Friday, July 07, 2006

"Useful Idiots" Make Great Saboteurs

For a time I thought that the media's disingenuous reporting on Iraq was mainly because of liberals' implacable hatred for George W. Bush. Although I still believe this hatred to be real, I have come to realize that the media have practiced the art of disingenuity and America hatred for nearly as long as the current United States president has been alive. And this understanding has further increased my confidence, that despite the slow process, abetted by treason in our midst, we can still win the battle for liberty in Iraq.

Do the American news media report inaccurately about Iraq because they hate George W. Bush? Generally, yes. Do they report disingenously because they hate the Republican party? Generally, yes. Do they do so because they harbor a hatred of America? Generally, yes. It would be inaccurate to say, however, that these feelings of hatred for our president, his party, and our country are recent occurrences. In fact, liberals of every stripe--political, news reportage, and hollywood entertainer--have despised the moral absolutes espoused by America for a lot longer than that.

This concept became clear to me when I recently began reading the book Useful Idiots by Mona Charen. The same sentiments, the same dismay at American success, and the same indigestion experienced by liberals now as they watch Iraq move closer to freedom were exhibited in a similar manner as we fought in and returned from Viet Nam, and as the Ursulan behemoth formerly known as the Soviet Union imploded and hundreds of thousands of her minions escaped her evil clutches to enjoy the light of a new day.

It is offensive to a moral relativist to contrast something good with something evil. In the mind of the average American, the Soviet Union was a patently wicked fraud, and it was with great joy that we watched her collapse from the heights of seeming invincibility. But to the average liberal, the collapse of the beast was both a day of sadness and a day of backpedaling. Sadness, because it proved all of their personally-held theories wrong, and backpedaling, because they didn't want to be on the doofus side of history. Liberals continue their role as Useful Idiots for evil as they still struggle with these two addictions 20 years later.

The liberal backlash began during the Vietnam war. Likely the watershed event of the turnabout, the Tet Offensive became known--incorrectly--as an American defeat. Despite the loss of thousands of Communist Vietnamese in the offensive, Walter Cronkite and others of his politically puny stature somehow convinced most Americans that the North Vietnamese had won. Protests against President Nixon, mainly on college campuses, were strident until 1973, when Nixon declared the military draft ended, and college students no longer felt worried that they might have to serve their country.

During this time, our position in the world, especially vis a vis the Soviet Union, looked very bleak. The words "containment", "detente", and "peaceful cooexistence" were foisted by liberals into our social vocabulary.

As soon as we came home from Nam, the focus began to shift to the "invincible" Soviet Union. Liberals of every stripe found something positive (and overlooked the daunting negatives) of every Soviet leader from Brezhnev to Gorbachev. Ted Turner ejaculated that "Gorbachev has ...moved faster than any person in the history of the world. Moving faster that Jesus Christ did." CNN's Stuart Loory laughably reported that "the [Soviet] people have been truly converted" to Communism. Some even gushed that Gorbachev had a "blueprint for saving the planet" despite the gargantuan damage Communism had caused to the environment. (Charen, Useful Idiots, pp. 111-119)

On top of all this, when Ronald Reagan became president of the United States, the news media, all democracts, and even some republicans were very embarrassed that he had won, and became enraged when he challenged the Soviet Union with such statements as

  • "the only morality [Communists] recognize is what will further their cause, meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat." (Interestingly, the same could be said of Saddam Hussein, the insurgency, Osama Bin Laden, and the late, late, late Father Mousab al Zarqawi.)
  • "the Soviet Union runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens. It is also in deep economic difficulty." (Deja vu! Liberals today are so invested in the same theory of America-is-bad that they almost completely ignored documentation found with Zarqawi's body that admitted similar difficulties that the terrorist insurgency is facing.
It is somewhat miraculous to contemplate that the United States, despite odds equivalent to a basketball game where one team has five players and the other has 1,000, observed the downfall of the Soviet Union rather than vice versa. The great Soviet fall onto the ash heap of history was very slow in coming because at every turn, another American traitor was abetting the enemy and criticizing the United States for attempting to turn back the tide of despotism and debauchery around the globe.

Funny I should have mentioned that. The great fall of the post-Saddam insurgency is taking much longer than it should as well, and for chiefly the very same reason. Lazy amorality has convinced liberals that it would be mean to share liberty with other people.

