The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Will The SEALs Do For BHO What Goldberg Is Doing For Progressives?

Posted on | May 1, 2012 | 26 Comments

by Smitty

Bagram sucks, I can affirm, having languished there for a couple of months. If #OccupyResoluteDesk wants to #OccupyBagram, more power to him. How cheap is his one-year-on, please-can-we-not-talk-economy victory lap going to look in the face of blowback from the SEALs, though?

The bulk of the people paying attention this year kinda know that this is all stuff and nonsense. Obama’s record bounces like a check with his face on it.

But the scope of the rebuke isn’t limited only to Barack himself and the one dog bone he has to gnaw after 3.5 years in office. Goldberg’s new book, The Tyranny of Cliches, out today, is going to have the effect on the Left as a whole that the SEALs are having on Obama (emphasis original):

Meanwhile, liberals and other progressives hold it as a bedrock article of ideological faith that they are not ideological. In short: Pragmatism is the disguise progressive and other ideologues don when they want to demonize competing ideologies.

I actually don’t think Jonah is going far enough here: Progressives aren’t just demonizing competing ideologies, they’re demonizing rationality itself. Every play of theirs seems an attack on the foundational ideas of Western Civilization: equality before the law, private property, freedom of conscience and liberty. However, if this book does as well as Liberal Fascism (I expect it will do even better), the Left is going to find itself reduced to wrapping itself in the woobie and whine in the corner.

My intention is to post a little quote from every chapter, as I savor this outing.

Update: cue The Lid with the SEAL video. Note that there boats, swift or not, were not used in the famous raid:

Update II: linkage at WyBlog and The Lonely Conservative.
Category: Intellectuals, Progressivism

Comments

26 Responses to “Will The SEALs Do For BHO What Goldberg Is Doing For Progressives?”

  1. Finrod Felagund
    May 1st, 2012 @ 7:01 pm

    I’m hoping the Navy SEALs will do for BHO what the Swift Boat veterans did for John Kerry.
     

  2. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 1st, 2012 @ 7:26 pm

    It is counter intuitive to advisors like Alexrod, but some grace and humility by President Obama would have done him far more political good will (and helped his re-election chances) than this blatant political barnstorming.

  3. Adobe_Walls
    May 1st, 2012 @ 7:30 pm

    So they’re possessed by demons that explains alot, we’re going to need a whole bunch more of those “Ruby’s knives” like Sam and Dean use.

  4. Rose
    May 1st, 2012 @ 7:31 pm

    It’s a sign of his desperation that he has to tout his own horn – he much prefers to stand tall and aloof whilst his minions do the touting.

    C’mon, when he said he wasn’t gonna spike the football, you KNEW a big spike was coming. He always does the opposite of what he says. And if he says HE got Bin Laden this loudly and stridently, that’s all you need to tell you he didn’t have a THING to do with it.

  5. ThePaganTemple
    May 1st, 2012 @ 7:58 pm

    I don’t care that he brags about killing Bin Laden. Any other President would, Democrat or Republican. In fact, when some Republicans complained about him killing that one American born traitor in Yemen, I wanted to kick their fucking asses. He has a right to tout that as an accomplishment and to feel proud of it. People need to take a deep breath. You do know that this shit sounds like political sour grapes, don’t you? If you don’t, you need to sign up for Politics 101. Or maybe just grow up.

  6. richard mcenroe
    May 1st, 2012 @ 8:26 pm

     If he wanted to impress me, he shouldn’t have taken 16 hours to decide to do it.   “What part of, ‘Mr. President, we’ve cornered bin Laden!  Should we take him out?” “Shit, yes!” takes 16 hours?

    He was trying to find a way out of it and couldn’t.  (Of course, Clinton did.)

  7. ThePaganTemple
    May 1st, 2012 @ 9:15 pm

     That might be true, but all I care about is the final result. These fucking people are our enemies, and anytime ANYBODY kills one of them, then they’ve done a damn good thing as far as I’m concerned, I don’t care who they are or what other ideology they might have. It doesn’t mean you have to support him on anything else, just recognize that fact, that he killed a man who wants to kill all of us.

    In fact, he’s killed a few of them, including two scumbag American traitors, and some people complained about that, about how we were depriving them of their “rights”.

    Bullshit! The only thing wrong with raining down death and destruction on those cocksuckers as far as I’m concerned is they might not ever have known it was coming, and I would have liked them to suffer in agony for several hours, at least. But the most important thing is, they are dead and gone. And that makes me happy, no matter who did it.

  8. Pathfinder's wife
    May 1st, 2012 @ 9:19 pm

    Honestly, props for the bin Laden killing on his watch.  I’m not sure trying to spin it into campaign gold in the way he’s doing it will work out that well though.

