Right Wing Nut House



Filed under: Politics — Rick Moran @ 8:58 am

Nobody had to bail Glenn Greenwald out of jail yesterday. Or Markos. Or Jane Hamsher. Or Maha. Or any other lefty who has spent the last 4 years safely ensconced behind their computer monitors telling all of us how morally superior they are because they oppose the War in Iraq and how those who support the mission should either enlist or shut up.

Meanwhile, almost 200 of their compatriots in the anti-war movement - those who are serious about peace - could have used their help and their bodies yesterday. They deliberately provoked their own arrests in order to stop a war they don’t believe in.

A march by thousands of protesters demanding an end to the Iraq war turned chaotic yesterday afternoon near the Capitol, where hundreds sprawled on the ground in a symbolic “die-in.” Police arrested 189 people, including 10 who organizers said were veterans of the war.

Capitol Police used chemical spray against a small number of the protesters and pushed back others who tried to jump a barrier in a self-described effort to be arrested. The “die-in,” on a walkway in front of the Capitol, was generally peaceful, but scores of arrests came when protesters tried to climb over metal fences and a low stone wall…

After being processed and released last night, one of those arrested said he had come by train from the Boston area. The protester, who identified himself as Walter Ducharme, 78, of Cambridge, Mass., said he had been arrested at an earlier demonstration and “figured I had to do it again.”

The fact is, those who are truly dedicated to peace and prove it by their actions make pretenders like Greenwald et al look like the cowardly wretches they truly are. The pretenders have no moral standing whatsoever to criticize those who support the mission in Iraq. They are burdened with their own cravenness when it comes to standing up for what they believe in, putting their hides and their freedom on the line in order to stop a war and an Administration they constantly tell us are evil.

If this is how they fight evil, does anyone doubt that evil is laughing in their faces, certain of its triumph?

In fact, their hysteria over the last few years about Bush “tearing up the Constitution” and “taking away our freedoms” calls into question not only their courage but their sanity. Are they trying to tell us that all they can do to save America from a dictator like Bush is write snotty little essays, vying with each other to see who can call the President the most mean-spirited names in the fewest number of words? What about “resistance?” What about “confrontation?”

Let’s take as an example of what ordinary people can do to affect change, the Solidarity Movement in Poland that overthrew a real dictatorship. Not only did they write snotty little essays about the Soviets and their own government, they also protested in the streets and on the docks; cities, towns, villages, and anywhere they could make their voices heard. Hundreds of thousands, millions of people eventually who risked their lives for freedom from real tyranny not the ginned up, politically motivated, exaggerated, fake frenzy over imagined despotism that the left in this country has accused the Bushies of over the last six years.

Those people had the kind of moral courage to which the left can only pretend. Arrested, beaten, even murdered for their beliefs by a pitiless, all powerful government, the example set by the freedom loving protesters in Poland makes the keyboard peace warriors who hunch over their venom soaked little treatises and blather on about the “threat” the Bushies pose to liberty look like dilettantes and mountebanks.

And the same kind of cowardly, “save my own hide” attitude extends to the antiwar effort as well. The demonstration yesterday was planned for months. It was advertised and promoted on every lefty website worth its salt. It was sponsored by one of the largest liberal “grass roots” organizations in the country.

And all they could muster is a measly 10,000 people - many of whom were there representing causes as diverse as anti-globalization and promoting the vegan lifestyle? And only 200 of the protesters exhibiting the commitment and conscience to get themselves arrested?

Why didn’t Greenwald prove how dedicated he is to peace by at least showing up? Probably because they wouldn’t pay his expenses from Brazil. Ditto for the thousands of other lefty bloggers who write smugly of war supporters not putting their money where their mouth is and enlisting to fight in Iraq all the while showing a yellow streak a mile wide about standing up for their own convictions and filling the jails of this country in order to stop a war they say they oppose.

It’s easy to write those overly dramatic, keening laments about how hard it is to move the country and Congress to end the war. One can just imagine these guys at Point du Hoc. “It’s too high a cliff. Let’s try down the beach a bit.” Or can you imagine Hamsher, Greenwald, etc. at Omaha Beach? “The fire is too intense. Let’s go back to the ship and have some lunch.”

The left will no more fight for peace than they will fight for anything else important. Their “fighting” consists solely of lecturing the rest of us on how we should obey their petulant demands because of their moral superiority. Why no one calls them out on this idiocy is beyond me. The brave souls who marched in Selma proved their moral superiority by peacefully facing down those who would do violence to them. They endured billy clubs, fire hoses, beatings, jail, and even death to affect change.

The modern incarnation of the peace warrior has legs of jelly and serious problems with bladder control when confronted with the choice of claiming the moral high ground rather than actually earning it by putting their bodies and their freedom at risk. There should have been 10,000 people arrested yesterday instead of 200. A few protests like that, with thousands of activists hauled off to jail, and I guarantee this war will be over a lot quicker than if Glenn Greenwald or one of his ilk writes another long winded, impossibly boring essay on the evils of Bush or the chickenhawks of the right and their cowardice in not joining the military to fight.

