I was forwarded this article this morning by someone who often sends me not links to articles, but the sort of perfidious chain e-mails that recast a bogus FNC story and add the lines “God Bless America! If you agree with this e-mail, pass it on!”
When I’m passed an e-mail that is obviously false, my usual reaction is to reply with a link to Snopes: the source is trustworthy enough that the sender believes it, if somewhat resentfully.
When I’m passed National Review, my tendency is to simply ignore them, as stuff from that magazine isn’t particularly opprobrious, but—in my estimation—still wrong.
However, I can’t resist tearing this latest one to pieces. It comes from Investors Business Daily, which seems to me like a less prestigious version of the Wall Street Journal, replete with the conservative ideologues manning the editorial page. But this particular article reads like some awful tripe from Town Hall—it’s that bad.
War On Terror: The party of John Murtha shamelessly seeks to defund and defeat U.S. troops on the battlefield and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Congress the terrorists wanted is doing their bidding.
Really? Are we still dancing with this strawman? I think it should be obvious that it’s not just Democrats calling for troop withdrawal anymore. Everybody wants to get out of there—everybody except Bush. Bush who wants to cut social welfare programs while giving that money to the nation’s billionaires. Bush, the fearless leader who might squander more than a trillion dollars for this nonsense.
Notice how quickly this author (whoever it may be) trots out with the “Terrorists like Democrats” canard that Karl Rove mastered in 2004. He’s not done with it, either.
Now it’s the House of Representatives’ turn, led by Rep. John Murtha, who believes the fine young men and women we send to defeat terror and our sworn enemies are cold-blooded killers.
Yes, like that other traitor, John Kerry, Murtha—like all Democratic veterans—harbor a deep-seated loathing for the men and women of the armed services, which is why they insult and undercut them as much as humanly possible. In fact, I heard that Murtha eats veterans’ babies.
Murtha plans to stop the Iraq War by placing four conditions on combat funds through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. The Pentagon would have to certify that troops being sent to Iraq are “fully combat ready” with training and equipment, troops must have at least one year at home between combat deployments, combat deployments cannot be longer than a year, and extending tours of duty would be prohibited.
“We’re trying to force a redeployment not by taking money away, (but) by redirecting money,” explained Murtha.
Further evidence that Murtha hates our troops: he’s insisting that we can’t keep sending them there unless they’re equipped and trained, and we can’t pull any contractual shenanigans by keeping them there past their original tour of duty. Has the man no shame?
As we’ve noted on several occasions, Democratic talk of “redeployment” has encouraged terrorist groups around the world.
Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, said before the 2006 vote: “Americans should vote Democratic,” adding that “it is time the American people support those who want to take them out of the Iraqi mud.” The statement could have come from Murtha, Kerry, Hillary or any number of Democrats.
We find it scary that the Democratic and terrorist game plans are indistinguishable.
The rhetoric gets thicker. You’ll notice that this author goes beyond the usual “Terrorists like Democrats” canard insinuating that Democrats are Terrorists. Notice also that he or she does this by turning “Getting the hell out of the Middle East” as a “terrorist game plan.” Might I point out that nobody wanted us to be there in the first place, including us? And might I also point out the countless polls and studies indicating that our presence in Iraq has actually worsened Islamic terrorism rather than mitigating it [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]?
As for the story of Jihad Jaara: all you need to know is that this quote came from Aaron Klein, a Bureau Chief for WorldNetDaily, a far-right rag with as much journalistic integrity as FNC. Moreover, the quote is a 2006 recasting of scurrilous 2004 chain e-mail which claimed that Osama bin Laden wanted John Kerry to win the election. Take from that what you will.
You can’t throw a stone without hitting a conservative who still insists that everything that Democrats or anti-war voters do emboldens our enemies. I think it’s clear at this point that the only thing emboldening our enemies is our presence in the Middle East. If we had a “set” enemy, like Nazi Germany, for instance, or some kind of established nation-state, then we wouldn’t be having this problem. But our “enemy” is an amorphous concept spread throughout the Middle East, and the fact is that every day we stay in Iraq, that concept grows in number.
Clinton would leave us with an Iraq as the new base camp for terror, replacing Afghanistan under the Taliban. She has already warned the Bush administration that it must come to the Democratic majority in Congress for permission to deal with an Iran that is providing high-tech explosives to kill American soldiers and developing nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.
Iraq, a new base camp for terror? As opposed to right now, when it’s a lovely, manicured garden of Democracy-with-a-capital-D?
I agree that Iran is in all likelihood a threat—at least, its entrenched, fundamentalist leadership is. Good thing we nipped that in the bud, hunh? Oh, wait…
It’s not that the Democrats think we’re losing or that the war is unwinnable. They simply don’t want to win it.
OK, I’ll admit it: they discovered our secret. The entire Democratic party is a secret cabal of terrorists who want America to lose its military engagements. And then we all want to have gay sex and abortions for fun, because we also like to chase people around with butt plugs and coathangers—you know, just for kicks.
Neville Chamberlain’s naivete may have helped bring on World War II, but at least he supported his country when war began. Norway’s Vidkun Quisling and France’s Vichy government under Marshal Petain may have collaborated with the Nazi enemy, but after their countries’ defeats, not before.
We’d have to go back to Benedict Arnold to find Americans as eager as Murtha & Co. to see an American defeat on the battlefield.
It took a bit, but Godwin’s Law has been fulfilled—the author has finally compared Democrats to Nazis (or Nazi collaborators). You’ll notice the deliberate conflation between withdrawal and defeat. In fact, I do believe it was Bush who said “Mission Accomplished.” So if our job in Iraq isn’t done, when will it be done? At what magical point will our continued presence change the simmering resentment Arabia, like a light switch, into one that causes the population to drop their AKs and start bombarding us with flowers and kisses? Oh, can we bring the troops home then?
A special note about the article’s “poll” data:
You may have noticed that the article attempts to confute “common wisdom” by insisting that not only do a majority of Americans think that winning the War in Iraq is important, but also that a majority think that we can. Also that about 30% more Republicans than Democrats feel this way. But if look at the bottom of their cute little graphic, you’ll notice that it’s a poll of only 925 people, and it’s a “IBD/TIPP” poll. TIPP is a legitimate, if unknown, polling service (they also work with the Christian Science Monitor, which I respect), but IBD is, of course, the extremely biased creator of this editorial. Since they offer no other clues as to their methodology, one can only assume that they polled their (925) readers and attempted to pass that off as a representative poll of “most Americans.”