They are once and again Useful Idiots for the freedom-destroyers. And just like forty years ago, Useful Idiots make great saboteurs.


Elizabeth said...

Frank, I don't think you realize that sometimes you sound paranoid and demagogue-ish. I still don't understand who you are talking about when you start ranting about "liberals" and the "media." Back in the 30s and 40s, lots of Americans thought the Soviets were our friends--after all, they helped defeat Hitler. Some people still believed the Soviet Union was an egalitarian place, in the 50s. But I don't think too many "liberals" in the U.S. had any sympathy for the Soviet Union by the 70s. By then we pretty much all realized the Soviet Union was a tyranny, as well as being an aggressive expansionist power--hardly what Karl Marx had in mind!

I also don't understand your comment:
"It is somewhat miraculous to contemplate that the United States, despite odds equivalent to a basketball game where one team has five players and the other has 1,000, observed the downfall of the Soviet Union rather than vice versa."

I don't think the Soviet Union ever had a chance against us. The Soviet Union poured its money into weaponry, but their economy was weak and their society was rigid...they were devastated by their defeat in Afghanistan...what I remember from the 70s and 80s was the fear of all-out nuclear war--I don't remember anyone really being afraid the Soviet Union was going to invade and occupy us...the fear was mutual destruction.

I really think you should be careful using words such as "hatred." Just because someone has different ideas about public policy than you do doesn't mean they "hate" America. They may see themselves as loving America. I know very few people who "hate" America. Yet most of the people I know you would probably call "liberals." When you use this type of rhetoric, you sound intolerant and really, you do sound paranoid.

Of course a lot of people do hate Bush, mainly because he's a liar. Nobody likes a liar.

AngelaM said...

Frank I seem to agree with you on this. Apparently Elizabeth forgot about Clinton and Monica? Go figure! I guess I must sound paranoid also.

Elizabeth said...

Clinton and Monica? What does that have to do with anything?

Elizabeth said...

Oh, I guess you were talking about "I never had sex with that woman." Yes, it's terrible to lie about having sex...almost as bad as the President of the United States lying about the U.S. being in "grave danger" from a foreign when that was not true...hmm, I'd rather have someone lie to me about sex...

Elizabeth said...

I just realized "angelam" used two common rhetorical tactics for people who have no logical argument: 1. Deliberately miss the main point of what the other person said, and 2. Change the subject.

Matt said...

I read the post and have two comments. First, I would not argue that all the time people in Hollywood spoke out against the US. My grandpa sent me an e-mail a while back about what Hollywood actors did during World War II. Many of them joined the military, served honorably, and one even won the Medal of Honor. However, support like this today from Hollywood, I do agree, seems to be little and far between. Second, "Ted Turner ejaculated that "Gorbachev has ...moved faster than any person in the history of the world. Moving faster that Jesus Christ did."" Those first three words were hilarious. I just wasn't expecting them like that. I didn't know turner said Gorbachev moved faster than Christ, something I take personal offense to.

Frank Staheli said...


A lot of this post is informed by the book I am reading, so I trust that Mona Charen's quotations and elaborations are factual and contextual.

What I thought was interesting is that the media didn't seem to be anti-American until the Vietnam War. Admittedly, they first turned against democrat Lyndon Johnson. My main point is that liberals and media types more generally speak in favor of America's enemies (Cuba, Russia, the Sandanistas, etc.) more often than they speak in favor of America. This point is illustrated repeatedly in Mona Charen's book from which I quote.

It's easy to see in retrospect the signs of the Soviet fall. I was barely in high school during their foray into Afghanistan and admittedly didn't pay much attention. My point about the one-sided basketball game has more to do with how often Reagan persevered in the face of a non-stop onslaught from liberals in politics and the media (as well as in Hollywood) when nearly everyone thought that the Soviets were still much stronger than the US and that Reagan's tactics would lead only to further escalation of the arms race rather than the actual eventual result--the Soviet downfall.

Kim said...

