Fred Kaplan has an interesting piece noting that the usual suspects who like to claim to be better for the troops have been silent--even after General Petraeus said that the burning endangered US troops.
On one hand, I agree with some critics who have suggested that the General should have stayed out of this, and that this is something covered by the first amendment. Doesn't mean, of course, that we can't tell these idiots what we think, but they have a right to express themselves and that is part of being an American. Perhaps we could do better to stand up with one voice and tell the Afghan protestors that we understand their frustration, and even agree that this is a hate-filled expression--but it is part of freedom where sometimes you don't get what you want and freedom includes the right to be a raving idiot. It even allows you to quite your job as Governor and then "write" books to make millions as you trumpet your fake family values.
Oops, off the topic there. But in that vein, where are the conservatives who told me that protesting the Iraq war "emboldened the enemy?" Or who told me that accusing the President of participating in war crimes (water boarding) undermined our war effort and made our soldiers vulnerable?
You don't get to have it both ways. You can't wrap yourself in the flag and say that your political opponent is helping the enemy kill American soldiers and be silent now.
10 comments:
Streak,
Could you post a picture of yourself in your burka?
Jasmine,
Would you post a picture in your Klan-robe?
On one hand, I agree with some critics who have suggested that the General should have stayed out of this, and that this is something covered by the first amendment.
I disagree. Part of making an informed decision about where one stands on this issue, the general formerly in charge of what's up over there has real input. What he said in no way infringes on the 1st amendment, and in fact was useful information. "Hey folks, our enemy is gonna love this shit, so knock it off" is helpful perspective. We've all been screaming about free religion and anti-discrimination, but to hear his very qualified voice stand up and say that there's another take on how dangerous this is outside the confines of constitution-hugging was quite warranted and very helpful.
His "critics" are just pissed that they're on the wrong side of their beloved General's opinion.
I agree with Smitty. Patreaus has made similar conclusions in the past and he is in a position to know. As for conservatives, I haven't heard much from them in support or opposition of this guy, so I don't really know.
I am pretty libertarian in my views of the Constitution, but I still believe that just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it. On the other hand, I am tired of people getting so bent out of shape over a book.
As I just posted at ATK:
For those that compare the burning of the Qur'an to the building of the Islamic Center in New York City, as they are both actions protected by the first amendment, I should remind you that the building of the Islamic Center was planned to bring people of multiple religions together, but burning the Qur'an is being done out of hate.
Follow the Quaran mere worshipping
the Holy Book not change the extremism or terrorism
Smitty and Steve, I don't necessarily disagree. I think my point is that one could argue that Petraeus should not have had to make this point--that others in the media and leadership on both sides could have clearly articulated the challenge of freedom and respect in America.
And Bob, I agree completely. And as I keep saying, if it were just this idiot, we could have a completely different conversation. But it isn't just him. It is also pastors like Jeffries and political hacks like Palin and Gingrich.
" It is also pastors like Jeffries and political hacks like Palin and Gingrich."
Actually Palin has made a statement against the burning.
I am not as clear as I would like to be. My point is that it isn't just this pastor who is stirring up anti-muslim sentiment, but all of these other factors. I don't doubt that many of the more mainstream Christians find the burning unseemly and vulgar, but they are urging people around them to be suspicious of Islam or trying (ala Palin and Gingrich) to connect the Islamic center to the supposed Muslims who did the 9-11 attacks.
Does that make any sense?
Does that make any sense?
It does to me. This is just one more example of many many examples that cumulatively equate to strong anti-Muslim sentiment on the right, bolstered by either lack of admonishment from leadership or active participation in it. When when crackpot speaks and his little flock listen and Palin looks the other way and Gingrich says "FUCK YEAH" this kind of shit takes hold.
I bet Dearborn goes 75% Dem this November (Michigan political hacks will understand that...)
Post a Comment