My vote for the worst, red baiting, most dishonest and absurd column I have read in ages has to go to Kevin D. Williamson's Media Blog piece today at National Review. Mr. Williamson starts out by congratulating the conservative right for denouncing the Tiller shooting. He then goes on to attack the left for its silence and double standard on the shooting of the recruiter in Little Rock this morning, making the ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated statement that " the antiwar Left has been open in calling for violence against members of the American military." Hey Williamson, show me an example you Mcarthyite piece of shit. You link to a 2003 column that makes no such claim or supposition, it is a rambling piece about a couple of guys in a bar.
I read a very interesting piece this morning about the conservative and religious right's reaction to the Tiller assassination. They tend to condemn the shooting but show no shame or guilt, preferring to make a case of moral equivalence between shooter and victim. You know, like Randall Terry says, he reaped what he sowed. But many are steadfast in their belief that Tiller will have to answer for a lot in the hereafter and that things are moving forward perfectly, all in god's plan. They neglect any responsibility for the continual harassment of the good doctor or the threats that have been directed at his peers for years by the "prolife" movement.
But as a person who always thought that this war was a stupid idea, I categorically reject any notion that my opposition means that I wish any ill or harm to U.S. Servicemen and women. Any such linkage is a complete fabrication and a bit of lazy sophistry not worthy of a magazine like National Review.
For the record, I mourn the senseless shooting in Arkansas and extend my sincere sympathy to the family of the victim and the wounded soldier. But go find another straw man.
5 comments:
The intended example, from that column:
"Dear Mr. Nordlinger: I am currently a second-year cadet at the United States Military Academy. I have read your Impromptus for quite some time and was struck by the banner hoisted by anti-war protesters in San Francisco: 'We Support Our Troops When They SHOOT Their Officers.'
Nice choice of words there with that 'McCarthyite piece of shit', right out of the Mencken, Byron and Shelley playbook. Maybe even the Bard. Methinks he protests too much. Dude.
Ciao, Babe.
I found the citation, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I did a little checking and this banner was hoisted by a group of anarchists in San Francisco in 2003 called Class War. They are estimated to be 25 people strong. The man who held the banner was named Mike. Here is a quote from Mike:
He laughs at the idea that the antiwar movement as a whole shares his radical views. “People on the Right are using [my banner] to show that all of the Left is anti-American. If the idea is getting out there, great. I’d be glad if the rest of the movement agreed with it and the class analysis behind it, but right now they don’t go as far as we do. On one side, you’ve got the Stalinist and Maoist crazies walking around with their North Korean flags. Then you have liberals saying things like ‘Peace is Patriotic’ and ‘Let the Sanctions Work’ or even worse, ‘Regime Change Begins at Home – Vote Democrat.’ They’re the conscience of capitalism. They’re one side of a debate between rich people about what’s best for rich people. We want an end to the war, too. But we don't have any illusions that we’re fighting for ‘the freedom that America really stands for.’ We stand in open solidarity with the front lines of resistance across the world.”
So Mike is a leninist idiot from a 25 member Bay Area group that hoisted a banner in 2003 at a demonstration. And Mr. Nordlinger and Mr. Williamson can now make the claim that the entire left and progressive movement wishes physical harm to American servicemen. I repeat absurd.
I got at least 5 emails from conservatives making jokes about Obama entering the pearly gates after he was assassinated 20 minutes after he took office. So by the National Review's twisted reasoning, I am now safe to extrapolate that conservatives want to kill the president, right? One would think that a journal started by an erudite mind like Bill Buckley would have some measure of journalistic integrity.
If you are going to appoint an over caffeinated marxist kid as our spokesman, I will return the favor and annoit Eric Rudolph, David Duke or Timothy McVeigh as your figurehead. Tit for tat?
I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
National Review engages in yellow journalism at it's finest.
Post a Comment