Back Row Of The 'Beis

As if he cares.

As if you care, Zev!
How dare you assume that just because someone has different political leanings than you that he cares any less about the deaths of all these young men and women.

Also, the link that Avraham gave expired, and I feel that everyone should ahve a chance to see it.

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20050529

"How dare you assume"

Believe me, it doesn't take much daring.

Or too much insight. Anyone who's read Trudeau over the years knows that he's always trying to score points in the left vs. right war. At least he used to be funny. But nowadays ...

Has anyone on the Right ever considered that people on the Left can be just as hurt by the loss of soldiers?
One's position on the war has about as much to do with one's feelings about the soldiers as one's preference for chocolate vs. vanilla does.

I'd believe that, if they weren't always trying to make political hay out of the deaths.

Nachum Lamm is on target. That's what Trudeau is doing here.

Also, a good part of the left hates the military in general and the soldiers in Iraq in particular. Read some of the lefty blogs, particularly the comments. You'll be shocked at what you see.

you people are seriously sick!

i'm a pacifist, a-political, who hates war yet mourns and respects every soldier's death.

if you can't wrap your head around that, you've bought into some twisted version of who people are.

thank you for taking something touching and making it all about YOUR STUPID AGENDA!
/really pissed off

No, what I'm saying is that *Trudeau* is taking something sad and making it all about his personal agenda.

nachum -

i am less than impressed that you post under an assumed name to tell me i "protest too much". as the grandaughter, cousin, friend, and ex-girlfriend of soldiers, i can honestly tell you that your opinion of me is not very meaningful. i HATE war and i support the troops. i grew up in a family of right-wingers (whose opinions i respect), getting tucked into bed with stories of war and guns and death and glory. i grew up learning the names of the friends that were lost and the honor that goes with being a soldier. to dare suggest that i do not respect people in the armed forces is a slap to all of those people who have sacrificed in any way.

and again, i found the strip to be very respectful, and it bugs me that someone would reject and ridicule that because they assign political agenda to it. just take it at face value, and maybe even take a moment to accept trudeau as a fellow american in mourning.

Dani-

First, it's my real name. Ask around- lots of people who know you know me.

Second, I never doubted that you support the troops. See my post above.

Third, what really troubles me is your blanket assertion that you "hate war." Hate war's effects, hate the fact that war exists, wish to prevent war, sure. But "hate war"? War is often the only and/or best recourse we have to take, particularly against those who have none of the emotions I just listed. It seems to me that Mr. Trudeau was too scarred by his Vietnam experience and shares your blanket feeling. And that troubles me.

Frankly, hating war is just what it sounds like.
War is a HORRIBLE thing. People get killed in horrible ways. War means that reasonable dialogue has been exhausted (at least according to one of the involved parties), and that is indeed a very sad thing.
But to blame the soldiers for war, and to hate them for it, is ludicrous. I no more agree with the crazy lefties who advocate the deaths of the soldiers than I do with the crazy right-wingers who actually believe that everyone on the left hates America and wants soldiers to die.

But let's be honest for a moment... all of you on the right get outraged when a liberal cartoonist runs a comic with the names of dead soldiers, but at the same time, I doubt most of you could name even one dead soldier. The soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan have become nothing more than numbers you can spout in some Patriotic message about how "{insert number here} brave soldiers have given their lives to defend our freedom and to spread freedom in the world" while when you hear the reports on the news about more deaths, you just go back to eating your dinner. I too admit to being desensitized by the frequency of the deaths, and that saddens me too. But what saddens me more is the monopoly that the Right has claimed on any feelings of patriotism or, G-d forbid, sadness at the loss of American lives.

Take the cartoon at face value, and appreciate the sadness at the loss of American life. Stop making everything a political statement (and that includes Star Wars!!!)

I think that what most people on the Right here are failing to recognize is that this is NOT a war between left and right in the United States.
We can all disagree on many things, but in the end, we are one country with great freedoms and we should all be thankful for the opportunity to express our opinions freely.

did you hear me say that i don't support war when necesary? or that i would refuse to serve?

one of your friends who i know told me a long time ago that yours is an assumed name. so anything i said in that regard comes straight from his mouth. if you don't like it, then maybe one of you needs to not lie about it?

It's funny- I'm one of the few people in the blogworld who uses his full name in commenting and blogging. I have no idea who this "friend" is.

I'm relieved by your clarification about war.

That Boy: I speak based on experience. Again, I bring up Afghanistan. And it was Lucas who brought up political angles about Star Wars.

Lucas was asked about it first, and he declined to say that is wasn't political. He mentioned that it had some interesting parallels to the current political situation, but those who said he made it specifically as an anti-Bush polemic are the same ones who find it reprehensible that Trudeau dare to publish the names of dead soldiers. Just because he's against the President and his policies doesn't mean that everything he does is politically motivated.
But honestly, "if you're not with me, you're my enemy"?
Please! That line was in the King James Bible WAY before Bush used it.
The Star Wars saga was borne out of Lucas's disillusionment with the Vietnam war, and yes, there is some semblance of distrust of government in the whole series, but that dosen't mean that the movie is any more anti-Bush (which, BTW, has come to mean anti-American to many on the Right) than Big Night is anti-Atkins.

"anti-Bush, which, BTW, has come to mean anti-American to many on the Right"

Problem is, it's come to mean anti-American to many on the left as well.

