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:
LET THEM WIN
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”:
RIGHT WING DEBATE FODDER
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!