Do you suppose any copies of books by Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Laura Ingraham made it to Iraq? Do you feel any pain if impressionable young soldiers learn that Liberals in their own country are as dangerous (or more so) than the Iraqi insurgents they fight?

Sorry if that last comment came out a little harsh. You know I am no fan of Michael Moore, but it is not like there is any shortage of deceptive hate speech on the other side.

That's a specious comparison. Moore is directly attacking their mission; the folks you have mentioned are attacking a domestic political opponent.

The "young, impressionable soldier" is probably bright enough to see through the lies of Moore and the exaggerations of others. But he cannot accurately determine how many American's are buying into it, and whether the crowds will be screaming "baby-killer" or welcoming him home.

I know you are disturbed by Ann Coulter, but I cannot believe that you honestly cannot see a difference there.

I strongly disagree JK. When I read and listen to the conservative hate mongers I can't help but feel insulted personally, they are not just attacking some general political opponent but anyone who calls themself liberal, me included. These wing nuts are not just attacking my views either, but calling me at best weak and whiny, and at worst guitly of treason and supporting of terrorism. They treat liberals as a real enemy in a time of war. What is to keep a truly impressionable (by the way, "young impressionable soldiers" are Spc. Joe Roche's words, not mine) person from acting on these words, possibly with the deadly force used in real combat? That is hate mongering of the worst kind, creating the impression that a whole class of people are mortal enemies as much as any murderous terrorist. Disagree with my views, and do so passionately if you please, but labeling me an enemy guilty of treason is crossing the exact same line that Moore crosses if he attacks soldiers or their mission directly.

Years of lunches and some snotty blog comments back and forth, Silence, and this is the first time I was ever angry (I did not see your second, ameliorating comment, just the first before I responded).

I'm usually just blathering on around here, and I enjoy the give and take. This post, I was really trying to solicit letters to troops. We can disagree about reasons and tactics -- and yes the reason and wisdom -- of Operation Iraqi Freedom. But I cannot believe that ANYBODY who reads this does not care about the morale of the men and women who wear our country's uniform over there.

These folks are living "la vita crappo" for us: 120+ degree heat, sand, explosives, loneliness. They get very little money and, according to the Dem convention, have only bad healthcare to look forward to on their return.

I want to share my deep appreciation for their sacrifices.

I'm all better now but still can't join you. Moore tells the troops that they're fighting to make Osama Bin Laden richer, that there is no nobility to their mission.

Ann Coulter is not calling you a traitor (I didn't read "Treason" but I've read all of her others, and I'm comfortable on my limb). She is calling elite members of the liberal intelligencia treasonous.

That may be bad, that may be invalid, that may be way out of bounds. But if you're offended, I think you have pretty thin skin. The other night on Dennis Miller, Rolling Stone author Toure (too cool for a surname) said that "all Republicans hate black people." I didn't like it, but I'm livin' with it. All Republicans -- I don't think you'll find Ann Coulter saying "All Democrats."

For the record, when I send books to the troops, (http://www.booksforsoldiers.com) I avoid politics.

Does anybody remember the reaction to Abu Graib abuse stories before there were pictures? The impact of a feature film will be far greater than any number of books.

And how can you equate the lies of Michael Moore (e.g. Bush allowed bin Laden's family to leave the US during the flight embargo after 9/11) with the "lies" of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Laura Ingraham? (e.g. "To fight only the al-Qaida scum is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders... Who are these traitors? Every rotten radical left-winger in this country, that's who.") Moore takes a few facts and spins an inflammatory fib, while the commentators you singled out make inflammatory statements about demonstrable facts.

I'll write a letter to the troops JK, but I couldn't figure out where to send it from the link you provided. Thanks.

Sorry, that wasn't clear. You can follow the links I have added to the post, or do a new post and under "URLs to ping" put http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/mt-tb.cgi/39408

Thanks for blogging this. I know first hand what the apprehension is like to return home. The last thing the troops need is to worry about what homecoming will be like. For some it is hard enough to adjust to the "normalcy" that is the United States. It may sound odd, but I have known those who couldn't sleep because it was "too quiet".

Keep the letters rolling. We have until Thursday!

SlagleRock Out!

The "elite liberal intelligencia" - a mythical creature with the body of a donkey, wings of a dove, and head of a turkey.

Got any more realistic definition?

Well, I could refer you to Ann Coulter...they are indeed her targets.

George Will's "Chattering classes:" High ups in academia and the left=leaning media.

Do you doubt this group exists? I hate to be lazy but I think there is a group that most liberals would agree exists.

This group tends to blame America First and tends to put multiculturism and pc behavior above national security.

