, I don’t really understand your comment. What faulty logic?
First, the “enemies” we have created in Iraq didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, al Qaeda or terrorism before we got there. We created them by invading them.
That’s right. Everyone in Iraq was happy-go-lucky and flying kites, just like Michael Moore told you. They certainly weren’t cheering when 9/11 happened. They certainly weren’t shooting at our planes for 12 years. They certainly weren’t threatening Israel’s existence every day of the week and twice on Sunday. And they absolutly, positivly weren’t skirting UN regulations every step of the way.
Except that they were. And you know that. But you want to gloss over that to score a cheap, political point. THAT’s what Reynolds is talking about.
Why is it always a zero-sum game with the war supporters? This is not that difficult:
Correctly or incorrectly, we purported to invade Iraq in order to defeat our terrorist opponents.
The war in Iraq has not accomplished this goal. It has, instead, created a battleground in which more terrorists have been recruited and in which thousands of Americans and innocent Iraqis have been killed.
If the goal has not been accomplished then the strategy has not worked.
Perhaps we should try a different strategy. Perhaps just standing still in the middle of a sectarian firestorm is not the best use of our military, particularly in terms of our goal.
Democrats are not suggesting that we bring the troops home and then sit there, doing nothing, waiting for the next attack. They’re saying that maybe, just maybe, we should try something different besides waiting for George Bush’s vague plan for “victory” to work.
“THAT’s what Reynolds is talking about.”
Wow. Save re-read your list of to the Iraq’s great crimes. Not a single one of them on their or together justifies the clusterfuck we’ve created over there. I mean you want us to believe that we should have invaded Iraq because some Iraqis were caught cheering 9-11? Are you fucking nuts?
To suggest that the items on your list were no reason to go to war is not to side with America’s enemies. It is to side with reason and rationality. It is, in other words, to side with America’s best, long term interests and not the slobbering madness of the mob.
Seriously. This is what it’s come down to? They cheered 9-11, so there? You guys on the right are losing it.
Here’s a question:
Could either Hollywood or Save, or any other right wing idiot troll here, please actually identify our enemies in Iraq?
Please be as specific as possible. Just saying “the terrorists” ain’t going to cut it.
HF, to be very precise, yes, treason must necessarily be a crime. In fact, it is the only crime explicitly addressed in the Constitution. Did Reynolds explicitly say in this statement that war opponents are treasonous? No. Has he been cagey and provocative in claiming what people against the war support? Absolutely, whether it is calling us pro-Saddam or saying that we side with the enemy.
The fact is that this comment cannot be taken out of the legal context of making the claim. Treason is afterall giving aid and comfort to the enemy as described in the Constitution. Has Ann called the left treasonous? Every day of the week. Should both of them know better? Absolutely, and they should be held accountable to their words.
” Treason is afterall giving aid and comfort to the enemy as described in the Constitution”
I agree, and I think the traditional sense of the word is that it is also against the law. However, with free speech, it is possible to give aid and comfort to the enemy without doing anything illegal. So do we still call it treason or do we call it something else?
When a top official or politician of the U.S publicly announces that he/she thinks we’ve lost the war and should pullout, that is surely giving aid and comfort to the enemy. If you don’t agree with that, then the rest of this argument isn’t worth having.
Again, I do not believe that this type of aid or comfort to the enemy is wrong per se. It is merely a cost to a hopefully greater goal for the country, but it still is comfort and aid. An expense is an expense even if it leads to profit.
—
Good explanations though z adura, and I’ll admit that I’m not positive that I’m correct. I’ve never really thought about this topic and this is a good medium to hopefully come to some conclusions.
—
To those who say I’m a right wing troll – I’ve never voted for a Republican in the two elections I’ve been allowed to vote in.
Sometimes the left are correct, sometimes the right are. In my somewhat humble opinion, if you do not see that, then you suffer from huge political cheerleader syndrome.
HF, I congratulate you for keeping an open mind. It would do us all some good.
My opinion: Treason has specific definition under the constitution, and I believe that it should retain that narrow construction. It should be reserved for people who actually commit acts aimed at harming their countrymen. Southerners committed treason when they seceded; the Rosenbergs, though not charged with treason, committed treason when they passed atomic secrets to the Soviets. John Walker Lindh committed treason when he joined al Qaeda.
Alternatively, people oppose this war for many reasons – some religious, some political, some economic, some personal. As a free society, we must be allowed to voice our opposition or we cease to be Americans. Does this give aid and comfort to Sunni militiamen? I couldn’t care less. I have never lived my life in fear of al Qaeda and I am not about to start now.
Similarly, when Ann Coulter accuses me of treason or Reynolds provocatively hints that I am giving aid and comfort to the enemy, I will accuse them of unamerican tendencies, for they are opposing the right of free people to dissent.
I definitely don’t require you to share my opinion, but I hope it helps shed some light onto why some people are none too pleased with Reynolds.
“I definitely don’t require you to share my opinion, but I hope it helps shed some light onto why some people are none too pleased with Reynolds.”
It certainly does.
Over 40,000 terrorists have been killed in Iraq. You can’t possibly believe they were all homegrown. Which one of them would you want hanging around your neighborhood?
Second, Iraq is in the beginning of a shaky start at something more like democracy than they have ever seen. We had a war that lasted more than 13 years to put our democracy together with a Civil War less than a hundred years later that cost thousands of dead, possibly more dead than the number of innocent Iraqis killed since 2002.
Third, we have the huge potential of having garrisons on the ground in two middle eastern countries for years to come (we even have troops in sub – Saharan Africa, working with the French [!])
This war is well worth fighting, and well worth winning. It is in the interest of the USA to win this. It is not in the interest of the USA to withdraw now or at a date certain.
Is that treasonous? I think not. Is it foolish, self – defeating, and a petty partisan blow at Pres. Bush?
Most definitely.
If you want to run, and you don’t care about the Iraqis, don’t be chicken shit about it, like the Dems were in the Vietnam era.