YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH
WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.
The full ramifications of this abomination
of a column have yet to reverberate fully across the blogosphere. Now, some would say that's simply because I was on hiatus and did not weigh in right away; those people would be blowing smoke directly up my ass. Still, I have to add my two cents, because what good are vacations if you don't have a nice easy jumping off point?
Amanda had a nice visual rebuttal here
. The Rude Pundit was, well, rude
. But a full fisking? Well, here you go.
The anti-war Left couldn't wait for the death of the 2,000th soldier in Iraq. Peace activists have been gearing up for protests, vigils, and other events this week to mark the completely bogus milestone.
Why 2,000? Was the 2nd or 555th or 1,678th death not as worth mourning as any other death with nice round numbers?
If Malkin's columns were a race, she'd have stumbled out of the starting blocks. Actually, she'd be running backwards. Before the war began, there were 1605 candlelight vigils
around the world - before the war began. Before one soldier died. That's the 0th death, and the left was mourning. Why? Because we knew there'd be 2000 eventually. We knew there'd be 2, 555, and 1,678, too. And we were mourning. And you were whining.
Cindy Sheehan barely contained her macabre lust for the spotlight in preparation for the artificially constructed, media-hyped occasion. "I'm going to go to Washington, D.C., and I'm going to give a speech at the White House, and after I do, I'm going to tie myself to the fence and refuse to leave until they agree to bring our troops home," Sheehan told a reporter last week as the death count neared her lottery number pick.
"And I'll probably get arrested, and when I get out, I'll go back and do the same thing," she vowed.
This time, Sheehan's public relations team would be wise to make sure she tries not to look like she's having so much fun. The carnival-like atmosphere that surrounded her arrest at the White House last month did little to convince military families that Sheehan and her pink lingerie-clad Bush-bashing brigade have the troops' best interest at heart.
Macabre lust for the spotlight? This from the woman (and her husband) who claimed to know what Cindy Sheehan's son was thinking as he was killed in Iraq and who gleefully posted about Sheehan's divorce. This from the team who wrote approximately a bajillion different posts about Cindy Sheehan, all carefully linked to each other and filled with linkbacks and snarkiness and updates and "reax" and pretty, pretty pictures.
These are people, remember, who liken Iraqi terrorists to America's Minutemen during the Revolutionary War.
Michael Moore is fat.
Who oppose not only the war in Iraq, but also the invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Who believe the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and at Shanksville, Pa., were a Bush conspiracy with Israel and/or Saudi Arabia.
Who applaud when left-wing professor Ward Churchill gloats about "chickens coming home to roost" and suggests that the peace movement should support the fragging of American troops.
Who use the names and images of dead American soldiers against their families' wishes to propagate anti-Bush hatred.
Who believe Saddam Hussein should be freed and Guantanamo Bay emptied.
Who carry around banners that proclaim "WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS WHEN THEY SHOOT THEIR OFFICERS."
Conflation is such a lovely thing, isn't it? I can do it too!
Republicans, remember, are people who believe that blacks are inherently criminal, and that aborting all the black fetuses would lower the crime rate.
Who think that interracial marriage is a sin.
Who applaud when Ann Coulter says that a few liberals should be executed just to keep the rest of them in line.
Who say that Emmitt Till had it coming.
Who said Rosa Parks was a communist spy.
Who believe that all our problems can be solved by nuking the entire Middle East.
Who think that all Muslims should be interned.
(The analogy breaks down a little bit when you consider that most of the extreme right-wing opinions above were uttered by people who actually are
friends, colleagues, or husbands of Malkin.)
Lt. Col. Boylan reminded the media that "the 2,000th Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine that is killed in action is just as important as the first that died and will be just as important as the last to die in this war against terrorism and to ensure freedom for a people who have not known freedom in over two generations."
What Malkin is ignoring is that, in fact, she and her friends treat "just as important" as "not very at all." Bush has been to a funeral or two now, and Rumsfeld's no longer breaking out his autopen as far as I know, but Malkin spends way more time focusing on suicidal Oklahoma college students and Harriet Miers than on the individual soldiers who die in Iraq. Maybe, just maybe, if the left got the sense that the right was concerned for the families of dead soldiers, they'd be less desperate to get someone's attention.
The milestone was important because no one else cares, not really. Americans hear death number "1,678" and shrug and go about their business. This country is not "on a war footing", because the administration and its apologists do everything they can to sweep the deaths under the rug, or excoriate those who question what those deaths were for.
The hope was that "2000" would wake people up. And that was Malkin's fear.
"Celebrate the daily milestones, the accomplishments they have secured and look to the future of a free and democratic Iraq and to the day that all of our troops return home to the heroes welcome they deserve," Boylan urged.
For the "peace activists" who hate the president with far more energy than they could ever muster in genuine support of our troops, this simple request to appreciate the fruits of hard-fought freedom is too much to ask. And too much for them to bear.
And for the "pundits" who hate the peace activists with almost as much energy as they can muster to hate "the enemy", an honest look at the state of Iraq - and the state of the President's administration - is too much for them