The right’s selective outrage

May 25, 2007

To their credit, Sens. Clinton and Obama had the courage to vote the right way on the war-funding bill, rejecting a bad bill that gives the president practically all of what he wanted, with minimal strings attached. The right, predictably, is apoplectic.

* Don Surber: “Clinton and Obama were among the 14 no votes. Clinton voted to send the troops in. Now she votes not to fund them. Presidential. NOT!”

* Jules Crittenden: “That’s what you want in your commander-in-chief. A vote against troops in the field fighting al-Qaeda and anti-American Iranian stooges.”

* Blogs of War: “Now we’ll have to listen to [Clinton and Obama] make the rounds claiming to support the troops – while denying them the funds they need to fight.”

Um, guys? I hate to sound picky, but didn’t George W. Bush veto war funding less than a month ago? I don’t recall reading far-right blog posts about how outrageous this was at the time. Maybe I overlooked them?

Indeed, Bush decided to send troops into war, but then decided to reject a measure funding them. Does Surber think that makes him less presidential?

The president rejected resources the troops needed while they were in the field fighting al Qaeda and anti-American Iranian stooges. Does Crittenden think that makes Bush a poor commander-in-chief?

Bush denied U.S. forces the funds they needed to fight in the midst of combat. Does Blogs of War believe the president can no longer claim that he supports the troops?

Or is it more likely that rejecting funding for the troops in a time of war is perfectly acceptable to far-right war supporters, just so long as they think there’s a good reason to do so?

This need not be complicated. Policy makers on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue basically had a choice between two approaches:

* Fully fund the troops, but include a withdrawal timeline that reverse a failed policy and would get U.S. forces out of the middle of a civil war. This approach enjoys broad national support amongst the electorate.

* Fully fund the troops, but stick with the Bush policy, at least in the short term. This approach hasn’t worked, and enjoys very little national support.

If a lawmakers embraced the prior, the right thinks the lawmaker is unpatriotic, unpresidential, and anti-military — even if they had already voted to fund the troops in the field. A number of adjectives come to mind to describe this belief, but “coherent” isn’t one of them.

Of course, it’s not just conservative bloggers who think it’s wrong to reject funding for the troops except when it’s not; the official GOP machine is in high dudgeon today.

“I was very disappointed to see Senator Obama and Senator Clinton embrace the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Arizona Sen. John McCain said in a statement. “This vote may win favor with MoveOn and liberal primary voters, but it’s the equivalent of waving a white flag to al Qaeda.”

First, Bush rejected funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan — and McCain applauded it.

Second, opponents of the Bush policy go well beyond “MoveOn and liberal primary voters,” and actually make up a strong majority of the nation.

And third, far from waving a white flag to al Qaeda, the terrorist network is only too pleased to see the U.S. government continue to give al Qaeda exactly what it wants.

Is a little consistency too much to ask?

No. The one thing these guys are is consistent. They’ve got the same my side can do no evil mentality of kid sports fans (actually kids or arrested development adults all the same) Shit, they use sports analogies for war, politics and life. How can a St. Louis Cardinals fan ever acknowledge that a Cub made a good play? Or a Repub blog will ever admit that a Dem did something smart? Rarely and begrudgingly.

Seriously, if these guys were aware and/or smart, would they have gone along with this horseshit war?

  • CB – you’re trolling for outrage again here. I’m sure we’ll see it, too.

    But the fact is that the way Republicans work (and you can see it in this, and in the Republican Senators’ embrace of the filibuster and obstructionism they were campaigning against from 2002-06, etc., etc.)

    The rules are:

    1. Everything Republicans do is good and everything Democrats do is bad.

    2. If there is any doubt about this, refer to rule 1.

    They’re just being their usual shitheaded selves. File under “sun continues to rise in the west.”

  • From before it began, the Iraq debacle was more about domestic politics than national security. I’m starting to believe that wingnuts have no thought as to the war’s outcome, positive or negative, just so long as it never ends. It gives them reliable platform to indulge their favorite fetish – insulting the patriotism of any who disagree. The more I think about it the more convinced I become that the entire point of this war was never to fight radical extremism anywhere. The point was to fight ‘libruls’ and Democrats at home.

