‘No, That Time Was With A Stiletto; This Time Is With A Lightsaber — Totally Different!’
Well, well, well. Look who’s back! It’s Tacky Skystalker, Dark Lord of the Pith Helmet, and this time he’s not here to advocate concentration camps (that’s so, like, months ago) but instead insist that A) Wingnuts aren’t Nazis, B) Liberals are most certainly stabbing our boys in the back, and C) Liberals are wicked and dishonest for accusing wingnuts of crafting a new Dolchstosslegende.
Above: Josh “Tacitus” Trevino, Pacific Research
Institute VP of Public Policy
Matthew Yglesias posts this February 2007 cartoon from Michael Ramirez, calling it an example of “rightwing-media-acting-like-nazis.� He titles his post “Der Dolchstoss,� referring to the dolchstoßlegende of rightist Germany in the 1920s and ’30s. I’ve met Ramirez, and he seemed suitably un-Nazi-like for polite company[.]
Well that settles that. Right. “Where, Mr. Yglesias, are Mr. Ramirez’s SS insignia, pray tell? Does he say horrible words like ‘shit’ and ‘fuck’? Aha! That’s what I thought. And so I say good day to you, sir!” Back in reality, I recall reading that Edward VIII and Mrs. Simpson went out of their way to remark on what splendid manners that charming Mr. Hitler had.
Skystalker then cribs from Wikipedia a description of the original Dolchstosslegende, and adds, as if it reinforces his argument, that it was hardly just the proto-Nazis who believed in the Dolchstosslegende and who had streetfighting forces, but most German political parties of that era. Ok. Just goes to show what a drafty Overton Window produces when flung open on the right side of an already rickety house.
The German claim to a stab in the back after 1918 was false because Germany lost on the battlefield; the putative political implications to the claim were false because Germany democracy did not lose Germany’s war; the claim was not exclusive to the Nazis. From this, the American left today wishes to establish a parallel holding that any claim to a home front or political undermining of an American war effort — any stab in the back, as it were — is as false as the original dolchstoßlegende. What’s more, any such claim implicitly threatens democracy as the original dolchstoßlegende did; and it is the province of de facto Nazis, as the original dolchstoßlegende often was.
Ahh. See? The original Dolchstosslegende was an exercise in scapegoating; it was a false argument. But the modern Reichwing’s belief that the American Left, Congress, and the majority of the American people who wish for our Army to vacate Iraq are stabbing the army in the back is true! Ergo, new Dolchstosslegendebilders like Tacky are not like Nazis!
Pointing out that domestic politics as driven by the Democratic Congressional majority and the American left threaten the latter outcome — a choice to abandon and thereby lose the war — is not even vaguely comparable to the old German dolchstoßlegende. Unlike that old cliché, it happens to be completely true[.]
Ding ding ding!
[U]nlike that old cliché’s proponents, those pointing this out, including Michael Ramirez, do not question or threaten American democracy per se (except, perhaps, in the fevered dreams of left-bloggers)[.]
True, accusing the American people themselves, and the Congress which serves as their proxy, of treason is in no way shape or form threatening to American democracy “per se”! Tacky knowingly and dishonestly refuses to admit the toxicity of the backstab narrative.
This much is simple fact:
A hint that lies are to follow…
that the Democratic Congressional majority and the American left seek to force America to abandon the war in Iraq; that this will be perceived as a battlefield defeat of America by its foes, on the scale of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan; that the American armed forces will suffer a nadir of morale and motivation as a direct result; and that the departure of Americans from Iraq will facilitate much the same thing that the departure of Americans from Indochina did — the triumph of an evil regime, and hideous genocide in full.
How does he know a withdrawl will kill morale? As opposed to the steady meatgrinder building morale? Notice the stab in the back reference to Vietnam, too: also built on a coral reef of dead lies. Actually, like Iraq, Vietnam was a civil war we had no business meddling in — and indeed our very presence hugely aggravated (whereas in Iraq, we’ve caused the civil war by removing the centralizing force of Saddam, unleashing the centrifugal forces of sectarianism). The genocide in Cambodia was not so much a result of American withdrawl from Vietnam as it was of the war criminals Nixon’s and Kissinger’s escalations and enlargements of the conflict that facilitated the rise of the Khmer Rouge. The ‘triumph of an evil regime’ in Vietnam was simply the result, made far more bloody by our interference, of the Vietnamese polity’s self-determination (as Eisenhower admitted in his memoirs, Ho would have been fairly and democratically elected had we allowed it to begin with) within the context of an imperial occupation and post-colonial society. Would Tacky prefer that we had continued to rain down napalm on Indochinese villagers until they finally said, ‘ok, you are our overlords, and you shall choose our mode of government for us’? Yes, I think he would:
The men we fight in Iraq are, by turns, fanatics, murderers, savages, psychopaths, and jihadis: and just wait till you see what they set themselves to once we’re gone. Killing this sort is a just use of our armed forces — I only regret we’ve gone about it by halves.
