Michelle Goldberg tweaks the noses of her compatriots on the left for absolute incoherence and foolishness on Iraq:

"We've made a giant mess," said Johnson, a handsome man who wore his long snowy hair in a ponytail and had a sparkling stud in one ear. "I would hate for the Bush administration to halfway fix things and then leave, and then blame the Iraqis if things go wrong. Once you go to somebody's house and break all the windows, don't you owe them new windows?" Why, then, was he marching at an End the Occupation rally? "I don't agree with all the people here, believe you me," he said. But his own sign? He glanced at it, startled, and explained that someone had handed it to him. "I didn't even look at it," he said. "I was just waving it."

If there is a more damning anecdote regarding the knee-jerk protest class, I'd find it hard to believe. In some ways, I'm surprised these events aren't attracting more nuts and mouthbreathers of this sort; they tend to be fun social events where you can vent hatred at a common enemy and feel good about it, because everyone around you gives you affirmations in direct ratio to how fanatical you get. Most people who choose as their common enemy those who threaten, attack, or kill their fellow countrymen, but these folks choose George Bush. Not surprising; the protests are sponsored by ANSWER, as well known, the last of the Stalin apologists.

The End the Occupation rally, co-sponsored by ANSWER, a front group for the Stalinist Workers' World Party, and the more moderate United for Peace and Justice, seemed the only game in town. Many apparently decided to pretend that "end the occupation" really means "bring in the U.N.," despite ANSWER's blunt and repeated avowals that it means nothing of the sort.

It was a day full of purposeful misunderstandings. Members of Military Families Speak Out, a group of soldiers' relatives who oppose the war their loved ones are fighting, shared the stage with members of ANSWER, a group that's aligned itself with the guerrillas who are killing American troops and those Iraqis who cooperate with them. Both want to end the occupation, but for quite different reasons.

Don't forget that this isn't coming from the pages of the Weekly Standard, although I'm sure you can find the information there -- this is from Salon, which normally positions itself to the left of the New York Times editorial page. It gets worse:

Right now, though, there's no liberal message that separates the welfare of the Iraqi people from that of the Bush administration. In a New Republic article this week, Michael Crowley quotes Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., complaining that his colleagues' Iraq stances are driven by blind rage. "In trying to pin them down, I say, 'At the end of the day, we have to have a policy to cope with what to do now,'" he told Crowley. "And they say, 'Well, we're just pissed off.' They don't really even attempt to argue the policy of it."

The Democrats have abandoned principled opposition to incoherent rage, forgetting that the first rule of politics requires you to have a realistic alternative to what you oppose. "Bring in the UN"? Just who would be providing the troops for that? Hint: It's not going to be the French. It'll be the same people who are there now, with different commanders wearing blue berets. And we'd still need the $87 billion, because no one else is going to pony up. Most of them want to see us fail miserably so we don't ever try eliminating threats against Western democracy abroad again. Which is what the terrorists want, and what ANSWER wants. Read the whole article, although you'll either need to subscribe or watch a 30-second commercial. Goldberg writes exceptionally well and sharpens her claws mercilessly on the vacuous fringe-lefties. (via Instapundit)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is