Monday, October 24, 2005

And just to show that i'm not shirking my duties as resident mean-guy...

I'ma let Mr. Neal Boortz speak for me today:

HOPING FOR U.S. CASUALTIES

The anti-war left has finally let it slip...they've shown their true colors about what their agenda is, and if you didn't read between the lines, you might miss it. Here goes. The Crawford Crackpot Cindy Sheehan, along with other Bush-bashing protest groups are gearing up for the 2,000th American Military casualty in Iraq. The only problem?

They're a little short. As of yesterday, the death toll stands at 1,996. Cindy Sheehan says she plans to tie herself to the White House fence and refuse to leave until the troops are brought home. But for Crazy Cindy to activate her plans, she needs 4 more troops to die. And thus the entire agenda of the anti-war movement is exposed: their political agenda is only served by U.S. Military casualties and setbacks. Good news in Iraq is bad news for them. They are an extension of the Blame-America-First crowd.

Nowhere in the media statements of Cindy Sheehan does she say that she hopes there won't be a 2000th casualty. If that doesn't happen, she's out of a job. And of course, it's all about her. So what happens if no more troops die? That wouldn't be good for Cindy. She needs 4 more lives to be lost to achieve her next big round of media attention.

These groups claim to be worried about the welfare of troops serving in Iraq. But yet they just can't wait for that 2000th soldier to die...they'd probably speed the process up if they could.

Moooooooore bleatings from Cindy...

4 comments:

Buzzzbee said...

I'll say right here and now:
I hope no more troops die in Iraq. I hope the death toll never reaches 2000.

Unfortunately, 4 more deaths is inevitable. That's the point isn't it? I mean, you're absolutely right. If troops stopped dying, that would take the steam right out of their protests. Of course that would undoubtedly also mean that the insurgency had given up. To be able to 1,996 troops and then not be able to kill anymore they would either have had to give up, or have all died. The Iraq war would cease to be a war. It would be the Iraq peace. I don't think your side would actually have the nerve to protest peace. There would still be the prewar deception of our white house, but it would seem less important, I think, if that deception wasn't costing lives.

I have to ask though, is mr. Boortz trying to convince his listeners that he has ESP? I mean surely he must be a mind reader if he is able to tell us what these protesters are thinking without them actually saying it. I don't recall reading anywhere that Cindy Sheehan or anyone else in this public debate has ever openly called for more deaths in Iraq. I'm sure I would remember that. This would certainly have had to happen after her son died, for I couldn't imagine a mother wishing for the death of servicemen while her son was among them. Now, I'm no psycic, but I'll bet she was actually praying that her son would make it home. I wonder, if Mr. Boortz reads palms also. Hey, maybe instead of using these superhuman powers for political gain, Neal could use them for good and take a look into the future and tell us when these brave guys can actually come home, or more importantly where the next roadside bomb will be so that our troops could be prepared.

Patrick Armstrong said...

I was down in New Orleans this weekend, which you will read more about in the days to come, but when I was at Mass on Saturday night, this is what I heard:

Priest: "For an end to the war in Iraq and Afganistan, we pray to the Lord"

This is what we said:

"Lord, hear our Prayer."

Though this can be taken in many ways, I wonder if Mr. Boortz lumps us in the 'we want more troops to die' category based on his own prophetic powers of putting words in the mouths of others.

Cindy Sheehan has become nothing more than a footnote. I wonder when Mr. Boortz will realize that fact.

S.A.W.B. said...

Perhaps Mr. Boortz, along with your humble commentator, wonder why Cindy and the anti-war crowd would choose to celebrate a milestone death. It seems to me, and perhaps to Mr. Boortz, to be a bit macabre that those opposed to the war would place some greater significance on the 2000th death as opposed to the 1999th death or the 2001st death.