The desired endstate, of course, is for our opponents to be dead or quiescent. A pity the Democrats don’t see that as an end in itself. Simple patriotism used to impel that sentiment in most.
The ‘done it by halves’ part is precious — remember, this is the guy who mourns the fact that we have not followed the British example in South Africa and put Iraqis in concentration camps. His ‘desired endstate’ is to exterminate the brutes. And the ‘simple patriotism’ remark is icing on the cake: the willingness to perpetrate crimes against humanity being indivisible from proper loyalty to The Reich America. But he’s not a Nazi, oh no.
He’s not a Nazi, he’s just a very naughty boy.
He’s not a Nazi, he’s just a very bad cartoonist.
He’s not a Nazi, he just found the hat.
He’s not a Nazi, he’s just so stupid he doesn’t know how to act like someone who’s not a Nazi.
He’s not a Nazi, he just likes to show his patriotism by impersonating a Nazi.
the majority of US citizens want us out. Congress wants us out. The Iraqis want us out. The Iraqi GOVERNMENT wants us out. And the US Military wants to be out.
Let’s get crazy and tack on all the cuts in pay, support, and benefits that Bushco has put on the troops, plus the extended tours, multiple tours, and insane usage of Guardsmen in combat situations.
So who’s being the back-stabee, now?
I’m at a loss to create an accurate analogy for this. Perhaps something involving Space Balls…
Oh those redirects. They’re sooooooo funny. And they totally disprove the whole point of the article! Sadly, No! has surely been schooled and defeated in honorable exchange of ideas due to the use of a redirect.
“the departure of Americans from Iraq will facilitate much the same thing that the departure of Americans from Indochina did — the triumph of an evil regime, and hideous genocide in full.”
So, our leaving Vietnam caused all subsequent problems (I think Luke Starfucker means, most notably, the despotism of Pol Pot in Cambodia), while our staying prevented them?
I see.
Yeah, Vietnam is so totally fucked these days – Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie can’t even toot around the place on a motor scooter.
Oh, they did?
Fine, but try to get a decent springroll, or a person with two legs to bring it to you.
Ah well.
http://joshua.trevino.at/?p=246
2003: This will be great, everything will be wonderful, Iraq will be a shining beacon of democracy and ponies, and Democrats will be in the wilderness now and forever more, amen.
2007: an insurgency rages out of control, sectarian violence is the order of the day, and 75% of the American people want us out of Iraq, and it’s all going to shit politically.
What to do, what do? If you’re Trevino and the other alleged “thinkers” of the right, there’s but one answer to this question, and it’s not to rethink your support for the war.
Blame the Democrats! Blame the American people! But because THIS time the dolchstosslegende is “true,” we’re not REALLY Nazis and we’re not really undermining the thing we were supposedly trying to export to Iraq in 2003: DEMOCRACY. And what we really need to do is get serious and start shooting more people. Y’know, the Boer War and all that. Then we will “win” and we can . . . . . . . what? Export democracy to the Iraqis behind the barbed wire in the new concentration camps that Trevino advocates? Stage a military coup in the U.S. because it would be just too dangerous to allow anyone but Dick Cheney to be in charge? Of course, any comparison between that coup and the Reichstag fire will be just coincidental, right, Josh?
How Trevino’s head doesn’t explode in this situation is beyond me. Truly.
Apparently, Trevino’s head did explode. So confident in the truth of his writing, he decided that it wasn’t appropriate for anyone from SN to actually read it. So he put up a cute redirect.
Having gone around said redirect and read his comments, they are even more absurd than his original post. He believes that our objectives in the war are now defined as “our enemies dead or quiescent.” In response to a request to define
“our enemies,” Trevino has alas lapsed into quiescence himself.
I suspect that the archive scrub will be completed later today. Threats of legal action will be tomorrow.
