Hugh Hewitt absolutely eviscerated LA Times columnist Joel Stein in an interview on his radio show yesterday. Stein, who penned an appalling essay published in the Times that starts off with the statement "I don't support our troops", seem to squirm while attempting to more fully articulate his moonbat positions on the military as the transcript shows Hewitt grilling him like a porterhouse steak.

Here's a portion:

Hugh Hewitt (HH): I want to make sure I quote it correctly. "I don't support our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car." Evidently, supporting the troops is a bumper sticker position?

Joel Stein (JS): It's not. Supporting the troops is. I think a lot of people have bumper stickers, and really don't do anything else, and are against the war, and have the bumper sticker anyway.

HH: "And at the end, I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after Vietnam." That's big of you. "But we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea." What I'm trying to figure out is what do you think is a good idea for the military to do?

JS: Well, again, that's not what my column was about, and that's something that people talk about constantly, and people give opinions on. There's a lot of Americans who are against this war and still think we should have a military.

HH: Now wait. This is the last...well, let me give you the two last paragraphs of your column. "I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War. But we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health, and a safe and immediate return. But please no parades. Seriously, the traffic is insufferable." So you obviously do not honor their service?

JS: I don't honor their service? The people serving in Iraq right now?

HH: Yeah.

JS: I honor them as human beings, and I want them home safe.

HH: But you don't honor their service?

JS: And honestly, I think that all these...for people who don't believe in the war and are putting up these stickers saying they support the troops anyway, my fear is that it's prolonging the war and putting them in further danger they don't need to be in.

HH: But Joel, I'm talking about you. I'm talking about what you honor, and you obviously don't honor military service.

JS: I honor police service. I honor military service. Any...I just think that...

HH: You do honor military service?

JS: Yeah. No, I'm grateful for people that serve in the military.

HH: But you don't support our troops?

JS: I don't...I don't believe in supporting the troops in an action that you don't believe in.

HH: And so, that would be everything I've named thus far. So I guess...did you support and honor the troops in the Pentagon on 9/11?

JS: Sure, yeah.

HH: All right.

JS: All the troops that are here to defend our country, I'm very, very grateful for. I'm grateful for the police...

HH: Provided they don't leave the country?

JS: Yeah, provided they don't fight in wars that I think are endangering them for no reason.

HH: And the moment they do, you stop honoring them?

JS: The moment I do, I think it's a poor idea to show support for them and prolong that engagement.

Reading through the transcript, I can't help but recall a quote from the movie "Goodfellas" when Joe Pesci's Tommy DeVito says "You know Spider, you're a f*****' mumbling stuttering little prick. You know that?"

UPDATE: From around the 'sphere:
Captain Ed:

Supporting the troops really just means that you appreciate that they stand ready to carry out the policies of the United States in defense of our freedom and liberty, as expressed in the policies of our elected government. That has no bearing on any particular mission or enterprise, but instead comes from the sacrifice offered by our fellow citizens in uniform to give their lives so that we may remain free -- free to select our own leaders, free to write blogs, free to disagree with each other ... and in Stein's case, free to make an ass of himself by writing one of the most ill-conceived pieces of tripe published in a major media outlet.

Let’s break this down. Patriotism means “love and devotion to one’s country.” Dissent means “to withhold assent or approval.” Showing love can include disagreeing, but most often is an expression of approval and acceptance. Unless you’re a bumper sticker lefty, in which case according to the one on who’s car I spotted the ratty sticker, the highest form of love of country that it’s possible to show is one that constantly withholds approval of that country. Period. Being a bumper sticker, there weren’t any qualifiers like “when it’s clearly, unambiguously wrong” or “when it’s run by totalitarians like Stalin and Hitler and freedom has to be won back.” Just any old time, the best thing you can do for your country is to disapprove of it.

Very nice. I guess that makes me a very patriotic Frenchman.

WhatÂ’s most disturbing is that the same person who thinks that bumper sticker is true enough to make it a part of their car is actually allowed to operate that car on the same roads as the rest of us.

In the final breakdown, the sticker really is an exercise in self-flattery. “I disagree with this country. And that makes me better than you and all those deluded fools sent off on that war and stuff.”

The underlying assumption of [Stein's column] is that wars are fought by Administrations, not by nations. By joining the military a soldier is volunteering as an extension of the Bush Administration. Hence, the soldier is complicit in Bush's alleged crimes.

While Administrations may start wars, they do not fight them. Nations fight wars.

There was no war against the Nazis. We fought Germany. And the Roosevelt Administration did not fight in WWII, America did. America is at war. When did the Left stop being part of America?

This is why the antiwar position is unpatriotic. This is America's war, and to be against it is to be against America.

