A candid headline for the latest piece of “Bush = Hitler” polemics from Ted Rall. Please keep your eyes open for similar expressions of hope that the United States lose this war and that the troops should not be supported if a war starts. It’s important to keep a record of exactly how far the anti-American left has traveled. Money quote from Rall:
The thing is, we don’t really have to win. Losing the Vietnam War sucked, but not fighting it in the first place would have been smarter. Losing to Third Worlders in PJs led Americans to decades of relative humility, self-examination and taking the moral high ground in conflicts such as Haiti and Kosovo. Our withdrawal from Nam was mainly the result of antiwar protests and public disapproval that swayed our elected representatives. It also saved a lot of money that would otherwise gone to save more “domino” dictatorships from godless communism. Most Americans who didn’t actively protest the war at least sat on their hands during Vietnam. We should do the same during Bush’s coming unjust war of aggression. Members of our armed forces don’t deserve insults, but their role in this war doesn’t merit support. Cheering them as they leave and holding parades when they return would certainly be misinterpreted by citizens of other countries as popular support for an inglorious enterprise – and it would make it easier for Bush to send them off again, to Iran or Libya or wherever. Let’s keep our flags under wraps.
Rall also comments that “we find ourselves facing the paradox of the ‘good German’ of the ’30s. We’re ruled by an evil, non-elected warlord who ignores both domestic opposition and international condemnation. We don’t want the soldiers fighting his unjustified wars of expansion to win – but we don’t want them to lose either.” Comparing allied soldiers to Nazis is the new level of rhetoric on the anti-war far left. It sickens me.
(Via Bill Herbert.)
The Dish 