Star One Smart Blog's

Over at the sinking NIT, I left a comment that's needing clarification.

Christian, the WKRN honch who runs the show (not the Mr. Christian who now leads BMEWS) posted a note asking for some blogging help before NIT relaunches (he's found One Good Man in Number 9...you know he's good since the liberals are a bit panicky.) I left a comment on that firstly-linked post decrying Kleinheider, the wonk who blogs Volunteer Voters, another WKRN site that's narrowly-defined, devoted mostly to Nashville politics, and one I stopped visiting after Kleinheider invented the term "MurderCon" to describe conservatives who support the President and the War (pointedly applied to Fred Thompson), and a later post where he bashed the troops, referring to them as 'button men', as pawns, and not worthy of platitudes. I posted on that 'button-pawn' incident here.

The comments I took from liberals needed a response, I left it there, and will repeat it here (since NIT doesn't get around much, anymore)...

#14
serr8d said,

on September 28th, 2007 at 6:54 am

...the justifications of the Iraqi war were spelled out in black and white in UN Resolutions. Also, brown and red, given the deaths from WMD’s Saddam used against the Kurds, and would have used against anyone else he could have, if given more time. Also, he used conventional weapons against his own citizens and against our jets in the No-Fly zones.

You would be shortsighted indeed to think that there was absolutely no links between al Qaeda and Iraq. Saddam sponsored Islamic terrorism; you recall that Saddam funded the families of suicide bombers who launched themselves at Israel. Terrorism is defined by suicide bombers.

But that’s rehashed stuff…we could have allowed [Saddam] to stay in power, to become a much more significant player in Middle East terrorism, but we didn’t. Our conversation is Kleinheider, so just find for me one paleocon (or any -con- who isn’t also an -artist) who mocks the troops, or attaches a ‘Murder-Con’ label to whomever supports an ongoing war, for the sake of supporting said troops while they are deployed, and denying sustenance to the enemy (clearly you see the ’sustenance’ Mahmoud Ahmadenijad obtained from the leftists in this country; his talking points seemed written by Ned Lamont, and the Democratic Congress.)

Any Conservative, or let’s just say Americon, should be able to see the perils of bashing without reason the leadership and the troops. Democrats and Leftists do so without regard for the consequences, it seems. Pardon me for confusing Kleinheider with the leftists; but “if you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.”

I’ll start to read more of Kleinheider, since there’s much support for his online activities. Come to think of it, he’s avoided any sense of kerfuffle since that ‘button pawn’ incident. Muzzled, so I suppose the lesson’s learned?

To me, the issue goes beyond the troop-bashing and murder-conning. We are at war, of course we have rights to express ourselves however we wish, for or against the effort. But to do so in such a manner that invites the enemies into our camps and gives them renewed hope and vigor isn't helping our efforts to win the damned thing.