« American Moonbattery Feeds Spreading Cancer in Latin America | Main | Democratic Congressman Calls for Immediate Unconditional Surrender to Al-Qaeda in Iraq »
November 17, 2005
Should Meathead Be Gloating Over Dead GIs?
According to a recent piece in the New York Times, Hollywood leftists have "reason to gloat" due to the American death toll in Iraq.
Ignoring the fact that our death toll in this conflict has been amazingly low by historical standards, Times author Matt Bai revels in the propaganda value fifth-columnists have been able to derive from it. Rob Reiner — appropriately known as Meathead from the show "All in the Family," and menacingly described as a possible California gubernatorial candidate — is presented as a representative example of the limousine leftists who have been vindicated, now that polls indicate our will to fight terrorism has been undermined.
The crime of waging war on the organization that flew passenger jets full of Americans into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is "beyond impeachable" according to Meathead, who is quite sure that if his fellow Democrats controlled even one house of Congress, our Commander in Chief would be impeached for his efforts to combat Islamic terrorism. Reiner supports his contempt for the President by claiming, without substantiation, that Bush only recently learned "the difference between Kurds and Sunnis and Shiites."
The piece includes one sentence that's hard to argue with:
Reiner is, to his Republican critics, a symbol of Hollywood as a haven for the ludicrous and the smug, the last impenetrable bastion — along with Cambridge, Mass., perhaps — of elitist, 20th-century liberalism.
But it then goes on to make the case that the success the Times and its ilk have had in eroding support for the war proves that nitwits like Meathead were right all along, if only thanks to the principle that "even a blind dog finds a bone now and then." The Big Lie that Bush "invented" the pre-war intelligence on Iraq that the whole world had contributed to gathering is then presented as inarguable fact, exculpating Democrats who supported the American side in the war, before they found it politically expedient to change sides.
Regardless of the damage they have been able to inflict on the President's effectiveness and our troops' morale, liberals may be gloating a little too soon. They are essentially calling for the United States to surrender to bin Laden, al-Zarqawi, et al. and then hope for the best. Despite the discouraging stats they are able to extract from their polls, I seriously doubt that most Americans are with them on this.
In other Hollyweird news, actor and moonbat John Cusack, who regards the witless comedian Jon Stewart as "the most important media watchdog right now," has declared that Bush and his administration are "human scum" for "trying to privatize Iraq."
Hat tip: Times Watch
Posted by Van Helsing at November 17, 2005 4:06 PM
Comments
I guess by oil he means whale blubber too. So it's all about self-preservation since it would spill blood to get to his blubber (which could feed a hungry Eskimo family of 12 and provide enough oil to light up a small village all winter).
Posted by: Doug at November 17, 2005 5:13 PM
"The crime of waging war on the organization that flew passenger jets full of Americans into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is "beyond impeachable" according to Meathead..."
Just one problem. Reiner never said that. He said it was beyond impeachable for Bush to mislead us into war.
Iraq did not have any part in the 9/11 attacks.
There is a big difference between the war on terror -- which Americans of all stripes support -- and the war in Iraq wich most Americans oppose.
The CIA even warned W that he was lying when he used to claim there was a link between al Qaeda and Saddam. Bush, you may recall, had to publicly admit he was wrong when he was found out.
Posted by: Ronald Reagan at November 18, 2005 1:51 PM
Duh, that's right and Mussolini didn't attack Pearl Harbor, so we should pay reparations to the Italians and while we're at it, what did Hitler do directly to anyone on U.S. soil anyway? I demand that Congress, the CIA and Howard Dean raise Hitler from the dead and pay for his campiagn to run for Nancy Pelosi's seante seat.
Posted by: Asshat_masqueariding_as_Reagan at November 18, 2005 4:33 PM
"There is a big difference between the war on terror -- which Americans of all stripes support -- and the war in Iraq wich most Americans oppose."
How quickly we forget. 100+ Senate and Congressional democrats voted for the war in Iraq. A huge majority of Americans supported the war initially.
Now the going get a little tough, the media inspires the less informed to believe we are losing and they no longer support it?
I don't understand how these people, especially elected Democrats, can suddenly leave the troops to hang out and dry like that. 70-80 percent of Americans supported the Iraq War initially, they damn well owe it to the troops, and the Iraqis, to see this thing through.
Let us not also forget the official reasons for going to war, 22 in total, which looked beyond WMDs and terrorism.
Fecking revisionists.
Posted by: Junker at November 18, 2005 11:55 PM
