Redstate

This is his site.

Hmmm.

It would be terrible if Kos and the Democratic party were to hold this guy up as their standard bearer for the 2006 mid-term elections.  Let's face it the last thing the voters want is someone to start talking loudly against the meme being pushed by the GOP and Bush.

Really.  Don't do it.  Don't make him the posterboy for 2006.

...

shrug everybody told the Democrats to not elect Howard Dean and they did it anyways thinking we were employing reverse psychology.  Who knows.  Perhaps lightning does strike twice.

I offer this and its opening statement as "exhibit A" to my central premise on the other thread.

Any fool who will actually say anything bad about the troops as a general group...regardless of what how they feel about the policy that has them there in Iraq, is abusing his highly visible position to convey an idiotic fringe opinion.

This one goes up there with Coulter's tirade about going into the middle east and killing everyone or converting them to christianity or whatever she said.

Disgusting fringe opinions like this one in a mass media forum hurt national discourse and lead some to make a post like this and make opportunistic opening remarks that widen rifts on non-existent issues like "liking the troops".

Not really an ideal example. The idea of supporting the troops but not the war being contradictory is at least arguable (a flip side of the 'love the sinner, hate the sin' coin [A sentiment, I might add, that is met with derision by left-wing sites such as americablog. It's a goose-gander thing. Anyway, I've gotten off point]).

Or at least supposed to contain some humor...if so, it fell short of the mark.

But if it's true we should NOT revile this man, or make fun of him etc etc.

We should APPLAUD him for his honesty, because very few people would say it.

And it always works in our favor when our enemies are forthright and honest in their intents.

The left has to hide their true ideas and lie about who they are if they ever want to regain power.

Liberals can't tell the American people that the reason Durbin and other liberals were screaming about abuses at Guantanamo Bay is because abuses happened at Abu Graib and the liberals know that the US military is the US military everywhere, so who needs proof before leveling an accusation of torture at the US military. And the liberals also know that it is OK to compare US troops to Nazis because everyone(liberals) knows that the people who join the US military after 9/11 are thugs with buzzcuts who can't wait to torture and kill arabs. I mean why else would someone join this imperialistic war machine voluntarily? They are sadistic racists, just like the Nazis!

If liberals supported the troops, they would be outraged at statements made by Kennedy and Durbin. Instead liberals celebrate those statements.

Lefties don't have to support the troops. We all know they don't. Just don't make an already difficult job even harder for our troops, by wildly exagerating the sins of the few. The things done at Abu Gharib for example, by a few morons, and clearly not rising to the level of "torture," were an aboration, and not any standard Army procedure. You'd never know from reading the mainstream press, but the people that first uncover and investigate these rare abuses (like Abu Gharib) are the Army themselves. The Army, and other services, are full of good people that have their own high standards. They don't need people like Ted Kennedy to explain ethics to them.

Time to offer this man the usual fare meted out to the defeated foe in the best (worst) tradition of the circa 1942 Imperial Japanese Army.

than for ANY of the D leadership who oppose the war with one face and support the troops with their other face.  At least he's consistent.

A jerk, but a consistent jerk.  I'll take Stein over Murtha every minute of any day.

It's hard for me to imagine that all but a few anti-military lunatics way out on the far-left (I'm talking waaaay out beyond Moveon.org) who could actually share Klein's sentiments. Besides, the whole "sin, sinner" analogy is a bad one. If your against the war, I think blame the shooter, not the gun is better analogy....the troops being the gun.

Again, I've never heard Kein's view before. And that's a good thing.

On your other point, I don't think being against the war OR the way it's been prosecuted and supporting the troops is contradictory.

Besides the fact that I think Klein is an utter fool for what he wrote, his writing this gives head way for people to post threads like this to make an irrational claim that, as the starter implies, he's been wanting to make anyway.

This is the same sort of thing we saw happen to the troops during Vietnam.  I'm not sure that same thing could happen now.  Times are different, and people look back and regret what was done to those soldiers when they got home.  It's good that he said this stuff though, we should let him shout it from the rooftops to remind Americans that there are some folks among us who are actively working to undermine our work in Iraq and undermine the troops ability to get the job done.

The left has to hide their true ideas and lie about who they are if they ever want to regain power.

I guess it's easier for some to set up a strawman "lefty" than it is to debate the left on their terms.

