Malkin: Destroying America

Not only the FOX news types, but lots of journalists have been talking about how the last couple of weeks have been good ones for W. As many have noted, this is really just a case of how low a bar can you set. The three "accomplishments" that most people have cited are:

• Rove's lawyer's announcement that Rove will not be indicted.
• The head of Goldman Sachs is accepting job as Secretary of the Treasury.
• The killing of al-Zarqawi.

It is an embarrassment to the President, and thus to the U.S., that the lack of an indictment against the nation's top domestic advisor is considered a triumph. For the new Treasury Secretary to have been a Wall Street Big Shot is not really a triumph either.  The death of al-Zaqawi is a great and a good thing. The guy was a monster, who was empowered by our invasion of Iraq. Before we did that, he was fairly well bottled up in Kurdish controlled Iraq. In fact the vast majority of his evil acts were only committed after our invasion. In a sense, we created this Frankenstein whom we then had to kill.

Whether W. is justified in taking  pride in such "accomplishments" is not of great import. It's really more of a political issue, and the American public finally know better than to rely on the honesty of any White House statement. It's not like we expect better of this administration.

But something similar is going on where it does matter.  The right now are so filled with hatred and with fear, that they are demanding that we take pride in our not being barbarians. Lacking any sense of truth or self-respect, they end up denigrating our troops and our values.

During WW II, F.D.R. never bragged that at least we were not trying to exterminate a race of people. He actually thought that the country had principles and that we stood for something. Not so with the crowd now in power.

At Town Hall this morning I read a column by Jeff Emanuel in which he asks "how many times have Americans strapped bombs to their own chests and purposely detonated themselves in a large crowd of civilians? ... how many prisoners - Muslim or otherwise - have Americans brutally beheaded?" (you get the sense that he beheading part is OK by Jeff, it's just that they do it so brutally!)

The ever charming Michelle Malkin quotes a reader who wants us "to imagine the outcry" from those on the left and from organizations devoted to human rights if we had killed prisoners as cruelly and inhumanely as Menchaca and Tucker were slain. He doubts "we will hear the same intensity in their voices or in their printed words regarding these two soldiers."

Their point is quite clear: Why is America held to different standards than is Al Qaeda? Why should people expect anything different from us that is expected from them. At least we're not brutally beheading anyone.

That their argument is based on lie is just part of the problem. Of course human right organizations have complained about the behavior of the insurgents:Amnesty International wrote

"There is no honour nor heroism in blowing up people going to pray or murdering a terrified hostage. Those carrying out such acts are criminals, nothing less, whose actions undermine any claim they may have to be pursuing a legitimate cause. "

No one says this kind of behavior is acceptable (except of course Ann Coulter.) The larger problem is that Michelle Malkin and Jeff Emanuel don't think that we should be better than that. They don't believe that this country should stand for something beyond power and greed. In the end, the Malkins and Emanuels will do much more damage to this country that al-Zarqawi ever could.

P.S. It appears that Private Menchaca's mother only speaks Spanish.  We can expect Michelle Malkin to start demanding deportation proceedings shortly.
P.P.S. Sadly, the Pentagon this week has accused 3 U.S. soldiers from the 101st Airborne, in which Menchaca and Tucker also served, of murdering unarmed Iraqi prisoners.c

 

Comments

[Rick]

Michelle Malkin will do more damage to this country than Al Zarqawi? I'm not entirely positive, but I am fairly certain that the next young American businessman she beheads will be her first. But I will allow that I might be wrong. Do you ever actually read what you write? I know you must surely wonder why your side has lost all power over decades past. Well, it's stuff just like that. As long as your side is regarded as slightly more crazy than ours, you will be nothing better than jeering backbenchers. Not a criticism; merely an observation.

Oh, and your brief biography of Zarqawi? You really must stop repeating that which you overhear whilst swirling your chardonnay. Or, at the very least, lean towards another table and get a second reliable source.

