Ward Churchill’s Endorsement Of Fragging Is A Natural Outgrowth Of The Left’s Virulent Anti-War Rhetoric
“For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who’s already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn’t conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?”
Later, in a question-and-answer period, Churchill was asked whether the trauma “fragging” inflicts on that officer’s family back home should be considered, he responded: “How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann’s family?” — Ward Churchill
This is, of course, an outrageous comment, but it’s also a natural outgrowth of the rhetoric used by a lot of anti-war liberals.
If George Bush is Hitler, doesn’t that make the troops Nazis?
If Dick Durbin is right and we’re as bad as Pol Pot and the Soviets, why should Americans “support the troops?”
If Michael Moore is right and the terrorists in Iraq are “The Minutemen,” shouldn’t we be rooting for them to defeat our troops?
The anti-war left has painted the Bush administration as genocidal fascists for sending our troops to Iraq, they treat the war as unjust and immoral, and then they constantly demonize our troops as murderous, torturing thugs. Well, if you believe the rhetoric coming from the left, what Churchill said is just the next logical step.
I’d also note that Churchill is hardly alone on the left:
“Turns out that far-left groups in western Europe are carrying on a campaign dubbed Ten Euros for the Resistance, offering aid and comfort to the car bombers, kidnappers, and snipers trying to destabilize the fledgling Iraq government. In the words of one Italian website, Iraq Libero (Free Iraq), the funds are meant for those fighting the occupanti imperialisti. The groups are an odd collection, made up largely of Marxists and Maoists, sprinkled with an array of Arab emigres and aging, old-school fascists, according to Lorenzo Vidino, an analyst on European terrorism based at The Investigative Project in Washington, D.C. “It’s the old anticapitalist, anti-U.S., anti-Israel crowd,” says Vidino…”
Here’s another quote from popular left-wing moonbat, Bartcop:
“Since feedback tells me a clear majority of bartcop.com readers believe our soldiers are “no different” than the scumbag 9-11 hijackers, I felt uncomfortable counting the who sacrificed their lives for their country, as tho they got what was coming to them.”
Here’s a wacko who talks about the “Bush Family Evil Empire,” how we went to war for oil, who thinks Bush either let 9/11 happen on purpose or was responsible for it, yada, yada, yada, and then it’s, “Oh, why don’t most of my readers like the soldiers?” Maybe it’s because they actually read what you write on your page and take it to the next logical step, you loon.
You know, this sort of rhetoric should prompt some hard questions for the left; it should be a wake-up call.
Maybe people like Dick Durbin should ask themselves if what they’re saying is going to be great propaganda for Al-Qaeda. Maybe some people on the left should work a little harder to make it clear that they do think our military are the good guys. Maybe they think that’s something they believe “goes without saying,” but judging by what Churchill said and what Bartcop wrote about his readers, there are apparently a lot of people out there on the left who aren’t getting the message.
In other words, if you’re anti-war, dissent as much as you like, but choose your words more carefully to make sure our troops don’t suffer as a consequence of your unnecessarily rabid bombast.