Trevino’s next post will be in about three months or so. After his prescription meds run out.
Wait.
Tacky- “I led a United States Army platoon in Nicaragua some years back. Can’t say I’m especially interested in proving my patriotism, or knowledge of military doctrine, to someone who imputes neither to me. Enjoy the site; last word’s yours.”
Ummm
really?
Anyone know anything about this?
Tacky’s very sensitive and delicate. He has to constantly monitor who is linking to his posts to make sure there isn’t any mocking going on.
I led a United States Army platoon in Nicaragua some years back
How many years back one wonders. Disturbing if true.
HTML:
I really have to admire you. I can’t read more than a few sentences by this guy without my eyes glazing, perhaps in an automatic reflex to protect my brain. Trevino’s logic is, if anything, more serpentine, convoluted and self-contradictory than that of Hinderaker, as shown a couple of posts back. Thanks for trying to dissect the mutated aborted fetus of his argument.
“I led a United States Army platoon in Nicaragua some years back. Can’t say I’m especially interested in proving my patriotism, or knowledge of military doctrine, to someone who imputes neither to me. Enjoy the site; last word’s yours.�
Jeebus. I got nothing to say to that. What a pretentious fucktard.
How old is this guy?
You mean some of those troops that we pretend we never had in Nicaragua because if we’d had them there, they would have been there illegally? The ones who were being funded by our selling of weapons to Iran and our importing of cocaine through the CIA? Those troops?
What a mensch.
So Trevino, faced with a reasonable commenter (whose only departure from pure rational dialogue is to express some incredulity at Trevino’s apparent positions), chooses to pick up his ball and go home?
I guess if he’s not being sworn at, he can’t wield his +5 Civility Hammer, which wins all arguments.
How old is this guy?
He looks like he’s from the age group that most supports the Iraq war.
You know, the one that doesn’t remember Vietnam.
Mr./Mrs./Ms. Mencklen:
Thanks for the link to Shystee’s post on the Overton Window, which IMNSHO is an excellent graphic representation of an essential analytical tool.
One might say that it’s our job — and by “we” I mean the “extremists,” the peasants with pitchforks — to shove the Overton Window as hard left as we can.
The Republican master debaters showed what shoving the Overton window right means — somehow, “torture” is part of our normalized discourse — that is, if you consider authoritarians like Rudy or “Catcher” Romney normal….
Anyone an international law scholar here? C’mon, you autodidacts, tell us, what would Tacky have had to do to qualify as a war criminal?
What the hell does this mean? Can’t say I’m especially interested in proving my patriotism, or knowledge of military doctrine, to someone who imputes neither to me.
So Trevino only demonstrates his credentials to those who already believe he possesses them?
And since when does leading a platoon make one an expert in military doctrine?
Can’t say I’m especially interested in proving my patriotism, or knowledge of military doctrine, to someone who imputes neither to me.
So Trevino only demonstrates his credentials to those who already believe he possesses them?
No. He’s just saying that, if you don’t think he’s patriotic, or if you don’t believe that he knows millitary doctrine, then he doesn’t want to expend energy changing your mind.
That small part of what he says makes sense. He’s just expressing himself in a very arrogant way.
What a mensch.
What a war criminal/drug trafficker is the phrase that comes to mind.
So now, let’s consider dolchstosslegende, Nazis, and Godwin (and his law, fuck him with a rusty chainsaw).
HTML, you made reference to Freikorps a couple of posts ago.
Let us skip happily along from the Freikorps to the Night of the Long Knives.
In his speech Hitler explained why he had not relied on the courts to deal with the conspirators: “In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I become the supreme judge of the German people. I gave the order to shoot the ringleaders in this treason.”
Does this remind anyone of a certain world leader, explaining that the people needed to be spied upon, for their own good? And no, we can’t even let a toothless Justice Department gum the details, let alone ‘the courts’.
For the good of the American people, of course.
I guess I should have asked a more precise question,ie.,how old was this dude when things were happening fast and furious in South America,back in the day? He just seems awful young to have been in Nicaragua at that time.
He just seems awful young to have been in Nicaragua at that time.
Yes. Especially if you consider that he claimed to have led a US Army platoon.
It was a bluff to the commenter. Tictack was part of a humanitarian operation after a hurricane; he saw no combat.