This is a sign of desparation, having to pretend that your opposition means something other than what it says.

"This is a sign of desparation, having to pretend that your opposition means something other than what it says."

If only we could harness the power of irony!  The stars themselves would be our toys...

Oh, we'd move among the stars, and none could stop us. Our sin, surely, would be pride. But then, the Destroyers would come, one by one, and we'd be forced back, one system at a time, until all was lost.

Read his bio. Stein is a small little person, a spoiled, self-absorbed little boy. A small boy who in his entire 35 years or so has never done, is not doing, and will never do anything of any real value to society.

He is to be pitied rather than reviled.

Um ... I think college is a real waste of time,  but I juist love freshmen ... so, I just want all of you students to know, while you're studying for finals, the whole thing's just a big mistake!

There's a real motivator.

He's intellectually consistent and honest.

You can at least have some respect for him for being true to himself.

Liberal politicians can't say how they really feel about gay marriage, abortion on demand, national security, terrorist rights, gun owner rights, etc. because they are not in line with the American people (ex. 11 out of 11 gay marriage referendoms were defeated by the people in 2004).  

Liberal politicians are afraid to say they are liberal! Remember in the debates when someone asked Kerry if he was a liberal?

and others like him.

He pats himself on the back for being honest and bold, and going where no other modern American leftist has gone.

Its more than his illusion - it is probably also that little way down deep mental crutch for insignificants.

Why?

Because he knows that:  love the troops; hate the troops; agree with the war, disagree with the war - he isn't worth the grime on the callus of an infantryman's sole; and he might be a little lower on their radar than those little squiggly things infantrymen destroy when they burn their outdoor latrines.

- Only an Opinion -

We should APPLAUD him for his honesty, because very few people would say it.

I found this piece to be an honest opinion that's simply wrong headed.  We shouldn't complain when the other side tells the truth about something we'd always accused them of lying about. We should simply disagree and move on.

Stein is right.  You can't oppose the war but support the troops. I frankly found nothing wrong with these statements givent he perspective of the writer.

It doesn't seem fair to suppose that most of the left believes as this moron does. Conservatives would not like to be associated with some of the fringe members of their philosophy. Even if some blogs on the left or some leftists, (or even most leftists) do the same thing to conservatives, that doesn't make it right to do it to them. This to me seems really 'low road'.

I completely believed Senator Kerry when he looked right into the camera during one of the presidential debates (I believe it was the second) and said:  "I am a fiscal conservative."

And it was really refreshing to watch Senator Kerry proudly run on his liberal record as a US Senator.  

And I competely understand that Senator Kerry spent so much of his campaign effort listing his accomplishments as Dukakis' Lt Governor.  

Yes, the Senator really embraced and was proud of a lifetime of liberal achievement.    

for people like this to go to sleep under the blanket of security the military and government provides and then get up and criticize the way or the means it provides it!

I do applaud his honesty but question his logic

Harrumph. That just means he doesn't want to run fiscal deficits, so it was really a promise to raise taxes. He learned from Mondale that you can't say this in so many words.

This has been said so many times that I apologize for lack of creativity: I am so freakin' glad we don't have to feign attention to that flip-flopping Frog every day till 2009.

This one speaks volumes.

. . .the Times have secured the services of a token moderate.  Kudos!

[closed-captioned for the sarcasm-impaired]

He's quite the ladies man.

Yikes, in reading all these responses, you'd think Joel Stein was a chief policy analyst at one of the leading Democratic think tanks.

Folks, take a breath and apply an ounce of perspective. For anyone who's taken the time to actually figure out who Joel Stein is, they would know that he is a satirical writer who generally comments on entertainment and pop culture.

He was a long time writer for Entertainment Weekly (and a hysterically funny one at that), now writes periodically for the LA Times and Newsweek.

Joel Stein is a humor writer, simply put.

Now, you may take issue with the argument he was articulating (however, satirical it was intended), and that's perfectly fine.

But to see everyone getting all riled up over what Stein wrote - as if he is some serious political opinion maker on the Left - is to simply invent an alternative reality.

Joel Stein's entire purpose is to get people riled up! That's what he tries to do.

He casts the line. And apparently some happily take the bait.

Lighten up.