    The traitors I’m glad they got — but there are some legal issues that are worrying about that.  I’ll just leave it at “couldn’t have happened to better people; hope our gov’t. doesn’t get ideas and use this as a slippery slope precedent”.

  9. This is Going to Leave a Mark | The Lonely Conservative
    May 1st, 2012 @ 9:29 pm

    […] of you who serve, or have served, our country, you’ll always have my gratitude. (You too, Smitty.)Via Yid With Lidgoogle_ad_client = "ca-pub-1395656889568144"; /* 300×250, created 8/11/08 */ […]

  10. ThePaganTemple
    May 1st, 2012 @ 9:35 pm

     The only thing I resent is the way he’s misrepresenting Mitt’s words on the subject from a few year’s past, taking them out of context to imply he might not have killed Bin Laden. Arianna Huffington even called Obama out on that.

    But as far as Obama using Bin Laden’s killing as a campaign talking point, so what?

    Don’t forget that this was the approximate time of year Bin Laden was killed, so its to be expected. Like I said, any politician would do it, Democrat or Republican. And bear in mind everybody knows that.

    Everybody!

  11. WyBlog - Obama re-election campaign goes to Afghanistan, spikes the football in an empty stadium
    May 1st, 2012 @ 10:03 pm

    Obama re-election campaign goes to Afghanistan, spikes the football in an empty stadium…

    Fortunately Smitty, who’s Been There And Done That in Afghanistan, posted a video which puts Brave Sir Barack’s pathetic little stunt into the proper perspective….

  12. ThePaganTemple
    May 1st, 2012 @ 10:10 pm

    By the way, as far as the traitors go, they went beyond stealing a few documents and selling them. They were actively engaged in war against the United States of America, a war the intention of which was the murder of any American they could kill, whether military or civilian, whether abroad or here at home.

    When you engage in active warfare, sometimes you get killed as a consequence. This”slippery slope” argument is a bunch of shit too. What slippery slope? Since when did killing anyone actively engaged in war and murder become questionable to anybody but a bunch of hypocrites trying to score political points? If I wanted to support motherfuckers like that I’d vote Democrat.

  13. SEALs to Obama: Stop Using Us as Campaign Ammunition | The Lonely Conservative
    May 1st, 2012 @ 10:16 pm

    […] military campaign outreach a little more difficult.Update: Linked by the Daily Pundit and The Other McCain – thanks!google_ad_client = "ca-pub-1395656889568144"; /* 300×250, created 8/11/08 */ […]

  14. Adobe_Walls
    May 1st, 2012 @ 10:55 pm

    Clinton squandered several opportunities, he choked when he cancelled a missile strike on a site in Afghanistan just because there was someone from the Saudi royal family there. But his best shot at getting Osama was when the Sudanese offered to turn him over to us before they chased him out to appease us. Clinton declined on the flimsy grounds that we didn’t have any evidence we could use in court to charge and convict him. There needn’t have been a trial he could have simply fallen out of the plane on his way here….”I don’t know why people keep leaving that emergency door open we put up a sticky note”.

  15. ThePaganTemple
    May 1st, 2012 @ 11:05 pm

     They could have convicted him, or they could have killed him. He too was engaged in active and openly declared war on the US, and was in fact responsible for the first WTC bombing.

    Clinton screwed up royally. Obama is arguably the worst President we’ve ever had, much worse than Clinton, but killing Osama (and the American born traitors) is one thing he got right where Clinton was dead wrong. Or maybe just cowardly.

    Whatever the case, I’d rather focus on issues against Obama where we actually HAVE cases to make, and there are damn sure more than enough.

    This bullshit bitching about him reminding us about killing Obama, which any President would do, is going to strike the majority of the American people as hypocritical and to be frank, fucking petty as hell, if it keeps up much longer. Mark my words.

  16. jwallin
    May 1st, 2012 @ 11:21 pm

    Hey. That’s a neat little gadget that bounce comparison thingy.

    Now how’s about running one up that compares boobehs bouncing?  😛

    I’d be playing with that all day.

  17. Pathfinder's wife
    May 2nd, 2012 @ 1:18 am

    It was not so much the taking them out, but the methodology that went with it: the rule of law concerning American traitors must be followed.  

    He should have been stripped of his citizenship at the very least…this poses a future problem in regards to the 5th Amendment.

    It isn’t to protect scum like Awalaki that people are right to raise criticisms — it’s to protect the rights of regular citizens.
    Might I remind you: it was the Democrats that really did not have a problem with this…and this may go back to what it means in the future for that amendment (and the Constitution).

  18. Pathfinder's wife
    May 2nd, 2012 @ 1:25 am

    If he wanted to impress me he would have been a bit more gracious to the military in general, which has been slogging it out (and maybe give them some parts for those worn out old Chins that have a bad habit of crashing).

    It isn’t so much that he’s bragging about it or making it a campaign point — it’s the way he’s going about it that grates.