There is a time to be against a war, and that time is before the war begins. Strategies for victory are legitimate debate, but as long as troops are on the ground then that is where debate should end.

In past wars an article like this would have landed the author in jail. Encouraging troops in battle to disobey commands is worse than the kind of defeatism that FDR would have arrested you for--it is inciting to treason.

UPDATE II: Another article by the unfunny Stein that shows how he really feels about the military.

h/t: The Corner, via Michelle Malkin

Posted by: Gary at 10:15 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1276 words, total size 8 kb.

1 That's so strange...I had a different take. I listened to Dennis Prager talk about it earlier in the day, then blogged about it. I missed Hewitt because of work; but found out about him having Stein on his program. So I listened to the audio and followed the transcript. Personally, even though I agree Stein's ignorance is shameful, what I got from reading his article is this point: that the people who claim they support the troops but not their mission are wusses and liars- to others and to themselves. That's the whole point Stein was trying to make. He was just trying to be honest about it, rather than chant the Leftist lie that they support the troops, when they secretly feel otherwise, and their actions speak otherwise.

Posted by: wordsmith at January 25, 2006 10:33 AM (nrGCx)

2 Well, that's his story. That he's just being honest about it. It's also his rationalization for the column. But what he keeps dancing around in the interview is his utter contempt for the military in general - disingenuously grasping for nice things to say about it. This makes him a bigger wuss and a bigger liar than the people he criticizes.

Posted by: Gary at January 25, 2006 11:08 AM (QoxB+)

3 Rough week for Stein. He even made Atrios' Wanker of the Week.

Posted by: Cynical Nation at January 25, 2006 11:51 AM (vC1jc)

4 How does it make him a bigger wuss and a bigger liar? He's not lying by openly admitting to not supporting the troops! The liars are the ones who claim to support the troops, but at every turn, commit actions that speak otherwise. He's calling those "supporters" out on it. Yes he's clueless and out of touch in his views of the military. But this is missing the point of the article itself. And I also saw the comments over at Atrios. Sucks to be him when he's getting it from the left and the right.

Posted by: wordsmith at January 25, 2006 01:30 PM (nrGCx)

5 I'm not talking about the stated premise of Stein's column, I'm talking about the interview. Stein says he doesn't support the troops on this particular mission but when Hewitt presses him he's unable to clarify under what circumstances he does support the troops. If Stein were truly honest he would come right out and say he wouldn't support the troops under any circumstances. His own words betray him in his column when he refers to the military as "a fighting tool of American imperialism". (Another example of Stein's real feelings about the troops is in the latest update to this post). He wants to be able to say, "hey, I don't support the troops in Iraq, but it's cool because at least I'm upfront about it - not like those other phonies". He's trying to rationalize his position while hiding his true contempt for the military. He just didn't expect Hewitt to call him on it.

Posted by: Gary at January 25, 2006 02:47 PM (PLHs9)

6 Ok...let's discuss the interview, then. I think what it reveals, more than an outright hatred of the military, is that he really hasn't thought that deeply on the matter. Hugh Hewitt probed him for specifics on why the ingratitude of the military, and he sounded unprepared. He wanted to discuss the point of his article, which went right by Hugh. Hugh was fixated on the substance of his anti-troop support position. Stein sounds like he hasn't really thought along the lines that Hugh is pressing him on. Not that he is trying to lie about his position. He sounded like he was reflecting upon his own feelings on the spot; not making up lies to cover his ass. He stands by his column. And Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin are picking him apart when they should be grateful for his column. THEY missed the point. Michael Medved is on-air right now, talking about it and has my same exact position. Actually, he goes even further. Joel Stein's article is a gift for those of us on the right of this war issue.

Posted by: wordsmith at January 25, 2006 03:28 PM (nrGCx)

7 Both the article and the interview reveal a lot about Stein and the Liberal camp in general. It's a mindset. Theirs is still pre-9/11. They'll admit we're at war but they'll say its only because we choose to be.

Posted by: Gary at January 25, 2006 03:53 PM (PLHs9)

8 Absolutely true. The difference between Stein and the others is, the others live in denial that they in fact don't support the troops. They might care about the soldiers (I'm sure a good many don't, and think of them as baby-killers) and want them home safely; but that's different than supporting them. When Dick Durbin slanders them by comparing Guantanamo to Gulags and death camps and makes front page news on al Jazeera...that is not supporting our troops. When John Murtha says he would not join our military today...that is demoralizing and not supporting our troops. Believing the white phosphorus spin at Fallujah...that is not supporting our troops. And yet, they always say "don't question our patriotism" and "we support the troops, but not their mission".

