Whaaat, Paul H. Henry, that flaming liberal America-hater??

""Well, that's because the 'normal opinions' of 'real Americans,' ... bear a strong resemblance to dog shit." -- (Paul H. Henry), a very vocal Liberal & Clinton defender. (posted to 7/17/95)"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/857329/posts
(unattributed copy from http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:O7p79lgmjLEJ:www.urbin.net/EWW/sigs/clintonsigs.html+%22paul+h.+henry%22+bush&hl=ja&gl=jp&ct=clnk&cd=2)

Good stuff, apo.

The 101ers.

I see that Gaijin Biker has a post up (with credit to Apo) on this parody video, with predictably one-sided and shallow analysis:

Via Apostropher, the lefty blogosphere is abuzz with adulation for the makers of this video about conservative bloggers who supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq without fighting in either one — i.e., "chickenhawks". The video is a well-done parody of a Ken Burns-style documentary, but at its core is the tired and invalid notion ... that no one is entitled to support a war unless he's fighting in it himself. Indeed, if that's the case, one might wonder why the makers left out any criticism of left-wing and centrist bloggers who supported the invasion of Afghanistan, despite not fighting in it themselves.

1. Why no criticism of left-wing and centrist bloggers for supporting the invasion of Afghanistan? Perhaps, GB, because as you and the video both note, support for the invasion of Afghanistan was widely supported across the political spectrum, so the right wasn’t particularly attacking the patriotism of the left at that time? The video focusses on when the 101st Keyboarders really swung into action, when the Bush Administration decided to take greater advantage of Bush’s popularity surge after 9/11 to change from fighting a war on terror targeted at those responsible for 9/11 (bin Laden and al Qaeda) to a broader war to achieve other strategic interests in the ME and political objectives at home (nothing like being a "war president", remember?).

2. At its core, is the “chickenhawk” meme the “tired and invalid notion … that no one is entitled to support a war unless he's fighting in it himself”? No; that’s merely the superficial view of those unwilling or unable to recall the viciousness of the pro-Bush right’s attack on the courage and patriotism of the left. The chickenhawk meme was a weak reflection of the attack by the right. In some ways it might seen as a rather childish rejoinder, but at a deeper level it pointed out the contradictions inherent in the the flogging of a “global war on terror” against “existential” enemies by an Administration led by a President and VP who had not only actively avoided military service themselves but failed to call on average Americans for meaningful sacrifices in support of the war.

3. The chickenhawk meme does reflect a rather bitter fracturing of public opinion, but at whose feet can we lay the blame for that – those who opposed an invasion of Iraq that was not connected to the 9/11 attacks, or those who questioned the patriotism of war opponents on the left and right, and those who deliberately pushed an agenda of division within America for partisan political gain?

You lent your whole-hearted support for the Iraq war, GB, and did your share to cast aspersions on the intelligence, fortitude and loyalty of the anti-war left and the evil MSM. Do you think you have any responsibility related to your support?

Or do you still feel you've been right all along, that the GWOT is progressing according to plan (or if not, because the left and MSM have stabbed America in the back), and the chickenhawk meme continues to show that the left simply can't think straight and should never, ever be put in charge of the country's defense? Inquiring minds want to know!