So withdrawl is surrender, and will unleash genocide and expose us to horrendous attacks in the future. We should accept this worst case scenario as fact because, what, they’ve been right about so many other things in the past? That’s beyond stupid. But the best they can offer as an alternative is leave the American soldiers over there getting chopped up and driven to mental illness, and if anything show the Iraqis more brutality and suffering as a result of the American Occupation. No end game, no exit strategy, their solution would have the american army on their sixth or eighth deployments into middle east combat in a few years. Completely unrealistic, completely unsustainable, and yet curiously unaddressed in their ranting.
Mindless warmongers have no place at the table. They created this, their position that we must never end it is unacceptable…
mikey
Alrighty then,that’s pretty,ahem,tacky,to say the least. What a nimrod.
Platoons are led by commissioned officers. If he was a commissioned officer in the US military, I’m pretty sure we’d have heard about it before…
mikey
Mikey, I think he was a 2nd Lt. There’s been several posts where he’s talked about it, so it’s not like I’ve dug around.
In that case, let me mention my participation in the American Revolution. I played paintball in the Pocanos (sp?) 3-4 times back in high school, and I’ll bet there were some revolutionary war battlefields nearby.
Shiiiiiiiit, I fought on both sides of the Indian Wars as a child running around the woods of central NY state.
Oh, and I spent a month at Oxford one summer, meaning I fought in the War of the Roses and countless other historical wars.
I visited Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin, I guarded the WALL, man!
The wedding photo?!?! Yet again?1?eleventy-one!?
Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
Yes, and may I add: I was totally a part of WWII due to my listening to my Grandpa’s descriptions of the battles he was in, and looking at his medals, and playing WWII wargames, and also watching war movies on Cable.
“Trevino has alas lapsed into quiescence himself.”
Better quiescence than tumescence, if you ask me.
A 2nd Lt.? So all he really needs is a couple of hours on the practice range, a few hundred sit ups, ammo, and a radio and he could save Western Civilization from this MENACE?
OH Please Josh Trevino Save America?
Oh please, please?
oops.
Mikey, I think he was a 2nd Lt. There’s been several posts where he’s talked about it, so it’s not like I’ve dug around.
Well, alrighty then. Lots of El Tees don’t have the sense to come in out of the rain, but they DO get a solid grounding in tactical doctrine and leadership skills. It is NOT undemanding…
mikey
but they DO get a solid grounding in tactical doctrine and leadership skills. It is NOT undemanding…
Once again Mikey with the common sense.
Maybe Trevino really would be a good fighter. For all I know, perhaps he was a good unit leader. There really are some people who want war, and who sound kinda crazy, and who actually have some millitary experience.
Many of the Hard Right are rather weak and are Chickenhawks. Especially the ones who post on the internet. Doesn’t mean that all of them are like that. But the point is, the fact that Trevino does have some millitary experience doesn’t make his statements any less bizzarre and/or hateful.
As I understand/remember it, it goes something like this. Tacky was in the Army, went to Nicaragua. But when he was called up for combat, he… well, he didn’t go AWOL but he pleaded mental illness and was discharged. He went into this at that stupid swordscrossed site he had with Armando when the Goldstein/klonapin thing was going on.
Regardless, he’d still be a flaming fascist even if he’d gone to Iraq. In fact, with his history of statements, it’s best that he didn’t go — for Iraqis’ sake. As awful as it is for him to proselytize for the joys of war crimes, that’s still better than him actually being a Lieutenant Calley over there.
It’s interesting that he uses the word ‘opponents’ rather than ‘terrorists’, ‘enemies’, or even ‘Islamists’. And that his ‘desired endstate’ is not peace, but for a lot of people to be killed and dominated.
Huh. I would have thought that the desired endstate would be a nation at peace with her neighbors, the rising tide of trade driving the economic growth that lifts all boats, education and cultural exchange, and a bright new century of innovation and prosperity. Shows what an idiot I am…
mikey
I imagine it was Hurricane Mitch (October-November 1998).
But when he was called up for combat, he… well, he didn’t go AWOL but he pleaded mental illness and was discharged.
My sister’s ex did the same thing to get out of the Navy. Wonder how common that is, as a way to get out.
I clarified some of the Vietnam stuff in the post.
Dinner and a movie!
From the Santa Clara County GOP
The Germans were not defeated on the battlefield in 1918. They still held French and other foreign territory and there were no foreign forces on their soil. However, they were going to get their asses handed to them in the near future as the result of the huge American force coming into the war and their own exhaustion after four years of war. It was this that led them to sue for peace.