  19. K-Bob
    May 2nd, 2012 @ 2:05 am

    I hunted for it, and found no Amazon associates link to the book in the article.  Maybe my eyes ain’t so good.

  20. Nospam
    May 2nd, 2012 @ 4:37 am

    The problem you run into is  that, according to the Democratic party and ‘unbiased’ sources like the SPLC and the NYT, people like you and I are “engaged in war against America”.  i don’t want this administration- or any other one, really, but especially this one- deciding all on its lonesome that some citizens* don’t get trial by jury and can be terminated out of hand.
    *Not an American citizen? Sorry, y0u don’t ge the protections of one.

  21. Bob Belvedere
    May 2nd, 2012 @ 7:28 am

    But Pagan: it’s now emerged that Barry didn’t make the decision to go in and, in fact, he left himself enough wiggle room in his order so that he could walk away from any blame.

    For details, please see here:
    http://thecampofthesaints.org/2012/04/27/cya-the-obama-way/

  22. SDN
    May 2nd, 2012 @ 7:34 am

    Sorry, thanks for playing.

    We saw how our Disloyal Opposition worked from 2001 to 2008 to actively undermine every thing Bush did to fight the war, from insisting on creating DHS and TSA in exchange for the legislation to fund it, to leaking classified information, to comparing our troops to Nazis. Everything Bush did was an atrocity, a war crime, and doubleplusungood. As soon as Zero took office, suddenly doing everything Bush did and adding new actions prompts crickets. Now this douchenozzle wants to take credit for the results he and his party did their level best to undermine? I don’t think so.

    We also saw exactly how they are treating our military with contempt and trying to gut it, but when our troops manage to overcome the handicap this git wants the credit.

    We’re just not in the mood to let them spout their BS any more. Why are you defending them?

  23. ThePaganTemple
    May 2nd, 2012 @ 3:13 pm

     I’m not defending him, because in this case, there’s nothing to fucking defend. He did the right thing. End of story!

  24. ThePaganTemple
    May 2nd, 2012 @ 3:21 pm

    @Bob_Belvedere:disqus

    Nonsense! If he didn’t make the decision, who did? He took an inordinate amount of time to make the decision, and he might have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to making it, and I have no doubt he tried to leave himself some wriggle room in case things went wrong.

    But he did make the decision and it was the right one to make, and so was taking out the traitors. So yes, I give him credit for it. If I want to bitch at him about something, I’ll bitch about the fact he hasn’t killed millions more. I won’t bitch about the ones he has killed, nor will I deny him the right to campaign on it.

    Every President has done something right, I don’t care how shitty a President they were. Even James Buchanan had to have done something right. Granted, you might have to look through the historical record with a magnifying glass before you find it, but I guarantee you its there, somewhere.

    So let’s just say this is Obama’s one good thing and move the fuck on to Fast And Furious, ObamaCare, Cap And Trade, Solyndra, Keystoen, etc., etc., etc., things where we have cases we can legitimately make, instead of wasting our time with shit that’s just going to piss people the hell off.

  25. ThePaganTemple
    May 2nd, 2012 @ 3:30 pm

    @Pathfinder’s wife

     There wasn’t a god damn thing wrong with the methodoloy. They were with the enemy, they were in fact leaders of the enemy, with them, leading them, planning and recruiting others, like the scumbag piece of shit that shot up Fort Dix in Texas. That was Awalaki’s doings? The opportunity arose to kill him. We killed him.

    How in the fuck is Awalaki more deserving of constitutional protections than a possibly misguided, yet brave and honorable confederate soldier? How many of them did the Union forces go out of their way to avoid killing in order to capture them and give them a “fair” trial?

    What about Stonewall Jackson? Wasn’t he killed in the Civil War? Why the hell didn’t they go out of their way to capture him and put him on trial?

    Could it possibly be because these American citizens were technically traitors, engaged in active and open warfare against their own country?

    And by the way, why should we risk the lives of our soldiers trying to capture this piece of fucking shit when a good Hellfire missile proved more than capable of doing the trick?

    And trial? What the fuck for? To determine guilt or innocence over a matter where he had innumerable times openly declared his full intentions?

    If John Walker Lindh had been killed in Afghanistan instead of captured, would anybody here by shedding a tear or crying about the violation of his constitutional protections. I know I sure as fuck wouldn’t.

  26. ThePaganTemple
    May 2nd, 2012 @ 4:41 pm

     @Nospam 

    In that case, you’d better be more worried actually about being brought to trial in a kangaroo court with the “evidence” stacked against you and the media out to get your scalp, like Zimmermann.

    As far as somebody from the government just coming into your home and killing you because you’re Pro-Life, or a Tea Party activist, that shit wouldn’t fly.

    Again, these people, Islamic radicals, have openly declared war, and they have made it pretty fucking clear they’re not talking symbolically.