Paranoid??? That's laughable. I don't know what rock some of your readers are sitting under, but when you say liberals, what comes to mind for me is Michael Moore (a liar), George Soros, Susan Saranden, et al. And as far as Bush being a liar, well that has now been debunked. WMD's WERE found in Iraq. I was told about it from a few soldiers who came through my USO who drove the trucks that had the sarin and mustard gas to the installation to dispose of them. I believe the story broke in the news about 2 weeks ago. However, there hasn't been as wide of coverage of it as there was about "Bush lied". Why is that? At the risk of sounding "paranoid" myself, I would say maybe because the people whose job is to report this information hates America.

Elizabeth said...

Kim: Of course, we knew Saddam had chemical weapons, because we supported him in his use of them against Iran...the lie I was referring to was "grave danger." North Korea has weapons of mass destruction, so does Pakistan, etc. etc. Come to think of it, so do we. Does that mean it would be okay for our "enemies" to bomb us? Well, some of them think it is, come to think about it...maybe their thinking is more similar to yours than you would feel comfortable acknowledging.

Elizabeth said...

I think Matt has a good point. My grandmother (a liberal!) was in the USO in WWII. Because back then, we were actually attacked by one of the countries we went to war with (Japan) and it was clear Germany was committing atrocities and attempting to conquer the world.

Elizabeth said...


"Mona Charen's quotations and elaborations are factual and contextual"

Could you elaborate on Mona Charen's credentials? Many, many quotatins and elaborations in propaganda books are not, in fact, "factual and contextual." Just because someone printed something does not mean it is true.

Elizabeth said...

There is a larger point here: Who determines who are America's "enemies" and who are America's "friends"? How do nations or other entities become our "enemies" or our "friends"? Do you, yourself, analyze foreign countries and decide for yourself: This entity means harm to the U.S./doesn't mean harm to the U.S.? Do you analyze the chains of historical events that lead some nations to go to war with each other and others to stay at peace? My guess is, you do not.
Most people just believe what they're told, which is not healthy for a democracy. When Hitler told the Germans the Jews were to blame for everything wrong in Germany, people believed him because he was the leader. It's frightening that so many people in the U.S. just believe whatever GW Bush tells them because he's our leader.

Elizabeth said...

Ok, I did the work for you Frank. Here's Mona Charen's official bio:

"Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist and political analyst living in the Washington, D.C., area.

She received her undergraduate degree at Barnard College, Columbia University, with honors. Ms. Charen also holds a degree in law from George Washington University.

Ms. Charen began her career at National Review magazine, where she served as editorial assistant. On her first tax return at the age of 22, Ms. Charen listed her occupation as "pundit," explaining later, "You have to think big."

In 1984, Ms. Charen joined the White House staff, serving first as Nancy Reagan's speechwriter and later as associate director of the Office of Public Liaison. In the latter post, she lectured widely on the administration's Central America policy. Later in her White House career, she worked in the Public Affairs office helping to craft the president's overall communications strategy.

In 1986, Ms. Charen left the White House to join the presidential quest of then-Congressman Jack Kemp as a speechwriter."

In other words: She's a PR professional. She's not a professor of history or political science or sociology. She does propaganda for a living!

If you want to start with factual information, it's best to start with things written by established academics. Although academics differ in their opinions, their reputation and careers depend on their scholarship. Scholarship means they have to back up everything they say. As a speechwriter, you do not have to back up what you say, you just have to make sure you appeal to people's emotions. It's called spin.

Kim said...

While we have WMD's here, we will not use them unless provoked, and we may not even use them then. We know Saddam had them, we know Saddam lied about getting rid of them, we went to war because he still had them. Took us a while to find them, but we did. Bush lied about nothing. Saddam has a connection to the people who attacked us on 9/11. We wanted to make sure he did not give those WMD's to the people of the same terorist group who had already attacked us. We gave Saddam every opportunity to prevent us from going in. This is all fact. Why people like you refuse to acknowledge that is beyond me. And no Elizabeth, it is not okay for our enimies to bomb us. I can't believe you would even ask such a ridiculous question. You have no idea how I think, so suggesting our enimies think like I do is another way liberals prove they have no point to prove, and no ability to prove it. It appears you may be one of those liberals mentioned in this post who hate America. Elizabeth, do you hate America?

Elizabeth said...

Kim, can you elaborate on your statement:

"Saddam has a connection to the people who attacked us on 9/11."

Also, please supply your definition of "provoked."

As for hating America--I do not hate America; if I did I would leave.

