Dotty Lynch, an aptly-named columnist at CBS “Fake But Accurate” News, wonders why more Americans (especially college kids) aren’t out protesting the war in Iraq.
(Note to Dotty: Universities and college kids are aleady doing more than enough to help our enemies and hinder our troops…)
I could spend some valuable time ripping dotty Dotty a new asshole, but Atlas Shrugs and Riehl World View already do a pretty good job of it:
Fortunately the administration and many Americans are willing to complete a fight liberals and the likes of CBS never had the stomach for in the first place. The least you could do is stop trying to tear it down and stay out of the way.
And while you’re getting out of the way, Dotty — would you please grab the hand of Sen. Murtha, and drag his bloated-ass out of the way too?
Marc Schulman at American Future answers dotty Dotty’s question succintly:
The answer to her question is that Iraq isn’t Vietnam because “Vietnam” was the product of a peculiar set of conditions at an unusual moment in history—a moment that has long since passed.
Dotty — who was “passionately against the war” in Vietnam, but has since progessed to “rabidly against” this war — personifies Callimachus’ definition of anti Americanism as being a “two headed monster:
- holding America to the strictest possible standards of behavior and always putting the darkest posssible interpretation on everything it does; and
- overlooking or ignoring with a cursory tut-tutting, the most vicious and selfish behaviors of any nation, group or person who opposes or attacks America. Or most delightfully of all, excusing such behavior by blaming America.
***
UPDATE: Ace thinks that “There is a “higher standard,” and then there is an absurdly anti-American double-standard.”
Yep.
Robbie: thanks for picking up Callimachus’ definition of anti-Americanism. I thought it hit the nail on the head.
Callimachus’ definition of anti Americanism as being a “two headed monster:
Because- God forbid- if we would hold America to the strictest possible standards of behavior…
It brings to mind a famous quote about the ’soft bigotry of low expectations…’
It’s always surprised me that those who would lower our national standards of behavior fancy themselves to be more patriotic than the rest of us because clearly their type of patriotism is the clannish, tribal variety-that exists in every country- rather than the pride in our founding institutions and principles.
Preston — point one is a compound statement, with an and conjunction (rather than an or).
Our standards of behavior (as a military, anyways) are the strictest and highest in the world. But there are those like Dotty who would impose impossibly or unreasonabley strict standards of behavior upon our men and women of the Military. And then bash them when they don’t live up to that ideal.
And I do believe that the men and women who do/have served in the US Military are more patriotic than those who have chosen not to serve. I think serving in the military is the most patriotic thing one can do.
Other’s hold the right (ironically because of those patriotic soldiers) to think that bashing those who serve is more patriotic.
Of course no one could really argue with that discription of anti-Americanism.
But I’m inclined to think that the author intends to apply it to others beyond those who: hold America to the strictest possible standards of behavior and always put the darkest posssible interpretation on everything it does