Leftists: A Selective Conscience

"Their consciences much more precious than their own soldiers' lives."

That was Harry Flashman talking about 19th Century leftists (see previous entry). He might as well have been talkinga bout modern leftists.

Let us go back to Vietnam.  I have come around to the view that the Vietnam War was a mistake--a mistake because we went into to prop up a corrupt government not worthy of the expenditure of American lives (as distinguished from Iraq, where we went in to REMOVE Saddam Hussein, as we went into Germany to REMOVE Adolf Hitler).  I ALWAYS (not in hindsight), by the way, thought that the Vietnam War was fought as badly as you can fight a war by Lyndon Johnson and Robert Mcnamara.

Remember Jane Fonda going to Vietnam and posing on weapons being used against American soldiers?  That was NOT an aberration. Anti-Vietnam war radicals regarded American soldiers as the BAD GUYS, and North Vietnamese/Viet Cong as the GOOD GUYS.  For the anti-Vietnam left, they--as Flashman asserts about British Liberal Club leftists--did not CARE that they were on the side of people KILLING American soldiers, and encouraging those KILLING American soldiers.  Of course, in the Vietnam era leftists SPIT on soldiers returning from Vietnam.

Leftists have learned TACTICALLY (not fundamentally).   Now they profess to love American soldiers, but hate the government's policies.  In reality, nothing has changed.

Sometimes, of course, the old anti-military left comes through in naked hate.  There was the Berkeley City Council trying to EJECT marines, and all marine recruiting, from Berkeley.  San Francisco has take several anti-military actions.   I have a couple of entries in this blog about the Cambridge City Council stopping a Boy Scouts "CARE" package type drive for this Christmas using a banner "Support our Troops".  Those previous entries describe the Cambridge lawyer who defened the Cambridge City Council on the grounds that they were RIGHT to refuse to support our troops, because "supporting the troops" supports the war.  Most of the left now tries to disguise things better than that--even trying to USE troops (who they don't really respect or like) to advance a leftist political agenda.  Remember all of those allged "homeless vets" of John Edwards?  The left thinks that they get further with the "homeless issue" if they connect it to vets than they otherwise get.  Same with health care.  Can't quite sell "universal health care"?  No problem.  Start talking about the need for government provided health care for VETS (service connected or not) and CHILDREN.  So the left is perfectly willing to USE our troops.  Be not deceived.  The left shows in many ways that they are willing to think the worst of our troops.

After 9/11, who was MOST at risk?  We all were, of course, but our troops and CIA operatives (troops of another kind) were on the front lines.  They were fighting in Afghanistan, and trying to track down al-Qaida wherever they were.  But Leftists like Michael Moore were already blaming US for 9/11, and proclaiming US as the "bad guys".  This anti-American attitude would soon lead to those ridiculous conspiracy theories about Bush being complicit in 9/11 (bombs knocking down the buildings instead of the ariplanes, and all of those stupidities).

But look at the supposed non-kooks on the left.  What are they worried about, even as our troops were in danger--including eventually in Iraq?  They were worried about the RIGHTS OF TERRORISTS.  Will waterboarding save the lives of Americans (not only in this coutnry, but American TROOPS and CIA agents trying to protect us)?  Leftists don't CARE.  Their conscience has to be totally clear, no matter how many American lives it costs.  In fact, leftists are even willing to INTIMIDATE intelligence operatives out of acting in the interest of our troops, and us, by asking CRIMINAL PROSECUTION of CIA people who tried to save American lives by waterboarding a FEW terrorists.  Even if we want to prohibit certain interrogatioin practices in the future, does it make any sense to CRIMINALLY PROSECUTE people who tried, in good faith, to save American lives?  Of course it does not, unless you care more for terrorists than for Americans.

It get worse. There there is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the earlier secret warrantless surveillance after 9/11.  There is no evidence that there was any extensive, purely domestic surveillance.  Should we not have been engaging in aggressive foreign surveillance, including surveillance of foreign onctacts with people in the United States, to protect American lives--including the lives of American soldiers and CIA operatives?  Of course we should. But leftists were more interested in TERRORISTSin Guantanamo, and elsewhere, than in American lives.  We are not even talking about the LIVES of terrorists, but about "rights" leftists want terrorists to have.

Leftists have tried desperately to STOP extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows surveillance to protect American soldiers (and US).  Leftists have opposed the act altogether, but Democrats in the House are now holding it up on the excuse that telecommunications companies should not be immunized for cooperating after 9/11 with the attempt to save American lives. Again, leftists just don't seem to be as interested in saving American lives as in their own agenda and "consciences".

Yes, leftists DO encourage people killing our troops in Iraq.  How often do you hear our troops referred to as "occupiers" of Iraq.  I can't tell you how many leftist bloggers I have seen asking something like:  "If your country were invaded and occupied, would not you fight back"--implying that the people killing our troops in Iraq are RIGHT..  Leftists will say that kind of thing, even as they say they "support our troops".

Then there are the soldiers themselves.  Remember John Murtha calling some of our soldiers in Iraq MURDERERS (most were eventually acquitted).  The despicable Associated Press has been willing to quote every leftist organization in the world, including some anti-American organizations in Iraq and Afghanistan, about alleged "atrocities" of American troops.  Every mistake made by American troops is publicized to the maximum, as if American troops cannot act to save their own lives (which will necessarily involve some mistakes).  Again, do leftists prefer Americans to die instead of terrorists, so long as the conscience of leftists is clear?  I think so.  I have cited chapter and verse in many blog entries.

What about Blackwater USA.  They provided security for AMERICANS, without ever losing the life of any person they were protecting.  Let them make a mistake, hwoever, tand they are subject to PERSECUTION in our media--again as if risk to the lives of Americans is more important than risk to the lives of people who MAY turn out not to be terrorists (but often are terrorists).

No, you can't go around killing civilians wantonly, just because you can't tell the civilians from the terrorists.   But neither can you treat your own people as if they have to be PERFECT.  Mistakes happen in war.  For the left, every mistake is a chance to BLAME OUR TROOPS.  Plus, our troops are not allowed to limit their mistakes by effective intelligence techniques.

Read Flashman's words again.   "They don't like to hear it."  Leftists do not like to hear the above.  They try to shut people up by calling them fear mongers, and extremists questioning the patriotism of loyal, lefit Americans.

Well, I agree with Flashman.  I really don't care what leftists want to hear.  They are going to hear the truth from me. I don't worry about buzz words like "patriotism".  What I care about is being on the right side. That is NOT the side of the terrorists, or preferring terrorist rights to American lives.

It gets worse.