The stab in the back theory was bullshit in the 1920s and 30s, it was bullshit in the 1970s and 80s re: Vietnam and it is going to be bullshit in 2009 when the troops leave Iraq. But right wing types of a certain stripe can’t resist it.
I, too, wanted to express my outrage at the use of the wedding photo again. How uncivil.
And although I have never led an American platoon in Nicaragua (WTF – was he with the marines chasing Sandino in the 1920s and 30s?) I did help liberate Paris in 2003. By liberate, I mean flew there on an Air France flight, rather than fighting my way from Omaha Beach, but I did fly coach so I feel like I know a little bit of what those brave men (and Josh) went through.
the departure of Americans from Iraq will facilitate much the same thing that the departure of Americans from Indochina did — the triumph of an evil regime, and hideous genocide in full.
Well buggery bollocks. This level of intellectual dishonesty has completely flabbered my ghast.
Here’s a rough sequence of events of ‘hideous genocide’ in Indochina — missing the dates, for I am a lazy bastard, especially when I’m supposed to be working…
Phase 1. American military presence in Indochina. To ensure Cambodian loyalty, CIA topples Sihanouk government; installs Lon Nol.
Supported by North Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge set up in opposition to Lon Nol. Cambodian civil war begins.
US attempts to prop up Lon Nol in the usual counterproductive way — bombing Cambodian countryside into complete state of buggery, which increases popularity of Khmer Rouge.
Phase 2. US military forces withdraw from Vietnam, leave Cambodia as well. “Triumph of an evil regime� in civil war, general blowback, genocide, etc. US policy is one of benign neglect, so any stories leaking out of the country are ignored or denied.
Phase 3. Khmer Rouge launch pre-emptive invasion of Vietnam. Vietnamese counter-invade. US now become involved by supporting Khmer Rouge — mainly intelligence and advice, and encouraging China and UK to provide more direct military support.
Vietnamese invasion wins anyway, topples Pol Pot. Khmer Rouge retreat to Thai border, wage guerilla warfare for the next 11 years — still with US support. US insists that Pol Pot’s genocidaires retain the official Cambodian seat in United Nations, and prevents the new, non-genocidal government in Cambodia from receiving aid from World Bank, etc.
Phase 4. Tacitus attributes Cambodian genocide to US absence from Indochina. Videotapes appear on websites, showing Irony held captive in the Tacitus basement and begging for rescue, but are denounced as forgeries. Mass suicide among serious historians; emergency clinics swamped by wave of bloggers with forehead injuries from being banged against keyboards.
Exactly.
for I am a lazy bastard, especially when I’m supposed to be working…
On Teh Lord’s Day, Herr Doktor? Tsk tsk. Oughtn’t you be resting and recreating or something? Here, have some gin. I find it makes weekend work ever so much more pleasant, and you deserve it after that pithy takedown.
No. He’s just saying that, if you don’t think he’s patriotic, or if you don’t believe that he knows millitary doctrine, then he doesn’t want to expend energy changing your mind.
OK, fine, but he said that in response to someone who was actually engaging him (or trying to) in a discussion of military doctrine, not to someone who just said “You know nothing.”
Dan:
I see what you mean, yes.
What is it with Tacitus and the self-sabotaging antics? It’s as if he’s determined to be on his own, bravely standing up to a world united against him.
With his online-integrity gig, people were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and cooperate with him, so he did his best to piss them off. Now he’s coming out with bullshit about Cambodian history, when the actual facts are hardly contentious. This is not good for his arguments or his credibility. Having the facts against you need not be a fatal handicap if you can fall back on overwhelming rhetoric, but the Tacitus prose-style is not exactly Churchillian.
One of these days he’s going to be standing alone on a petrol tank as it explodes, shouting out “Made it, Ma! Top of the world!”
Hmmm, gin.
I’m still fascinated with that weird I-led-a-platoon-in-Nicaragua comment. The last US ground troops withdrew from Nicaragua 74 years ago, shortly after FDR took office (and those were Marines, not Army). There was the Contra crap in the 1980s, but that didn’t involve US units entering Nicaragua. Besides, if Trevino was involved in that he would have had to have gotten his commission when he was a toddler.
It makes no sense. It has to be either a typo or a delusion.
Snorghagen: Perhaps Operation Fuerte Apoyo.