  • This should not be an argument about funding the troops; it should be an argument about the wisdom of giving money to a president and an administration that has been unable to effectively manage the war, unable to properly protect the troops with equipment, unable to properly prepare for the needs of the injured, unable to hold contractors accountable for failure to properly supply and equip the troops, unable or unwilling to exert the diplomatic effort needed to build a political foundation in Iraq on which to construct a reasonably democratic structure.

    It is about deciding that the bad decisions made in almost all areas of the engagement unnecessarily endanger the troops and the region, and do nothing to secure the safety of this country.

    It is about removing the troops from their current position as hostages to a failed policy and pawns in a game of political power, and returning the focus to the sectarian conflict and the stabilization of the region through diplomatic means that extend beyond the borders of Iraq.

  • Well, in Republican fantasy world, perhaps the sun does rise in the west, but this should – here in reality-based world – be filed under “sun continues to rise in the east.” 😉

  • I used to have a friend back in high school that was just impossible to reason with. It was as if he operated in a different reality. Turns out later on he was diagnosed with bi-polar disease.

    Listening to these right wing nut job hacks spew out the same tired and debunked talking points, despite knowing 70% of the American public sees right through them, reminds me of my old high school buddy.

    I think a lot of right wingers do suffer from some form of mental disorder; paranoia, obsession compulsion, you name it. It is just not normal beavior to keep denying reality the way they do, and to see everything in terms of conservatives and liberals. I bet if the right wing had the choice to completely wipe either Al-Quada, or liberals, off the map, it would be liberals.

    They are poisonous, and inherently anti-democracy.

  • “Is a little consistency too much to ask?”
    I asked a wingnut, and here’s what he said: I don’t understand that question. We have always been at war with Eastasia, er, the Terrorists (but not abortion clinic bombers, or cuban airline bombers, those people are not terrorists).

  • Tom,

    Maybe you were channeling the scene from the Marion Wayne epic, Green Berets.

  • What a load of crap. The right is just ridiculous in their understanding of the issues but they are easy for Bush to manipulate. This is not about funding the troops in the field (if Bush gave a damn about that they wouldn’t be there without rest or protection or proper training) this is about funding the war profiteers who make thousands off of each soldiers tour.

    “Your son in the field is hungry…give me $50 bucks and I’ll feed him…Here’s an apple but it costs $50 more bucks if you want me to take it to him”.
    The only way to support the troops is to stop funding the war profiteers who just keep pushing the soldiers deeper in the mud.

    Yahoo cowboys are easily manipulated by Bush by just calling them chicken and cowards and saying the troops need your support so give us money but the troops are thrown into a turkey shoot in the only place where the terrorists groups and insurgents can shoot them. Bush is more than willing to sacrifice 1000s of troops because they are not people to him just tools.

    What happens to the war profiteers if we withdraw. They lose millions…billions…that’s why Bush has no withdrawal plan and his supporters think it’s about the troops. When will they ever understand they are being used? Manipulated to keep the money flowing by rabble rousers like Bush and Cheney.

    Anyone voting against the funding bill demonstrates they care about the troops enough to try to protect them from this President and this ambush he sent them into.

    The rest of you who voted for this funding don’t realize that it was also a support vote for attacking Iran. 160-200,000 troop increase to get us further stuck in the quagmire making it nearly impossible to get the troops out and billions more for the war profiteers. You are the lapdogs trading blood for profit and calling it supporting the troops. No one is supporting the troops but so many are willing to let them die to prove they are.

  • Apoplexy from the Recht can only contribute to Sens. Clinton and Obama’s popularity. So let’s just keep on pressing their buttons.

  • Is a little consistency too much to ask?

    Don Surber is as consistent as the day is long.

    He is always wrong, always an ass, always too snide to admit he is wrong and always too in love with the GOP to admit their failures.

  • Hey Cleaver, I think we left-coasters have to realize that for the Republicans the sun rises on the right.

  • Even now, the right claims that “progress” is being made in Iraq, that Sunni and Shiites are working towards peace and that the only problem is Al Queda. The problem is, violence in Iraq is actually increasing, Sunnies nad Shiites and are at each other throats and Al Queda is only responsible for a small amount of terrorist attacks in Iraq. It is hard to solve a crises if you can’t diagnose what the crises actually is.

    • Comments are closed.