[bbbustard]

I agree with you about Michelle, she has traditionally been more interested in having an impact on illegal immigrants than on beheading American businessmen. I also appreciate your comment about the importance of the perception of craziness - certainly the reality is that your side is much crazier, and wins elections because of its skills at manipulation, of both the media and the electoral results. As the last five years have so clearly proved, it has nothing to do with your ability to govern.
Could you be a bit more specific as to your objections of my characterization of al-Zarqawi?
Cheers!

[Rick]

A most interesting tactic you employ. When called to explain that which you profess, you simply claim to not understand the question. It's more comfortable than saying "I don't know"? I admire the attempt.

I will defer to an area where you undoubtedly have more expertise than me when you say "a lot of fashion designers see it as a fun fabric for partying".

"The first to wear camouflage in a non-military way were Vietnam Vets Against the War."
This is simply untrue. Returning troops have always worn uniforms (at very least partial) as they reintegrated back into civilian life. Modern camo was pioneered by the Germans prior to World War Two and has been worn since.

"No veteran, who is not protesting a war or going hunting, ever wears camo because
it's fun."
They wear it because it is clothing. But wear it they do. You have seen Forest Gump one too many times. The rabble protesting on the mall in 1971 added more than 10,000 names to "The Wall" and wear the blood of more than a million souls in south east Asia as they abetted the mayhem that would ensue with the communist takeover in Vietnam and Cambodia.

"Every female soldier in Iraq today who is putting on that fabric hates it."
A preposterous statement. Even if it might be partially true, you would have know way of knowing. Camo is like any other uniform. It is worn with enormous pride by those entitled.

You are out of your element when you pretend to speak on behalf of those who serve.

This is exactly like your Cheney post of some months ago where you accused Cheney of referring to Paks as Paks. You attempted to create an insult out of that which was not.

It's perfectly fine to dislike Malkin and Cheney. Just say so. I do not like Eleanor Clift, but would not fabricate something from whole cloth to make a point.

And to give credit when it is due, you said a week or so ago that Michelle Malkin "has traditionally been more interested in having an impact on illegal immigrants". That statement is 100% accurate.

Pax tecum.

[Rick]

A most interesting tactic you employ. When called to explain that which you profess, you simply claim to not understand the question. It's more comfortable than saying "I don't know"? I must admit that I admire the attempt.

I will defer to an area where you undoubtedly have more expertise than me when you say "a lot of fashion designers see it as a fun fabric for partying".

"The first to wear camouflage in a non-military way were Vietnam Vets Against the War."
This is simply untrue. Returning troops have always worn uniforms (at very least partial) as they reintegrated back into civilian life. Modern camo was pioneered by the Germans prior to World War two and has been worn ever since.

"No veteran, who is not protesting a war or going hunting, ever wears camo because it's fun".
They wear it because it is clothing and wear it they do. You have watched Forest Gump one too many times. The rabble depicted on the mall in 1971 was responsible for adding more than 10,000 names to "The Wall" and wear the blood of more than a million peaceful souls who perished in southeast Asia in the mayhem following the communist takeover of South Vietnam then Cambodia. Veterans who protest wars where they fought is a nearly immeasurably small number. Small like the numbers who commit atrocities; just visible.

"Every female soldier in Iraq today who is putting on that fabric hates it".
Preposterous. Even if it were true you would have no way of knowing. You only declare it to be true because it fits your "views". Camo is like any other uniform. It is worn with enormous pride. Do not presume to speak for a soldier waking in Iraq.

This is exactly like your Cheney post of several months ago where you accused him of insulting Paks by calling them Paks. It's perfectly fine for you to dislike Malkin and Cheney. Just say so. I do not like Eleanor Clift, but would not fabricate something from whole cloth to make a point.

In the interest of fairness, you did say that Malkin "has traditionally been more interested in having an impact on illegal immigrants". That is 100% accurate.

De oppresso libre.