That is not only true in this case, but it is a tactic upon which Oliver relies, as do most of you leftie commenters, with astonishing regularity.

I refer you, most recently, to the post about Glen Beck, when a huge number of you defended the proposition that because Beck was inspired by a man’s views on the Founding Fathers, that that automatically tied Beck to that same man’s unhitorical views on slavery.

You do it all the time, most time inappropriately. At least I didn’t say I disagree with Salon and Harper’s because they published articles saying they didn’t like the Rolling Stones.

As for the cartoons, they refer to Nazi propaganda. If you choose to believe that the “stabbed in the back at Versailles” propaganda is on the same level as the Congressional betrayal of Vietnam (in which Nixon may have acquiesced — at least there are current revelations to the effect that Kissinger advised Nixon to get out of Vietnam pronto, even if it meant selling out the South Vietnamese. It is not yet definite that Nixon took that advice), you certainly may.

I do not agree.

Though, contrary to Frank’s unsupported assertion that Drudge has expressed concern about casualties in Bush’s wars, Drudge and Palin are utterly unprincipled (and indeed incoherent, big surprise there) on the subject. They are the exception that proves the rule: Drudge and Palin are both operating at such a sub-rational level that ideological coherence is quite beside the point. They both contain multitudes, I guess.

Digby is hardly ever wrong about anything, but I don’t think anyone actually advocated a re-focus on Afghanistan insincerely. Many of us had (and have) strong misgivings about a quagmire in Afghanistan, and regret that there is apparently a baseline of military aggression that a candidate must endorse to get elected President in a country as violent and deranged as ours is. That latter observation doesn’t for a moment imply that Obama himself is insincere about Afghanistan. Yet we for Obama because he is less enthusiastic about starting wars than McCain or Bush, in addition to being far preferable to them on nearly all the other issues. But you will read no end of skepticism about expanding the war in Afghanistan from blogs that supported Obama in the election (Code Pink cannot be counted as sizable or influential, certainly not remotely comparable to Drudge or Palin).

Clearly, neither do Republicans.

Another awesome cartoon for Frank. Or did this cartoon never happen either?

Otto from A Fish Called Wanda called. He wants his side of the street back.

Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false

Anything, specifically, which GlennZilla or Kevin Baker got wrong? Take your time. Make sure you get it right.

And of course, the World Book Encyclopedis of the internet, AKA “the place where lazy, and untrained Internet searchers go to browse” WikiPedia memorabilia provide even more compelling evidence.

Are you suggesting that the images on the linked Wikipedia pages never existed or something? Were you not disturbed by them? What are you saying here?

This thread started as a report of alleged hypocricy on the part of Drudge, et. al.

I initially said it was no such thing, to which there was no reply.

I had no intention of reminding you that the present day Democrat bears absolutely no resemblance to the Democrats of 1941.

And of course, the World Book Encyclopedis of the internet, AKA “the place where lazy, and untrained Internet searchers go to browse” WikiPedia memorabilia provide even more compelling evidence.

Try this: It is a fact that every time Hanoi wanted the Democratic administrations to stop bombing Haiphong and Hanoi, all they had to was say, “Let’s negotiate”. The stupid Democrats fell for that one, again and again, until LBJ was persuaded by the other great military mind, Walter Cronkite, that Tet was a defeat – despite the fact that when it was over , the NVA and the VC had not held one objective – not one. They won no major battles – while they were excellent at ambushes, in full force, they accomplished nothing until we pulled out and gave the south Vietnamese forces the back of our hand.

You want some reality? In 1970, my warehouse stopped shipping weapons and parts to the South Vietnamese, and started shipping them to Guam to be returned to the United States. And, in case you are thinking, “Well, that was only one warehouse” – WRONG! – there was only one, and we were it.

I was there, I read the books before and after I went, I talked to lots of veterans , and sometimes I still do.

Two articles and Mickey Mouse’s favorite encyclopedia don’t mean much to me.

Indeed, dolchstosslegende is all the rage with the wingnuts. Has been for quite some time:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081080

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/12/mccain/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stab-in-the-back_postcard.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stab-in-the-back_cartoon_1924.jpg

Would you like Freedom Fries with that, or do you hate America?

Frank, count me among those who are anxious to hear your account of how the United States and their minority allies in the unpopular southern regime were going to defeat North Vietnam and their majority allies in the rest of the country.

Count me out. I’ve heard their Dungeons & Dragons version of ‘How We Coulda Won If They Ain’t Tied Our Hands a’Hind Our Backs’ for decades now.

And the idea that by 1975 Vietnam would have been “liberated” if only we had just tried a little bit harder is a complete and utter fantasy.

Anyway, this loopy tangent all started because Frank called Dems the “bug out” party. Then someone noted the Democrat presidents at the helm during WWII and the Republican President that was at the helm at the end of Vietnam. I like then how huffy Frank got about how Republicans helped win WWII, as if he had to respond to a spurious allegation. When the only reason anyone mentioned it was to respond to Frank’s slander in the first place.

Reedonkulous.

Actually, no. Chances are excellent that if it weren’t for the liberals, Vietnam would have been a free country by 1975, instead of a Stalinist hell hole.

No. This is a bunch of nonsense bullshit. And I of course am grateful that the U.S. hawk slaughter of millions of innocent Vietnamese finally ended, rather than continue on for the raving fantasies of delusionalists.

This doesn’t mean, though, that you still can’t enjoy movies like Rambo though and say stuff to the mirror like “can we win this time?”

Actually, no. Chances are excellent that if it weren’t for the liberals, Vietnam would have been a free country by 1975, instead of a Stalinist hell hole.

So obvious is the desire of the Vietnamese for freedom, that even now, Saigon is better off than Hanoi.

Height of Hypocrisy: Code Pink Rethinking Their Opposition to Afghan War…..

When Medea Benjamin stood up in a Kabul meeting hall this weekend to ask Masooda Jalal if she would prefer more international troops or more development funds, the cofounder of US antiwar group Code Pink was hoping her fellow activist would support her call for US troop withdrawal.

She was disappointed.

Ms. Jalhal, the former Afghan minister of women, bluntly told her both were needed. “It is good for Afghanistan to have more troops – more troops committed with the aim of building peace and against war, terrorism, and security – along with other resources,” she answered. “Coming together they will help with better reconstruction.”

Rethinking their position. …

The more things change, the more the stay the same.

Who wants to revisit Iraq Invasion predictions and assertions circa 2002 and 2003 and the attendant ‘political strategy’ from that heady time? Freedom Fries anyone?

Drudge reporting a story about casualties in Afhanistan is not transparency. digby admitting Democratic hypocrisy regarding their changing positions on War in Afghanistan is.

So so very wrong

Right:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910020025

Mm-hm:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson-and-james-boyce/pat-tillman-antiwar-lefti_b_58825.html

Who wants to revisit Iraq Invasion predictions and assertions circa 2002 and 2003 and the attendant ‘political strategy’ from that heady time? Freedom Fries anyone?