Atrios's pick for Wanker of the Day early this morning (1/25 12;38 AM), certainly penned a moronic op-ed in yesterdays L.A. Times. In it Stein flippantly declares that he does not support the troops, essentially because they are fighting in an immoral war. He believes that when they signed up they should have expected to fight in an immoral war because a soldier might "get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam." His arguments would lead one to the conclusion that no moral person can serve in our military. After all, the massacre of American Indians by our Calvary was immoral, so no decent American should have served in WWII.
The predictable pile-on from the right followed as the day the night.
Michelle managed to get out a few posts attacking the piece. The latest one was about Twenty-Five ways to ignore Joel Stein and Support the Troops'. One of her recommendations is that we knit hats for the troops in Iraq. I actually did not even know they could wear any hat that they wanted. I had assumed that they were in uniform.
Outside the Beltway joins the scrum. The Jawa Report argues that nations, not people, fight wars, and so to be against this war is to be against America, and to be unpatriotic. A frequent theme of the right,which is that Stein's piece proves how much the left hates the troops, can be found at Ace of Spades who says "At least he's honest... They're anti-American military first and foremost."
Wizbang is actually sort of reasonable. They say that the success of the war is worthy of debate, but not the sacrifice of the troops. But this was exceptionable - the vast majority of wingnuttia were frothing.
Although Stein's Op-Ed piece was sure to elicit such a response, I am not sure that we are wise to so quickly give the right a pass. After all, Stein wished no harm to the troops. He wanted them brought home quickly and safely; that "we give our soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health." He just did not want to give them a parade.
Michelle is all for the parade, and the knit hats, but is firmly against "hospitals, pensions" and help with mental health.
- The budget that Bush proposed for 2004 included a 28.8 billion dollar reduction in money for vets.
- Because of Bush II's budgets, there is a growing backlog of claims by Vets of Bush I's Gulf War
- Democrats have been fighting Republicans over access to TRICARE health insurance for serving reservists.
- Neither those riding in Humvees or the soldiers on the ground in Iraq have been given the opportunity to wear sufficient body armor. The right is fond of quoting individual soldiers who want no additional armor. I've yet to see a poll from patients in Walter Reed.
There are many more statistics available, but it gets a bit tedious. If you need more evidence, I'd be happy to post it or e-mail you. Larry Scott of Military.com has written of the "welfarizing" of the V.A., in which the right, after hosting the parade, treats veterans as 'welfare recipients' eager for their 'entitlement.' While Michelle Malkin is all for knitting hats for the Armed Forces is Iraq - she never talks about fighting for their pension and medical benefits, never argues for decent V.A. hospitals, and she never even complains that our soldiers might be drinking contaminated water courtesy of Halliburton.
I am not trying to defend the juvenile Op-Ed of Joel Klein. But I am wondering if the left's reaction to his piece doesn't explain in part how a storyline gets established in the media. Peter Daou wrote a brilliant piece on this issue. But in this case the anti-American, soft on security, leftist Klein says 'give them care, just don't give them a parade' while Malkin says "do knit ,don't build hospitals, and do give them a parade.' Somehow she gains the moral upper hand.
Comments