Oh, Cripes! Fire up the wingnut hot air machine…Speaking of Hot Air, has Malkin heard of this latest outrage?

I predict a fact finding mission where the brown person who hates brown people (Little Miss Prominent Gums, herself) finds a soldier scooping brains out of a dead Iraqi, but with a Spork!!!1! See, the MSM lies! They said it was a spoon!!!!!1!11!11111!!!!

Kathleen, with out the benefit of the artiste who applies vaseline to the camera lens.

Nice find, thunda! I was thinking she was vaguely do-able from the post pic…

And not just any spork, let me assure you.

mikey

No, that is not just any spork, that is Spokus Robustus !

Parker – “In the meantime, it is tempting to wonder: What if we believed in American honor and victory in Iraq?”

Oh.

My.

Christ.

When it comes to the playbook of anti-military cliches, Thomas seems guilty of plagiarism. What could be more cliche, after all, than American soldiers ridiculing a defaced woman, running over dogs or desecrating babies’ remains?
Cliches? Er…what? Did I miss something? Did the phrase “desecrating babies’ remains” at some point become commonplace in our national water-cooler dialogue? Is the statement “soliders make fun of women with melted faces” now on par with “cops love donuts?”

What’s the argument of this column, anyway? She can’t seem to decide between “these things would never happen” and “these things are so plausible they’re probably made up.”

Let us remember that the idea of soldiers making fun of a woman whose face has been disfigured is absolutely too unbelievable to be true, while the “roasting Iraqi kids and feeding them to their own parents” story gets the big thumbs-up from everyone on the right.

There is no argument other than – if we all squint really hard; hide our heads in the sand; stick our fingers in our ears; and go “la la la la la la la la!” we should all be able to imagine American honor and victory in Iraq, because Thomas “seems guilty of plagiarism.”

Guh?

This is one for the ages. Essentially, Parker is arguing that this is all made up because
(1) ‘teh moonbats’ so desperately want to believe it is true.
(2) TNR use of an anonymous source.

So naturally, her counter-argument consists of:
(1) her belief that the opposite is true.
(2) an anonymous source (The so-called ‘JAG Officer’ who emailed her to tell her it couldn’t possibly have happened.)

I think someone secretly replaced the coffee at townhall with crystal meth.

“Let us remember that the idea of soldiers making fun of a woman whose face has been disfigured is absolutely too unbelievable to be true, while the “roasting Iraqi kids and feeding them to their own parents” story gets the big thumbs-up from everyone on the right.”

Easy. The good old “moral equivalence” meme takes care of that little inconsistency. Of course it’s plausible for the Islamofascists to do such a thing; that’s what they do!!! Since American soldiers are the inherent embodiment of all things white and Christian, it is obvious that everything they do is necessarily white and Christian. Plus she was probably a she-Islamofascist.

I wonder what happens when people flag all her comments as offensive?

Just asking.

I thought this was funny from the Townhall comments:

Louie writes: Wednesday, July, 25, 2007 3:57 PM
The New Republic has no credibility
I have one comment: Phillip Glass, Phillip Glass, Phillip Glass, the orginal TNR hoaxer.

Stephen Glass, I think he means.

But reminds me of the old joke:

-Knock-knock.
-Who’s there?
-Knock-knock.
-Who’s there?
-Knock-knock.
-Who’s there?
-Philip Glass

I think someone secretly replaced the coffee at townhall with crystal meth.

And much like with the ol’ Folgers switcheroo, nobody can tell the difference!

In a combat zone you are asked to do things no one should ever do. You cannot avoid seeing things no one should ever see. On top of that, people you don’t even know are trying really hard to kill you and you have no option if you want to go home in one piece than to kill them first, and harder.

This has been true for many thousands of years. The young man in combat is not defined by his nationality, but by what the environment requires of him. Or perhaps what it creates FROM him. American soldiers are like all soldiers. They quickly understand that a vestigial humanity will get them and their friends hurt.

You have to look inside and find hatred, anger and cruelty. You need to turn off your other feelings, and let your hatred come to the fore. You burn away all softness. You grind down the kindness. You react with a careless brutality to all stimulus.

You see, it can’t be pretend. You understand completely that if you’re pretending to be a soldier in combat, when that moment comes when you have to do something truly, horribly inhuman to survive, you won’t be able to do it. You’ll act as a civilized human, and not a brutal killer. And you’ll die.

So to find cruel, brutal people behaving in cruel, brutal ways in a combat zone is not a surprise. It’s not news. And anyone who denies it is delusional. I cannot begin to imagine the thoughts and feelings of a 24 year old kid from Missouri on his third tour, rolling out for yet another night patrol in Diyala. But if you think that he has any humanity left inside him, you are wrong.

Don’t forget that he’ll be your neighbor, your daughter’s boyfriend, your employee one day. And sure, he’ll tamp it all down and bury it behind a veneer of civilized politeness. He may not even know it’s still there.

Over the years he’ll discover that it’s a box, once opened, that you can’t just put up on the shelf when you’re done with it. Rather, when it’s done with you they’ll put you in a box.