Perhaps it would be a better use of Ms. Sheehan's, as well as the rest of the protest crowd's time, to do something more constructive than tie themselves to the fence outside of the White House. Perhaps Ms. Sheehan could realize that by making a continued public spectacle of herself, she continually dishonors the legacy of her son, and tramples the sacrifice he, and 1995 other brave souls have made.

Perhaps Mr. Boortz already realizes, as you, I, and many other folks do, that Ms. Sheehan IS merely a footnote in the ongoing circus surrounding this war. Perhaps he hopes, as I do, that the MSM crowd will quit giving her face time, and thereby deprive her of the publicity that she so desperately seeks...

Patrick Armstrong said...

Number one, the only legacy or memory Ms Sheehan can dishonor is her own. Her son, our war dead, our war injured and those of our brother and sister Americans still at arms have a legacy far greater than what can be tarnished by the media, one woman and her hippie friends trying to reignite a failed protest movement.

Now that we've got that cleared up:

If Mr. Boortz beleives Ms. Sheehan is a footnote, like you, I and many other folks do, why doesn't he say so? I must admit, I don't listen to or read the man, but it seems to me from the quote that all he's really interested in doing is scoring points with his target audience.

"Their political agenda is only served by U.S. Military casualties and setbacks." By taking this line, a line echoed in right Blogistan by punditry far, far to the right, Mr. Boortz proves himself an equal, if not following, footnote in the same argument.

Their political agenda is not served by casualties and setbacks, their political agenda is created by casualties and setbacks. If the war had gone off without a hitch, resounding victory was ours, the resultant victory parades and thriving Iraqi democracy had been covered and we had moved on to other national problems (like the annihilation of our industrial regions of the Gulf Coast), the protest movement would only count among its members the same handful of nothing-better-to-do-souls who protest everything. That's like 200 very insignificant people nationwide. And the news wouldn't care, so we wouldn't hear about it.

Speaking, for example, of agendas served by American death, we're not even going to bring up all the political victories and no bid contracts this administration scored in the aftermath of September 11th. If anyone's political agenda is served by Americans dying, it sure as hell ain't the folks who are complaining about too many Americans dying.

Maybe it strikes a nerve with Mr. Boortz because so many Americans don't feel this misadventure of a war was worth it. Even my Pops is now saying it was a mistake to go. And if you think he's a bleeding heart, you need to meet the man.

Number two, lets get to this "celebrating" the 2000th casualty thing. Is their going to be some big party somewhere serving champagne and cake when we hit that number? No, there won't be. So when Boortz uses those words to stir up the listener, he's doing what he's good at. That don't mean there's a bit of truth to the implicaton, (though there may be more than a few disgusting boneheads in her group who gloat over their righteousness of saying this war was a bad idea). Also, I doubt anyone said "we want however many more Americans to die before we do thus and such." Chaining oneself to a fence is very different from a party.

Lastly, these folks doing more constructive things than chaining themselves to fences. I agree completely with you, but these people aren't generally very constuctive people. If they were, they'd be on their way to the Gulf Coast, Florida or New England to help out in the mammoth clean up effort. Many of their fellow Americans, who agree and disagree with their politics, are rolling up their sleeves and pitching in where even a little help goes a long way. These protesters aren't doing that.

Many of these protesters are the folks who, I firmly believe, are protesting for the sake of protesting. They don't care what their cause is, they just have a need to feel morally superior to other people. They're like a lot of fundamentalist Christians who call the cameras to show how much they suffer for their faith. These particular protestes suffer for their politics. This is like therapy to them.

I think that is the saddest thing about it: Protesting this war is a mostly empty and self-righteous gesture on the parts of mainly empty and self-righteous people. (Though I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions...) These are the same people who would look down their noses at me because I was born in Alabama, and that's still flyover country to them.

But Boortz casts them as traitors who are celebrating Americans dying. While these protesters may exhibit many less than desirable qualities, they are engaging in neither treason nor celebrating tragedy. Mr. Boortz is acting just as irresponsible in using his pulpit to suggest wrongly that they are.