Whew! I'm just glad you didn't ask me to define "rotten, radical left-winger!"

I hear the "liberal elite intelligencia" live right down the block from the "vast right wing conspiracy". Bet they have quite the block parties. I must admit having a nebulus target is an clever ploy, it allows you to attribute any comments, ideas, or actions you wish to the group and then profess your outrage. I had to chuckle at John Galt's supposition that the right wingers inflammatory comments were based in fact, while Moore's were based in lies. This would follow the conservative definition of truth that a lie repeated often enough becomes true? His comment about the impact of a feature film being so much more than a bunch of books is more telling, there must be a bunch of muttering amongst the conservative press about not thinking of that idea first.

JK, my original comments were based on anger as well, an anger that your side gets to trot out the old support the troops argument whenever you wish, effectively portraying your dissenters as unpatriotic. Keep in mind that the site you reference and the Army Spc. it quotes have their bias as well. I wonder how the movie actually made it to Iraq? Bootleg copies sent to liberal leaning soldiers?

Points I am not willing to concede:

1) Elite, liberal Inteligencia == -(VRWC)
I can doubt the existence of the VRWC because its existence relies on structured consort between parties. I believe in Right wingers (seen one, once) but know they don't work well enough together to manage a credible conspiracy.

2) Ann Coulter = -(Michael Moore)
I don't know Michael Savage and I have not bellied up to buy the latest Coulter opus, but there is no way Coulter’s "Slander" compares in mendacity to "Bowling for Columbine" or "F 9/11." I might put it with "Roger & Me:" she does omit exculpatory information and take things out of context. But comparing that to doctoring the Willie Horton ad to make it look worse, sawing Dr. Rice's quote in half to change its meaning or baldly asserting that US Congresspeople's children are grossly under-represented in Iraq when they are 5X over-represented is not a comparison.

3) That I was hiding behind the flag or questioning patriotism with a request to "Support the Troops" It was a "Support the Troops" post. Had you expressed disapprobation that Ann Coulter books were sent to the troops, I'd've let it stand.

Points I might concede:
1) Michael Moore is patriotic. He seems to stand against everything this country is for, and believe the worst intentions behind everything it does. But I (thankfully) cannot see into the man's heart. He did donate thousands of his books and "Bowling" videos to the troops. That's cool.

2) SlagleRock's Slaughterhouse is somehow biased. Well, that could perhaps be. The logo with the bleeding head wounds doesn't seem to have a real multicultural, diverse feel to it, maybe ol' SlagleRock leans to the right a bit...

I suggest you peer deeper into your navel to discover what's angering you Silence. (Even JFnK now admits that the troops had to go to Iraq.) I think a plurality of partisan Dems have a similar anger. Could it have something to do with the fact that there is no consistent, rational argument that supports the positions their candidate has had to take in this campaign? That no matter how 'right' they all believe they are that "Bush's war" was wrong, they still can't prove it? That little nagging lump in the stomach every time they argue the WMD point, ignoring the evidence of success that's staring them in the face? The realization that their plan to unseat Bush after one term has been mortally wounded by the "unfortunate" events of September 11, 2001?

As angry as they are now I feel genuine concern for their mental health in the event that Bush is re-elected - a very distinct possibility, and maybe better than an even money bet.

Counterpoints JK:

1) VRWC - improper name, there is as you imply no concerted conspiracy. Collusion and structured message is more accurate. Message ideas are carefully scripted and distributed to compliant sources with the goal to provide a consistent message from disparate sources. Effectively uses classic propaganda tool that a even a lie repeated often enough becomes truth.

ELI - a broad composite defined by conservatives. I recently spent a long weekend in Aspen with a group of ELI's, two government research scientists, a UC Berkeley trained Environmental Engineering professor, and a lawyer. You would certainly think with this crowd that I would have been able to discern the ELI views. Not so, not one of them conformed to the standard. Again a classic propaganda tool, create a composite classification of a group of people. (For example, see a member of an ethnic group being lazy, another commiting a crime, a third of low intelligence, composite it together and brand the whole group lazy, dumb, and criminal)

2) Quote out of context, omit exculpatory information, these are the tools of the trade in the modern info world. Not just pundits, but the media gladly play along because eliciting outrage is a proven method increasing circulation of your message. Better yet, preach that simplification is good and that subtlety and nuances are an evil of the ELI so the context and exculpatory info will be disregarded as liberal fluff.