Joel Stein wants to hang out in Vegas with you. Yes, 4 lucky Iraq war veterans will win an all expense paid trip to Vegas. And best of all, you get to hang out with Joel Stein. Your free trip will include roundtrip airfare, 3 nights in a  penthouse suite large enough for 5 people (4 soldiers and Joel)complete with it's own mini-casino and best of all, no limit on free drinks and food as long as it's taken as room service. Yes, for three days and nights you won't have to leave your suite for anything and you can spend the whole time hangin' out with Joel.

Good luck and remember, "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas"

He was writing "the War Prayer" for an SNL audience. Doesn't quite carry it off, and he's no Mark Twain.

Aside from the sentences and paragraphs, it's pretty inane drivel.

Here's what he was probably shooting for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Prayer

Very funny stuff. Almost as funny as a Ted Rall cartoon.

Reading some of Stein's previous publications, Balfour has it right - Stein is a satirist.  Why make Stein out to be poster child of liberalism?  I would take this site more seriously if the primary authors didn't take every wrong in the world as an example of leftist evils.  It would also help for the commenters to do a little leg-work themselves, rather than accepting everything at face value.  Not everything you read on the internets is true.

He's from Edison, New Jersey.  He went to school at Stanford and worked in NYC and LA.  How many soldiers do you think he knows?  He might have sneered at a ROTC student or two in college, but I doubt there are many vets in his social circles.  He's a spoiled pantywaist.  Draft or no draft, military service still owes a great deal to economics.  The people - blue collar workers, African Americans, union laborers - these limousine liberals rely upon to elect their candidates are the ones whose sons and daughters are serving overseas; people like Stein do not understand why these people won't take to the streets and spit at or protest soldiers.  Even if you oppose the war, you're not going to call your son, your brother, or your friend a babykiller.  

And, when this gets reprinted in Arab English language dailies, or the international media, and our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan see it, I'm sure they'll appreciate the nuance.  Matter of fact, I'll bet it lifts their spirits.  Maybe even as much as Fahrenheit 911

Joel Stein is all yours, oh-so-sophisticated Balfour.

disagree with some of his opinion, sure; but at least he's willing to take it thru a bunch of hate-email that is most likely on its way already.

But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken -- and they're wussy by definition.

i agree.

i also agree w/ this:

The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices...

hopefully, each one of those donates to vets, buys vets lunch or visits a base once in a while. for the record, i have a dont forget 9-11 sticker. not quite the same as a support the troops sticker IMHO, as 9-11 was the start of something larger than afghanistan/iraq IMO.

here's where i fall off w/ him:

The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.

anyone knowing the armed services knows, agree or disagree; its the one place that you follow orders or the mp's put the cuffs on when you get back to the barracks. most soldiers are just backing their fellow soldiers in action. any iraq war special will show you that. he should have just left it that he doesnt support the troops as he doesn't support the war. he doesnt seem to have a decent understanding what the soldier fights for and joined up for and fighting for become different once the bullets fly.

his overall point seems to be that if you disagree w/ a position, you should disagree w/ all parts; and on that, i agree.

their embrace of the far left. Yes, folks, if you are a Democrat, if you voted for Kerry and have not repented, you can now be classed as a treason traitor. Embrace Joel Stein, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Michael Moore. They are you.

Far too often, we look for the worst and most ridiculous of one or a few to cast an over-reaching net of guilt.

Most of Left and many on the Right, it must be said, are opposed to the premise for going to war and/or its execution by our leaders. That's pretty clear. Anything beyond that is quite a stretch if not totally false.

People who truly hate the troops are about as miniscule in number as people who bomb abortion clinics.

Margot, I'm going to have to look into this.  (gestures hypnotically)

As a Times subscriber, I've endured Stein's humor for several months.  He usually doesn't write about anything remotely political.  His columns are an ongoing love affair with himself, often relating some obscure, insignificant and ridiculous anecdote.  In fact, he revels in the ridiculous.    

That's why I find it amusing, for a change, that Stein is satirizing how utterly ridiculous and bafflingly inconsistent it is for someone to say that they support the troops, but not the war.  For the first time since...ever...I actually chuckled at something Stein wrote.    

As far as taking "every wrong in the world as an example of leftist evils," I'll leave the Armageddon-izing (hey, I think I just made up a word) to Al Gore.  He seems to have honed his skills to a fine art through five years of hysterically sparring with straw men over the "evils" of GWB.