Posted by: wordsmith at January 25, 2006 10:36 PM (nrGCx)

9 Swiped a photo of him from his own website. What do you think?

Posted by: Wordsmith at January 25, 2006 11:52 PM (nrGCx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

On Sunday, I posted about an attempt to drive down the Amazon rating of Kate O'Beirne's book "Women Who Make the World Worse". Left-wing kooks were rejoicing that they had driven the average rating down to 1.5 stars.

Just as an update, if you go check it out now it's back up to 3.5 stars, and rising.

Heh.

Posted by: Gary at 03:00 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

What do the following groups have in common:

- Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Alliance
- Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
- Amnesty International
- AIDS Walk Washington

Yes, they're all Liberal special-interest groups but they - and dozens of similar groups - received over $65,000,000 in funds that came directly from the union dues paid by members of the National Education Association. Thanks to new rules pushed through by the Labor Department, these unions must now disclose how they are spending their members' money.

And more than half of the leadership staff of the NEA are drawing six-figure salaries, while the average teacher is underpaid and usually has to spend his or her own money for supplies just to do their jobs.

Today's OpinionJournal.com has the facts and figures:

The NEA is spending the mandatory dues paid by members who are told their money will be used to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions. According to the latest filing, member dues accounted for $295 million of the NEA's $341 million in total receipts last year. But the union spent $25 million of that on "political activities and lobbying" and another $65.5 million on "contributions, gifts and grants" that seemed designed to further those hyper-liberal political goals.

It's no secret that unions like the NEA have long been considered "wholly-owned subsidiaries" of the Democrat pary. But whether or not its members sympathize with these other organizations or not, the fact that so much of their money is being used in this manner rather than for their benefit should be a major source of concern to teachers. At least now - thanks to the Bush Administration - they have the information.

Posted by: Gary at 09:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

So apparently the historical election in Iraq doesn't warrant an editorial in the NY Times or the WaPo. Pathetic.

Generally speaking, the Liberal side of the blogosphere is pretty quiet as well.

But Decision '08 has a round-up of the Top Ten Kos Kidz' reactions. One of my favorites:

"This is just theater. All completely meaningless, and woe to the suckers who buy into this BS."

Posted by: Gary at 10:00 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Once again, the members of the moonbat Left prove that they are the champions of Free Speech Censorship. As Conservative writer Ann Coulter attempted to give a speech at the University of Connecticut last night, she wasn't surprised to be interrupted repeatedly by boos and jeers. The hecklers were so loud and obnoxious that she had to cut the speech short and revert to a Q&A format.

"I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am," Coulter told the 2,600 people at Jorgensen Auditorium.

Coulter's appearance prompted protests from several groups, including Students Against Hate and the Puerto Rican/Latin American Cultural Center. They criticized her for spreading a message of hate and intolerance.

Nearly 100 students gathered inside the Student Union for a rally against Coulter. About a half-dozen people held protest signs outside the auditorium.

Hey, you want to disagree with someone and even rebutt their comments? Fine, choose an outlet and have your say. But to claim to be all for tolerance and then prevent someone from speaking their mind is the height of hypocrisy (a word that has become synonymous with "Liberalism" these days). Liberals aren't used to defending their outrageous claims. So when they're challenged they cry "hate speech".

Of course, the real fear these cretins have is that what Coulter says might cause people to..."gasp"...actually agree with her. And we can't have that now, can we?

Posted by: Gary at 09:20 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I suggest all you right wing neocons read George Orwells novel '1984' The use of fear, war and hate to keep the masses under the wing and control of Goldstein 'Big Brother' can easily be seen in Bush/Cheney. Sad and frightening- the sooner we expunge most of the GOP and also Joe Lieberman from this nation, we can actually begin to restore freedom and democracy.

Posted by: Peter at February 11, 2006 07:41 AM (7GbLR)

2 "the sooner we expunge most of the GOP and also Joe Lieberman from this nation, we can actually begin to restore freedom and democracy" That's the most fascist comment anybody has ever left on this website. Congrats. Face it, you ARE what you claim to fear.

Posted by: Gary at February 11, 2006 07:57 AM (mmSFL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dr. Sanity (a certified mental health professional) takes a fascinating look at the underlying causes of "Bush Derangement Syndrome":

What is most funny is that these psychologically naiive individuals simultaneously think of Bush as this "criminal mastermind"--a genius of evil; and also as a complete moron who isn't capable of uttering a sentence without making a hash of it; or that his brain is controlled by the equally evil Karl Rove.

The cognitive dissonance required to have all these contradictory beliefs swirling around in one's brain is astonishing. But besides the primary function it serves to erase from consciousness what is happening in the world today, it is serving a secondary purpose--it makes them feel in control of what might come.