I'm intrigued by the way right-wing people so often fling accusations such as "you hate America" and "traitor" at left-wing people. We don't fling those type of serious accusations at right-wing people simply because we believe they are misled and wrong. Maybe we just have more class. Or perhaps, a greater dedication to the truth.

Kim said...

Elizabeth, as the content of this post was about people hating America, I stayed on topic. I did not accuse you of hating America. I simply asked if you did. Please do not take offense at a simple yes or no question. And feel free to think you have all the class and those who disagree with you must not have any class. Your opinions on class structure matter not one whit to me, nor do I believe Frank's blog a place for discussing your class level vs mine. My example of being provoked would be the attacks of 9/11, the attack on the USS Cole, the earlier attack on the World Trade Center, Pearl Harbor, need I go on? Because I can....there are various others. And to elaborate on my statment about Saddam having a connection to those who attacked on 9/11, where shall I begin? He had provided training camps in Iraq and money to fund them and oh yeah, he had also offered a safe haven to Zarqawi after Zarqawi left Afghanistan. I believe I have responded to all your requests without changing the subject,however, while I am not deliberately missing the main point of what you said, I do not see your point at all. Is there even a point you are trying to make? And Frank, please accept my apologies for going on and on with Elizabeth on your blog site.

Matt said...

Elizabeth, I was just wondering where you got your info on her. I wouldn't doubt the veracity as long as it wasn't Wikipedia. I can't stand that thing.
Now Kim and Elizabeth, since we're reviving the great WMD debate, I want to make a few comments. First, we never set a "time-date" for these WMD. All we said is that he had them. Therefore, the rational holds true. As far as evidence of an ongoing WMD program (which was a sub-citation of the WMD possession), information is more spotty. I remember reading an article a while back about dual use equipment being found in dumpsters. Check here:
I hope that doesn't get cut off. Additionally, a stumbled across the web site of a man who claims he has the GPS coordinates of four areas where WMDs still are in southern Iraq. He's been calling for a Congressional inquiry. I don't know if what he claims is true, but if you want to check it out, .
Alright, that's all for now, I'll talk to you guys once I get back in the US, I'm leaving on Thursday.

Elizabeth said...

Matt, are you talking about Mona Charen? The info is her official bio from her syndicate (I think it's Creators Syndicate).

Elizabeth said...

Kim, can you cite your source or provide a link regarding Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion?

Of course, Iraq is now the premier Al Qaeda training camp...

Elizabeth said...

Here's a story about the purported Al-Qaeda--Saddam connection:

What I think is most interesting about Corn's essay is that he points out that Sudan harbored Al Qaeda, Pakistan also, (Pakistan right now is harboring Osama bin Laden)...we haven't bombed those countries. Kim: Should we go bomb Sudan and Pakistan (of course Pakistan has nukes; if we bombed them they'd use their nukes perhaps, or give them to terrorists). How about Iran, we could bomb them, they've supported "terrorist" groups...we could bomb Saudi Arabia, where Al Qaeda got its start...of course, that would mean, no more oil...but I guess you'd be willing to give up your car and ride a horse to work for "freedom"...let's bomb Egypt while we're at it; that's where Zawahiri is from...although it's interesting, we give Egypt $2 billion a year, which they have used to suppress dissent, thus empowering the Islamist would be ironic if we bombed them for creating terrorists when we gave them the money to support the corrupt Mubarak dictatorship, thus spurring radical Islamism...the list of those we could bomb goes on and on...but maybe a better strategy, not to mention one that doesn't destroy us along the way, would be to figure out how all these "terrorist" groups came into being in the first place..

Kim said...

I only have a few sources for you.
Disinformation:22 Media Myths That Undermine the War On Terror by Rich Miniter. Saddam's Ties to Al Queda by Sam Pender. The 9/11 Commission Report by the National Commission on Terrorit Attacks upon the United States. The Connection: How Al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has endangered America by Stephen F. Hayes. I hope these help. Most are very interesting, however, the 9/11 Commission Report is a harder read, simply because the type is so small, and the writing style is obviously not that of a writer. Elizabeth, it appears to me you are someone who sits on the other side of the fence on any issues political, than I do. I have no problem with that. For the most part, I find liberals to be rather harmless if not comical. It's the ones helping the terrorists, such as the New York Times, that I genuinely have a problem with.