I don't give two whits whether he is a satirical writer or not.

Being that I have friends and a husband that frequent hot, arid climates, I just don't see the humor in his position at all.

but what, exactly, is Stein satirizing?

Just think about it for a second.  Hillary can't go after Kos, unless she wants the nutjobs who are the lifeblood of her party to turn on her.  So, maybe Stein has decided (or been instructed) to take one for the team.

It is a plausible (?) explanation for why Stein would write something so inflammatory as this.  As a lefty writer, with VH-1 creds, he already must have invites to all the A-list parties in Hollywood.  So, kissing up to the glitterati can't be why he did this.  An article like this is a sure-fire way to get an invite on Hardball --but no one watches that, and Stein knows it.

So, what else could this be but a contribution to the Hillary 2008 campaign?

He doesn't speak for anyone I know.

Don't use the opinions of one loon who conforms to your preferred stereotypes about liberals to tar all of them. That's as dishonest as the liberals who use Pat Robertson to smear all evangelists.

That will be all.

You are one of the few that I've ever seen have the guts to do it.

Read the piece.  Read it again.  Then read it with an eye toward the satire angle.  Sorry bud, no dice.  Swing - and a miss.

Unless Stein is attempting to satirize the mindless spewing of Talking Points™ - and I highly doubt that is his intent - there is precisely nothing satirical about this Krap.

Put simply, Stein's piece is nothing more than a Maureen Dowd column dumbed-down for High School freshmen and with some bad attempts at humor thrown in to, I suppose, show how "edgy" he is - nothing more, nothing less.  In other words, precisely what we should expect from the Opinion page of the LA Times.

Lame.

Let me know when PJ O'Rourke gets a column in the LA-LA Land Times and then we can talk satire.

Now if I could only get back the 15-minutes of my life I wasted on this Tripe, that would be something...

He wants you to know that he thinks you, your friends and your husband are suckers.

I mean you, Doc. Check out the transcript of Hugh Hewitt`s interview with the new Jonathan Swift at www.radioblogger.com My keyboard`s busted in places, can`t link directly, sorry. Whatever else the article is, it`s not satire. I think some of our leftist friends are a little put out by Stein`s honesty and are indulging in some textbook cya.

with Stein.  You've just gotta hear it.  

If you use alcohol, have at least one drink first.  If the Provost at Stanford, Mr. Stein's alma mater, hears the interview Stanford will recall his degree.  Hugh was a perfect gentleman, did not get in his face at all.  He just grilled Stein.  I was embarrassed for the poor guy.  Since I am part of a Marine Corps family I'd still like to punch the little twit, but I would probably pull the punch a tad.

Stein is living proof that you can graduate from a very expensive private college and still be an idiot.

to the Joel Stein-Hugh Hewitt interview. I must admit, he has guts, or nerve, or some sort of courage-inducing organ to come out and talk to Hugh Hewitt after publishing this thing. But I don't think I'm going to get a coherent response as to what the "satirical" part of his column was.

I feel sorry for Stein, in a weird way. It's like being back at school listening to someone stand up and deliver a presentation or a talk who clearly hasn't prepared at all for the event. The professor starts asking questions, and it's obvious they're getting raked over the coals...obvious to everyone but them, anyway.

no doubt getting at least several more of our troops killed. Silly you, thinking that Zarqawi's butchers don't follow our press releases. Hey, they say thanks for your support.

     At least your column has unburdened me of one guilt complex. Now I will feel free to consider punching out the next person who idioticly states that they "support the troops but not the war."

     Consider this from the Dec 23, 2005 edition of the Best of the Web http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007722...........

"I passed up full scholarships to three universities, as well as took a cut in pay from my construction job, to enlist in the U.S. Army on my 18th birthday in 1984. I proudly served under Presidents Reagan and Bush. I and many others like me would appreciate it if you would quit questioning our patriotism by claiming or insinuating that we were trapped or fooled into volunteering for the service. The overrepresentation of my demographic and geographic (Southern) group in the military is a source of pride, not shame or pity, and it is insulting for you or anyone else to say otherwise. If "shared sacrifice" is so important to you, when did you serve, and in what branch? It's obvious, from your lack of understanding of the military and its personnel, that you didn't.

