One would think for all their writing of supporting the troops that the wingnut Wurlitzer would be fired up by WaPo’s The Other Walter Reed series.  But there has been nothing from Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, Instapundit, Gateway Pundit, Captain’s Quarter’s or Wizbang. Only Jonah Goldberg at The Corner claimed the series to be a must read after this caveat…

I don’t trust Dana Priest that much, and I am suspicious of some of possible motives behind the series,

Jonah suggests putting Geraldo Rivera on the story “to scare the bejeebers out of the relevant bureaucrats and politicians” so regardless of his misgivings on “motives” he can see there is a problem.

Providing decent long term care for wounded troops evidently doesn’t fit their rhetoric. Well even the rhetoric is evolving as Instapundit pointed to this last week…

It is obvious supporting the troops means whatever you want it to mean.

As John Podhoretz wrote for NRO

Nobody who actually supports the troops says “I support the troops”
any longer. The words “I support the troops” are now solely for those
who oppose what the troops are doing.

Of course, when two opposing sides of a debate use the same language, the coopting side usually wins.

Therefore, it is incumbent for one side–the victory caucus–to develop a different message.

I propose something simple, that can fit on a bumper sticker, and is unequivocal in meaning:

Support the Troops:

The wingnut silence, on the outragous treatment of wounded vets which would make any average Joe/Jane American scream, (though apparently not an idealogue) demonstrates their rank hypocricy. For all their selective faux outrage and equivocating, let this be their slogan on their slogan…

“Support the Troops”:

UPDATE: Jonah has updated the post mentioned above as Glenn Greenwald has taken him to task.

And Attaturk points out that Jonah has a new post with an email from a vet who believes those profiled in the WaPo series comprise the 5% of complainers.What Attaturk says!

5 thoughts on “Hypocrisy

  1. Here’s a thought. Instead of just cutting off funding for sending more troops to Iraq, how about we phrase it as taking the money that the surge would cost and devoting it to helping those soldiers who have been broken by this war? Double the funding for Walter Reed, triple the funding for mental health support. You could *easily* do that with the money this damnable war is costing.
    It would kinda take the steam out of the “you’re not supporting our troops” argument, wouldn’t it?

  2. Did he really call the Republicans the “Victory Caucus”? He really has absolutely no sense of irony, does he?
    “Let them win” — wow, what a slogan . . . for the brain dead.

  3. Scout, check out the Pantload now. He now is using an email to call those discussed in the story malcontents and whiners.

  4. I knew they wouldnt give a rats ass about the troops now they are of no use to the GWB Middle East adventure…I am sure they will evolve the narrative into calling troops “crybabies” and try to pin some anti-entitlement rhetoric upon them..
    The RW silence is deafening…
    DEMS need to fill the void and do what is right by these brave men and women

  5. Through the mysteries of the Internet I stumbled onto Jeff Gannons site this AM. It seems that Cut Boy is accusing the WaPo and Dana Priest of being a “Fifth Column”. Poor little VP Dickwahd al-Cheney’s other son has spent so much time doing it that he just can’t stop sucking.

Comments are closed.