Aha! That could explain it. Thanks, J-
J____:
Thanks for that. I was wondering about it too, as I was reading his response. It seemed … strange, somehow, to claim to have led US soldiers in Nicaragua “a few years back,” unless he was Granpa Simpson. (Which, given the lightsaber picture, I presume he is not.)
So he was a sooper seekeret Yanqui soldier, so rrrough and tough and macho. He wants to keeel everyone who gets in hees way, rip them apart with his bare and bloody hands.
So why the fuck *didn’t* he enlist and go off to Iraq? He’s so bloody gung ho about war, he’s drooling with excitement about it, why not go there and play?
Oh, right. I imagine he got rejected on medical grounds. I expect the Army thought it might be a safety hazard for his team-mates, him having a constant erection the whole time.
War-whores, eh? It’s a sad, sad life.
The original Nazis were all veterans: Hitler, Göring & the rest. This chickenhawk bullshit will come back to bite everybody in the ass once the pro-war crowd finds a veteran like Mussolini to lead them.
Vietnam wasn’t a civil war in any meaningful sense, rather it was a classic colonial war with quislings figthing their own people (every colony was run by turning the population against itself). South Vietnam never had any indigenous support to speak of and fell apart in spite of an overwhelming military advantage (10:1 ratio of tanks and so on) when a bill of *extra* economic support from the US motherland didn’t come through. No one considers the 1956 Hungary uprising to be a civil war, even though there were Hungarians supporting the Soviet invasion.
Well, speaking personally…I’d annex the Sudetenland.
dolchstoß (back-stab) and dolchstoßlegende (back-stab-legend)
“Dolch” means “dagger,” not “back.”
small point, but symbolic
um, the fact that these people think Vietnam was a just and good war (that we would have won if we had just thrown 50,000 more dead American soldiers at it) pretty much invalidates every opinion they have had about war since then.
Whoa, Brett, hey dude! I remember you from back in the dark days of blogging! how’s it going? It must be a relief not having to deal with tedious and disingenuous wankers like Josh Chafetz anymore. Flattered you read my stuff. Cheers.
Exactly.
Hitler loved kids – or at least cultivated that inpression. He was also devoted to his alsatian bitch Blondi.
Hitler cleaned up nice, was charming personally and gave rousing and effective speaches.
This is why I fear Romney – he’s charming and good looking enough to make an effective totalitarian dictator.
Just a minor quibble:
The US didn’t just aggravate the civil war in Vietnam; we essentially created the civil war in Vietnam. We funded the French military effort for its last few years. We brokered the Geneva deal in 1954 that cut the country in two and let a handpicked US surrogate, Ngo Dinh Diem, take over as leader in the South. We actively supported the decision not to hold the nationwide elections in 1956, which undoubtedly would have led to the election of Ho Chi Minh as leader of a united Vietnam. And we provided the military support that allowed Diem to initially assume control over the South, until the Viet Cong started to come back in 1960 or so. As Daniel Ellsberg said, “We didn’t back the other side — we were the other side.”
So basically, a belligerent Statist is demanding an escalation of war so that someone, anyone will submit to him–politically, militarily, etc.–in order to bolster his cripplingly low self-esteem.
And how exactly is “Dolchstoss” Trevino supporting the war effort as a yammering spokesmouth for some right-wing tax dodge?
Sour Kraut:
And how exactly is “Dolchstoss� Trevino supporting the war effort as a yammering spokesmouth for some right-wing tax dodge?
Are you unfamiliar with the oeuvre of M. Trevino? He, the author of that wonderful, Dolchstoßig website “No End But Victory”? That site used to have a manifesto on it, calling all Patriots to defy the antiwar “Leftist” crowd and, um, support the Preznit or something. But not to capitulate to the LEFT! No, never.
The guy is primarily concerned with The Enemy Within (that would be you, me, and about 60% of the US population), and not so much with the Enemy Our Boys Are Actually Fighting. Because that latter Enemy is kind of confusing, swarthy, amorphous, and speaks a language that is really hard to learn. Plus the President’s policy seems to have many more of the latter, while the Enemy Here At Home is easy to identify by his patchouli scent, or his failure to kowtow to Brother Dobson, or his gayness. You know.
stickler:
Are you unfamiliar with the oeuvre of M. Trevino?
Far more familiar than I’d like to be.
My question was more rhetorical than anything else. But we both know the answer, and you already laid it out.