Almost all service members like looking to our left and right and seeing all volunteers. The last thing we want in the foxhole with us is a draftee, rich or poor. You and those who think like you claim to "support the troops," but you belie that by seeking to inflict dangerous and unprofessional draftees on us, lowering our morale and degrading our cohesion and effectiveness. You'll also walk all over us to sabotage our mission and attack and discredit our commander in chief. You aren't supporting the troops, you are supporting those who seek to kill them."

     So Joel Klein the only people that may be laughing at your, uh, "satire" are the sadists in Al-Queda and quite a few demented posters at DailyKos.

That's some satire. He is really taking it to a whole 'nother level!

I would say a large chunk of democrats/liberals agree with Klein, they've just never been willing to say it or have never articulated it in such a way before.

Democrats can single out a fresh-faced 19 year old soldier and say "yeah, I support that kid, I'm behind him all the way" with varying degrees of honesty (and usually to make some lopsided political point about BushLied), but when it comes to the United States Military as a whole, they agree with Stein that it is a malevolent force in the world.

With this in mind, keep in mind what "I don't support the war, but I support the troops!" means is "unlike that last war we didn't support, we will refrain from spitting on them in airports this time"

but I choose to read it as satirizing the dopes who say they think the war is evil, illegal, immoral and unnecessary...but I support the troops!

While I agree with the basic logic you're using, on this particular issue you have to peel it back a few layers.  Basically democrats are saying "we support the troops, but we havn't supported anything the troops have DONE since 1945".  What Stein is doing, honestly and vaguely admirably, is pointing out that it's time to put up or shut up, and face the reality that this means they don't in fact "support the troops".

but Stein does point out the inherent logical fallacy of saying you support the troops, but you think everything they're doing in Iraq is illegal, immoral, based on lies, blood for oil, Halliburton profiteering, etc.  

And he says it without the usual cover of politically correct doublespeak that is usually an automatic, but insincere, footnote of libspeak.  It's just the raw, disgusting disconnect between saying that you support the troops while simultaneously demeaning the mission that they risk their lives to accomplish.

To be fair, Joel Stein barely breaks into the top 100 list of living proof you can graduate from a very expensive private college and still be an idiot.

It is ridiculous to call this satire.  I think this is a bold and honest opinion sprinkled with humor, and at times I agree with him, but Stein's article simply is not by definition satire.  Regardless of the author's day job as a humorist, that doesn't mean anything he writes can be backed away from and dismissed as a joke.

Presumably Stein said what he meant and meant what he said, and doesn't need anybody to rush to his defense claiming that we somehow missed the point.

but Stein does point out the inherent logical fallacy of saying you support the troops, but you think everything they're doing in Iraq is illegal, immoral, based on lies, blood for oil, Halliburton profiteering, etc.

I reject your assertion and the premise on which it is based. There is no contradiction of any sort about being supportive of the troops but not of the orders they have been given. The straw man you constructed there is useful as a political club with which to beat your opponents, but is neither honest nor useful as a description of the positions held by most people opposed to Bush's Iraq war.

It is important to be able to distinguish between the person and the job they have been ordered to do. The inability to make that distinction is one for which anti-war activists were rightly pilloried in Vietnam, when returning veterans were treated abusively.

By denying that such a distinction exists, you are not just disingenuously and unfairly defaming your political opponents--you are validating the actions of anti-war activists who do mistreat veterans by presenting them with a false dichotomy wherein they cannot hate the war without hating the soldiers sent to fight and die in it.

Please consider that by perpetuating this false dichotomy, you are yourself doing our troops a great disservice.

When you say you support the troops but not their orders, when was the last time that "anti-war activists" DID approve of the orders?  Iwo Jima, perhaps?

The one part of Stein's article I really liked and agreed with is when he stated that nobody joins the military thinking they will defend the country from invasions from Mexico and Canada.

With this in mind, Stein points out that the military is basically a tool for American imperialism, etc.  When a group or party so consistently disagrees with the purpose of the military, it is logical to conclude that they do not like the military.  You may not hate each and every solider, but certainly you prefered they had a different job.  That is not "supporting the troops", as Stein rightly points out.

If these are not your personal views that is fine. But as a whole these are the views of the Democratic party in America, and have been for quite some time.  Thus, this is no straw man or false dichotomy, it's simply the way it is.

