Skip to comments.Loony Left Impugns Its Own Patriotism
Posted on 07/04/2004 1:35:52 PM PDT by Mark
Los Angeles Daily News
Loony Left impugns its own patriotism By Jan Golab
I first heard "patriot" used derisively when I was a Vietnam War protester in the 1960s. "Patriot" and "flag-waver" were terms used to denigrate those we perceived as knee-jerk supporters of an immoral war. We felt we were the true patriots. We hated Nixon, because Tricky Dick portrayed us as anti-American. How dare he impugn our patriotism?
As it turned out, Nixon didn't need to smear anybody.
When Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam, I knew immediately that the anti-war movement should condemn her. By giving aid, comfort and hope to the enemy, she had crossed a clear line between dissent and treason. So did many of my fellow dissidents who disrupted the Democratic Convention in 1968. I was shocked to hear Tom Hayden and others declare support for a communist victory in Vietnam. By failing to stand up to the radical left, the anti-war movement allowed itself to be defined by it.
Thirty-two years later, it feels like deja vu all over again.
Today's anti-war crowd becomes indignant when they are called unpatriotic. But whose fault is it they get tarred with that brush? Too many among them have adopted the rhetoric of the lunatic left -- America is "the real enemy" -- and coronated Michael Moore as their hero.
Whole lies, half-truths, false presumptions, ignored facts, faulty logic, snide innuendo, unflattering handpicked film footage, all deliberately packaged to denigrate the president and the war effort, do not amount to an act of patriotism. (Yes, I saw the film.) It also violates the basic American value of truth and fairness. No newspaper or magazine today would publish such a shameful hatchet job about anyone. (I know, as I've been a magazine journalist for 30 years.)
Saddam Hussein, the greatest tyrant of our time (2 million dead, and counting -- unmentioned in Moore's film) doesn't need to produce propaganda anymore, because he's outsourced the job to the American left. Indeed, Hezbollah has offered to help promote "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the Middle East. Most recently, Moore has compared the insurgents who are cutting off American heads in Iraq to the Minutemen in the American Revolution -- the real patriots. "Their numbers will grow and they will win," he says.
How's that for encouraging the enemy?
One of my college roommates in 1969 had a dirt-bag friend who crashed on our couch once for a few days. I told him I wanted the slimeball out of the house. "He's cool, man!" My roommate exclaimed. "He smokes dope, he likes the Beatles, he hates Nixon -- he's a bro', man."
I told him: "Charlie Manson smokes dope, listens to the Beatles and hates Nixon, but he's not my 'bro', man."
When your only criterion for "brotherhood" is a shared hatred, you will embrace slime. Nixon didn't need to run against McGovern. He ran against Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Bernadine Dohrn, The Chicago 7, The Black Panthers, the bomb-throwing Weather Underground and the SLA -- and Manson. He ran against the anti-American lunatic Left the Democrats should have thrown out of their house.
Today's anti-war activists should do the same with slimeball Moore, but instead they heap him with praise and awards. Moore's wacky conspiracy theories are as rooted in reality as Manson's belief that he was starting The Revolution.
Here is what John Kerry needs to say if he hopes to win in November:
"My fellow Americans, you know I am critical of President Bush. But I am not running for president because I share in some irrational and pathological hatred for the man. I am running because I believe I will make a better president. So I will not embrace propagandist Michael Moore simply because he hates President Bush and wants him defeated.
"While Mr. Moore's film makes some interesting points, it is not a fair or honest presentation of the facts. It is, in fact, deliberately unfair. It promotes conspiracy theories that are paranoid and don't make any sense. I believe President Bush acted hastily in Iraq, that he failed to deploy better diplomacy or gather a wider coalition. But to accuse him of sending our troops to die solely to enrich oil interests is both unfounded and unconscionable. It is a loathsome and unsupported charge, far worse than claims made by Clinton-haters about the death of Vince Foster.
"I refuse to embrace this man and thereby politicize the war in such a way that my rhetoric becomes ready-made propaganda for the enemy, to be used as a tool for the defeat of our troops and their great, noble effort."
Will Kerry have the courage to make that speech? Not likely. So whose fault will it be if he gets tarred by the same brush that tars Michael Moore?
I keep a picture on my bulletin board that was taken during one of the war protests at California State University, Northridge, this year. From the picture alone, you couldn't tell if it was taken in 1972 or 2004. A dozen angry students are shouting. One of them carries a sign that reads: "Imperialism needs Racism & War. Fight the real enemy."
Perhaps many of the students in the picture realize that the war in Iraq is not imperialistic or racist and that America is not the real enemy. But will they confront the sign carrier and give her a history lesson? Will anyone in the anti-war left brace her with the truth? No, they won't. Yet those same students will bristle if anyone accuses them of being unpatriotic.