3) You did not elicit a general support the troops letter, but one based on refuting the claims of Michael Moore and his movie. I think this is hiding behind the flag. Refute Moore. Support the troops. Put them together and it spells refute Moore to support the troops, or conversely to do otherwise is to not support the troops. I will always contend that patriotism and a dissenting view are not exclusionary. In fact for my personal view it is my patriotism and desire for a strong defense against terrorism that I hold a dissenting view. I do not believe that invading Iraq was the best thing we could do to fight terrorism and that it could in fact be counterproductive. I feel very strongly that fighting the war on terrorism by concentrating on supporting states is the wrong tactical solution, you just don't get the bang for your buck in terms of capturing or destroying those who would destroy us. Even with all our power our resources are limited and concentration of them in one area does mean that other areas will not get the resources they may need. In as broad a war as the one on global terrorism we will have to pick our battles if we hope to win the overall war.

You DO get me thinking Silence. I certainly accuse the Democrats of doing exactly what you accuse the VRW? of. Democrat talking points seem to refute Einstein, traveling way faster than light. I cannot think how to prove myself right or offer any good examples. A workmate here is an expert in Latent Semantic Analysis. (It happens that he's even a PhD. and a card carrying ELI) LSA defines a "cosine" that numerically compares two documents. It would be fun (good research project) to use LSA and compare ten liberal opinion sources with ten conservative and see which ones correlate. I'd bet you a good beer against a low carb Ultra that the lefties tow the line better. But I have no data.

Who fiddles with the editing worse? I think we can be objective: I posit that Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are equals in this shameless pursuit (I don't believe she's as bad, but I'll assume she is). My point is that Ann Coulter is an outcast -- thrown from the hyper-conservative pages of NRO. She's considered an outlier, no longer appearing as a respectable pundit on most shows.

Michael Moore sat next to President Carter and Terry McAuliffe at the Democratic National Convention! Your probity-challenged propagandist is celebrated by not only the ELI but the DNC. Our far more attractive outlier will be hidden away in New York. She won't even be on the dreaded FOX News network -- she sho' nuff will not be sitting between Ed Gillespie and President Ford.

Silence is of the opinion that combating global terrorism by denying operatives their state sponsorship is the wrong approach because of the cost/benefit ratio. This judgment seems to assume that a ready supply of replacement sponsor regimes exists. It also suggests that finding and neutralizing the tens of thousands of estimated operatives hidden around the world is more practical than toppling a few totalitarian theocratic regimes.

While it's true that the operatives must be neutralized eventually anyway, why should we expect doing so won't inspire the sponsors to step up recruiting from the safety of their off-limits home base? Isn't it obvious that closing the tap is a high priority in permanently cleaning up the mess? The point is we have to do BOTH, and the sooner the swamps are drained the fewer the terrorists there are to deal with.

If I get you thinking then I am doing my job. I am not here to convert anyone by any means, just make you think about your positions a little. This of course works both ways, you make me consider my positions - you have definitely converted me on consumption based taxation.

I suppose Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity and others could be fringe and likely will not be at the convention or seen directly with President Bush. They each enjoy some pretty good ratings/readership though, so maybe that fringe element is not so small? I can't answer why Moore is so prevalent, except for sort of a "Dean effect" whereby the Dems were so longing for someone to stand up to the vitriol from the right that they latched on to anyone with a strong message delivery?

JohnGalt, I do not see a ready supply of supporting regimes, but a pretty good supply of terrorist recruits. The practicality of toppling these regimes and draining the swamps leaves out the rebuilding of nations - building the dykes to keep the swamp drained if you will. This is the part that takes a disproportionate amount of effort. My other point is that the terrorists are (or are getting) very good at melting away across borders or back into the general population. The tatics involved and troop deployment required to invade a country and defeat whatever standing military exists are very different from those required to seal the borders such that none of the targets escape. As for nation building I suppose you could make the argument for toppling the regime, declaring mission accomplished and leaving the people of that nation with a unique opportunity to build themselves a prosperous and democratic country. My problem with this method is that the nation could be rebuilt as more of a terrorist haven and an increased threat to us, perhaps partly due to a negative response to this "blow it up and walk away" strategy. I realize that the process of finding a neutralizing hidden operatives is tough, but I wonder if the main argument against it is that it is not bold, or dare I say cowboy enough like ridin' in whompin' and whippin'? (to borrow from Blazing Saddles)

Nineteen comments (we'll fall off the front page in a couple of days).

Moore and Coulter both enjoy a large following and being a free market guy I cannot complain. But the is a HUGE difference between extreme elements' being held to the fringe of a party and being invited into teh sybox with the party chair and a former President.

I hate to stoop to low tactics, Silence, but I think you admitted that in your response, thus entitling me to an "I gotcha!" Hahahahahahahaha.

Gotcha, hah! Just because our wing nuts are more fun at parties than yours...