Except for the Balkans. Any good liberal or pacifist can be 100% behind that adventure (even this guy was). Nothing at stake and nothing to gain is the prerequisite for their support.

from spitting on them when they return home, how exactly do you support the troops while demeaning their mission?  Please take into account that the military people I know are doing more than "following orders".  They are profoundly dedicated to their mission and believe in the cause of resisting tyranny and promoting peace and democracy.  You undoubtedly disagree more respectfully than Joel Stein does, but that's not even close to being the same thing as support.  

I would certainly say someone can respect the troops, but support of the troops also requires support of the mission they spend every day working to accomplish. Support is not really a good word choice for those that don't agree with the mission.

Of course, there are still plenty of people out there that do not respect the troops, but feel the need to repeat the mantra. Sort of like "You know I'm not a racist but..." or "Some of my best friends are black!" It would be better if they were honest about it, like the author is... though his honesty is tempered a bit by the dishonesty at the beginning (I'm sure they are great guys... love to party with them in Vegas) part... which treads pretty close to the "I support the troops" mantra anyway.

You can attempt to minimize those that do not respect the troops, but they are out there in number. Look at something as comparatively non-controversial as enforcing the law. But how many people out there hate cops? Hate every single one, as a group? See them as more of the enemy than the drug dealers? I would propose that the number of people who do not respect the troops is much greater because the mission is so much more controversial.

When you say you support the troops but not their orders, when was the last time that "anti-war activists" DID approve of the orders?

Try Afghanistan. An overwhelming majority of liberals were supportive of the mission to strike back against the Taliban. Sure, you'll find some on the fringes who were against even that, but they're not numerous or representative enough to take seriously. In fact, one of the strongest liberal arguments against Iraq is the degree to which it has diverted resources away from Afghanistan. That's hardly the position of a reflexive peacenik.

But as a whole these are the views of the Democratic party in America, and have been for quite some time.

No, this has been the conservative caricature of liberals and Democrats for quite some time. It bears about as much resemblance to reality as the liberal caricatures of conservatives as heartless religious nuts who hate the poor.

From the way "satirical" was used upthread, the implication seems to be that Stein shouldn't be subject to a storm of personal criticism for putting this argument forth, because he adopted it solely for the purpose of demonstrating its absurdities; that is, satire in the tradition of "A Modest Proposal". The problem is, as Hewitt's interview reveals, while he may present the argument humorously (and it may seem ridiculous to us), it appears to represent his sincere belief. Insofar as that is the case, his being a "satirist" presents no defense.

After hearing the interview, though, I'm moved more to pity than contempt. His sum total of "knowledge" about the war seems to be that, hey, the army is killing lots of people overseas, many of them innocent. If that's all you have to start reasoning from, of course you're going to wind up with an unsavory conclusion: it's like being asked to cook a gourmet dinner with two packs of ramen and a dill pickle.

how exactly do you support the troops while demeaning their mission?

First of all, I do not "demean" anything. You need to stop constructing straw men that make insulting presumptions about people you know nothing about.

As for how I or other liberals support troops: much the way you do, in ways intangible and not. By sending care packages to people we know, and participating in programs like Any Soldier if we don't know anyone serving in theater personally. By donating to organizations that provide support for military families while their breadwinner is deployed. By advocating that our government provide them all with the very best equipment and body armor available to preserve their lives, instead of their families having to buy it out of their own pocket. By thanking soldiers in uniform and veterans we meet on the street for their service and sacrifices; five simple words can make a world of difference. By demanding that our government honor their commitment by using lives wisely.

All of these things support American troops as much as any amount of flag-waving. And none of them require that I possess one iota of agreement with the war they have a duty to fight.

There are a great many laws in this country that I think are horribly unjust. But I don't support policemen any less for that fact; they signed up to enforce all laws, the good and the bad. They put themselves at risk every day to ensure my safety, and the fact that their duties sometimes require them to do things I strongly disagree with doesn't change that.

It might help you to try and make that same distinction with regard to the troops. At the very least, you may find that you come to understand liberals a little better than you thought you did.

There were many who were against Afghanistan. (Michael Moore, Moveon.Org, ANSWR to name a few). There were protests. There were predictions of certain failure. Like Desert Storm, the critics are oh-so-much harder to find now.