So whose fault is it if people get that impression?
I keep the picture because it reminds me of what went wrong in the '60s (the lunatic left). Osama bin Laden probably keeps the same photo on a bulletin board in his cave to inspire him and encourage his followers.
Many of the people who are against the war and our president are indeed patriotic. But the horrible truth is that many of them are not. Today might be a good day to reflect on which group one belongs to.
During this momentous time of the inescapable great divide, two very different camps will be celebrating today. One will be rooting for our victory in Iraq, the historic liberation of 25 million Iraqis and the establishment of a free nation in the Middle East. The other camp will be rooting for defeat, hyping our failures, chortling over "Fahrenheit 9/11," bloviating their conspiracies and their hate.
I'll be watching fireworks with the flag-wavers. The patriots.
Jan Golab is a San Fernando Valley resident and author of "The Dark Side of the Force: A True Story of Corruption and Murder in the LAPD."
I call it a "flash-back". Like Kerry's LONG Vietnam expierience and Mary Jo's demise for Teddy.
I actually really like what this editorial had to say and I think the headline on the post is misleading. Basically it says that we can agree to disagree, but when it comes to loonatics who really are unpatriotic like Michael Moore, its time to put on the clamps and say, "Mike, that is not what America is about."
Happy 4th of July!
Good statement about the 'loony left'.
George Bush is the ONLY thing standing between them and an outraged fearful citizenry.
the following quote is something EVERYONE should remember, irrespective of their political beliefs:
"When your only criterion for "brotherhood" is a shared hatred, you will embrace slime."
Too late. Kerry is stuck with Dean and Moore residue.
Well, could that 'dirt-bag' have been Bill Clinton?
Very good article. Kerry has already been tarred by the same brush. Of course he is a sneakier traitor than Moore is...
Bottom line. President Bush should run against Dean and Moore, and forget about that other guy --- Kerry, I think, is his name.
I just saw a TV ad for Moore's flick...they are presenting it as a patriotic flick! Seriously - they actually had a "man on the street" interview in the ad with a guy saying "makes you proud to be an American"...obviously, they've sucked the well of anti-Americans dry for this flick and now they're trying to sucker patriots into seeing it....in the hopes of (a) making money for Moore and (b) convincing people to hate President Bush.
Certainly, there are those who take a more liberal view than I on various issues and they also love this country, but the ultra-left wingers, the standard leftie media, for example, wants to destroy our system and replace it with something they think will be better for us.
If you notice, the trailer barely shows any footage from the movie...probably Moore's way of tip-toeing around the FEC...very different than the initial golf swing trailer they were showing before
I didn't see that ad, but I wonder, could they have edited out the rest of his statement in which he says something about how un-American the film is and how proud he is not to be a part of that mindset?
I would have chosen some other example, if I were him. He clearly does not know what those claims are and what evidence can back them up. Moore makes unsupportable claims, and distorts the truth. There is no need to do anything of the sort regarding the death of Vince Foster. The important thing, is to stick to the facts, and the facts place massive doubt on the conclusion that Vince Foster committed suicide in Ft. Marcy Park unassisted.
Probably in response to the growing general knowledge of how anti-American the movie is...so, in order to try and grasp a few more ticket sales, they are deliberately lying about the nature of the movie...hasn't worked; Box Office Mojo has it being shown in twice as many theaters as last week while its gross is barely cracking 50% of what it did back then...
Now I understand the real reason why it was intially released into so few theaters...to create a "packed house" impression...make it seem like the movie was more popular than it was.
I would think more that the guy was being satirical...you know, after watching how horrible America is, he comes out and says "makes you 'proud' to be an American".
"I just saw a TV ad for Moore's flick...they are presenting it as a patriotic flick!"
Well, the 'looney left' does consider itself to be patriots of the highest degree. But, you see, they owe their allegience to a different America than do you and I. They have a vision that is completely incompatible to the one we share. In their vision, America would be a socialistic nation. They are 'patiotic' in their service to that vision, a vision not of what America was founded to be or is, but of what they wish America is to become.
Their vision goes beyond this to a world where the US is subserviant to the United Nations, a world of one-man, one vote, of universal egaliatarianism, a world where all the people share equally in all of the worlds resources. They see America as it presently is, the greatest obstacle to the fulfillment of this vision and that is why they hate America as it is, a bastion of individualism and freedom.
Good point. I remember some of the human shields who returned from Iraq and realized that the populace actually wanted us to enter their country.
Joan Baez condemned the Cambodian massacres. I don't remember her ever saying anything about the "re-education camps" in Hanoi-captured South VietNam that lead to millions of boat people desperately fleeing their homeland that they had stayed in even during 30yrs of war...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.