They can predict with the complete accuracy of the delusional mind that whatever happens--whatever horror is unleased by Al Qaeda or Hamas or Islamic Jihad--was caused by President Bush's actions/inactions/intentions (take your pick).

They can conduct a brave protest march against the evil Bush...but clearly they don't dare protest real terror or terrorist acts the way that the Jordanians or the Lebanese did, for example. The terrorists are simply poor, misunderstood individuals who have been oppressed by...Bush. Get rid of Bush (or America; or Israel) and voila! Problem solved!

But go read the whole thing. It's really interesting.

Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin

Posted by: Gary at 05:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

Michelle Malkin has a column up at TownHall.com about how ironic it is that the Left tries to play up this idea of "right-wing rage" rather than look in the mirror at themselves. Yeah, Conservatives are passionate about their beliefs, they get annoyed with Liberal Moonbattery from time to time and they may even be rightly indignant when they see those on the Left trying to undermine our National Security. But "rage"?

Air-America host Janeane Garofalo accused the Right of having "an anger management problem". Granted, if that were true it would make it a lot easier to laugh off Conservative ideas and positions. But election after election, those ideas and positions end up winning elections. And the more Liberals lose, they not only get angrier but they start acting on their anger. In fact, many are become downright "Unhinged".

Consider the examples of anger-induced behavior on the Left that Malkin gives:

It isn't out-of-control conservatives tossing Molotov cocktails at police officers in San Francisco, burning American soldiers in effigy, and smearing pig's blood and feces on the walls and windows of military recruitment centers across the country to protest on behalf of peace.

It isn't rage-blinded conservative professors who embrace fragging (the murder of American soldiers by their fellow soldiers on the battlefield) as a legitimate anti-war tactic.

It isn't vengeful conservatives torching SUVs, condo developments, and research facilities, and targeting biotech and pharmaceutical company employees and their families to protest on behalf of the environment.

It wasn't mad conservatives sporting "F--- Bush" license plates, punching cardboard cutouts of the president, and vowing to secede after losing the 2004 presidential election.

It wasn't rabid conservatives who gloated over Ronald Reagan's death or John Ashcroft's pancreatitis.

It wasn't a gut-busting conservative journalist who vowed to kill herself if Dick Cheney ran for president. (That would be the perpetually aggrieved Helen Thomas.)

It wasn't hate-filled Republican officials who reportedly screamed "faggot" and "fruitcake" and "I'll break your nose" at their political opponents. (Those were all Democrats: Pennsylvania state legislator Vincent Fumo, California Rep. Pete Stark, and Virginia Rep. Jim Moran, respectively.)

It isn't fanatical conservatives joking about the assassination of President Bush and the execution of his Republican aides. (That, Ms. Garofalo, would include your Air America colleagues. But I'll forgive you if you weren't tuned in to them. Few are.)

And it wasn't ruthless conservatives who cheered last week when a liberal Bush-hater wrote on the popular DemocraticUnderground.com website last week:

"I am an American, Born and Raised, but I am NOT a citizen of BUSH'S America. I want nothing to do with the country these people have created.

And for those who support them, Let's get Something Nice And Sparkling CLEAR:

Stay The [F---] Away From Me. Stay OUT of my personal space. I want NOTHING from you. I want NOTHING to do with you. I want NOTHING to do with your "vision" of what the world should be.

What DO I want from you?

Honestly?

I will freely admit there are days, and they are becoming more than not, that the Alien at Area 51 in Independence Day and I share quite a common ground on the answer to that question.

And I am NOT apologizing for it.

In the words of the Late, Great Bill Hicks, about the most conciliatory thing I can say for those people at this point is simply this:

Kill Yourself"

This is the fuel of today's Democrat Party machine. It's where the money comes from and it's where the grassroots organizing comes from. It's also the beast that must be fed red meat by Democrat politicians on a regular basis or the beast will turn its anger on them.

Posted by: Gary at 09:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 663 words, total size 4 kb.

The host of MSNBC's "Hardball" goes to the University of Toronto and makes this asinine statement about the GWOT:

"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."

What a complete ass-hat. And we expect this naive schmuck to give us an accurate picture of what's going on every evening?

h/t: NealeNews

UPDATE: Despite Matthews protestations, Ace shows that he said as much once before, about a year ago.

Again, ASS-HAT!

Posted by: Gary at 09:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

Mmmmm. This is an interesting quiz. It's a .pdf taken from Peter Schweizer's new book: "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)" that came out on Tuesday. I've read Schweizer's "Reagan's War". This man does his homework.

Can't wait to read it.

Thanks to John Hawkins for the heads-up!

Posted by: Gary at 10:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.