Were there liberals that supported the action in Afghanistan? Absolutely. Minimizing the numbers that were against it, however, isn't dealing with reality. It was more of a 50/50 split on the left than a 99/1 split.

that "supporting the troops" and "supporting the mission" are mutually exclusive, given that the mission is leading to death/injury.  Now, this is a silly argument.  But it highlights the problem with such a term.  The whole "are you a patriot" thing ignores the uselessness of the question.  

We all love America, applie pie, puppy dogs, pandas, and Bob Dylan.  Liberals don't agree with some of the policies of the American government, and neither do Conservatives.  Perhaps a better idea is to get rid of the "you can't say/think/feel that" attitude and try to have real debates about policy in the best interest of the country, rather than the party.

Is it really a "caricature" of liberal/democrats to say that they are an anti-war party and have been since the 60's?  Is this just some Big Lie that has been repeated until it's presumed true?  Because if I go down the list of every use of the US Military since Korea, other then Afghanistan I seem to be seeing a pattern.  Right wing media brainwashing, perhaps?

I will not hire Ivy League or "big school" grads for entry level positions unless they can prove they paid for their own schooling with money they earned somewhere other than working for dad.  

My preference is former Marines, particularly combat vets, and SpOps guys.  They know how to get a job done with insufficient resources and they know how to work together.

Better not let the EEOC read this :-)

there a very many liberals who are against the Iraq war sending care packages and donating to military charities. People generally do not donate to causes they don't agree with.

I think doctors overall are good people, it is a noble profession. But I do not support, in any way, doctors who perform elective abortions. I would not donate to any charity, hospital or otherwise, if I thought the donation would support abortions.

all day long while I hire people who are primarily either minority or, relatively, "economically disadvantaged".  And, frankly, if they want me they can fight their way through two cordons of combat tested guys.  If they try, I'll video tape it, and advertise it on RedState.

I'm not defending Stein's humor in his latest piece. I didn't find it particularly interesting one way or another.

My only point is that the notion that Stein should be taken as a remotely serious political commentator who is indicative of "leftist" political thought is a silly notion.

Stein, like many humorists, aim is to both entertain and rile people. That's what they do.

I understand that it serves the agenda of some to hold Stein up as representative of some larger political body.

I get that. I understand the purpose of that. But it's absurd.

And if it feeds everyone's persistent manufactured outrage to assume that Joel Stein - a guy that 95% of America has never heard of - is somehow going to have his words broadcast across the Middle East, you are also welcome to assume that.

But it is equally absurd.

Manufactured outrage. Flame on!

you argue from the premise that the troops do not have the best equipment available; that the "government" (I suspect what you really mean is Bush) is not using their lives wisely. If you felt otherwise why else would you mention those two "doubts"?

whether "We all love America ..."

The liberals who control the left's soapbox in the public square do not, in my opinion, love America; they would much prefer to replace it with a system in which they, as progressives and intellectuals, were simply in control and the rest of us would do as they say. They are not democrats they are tyrants-in-waiting.

that Joel Stein has the gravitas to be seen as an actual "humorist." He is a self-absorbed little boy pretending to be a grown up.

and you'll realize just how right you are.  I actually felt bad for the little pin head.

Everybody can stop kicking Catsy now.  It's not like he's the one currently in possession of the Magical Pretty Rainbow Unicorn Political Wand that must be retrieved before the Democratic Party can have the retrocranial inversion spell cast on it reversed.

...OK, that's one of my stranger ones.  Still.

"My only point is that the notion that Stein should be taken as a remotely serious political commentator who is indicative of "leftist" political thought is a silly notion."

Especially after I saw the doll picture.  But I kid.

Stein will be a guest of Bill"... I was savagely beaten once by bullies in the school yard... If I had a choice of being savagely beaten or gently masturbated by a pop star--It's just me"Maher before Valentines Day.  He sounds like Bill's kind of guy.      

Not following you. College who now?

I disagree with most of what Stein is saying. However, I think it is possible to support and have an appreciation for our troops sacrifice, yet not support the mission they are on.

What I do find interesting are comments like this in this thread:

"It's just the raw, disgusting disconnect between saying that you support the troops while simultaneously demeaning the mission that they risk their lives to accomplish."

Anyone remember Kosovo? Here are some quotes:

"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."

-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world.  The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"You can support the troops but not the president"

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

Talk about a raw disconnect of demeaning the mission while supporting the troops... Did these quotes give aid and comfort to the enemy?

