RT posted an article about a returning Iraq war veteran here. What I noticed first was that RT, like a few other sites (*cough cough* Free Beacon) has no way for you to comment on an article. If you’re publishing a blog and don’t want to deal with haters and trolls, I understand turning off comments. When you’re in the midst of the fray publishing news articles, to have no capacity for comments is something even newspapers didn’t do! It is cowardly and offensive.
Nevertheless, reading this article brought four points to my mind, none of which were intended by the writer.
The article features the perpetually out-of-touch leftist Phil Donahue, who is shocked to discover that he, as an anti-war leftist, found what he was looking for! This does not surprise me, but why is he so emotional and surprised about the sad plight of a paralyzed US soldier?
Leftists believe that war is antiseptic, and so if any person, friend of foe, dies or is injured, it is a horrible, irredeemable tragedy.
When you wage war, you know full well that death will occur. The real question is, “Is it worth it?” Can war be justified? To the Left, the answer is always, “No,” even though they live in a country that exists because some people dared to take up arms against oppression. Curiously, the Left has no consistent opinion on violence. Although they hate oppression, apparently you’re supposed to continue being oppressed for all time and never break the chains that bind you to say, the British empire.
To a leftist like Donahue, nothing is worth death or permanent injury, or even chance of such. Why? He has no hope past the grave. He is aging and death is breathing down his neck. To be confronted physically with how he feels inside must be a system shock. Additionally, his malformed theology cannot explain suffering, so he makes a ruckus about someone suffering, and that is the real issue here — not that the veteran is suffering, but that suffering exists. He is using the veteran to launch a broadside to God.
The Left fears three things — suffering, aging, and dying, for these are questions to which they have no answers.
Third, soldiers who use their physical injury, mental anguish, or pain to condemn the president are being childish. They are in truth angry at themselves, for failing to weigh the cost of war and failing to understand that severe injury could be a possibility. However, to admit a personal failure of judgment doesn’t garner them attention, generate clicks, or sell books, so what to do? Blame the man in command! Would they be so quick to do this if a leftist press were not salivating for some way to attack Bush? I wonder.
Note also that these blamefests are always inspecific. There’s no evidence in this man’s testimony of willful mistreatment by the VA, incompetence in the medical staff, or other specific criticism. It’s all emotion-fueled anger without facts or reason, which has all the conviction of a two-year old’s tantrum. Yes, I realize that this does not show sympathy, however, sympathy is a given. We all do not wish for this man to suffer. We all commiserate with his plight. We all would help if we could. However, his situation does not make his logic sound, nor does his injury give him license to misbehave.
Suffering does not excuse bad behavior nor make faulty logic sound.
You see this often in forums and comments, and it is effective, but censorious. “How dare you say such and such when the man is PARALYZED!” This is the trump card of tantrum-throwing; the left believes that their misbehavior is allowed, because they do not adhere to a truth that binds behavior regardless of situation.
Last, why is Donahue talking about this man now? Why is he still discussing Bush, when Bush has not been president for six years? Where was Donahue when this man was injured six years ago? The timing of this article is extremely strange, unless you understand it as ritualistic flogging of the enemy, and misdirected hate. Donahue doesn’t feel confident in attacking his man yet, so he attacks Bush instead. This allows him to feel better about enduring Obama’s less-than-stellar war results because he has done something — about something else.
Among leftists, hate has no expiration date.
You can see this in the way that the Left persecuted McCarthy, even disparaging him in his obituary. Lenin pursued Trotsky the same way. This reveals the immaturity that fuels leftism. When Nixon had an enemies’ list, the Left had fits because they feared exposure. Why, if the president did that, did Congressmen, Senators, or Governors? Nixon had to be publicly flogged and removed lest anyone find out how the Left itself operated.
So to wrap it all up, Phil Donahue unwittingly exposes more about himself and his fellow-travelers than he intended. The truth he trumpets is banal. We all know that war has casualties and that it maims. We are already well-appraised of its costs; somehow it has taken him until 2014 to realize this. The real story of this article is the psychology undergirding the Left’s banal narratives, that animates their stock characters, and that fuels their predictable outrages has finally become so commonplace that it is obvious. Thank you, Phil Donahue, for making that much clear.