Moonbat Logic

I don't particularly enjoy talking about the antiwar movement, because antiwar activists aren't seriously engaged in the debate over what's best for Iraq and the United States. Their childish tactics and ridiculous sloganeering don't deserve any attention. But Linda Milazzo at the Huffington Post has an article that gave me a moment to reflect on what it means to be a hero.

"Every American who opposes the immoral wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, and fears an encore on Iran, owes a heart-felt thanks to Desiree Fairooz for placing herself in the cross hairs for peace."

Nearly everyone has seen the picture of Fairooz waving her hands at the Secretary of State. Antiwar activists celebrate her courage in a display that has become known as "speaking truth to power." These activists hold that dissent is the highest form of patriotism, and regard Fairooz as a patriot who "put herself in the cross hairs" to get her message out.

If going to a public hearing with a fleet of people who support you, and racking up a misdemeanor for waving makeup-stained hands at the administration's top diplomat counts as putting oneself in the crosshairs, then the acts of people like Paul Ray Smith and Michael P. Murphy are nothing short of walking through the gates of Hell.

Putting oneself in the crosshairs is not done at a house hearing by risking a possible felony assault charge, then going free. Which brings us to a fundamental truth about the antiwar movement: they do not understand the meaning of sacrifice. They don't know what it is, how to do it, or what qualifies as bravery.

No doubt they are acting on their convictions, and that's great, but their skewed view of heroism lends some understanding to their skewed view of reality. When you count risking an improbable criminal charge as a death-defying act of heroism, it stands to reason that the rest of your perceptions are off by a factor of ten as well. Let's test that theory. From Linda Milazzo:

"If only it were illegal to use the people's airwaves to purposely LIE TO THE PEOPLE!!

For the nation's peacemakers - the silenced heroes who defend the Constitution - there are no delusions of an honorable mainstream media."

Calling for the curtailment of the First Amendment in one breath and then pretending to be a defender of the Constitution in the next? The theory holds here. Another example might be if she accuses the Media of being in cahoots with the administration in one breath, and then lauds the work of a mainstream media outlet in another. Wouldn't that be something:

"A huge thank you to photographer Charles Dharapak and to the Associated Press for letting the truth be told..." "There are no corporate broadcasters openly sympathetic to protesters on the air. How can they be - if they are ONE with the government?! How can they be - if consolidating media means dismantling any challenge to power?"

If you read my last post on Karbala, you'll see that FOX, CNN, ABC, and CBS all got their stories on Karbala from the AP. Yet somehow AP is noble and righteous and yadda yadda, while these other four networks are chock full o' crap. Theory holds for a third time.

I'd love to see peace just as much as the next guy, I really would. But the world is not so simple as fake blood on a delusional protester's hands, and the AP photographer named in the story wasn't the only one to get a picture.
Pretty sure that's not what heroism looks like.