The left will choose the coward’s way out every time and call it “activism.” Come and see me after you’ve spent just one night in jail or gotten a whiff of tear gas. Then I’ll give your “chickenhawk” argument all the consideration it deserves. If you want to argue that someone overage or with a physical disability or even those who don’t want to make a career in an all volunteer army must keep their mouths shut in the debate over the war, then go ahead and make that argument. But not to recognize that the opposite is true - that those who advocate withdrawal based on some kind of moral superiority (on which the entire “chickenhawk” meme rests) while refusing to go to any legal lengths to personally take responsibility for doing what is necessary to end the conflict - prove their unworthiness to not only declaim against war supporters but also agitate for peace.

In short, put up or shut up. You can hardly call hawks “chickens” while hiding behind your computers trying to prove that you are everyone’s moral betters when you won’t do anything more strenuous than cleaning the spittle off your monitors after one of your unhinged diatribes against your political foes.


  1. War Of Anti-War, Pro-War Protesters…

    Thousands of anti-war protesters, including a sizeable contingent of military veterans, rallied outs…

    Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — 9/16/2007 @ 9:46 am

  2. Did I get banned already? Wow you guys have nothing to fight with. Hanging out shelled up in the echo chamber because you can’t deal with honest debate and opposing views.

    That’s OK though because I understand. It’s not your fault. You likely were indoctrinated from a very early age to think the way you do. You likely never had any good teaching of basic logic and reason. Heck you may even have some genetic predisposition to think concretely and to follow authoritarian rule. And like your blog your source are likely all propagandist in nature and don’t allow for external inputs because you are completely unable to deal with a diversity of ideas. So it’s ok if you banned me. I completely understand that it’s not your fault that you think the way you do. You are weak, I an strong. My message will prevail and yours will lose.

    Comment by muirgeo — 9/16/2007 @ 10:15 am

  3. Why would I ban you? Your idiotic comments are good for a laugh or two - even from my lefty readers. All you have to do to make your charge that I can’t deal with a “diversity of ideas” look like tripe is to click on any thread on this blog.

    And the fact that you read and commented on this post means, of course, I didn’t ban you - that you are a paranoid nut case is another story.

    I deleted your comment on the other thread for the use of an obscenity. Check that thread out and read what I wrote - I invited you to resubmit the same inane comment simply by removing the offensive word. Too much for ya? Thought so.

    Comment by Rick Moran — 9/16/2007 @ 10:20 am

  4. Only a paltry 10,000 protesters. These chicken doves make me sick.

    Comment by TonyR — 9/16/2007 @ 11:32 am

  5. Well why did you remove my post from the last thread about Guliani? I submitted it…it was scathing and blistering…it initially posted and now its gone.

    Comment by muirgeo — 9/16/2007 @ 11:36 am

  6. 16. Rick Moran Said:
    7:38 am |Edit This

    Your comment was deleted for the use of an obscenity. Remove it and republish.

    Maybe if you read the above you wouldn’t be in the dark. It’s from the Rudy thread. I wrote it 30 seconds after you submitted your comment.

    Comment by Rick Moran — 9/16/2007 @ 11:40 am

  7. “…it was scathing and blistering…”


    The only way he makes that better is if he follows it up with, “I know, because my Mom said so.”

    Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy — 9/16/2007 @ 11:42 am

  8. I get it. It’s the Reverse Chicken Hawk attack.

    An unusual attack coming from Rick to be sure.

    But seriously, what else does he have?

    Comment by Davebo — 9/16/2007 @ 1:42 pm

  9. I completely agree with your post here; so few people truly fight for what they believe, and are not willing to take risks at all to fight for whats right, instead just yelling insults and trying to get people to do what they say, usually without actually doing it themselves. We need far more people like those 189 who got arrested to actually get somehting done, not just people simply posting to a blog a message that no one will actually really care or do anything about after they’re done reading it.

    Comment by Nicholas 452 — 9/16/2007 @ 1:48 pm

  10. So, Ricky…How about posting a copy of your DD214. Let’s see your credentials to claim credibility as a staunch defender of America if military service is the criteria.

    Put up or shut up.

    Comment by Swami — 9/16/2007 @ 2:19 pm

  11. The people doing the actual protesting are doing it for the sake of he lower class. Once more of the upper classes are forced to get involved in this war, you can bet that the protesters will shut this country down. It’s pathetic, but until kids of the upper class start getting blown up, the lower class young men are nothing more than fuel for the machines of the war profiteers. This war is a business, and business is very very good right now.

    Comment by tHePeOPle — 9/16/2007 @ 2:30 pm

  12. not just people simply posting to a blog a message that no one will actually really care or do anything about after they’re done reading it.

    Well, obviously Rick has read the posts. He seems a bit obsessed with Greenwald. Obviously he’s a poser, I mean he didn’t fly the 5000 miles or so to DC for a demonstration.

    Comment by Davebo — 9/16/2007 @ 2:32 pm

  13. Touche’, Rick,

    It is odd that the Kos Kids, Huffers, VoteVets, and MoveOn-er’s constantly BRAGG about their numbers yet, there were not that many anti-war protesters. It’s similar to Osama telling others to go blow-up themselves.

