And the Left Wonders Why the Country Thinks They Are Anti-Military?
Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have a problem. Hillary joined the Armed Services Committee in order to establish some military cred for her 2008 Presidential run. But her peeps on the Left keep popping out of the closet to prove just exactly why the right wing thinks they are against the military.
“Oh yes,” they say (when pressed), “We support our troops. It’s those nasty recruiters we don’t like. . .”
Exhibit A: Here’s a picture from a demonstration at the University of California, Santa Cruz on March 5th specifically targeting the on-campus military recruiters. The caption underneath the picture read: “Direct, unambiguous language is helpful for making your point clear to everyone.” Yeah, I’ll say. “FTA” used to be seen only as latrine graffiti.
So it’s just one ungrateful girl with a potty mouth. Well, no. Here are a few of the comments underneath:
Malgoska: “I also hope your actions are highly contagious. Hey, other universities – are you listening?”
Drew Nelson: “That’s just beautiful. . . We need more brave and fiery souls such as those at UCSC.”
Anonymous: “awesome!! There are still folks around with heart who have the b**ls to stand up against what is so wrong with todays world…f**k the military industrial complex and the biggest terrorist on the planet Bush and his corporate buddies, well done people…people of the earth tribe rise!!!!”
Banned on Campus?
And it’s not just on campus. An anti-recruiter diatribe, “Reading, Writing and Recruiting,” took up some valuable real estate right in the middle of Saturday’s Washington Post op-ed page.
Diane Paul, identified as a writer who “worked for Human Rights Watch in Bosnia” and as a consultant to UNICEF and the UN (of course), wants military recruiters out of the publically funded education system. “The military should not be permitted to use our schools as vehicles to send young people to war,” she argues. Here’s my favorite part of her polemic:
. . .we have to ask ourselves whether children between the ages of 14 and 17 have the maturity to make what may be life-or-death decisions based on promises of easy cash and a college education
I would bet you 30 cents that she also believes that these same “children” do “have the maturity” to make life-or-death decisions about sexual relationships and abortion without parental guidance. Bet me. Condoms yes. Cadence no.
She then goes on to conclude that: “the government must also ensure the protection of our children and safeguard the role of public schools as places of learning.” Hey, now there we agree!
If you’re in-step with me on this, then you’ll not want to miss Scott Ott’s satirical take on recruiters over at ScrappleFace. It’s funny, but in that sock-you-in-the-gut kind of way. It’s a “news release” entitled “Army Offers New Recruiting Incentive: Duty.”
Journalists at the news conference, baffled by the terminology, unleashed a barrage of questions about why anyone would volunteer to fight for a country that runs a gulag at Gitmo, invades peaceful sovereign nations like Iraq and has no respect for the most Holy Koran.
Hoo-ah! People of the earth tribe . . . unite for Hillary 2008!
Also see my earlier post on “Would You Sell Out D-Day . . . for a Pulitzer?”