I would like to think that when you say many on the left you mean the fringe fringe left, while when I say many on the right, I'm referring to the "mainstream" right-wing radio personalities and a vast majority of their callers in addition to the many conservative commentators out there like James Dobson and his ilk who have pretty much lost their minds because of all the power they think they have from helping to re-elect President Bush.
If you've ever listened to any of the left wing radio hosts (Air America is all I've heard, but hey, it exists) they may hate the government, but they love this country for that exact reason. Even though they hate the government they can still express their outage and be able to live freely.
I love how every liberal has to first "clear" themselves by admitting that some left wing nut is wrong before they are able to get a word in edgewise in the political dicourse. The conservative republican radio hosts have masterfully figured out how to marginalize even the most mainstream democrats (not to mention centrists from their own party) by simply grouping all of them under the same heading as such nutjobs from Bobby Fischer to Ward Churchill.

If only it were the fringe left. I'm afraid it's more than that. For heaven's sake, Michael Moore, who's as fringe as they get, was a major player in the Democratic campaign. The "mainstream" left *embraced* the fringe!

I think that's where you're wrong. The mainstream doesn't get nominated in this world. Look at the Democratic party. Joe Lenerman, a viable cenrist candidate died at the polls because the far left wing is what mobilized. Why do you think the dems have an idiot like Howard dean as head of the DNC.
The mainstream isn't embracing this, the fringe is running the party.
Meanwhile, have you noticed the fringe running the Republican party?
If not, all I can say is, "Praise Jesus".

hee

As a Rightie married to a Leftie, both of whom are really Centerie, I have this to say.

The cartoon can mean something different to everyone. That, in my opinion, is part of all art. You can believe what you want, but there is no One Right Answer. I see the comic as an amalgamation of all of the above, not simply as one or the other. Yes, there's a political agenda, but just about everything in life has some sort of agenda, not excluding what you're wearing, or eating for lunch, or watching on television.

My problem with this comment session is that some people aren't willing to try to see both sides. They both exist. A large part of understanding the world around you is seeing things from the other guy's perspective. Seems like that needs a little work.

No, I don't think the fringe is running the Republican party. They certainly exist, but the party has managed to control them, whereas the Democrats have them front and center.

That Wife,

I recognize that another side exists; I was simply pointing out that Trudeau is on that other side, and his comic is meant to score points politically. Which the lefties here inexplicably deny.

It's b/c the left has a history of doing this, and the right does not. I'm aware that Hannity and Limbaugh are the bogeymen of the left, but I listen to them occasionally, and I've never heard them use the war dead for political purposes.

Somehow my last post got deleted.
But as I was saying... The right wing commentators have CLAIMED the war dead as their own, and if the left attempts to even mention them, they are accused of using the war dead fro political purposes.
So I ask again... since when does the Right have a monopoly on sadness over the deaths of soldiers?

Also Zev, when That Wife said that there are two sides here, she seemed to me to be saying that each side should at least take the time to consider the other's point of view. All you did in your response was to say yeah, there are two sides, and I'm on the right one and he's on the wrong one.

"The right wing commentators have CLAIMED the war dead as their own,"

I don't know. I don't listen that much, but when I do, it's to rw talk radio, and I don't hear them exploiting the war dead, or even talking about them much. About supporting the war, yes, and about appreciating the soldiers, but what's wrong with that?

Re. Trudeau being on the other side; well, he is. To him (and numerous other lefties), everything is a replay of Vietnam. These guys are stuck in a time warp. The events of 9/11 seem to have made zero impression on them. Their hatred of Bush is such that they'd probably welcome a setback in Iraq, even if it meant the death of American soldiers. So I just can't take his Memorial Day comic at face value.

There you go making assumptions about people's motives again.
There is nothing wrong with appreciating the soldiers. but first off, that has nothing to do with supporting the President, and second of, it has nothing to do with supporting the reasons for getting into this war. At this point we have no choice but to stay in Iraq until everything is stable there, but that doesn't mean that the reasons we gave for going in were legitimate.

Now, when I say the RW have taken the war dead as their own, I mean it. Making blanket claims about how people on the left would rather see dead soldiers if it meant embarassment for the President and administration is just one of the many tactics that accomplishes this.

Also, saying that the events of 9/11 had no impact on Trudeau and many lefties is BS. It didn't have the impact that you wanted. It didn't make them all rally behind the president blindly and side with the administration no matter what they decide. I know many people who were affected by the events on 9/11 (lost friends and relatives) and every one of them was in favor of bringing those who committed these horrible crimes to justice. But then you go and bring up 9/11 in relation to the war in Iraq?
Ummm... I might have missed this, but how many of the hijackers were Iraqi? When was it proven that Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Have I been asleep for the last 4 years?

9/11 has NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq, and I'd appreciate it if you refrained from bringing up that tragedy to further your arguments about anything else.

Given enough cause (as in the case of Trudeau), there's nothing wrong with making assumptions about people's motives. It's silly not to.

As for supporting the soldiers while opposing the war; it's possible in theory, I'm sure, but in practice I'm afraid it's not all that common.

And regarding 9/11 and Iraq, well, maybe you have been asleep the past 4 years, b/c in fact, they have everything to do with each other. (Unless, of course, you're in the habit of making unfounded assumptions about President Bush's motives ...)

Unfounded assumptions about President Bush's motives?
He SAID we were going in there because Saddam had WMD... NOT because Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
Were you conveniently not listening to the administrations's reasoning for going in back then so that you could now backtrack and change the reasons for going in once no WMD were found?

9/11 has never been the reason for going into Iraq, and it never will be. 9/11 was a tragedy. Period.
Saddam Hussein was a murderer. Period.
But one has nothing to do with the other, unless you use the flimsy excuse that they're both somehow related to Islam.

Basically. I won't deny that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. But why can't anyone ever just take that statement at its face value and not try to marry it to 9/11 and making our world safer? Iraq is safer (maybe), but at least it has a future without Hussein. Now how exactly are we safer from Al Qaeda today?