From last night's radio interview with Hugh Hewitt:

HH: Now, and in your piece, you wrote that, "when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes, you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times, it's Vietnam." Did you support the war in Kosovo?

JS: I had very mixed feelings about the war in Kosovo. Again, I don't know if the U.S. should be used as a police force.

HH: Well, mixed feelings is...you know, someone...either you've got to go or you don't. Should Clinton have sent them?

JS: At the time, I thought he shouldn't.

HH: And so, should they come home now?

JS: The troops in Kosovo?

HH: Yeah.

JS: The U.N. peacekeeping force in Kosovo? Or the U.S. part of the peacekeeping force in Kosovo?

HH: All of them. Just, you know, just U.S. Let's stay focused. Should they come home?

JS: To be honest...I'd like to know more about Kosovo before I said.

So getting lucky means being sent to fight in a war you have very mixed feelings about and don't really know enough to comment on one way or the other. Good to know.

So, we have an honest liberal. We conservatives are always grumbling that liberals hide behind euphenisms e.g. "I'm not a liberal, I'm a progressive", etc. Now we have a liberal who is stating what most leftists really believe, and we want to beat the guy up. We should be encouraging him!

with a system that defers more to the executive, that provides the states with substantial more rights vis a vis the federal government, that promotes a liberterian form of economy, etc. etc.  

Unless someone believes the current American political and policy system is perfect (which not even George Bush believes), people would like to make changes to the system.  Your accusation that liberals hate DEMOCRACY, to say the least, is absurd and unsupported.

That's a reasonably good point, except that it fails to address degrees.

There's a difference between someone who wants to change this or that feature of an overall system, while keeping the overall system reasonably intact and a person who wants to scrap the whole deal and replace it with something different.

It's simply incorrect to say that wanting to balance powers more to the states than the federal government is exactly as opposed to the current form of government as wanting to eliminate democracy and replace it with a monarchy, or fascism, or communism.

A pretty major difference really.

The conccept that liberals want to overthrow the democratic portions of the Constitution is absurd.  

And Stein is the poster boy.  Not only is he unswerving in his statements, but in his interview with Hugh Hewett he comes off as a complete idiot.

That said, I'll take Stein over Murtha any day.

that this was my opinion.

I do not want to replace the current American system with anything; to paraphrase Churchill (Winston, the one with a brain) "it isn't perfect but it's a d*mn sight better than all the others." I would much prefer seeing the American system actually employed and that does mean more states rights --- this is afterall a federal system and the original design was for sovereign states, not an all seeing, all doing federal government. That does not imply defering to the executive, it implies the executive doing the job envisioned by the Founders; providing for the common defense, protecting the borders, collecting customs duties and delivering the mail.

As I said it is my opinion that liberals hate democracy because it means that those of us who do not believe in a managed economy, massive cradle-to-the-grave federal government, etc., actually have a say in what goes on; we are not obligated to do as the bi-coastal "intelligencia" tells us to do.

one to ignore logic, fairness, and consistency.  One does not get an absolute right to insulate the things they say from criticism by calling it an opinion.  

from criticizing it. I've told you my opinion and you don't like it that's fine, I could care less.

Don't try to project the wretched opinion of one radical liberal on the rest of us.

Believe it or not, it isn't just conservatives who have family members and friends fighting over there.  The VAST majority of Americans, on either side of the aisle, support the troops.  

About half of us don't support the inept administration that sent them there.

So he says 50.7% support doesn't make a mandate for the troops. I'm sure he gladly accepted Bill Clinton's 43% of the vote as a "mandate" to govern in 1992 and a similar plurality in 1996.

First off I don't think Joel Stein is a radical liberal.  I think he's a person who has come to the conclusion that two stances are mutually exclusive.  His thesis is that you can't truely "support" the troops if you don't support what they are doing and why.

It is frequently noted that the majority of troops in Iraq believe in what they are doing.  You, however, do not believe in what they are doing.  Stein says, and I agree, that you are not truely "supporting the troops" beyond what I mentioned in my post, which is basically liking the troops.

Also, 2003 called, it wants its "Republicans don't have a monopoly on patriotism" meme back.

"I don't dislike the troops as much as I dislike President Bush" or "It's not their fault, they're just following orders in an illegal war" or "I like the troops so much I think we should bring them home today" are not even remotely the same thing as supporting the troops.