Physical wounds are one thing. But the human damage that war does is infinitely worse, and the consequences last for generations…

mikey

I read the Parker column in this morning’s Chicago Tribune. My first thought was: The same people who scramble frantically to discredit the Scott Thomas stories are the ones who accept as Gospel truth Michael Yon’s unsubstantiated second- and third-hand stories.

My second thought was tripped by this paragraph:

In the case of Scott Thomas, the “truth” that American soldiers are woman-hating, dog-killing, grave-robbing monsters confirms what many among the anti-war left believe about the military, despite their protestations that they “support the troops.”

See, Kathleen (aside from the fact that you ascribe a belief to “the anti-war left” without any evidence that anybody believes it), most people who oppose the war in Iraq don’t oppose it because of what we think about American soldiers. We oppose the war because the Bush Administration lied to get us into it; because it was dismally planned and executed; because it has diminished America’s standing in the community of civilized nations; because it has exacerbated anti-American sentiment and provided a focal point for the creation of new terrorists; and because it has wrought devastation on the people of Iraq and summoned up a sectarian civil war all around them. So really, the Scott Thomas stories are, at worst, an illustration of the horrors of war, to be met with punishment for those involved if true; they are not the raison d’etre for our opposition to the clusterfuck that is the Iraq War.

Contrast this with the Michael Yon “al Qaeda cooked and served young children” story, which was widely touted all over Right Blogistan a couple weeks back as yet another in the series of events proving that al Qaeda are bloodthirsty devils who must be destroyed at all costs. That story and others like it are the justification, in the minds of the pro-war right, for more violence, more killing, more blood. “Look!” they say, sputtering Cheeto crumbs on their keyboards. “See what inhuman monsters they are! This is why we must fight!”

I don”t have time to hunt for a link, as I’m about to be late for class, but in re what mikey just said, if you haven’t seen the documentary The Ground Truth, make an effort to do so. As a civilian, it absolutely shocked me, even though it didn’t really surprise me. Oddly enough, my wingnut gov teacher screened it on our last day of classes, stressing that it is “slanted” but very, very interesting. She was, I think, genuinely horrified to find actual soldiers saying basically the things mikey has been trying to get through our heads. “I just never thought our American soldiers did and thought things like that!” she said several times. (Note: may have been an awakening in progress for her. And, for those who remember my fears at the start of the semester, I got an easy A in the class.)

I think that The New Republic fucked up yet again. But that the anonymous soldier was a GOP plant who set out to discredit the anti-war movement. Much like Bush’s hide was saved because of shoddy reporting by Dan Rather, the right will try and point out for all eternity that the left had to make up shit about our glorious Iraq adventure, which was actually a smashing success. Just as Bush wasn’t AWOL (despite the remaining facts).

Hell, they’ll use it even if the guy is legit. After all, they still think (or claim) Kerry was accusing his army of war crimes, instead of reading about them during Winter Solider.

Once again, that’s what they do. And shitty journalism that submarines liberalism, on purpose or not, is what TNR does.

The more I think of it, the more I’m convinced of it.

Boy, she’s one to talk.

Parker: “What could be more cliche, after all, than American soldiers ridiculing a defaced woman, running over dogs or desecrating babies’ remains?”

How ’bout her anonymous “former Delta Force” buddy emailing her that all the ’04 Democratic candidates should be lined up and shot?

http://tinyurl.com/28phmg

Whether Scott Thomas is real and his reports true remains to be determined. In the meantime, it is tempting to wonder: What if we believed in American honor and victory in Iraq?

What would those dispatches look like?

Even Shorter Kathleen Parker: Clap harder, dammit!

Thanks for the dose of reality, Mikey. I’m really sorry that you had to see/do what you saw/did.

Speaking of reality, thanks also to Thunder for that little bit of truth in advertising.

Mikey, how long will it take for Kevin to scuttle over here to announce that American Soldiers Just Don’t Do That?

You know, I actually think she’s a lot more attractive in the non-GlamourShot pic. She looks like a real person and not a delusionally photoshopped sixteen year old, which is a complete turnoff.

Unfortunately, reading anything she’s ever had to say pretty much rules out the “real person” possibility, and that’s an even bigger turnoff.

Gee, Qetesh, you must channel Kevin on a different level than I do. He only ever tells me of his love for delicious pie….

mikey

I think someone secretly replaced the coffee at townhall with crystal meth.

Nonsense! I was nowhere near Kathleen’s mug this morning!

Plus she was probably a she-Islamofascist.
That’s Islamofascistess, thankyouverymuch.

Ms. Parkwhore is misleading her readers errr viewers. That photo was airbrushed 30 years ago. Currently, she makes Ann Coulter look like a woman.

Isn’t this the same Kathleen Parker who made up a special forces guy for one of her columns? She claimed that this SF guy she invented wanted to shoot anyone who opposed the war, including elected officials. When she was called on it, she re-wrote part of her column to cover it up.

[…] is from Sadly No commenter and war vet Mikey, on the plausibility or otherwise of a The New Republic report on US […]

Plus she was probably a she-Islamofascist.
That’s Islamofascistess, thankyouverymuch.

I believe that “Islamofascitrix” is actually the correct term of art.