    Thank you for removing the offensive language. I posted on another site about it being a sign of a small vocabulary.

    Comment by Juan, the Neo-Con — 9/16/2007 @ 3:19 pm

  14. @Rick:
    I agree with you 100% about the gasbag “all talk and no action” critics of the war. But how on Earth can you mock the “enlist or shut up” argument by telling them to enlist (take action) or shut up? Your entire post justifies their argument; its easy for the gasbag Righties to talk about how glorioius the war is, but when the recruiter comes around they aren’t so excited.
    Pick one; either the argument has merit (making solider-in-Texas W, King-of-deferments Cheney, my-sons-serve-by-not-fighting Romney, etc.) two-faced cowards, or the argument does not have merit. The point works both ways. If the war protesters who didn’t go to the rally are cowards in your opinion, does that make the war supporters who didn’t go cowards as well?
    Again, I agree with you. I’m just not sure how you’re weakening their argument by pointing out how right it is.

    Comment by busboy33 — 9/16/2007 @ 3:29 pm

  15. busboy, you’re being a bit unfair I think.

    Both “chicken” arguments are silly.

    Our President didn’t tell us we should go to war. He told us he should go to the Mall.

    There is no draft. Considering that, 100k in DC is pretty incredible.

    I have a grudging respect for Rick. And this post is certainly not his best work. But he’s getting there. It’s apparantly a painful transition.

    Comment by Davebo — 9/16/2007 @ 5:36 pm

  16. @Davebo:
    I wouldn’t come to this site if Mr. Moran didn’t impress me, even if I disagree with his positions most of the time.
    I agree both sides of the “chicken” argument make fools of themselves. No doubt in my mind.
    Was it 100k at the rally, or 10k? I had thought it was 10k, but I could be wrong.
    I support the protesters firmly (when there’s a rally around me I go whenever I can).
    Didn’t intend to sound harsh. Its just that the post didn’t attack the hypocritical argument, it attacked the Left. Now, granted, this is the RightWingNutHouse, so mabye I was expecting too much, but I was hoping for more “tough decisions require followthru and personal sacrifice” rather than “this is why the Left are punks.”

    Comment by busboy33 — 9/16/2007 @ 7:03 pm

  17. “In short, put up or shut up.”

    big words from a chickenhawk….


    Comment by KEvron — 9/16/2007 @ 8:16 pm

  18. Long time reader of your posts, Rick.
    This one rings true, as many other do.
    Hang tough in the face of the nay-sayers.

    Comment by disunreconnected — 9/16/2007 @ 9:13 pm

  19. #17

    Lots of little words from the small mind of an ill-mannered dolt.

    Gutless wonders like yourself were probably so absorbed with your own perceived moral superiority to realize that military men critical of Rumsfeld were telegraphing a plea for more enlistments AND not only talking to Bush supporters.

    Comment by Chip — 9/17/2007 @ 7:47 am

  20. #14

    More evidence that logic and reason are not your forte. Exposing the hypocrisy of those advancing the fallacious “chickenhawk” smear in no way supports their argument.

    Comment by Chip — 9/17/2007 @ 7:53 am

  21. The American left has been on dope since the 1960s. We saw more evidence of that over the weekend.

    Comment by Silvio Canto, Jr. — 9/17/2007 @ 8:51 am

  22. #20

    Attacking the argument does not expose hypocricy. Defending one side for using the argument while attacking the other side for using the same argument is hypocricy.

    Comment by busboy33 — 9/17/2007 @ 12:32 pm

  23. #22

    Your rebuttal presumes the “chickenhawk” argument is logical to begin with, which it is not, as articulated quite nicely by Christopher Hitchens several years ago.

    Comment by Chip — 9/17/2007 @ 3:16 pm

  24. #Chip:

    Maby you missed in #16, where I said pretty clearly I agree that the “chickenhawk” argument is foolish:

    “I agree both sides of the “chicken” argument make fools of themselves. No doubt in my mind”

    At least, that was my intent. If it didn’t come thru that I don’t believe the argument, from either side, then I failed to convey my thoughts clearly.
    Mr. Moran is using the argument to attack Leftie talking heads for, essentially, being punks. Talking a good game, but not putting their keisters on the line when it counts and all that:

    “The fact is, those who are truly dedicated to peace and prove it by their actions make pretenders like Greenwald et al look like the cowardly wretches they truly are”

    “The left will no more fight for peace than they will fight for anything else important. Their “fighting” consists solely of lecturing the rest of us on how we should obey their petulant demands because of their moral superiority.”

    And so forth. Again, in my opinion the argument is baseless, but if Mr. Moran truly believes it (as implied by the post), then he presumably would apply it to Rightie “all talk and no action” people as well. Yet he doesn’t. That is either hypocricy, foolishness, or a deliberate attempt to use a false argument to smear an opponent. Unfortunately, I don’t think he’s either a hypicrite or a fool.

    Comment by busboy33 — 9/18/2007 @ 2:17 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress