McCain: 'Lives Wasted In Iraq,' What Will Malkin Say?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 11:05:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Previously, I wrote:

Apparently, Barack Obama apologized for saying that US troops' lives have been wasted in Iraq . . . Obama did indeed misspeak. The fact is our troops in Iraq have not been wasted, they have been used in an enterprise that has been as damaging to the United States as any in memory. They were worse than wasted -- they were employed in a Debacle that was foretold from the first moment PNAC dreamed up this insane scheme in the 1990s.

About Obama, Michelle Malkin said:

I could go on, but it would be a waste of breath trying to get Sen. Obama to acknowledge the existence of countless soldiers and their families who reject his patronizing, infantilizing, and insulting view of all American troops as dupes/victims who have squandered their lives.

Last night, John McCain said:

"Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be," McCain said. "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives."

It would be hypocritical of me to criticize McCain for saying soldiers' lives were wasted in Iraq. It would be hypocritical of Michelle Malkin not to.

Patterico, any comment? H/T Atrios

< Iraq: Memory Lane, But There Is No Time Like The Present | Libby: No Verdict, Day Seven >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McCain: 'Lives Wasted In Iraq,' What Will Malkin Say? | 36 comments (36 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

OK That's it (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by peacrevol on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 11:11:16 AM EST

This sort of thing is what's wrong with American politics. It's like the people of the US dont care where anyone stands on any issues. We only seem to care that they're politically correct about everything. It was stupid to say that the troops lost their lives in vein, but do we really want a politician that's more worried about walking on glass so he doesnt offend anyone or do we want somebody who'll say what he means. We're leaving it to chance if we elect someone because they said the fewest offensive and least bothersome things in their campains...

IMHO, we as a society have to stop being so damned offended by anything that people may or may not say. To put in in Carlin's words, it's the pu$$ification of America and it's really bringing us into the $h*tter.

: Right on Bro.... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by kdog on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:49:21 PM EST

IOW...the truth hurts, but that doesn't mean you stop facing the truth. And we certainly should not elect the politician who is the best at evading the truth.

'Stolen Honor' (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by scarshapedstar on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 11:31:10 AM EST

I've never understood that Malkin smear. Nobody's saying the soldiers wasted their own lives. If anything, it's more selfless to accept an order to basically reenact the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Or, in this case, it's more like Mustafa Kemal's famous

I am not ordering you to attack, I am ordering you to die! In the time it takes us to die, other troops and commanders will arrive to take our place.

: Exactly (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:28:45 PM EST

Alot (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by jondee on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:09:58 PM EST

of people aren't fans, including divine-right-of-capital net-hack Patterico, but not many have the kind of platform to publicly walk their talk that Malkin does.

My guess is McCain's statement will bypass her radar like a warm summer breeze.

I'm sooooo sorrrrryyyy... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by desertswine on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:37:25 PM EST

McCain "regrets" comment.

Malkins (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by jondee on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 05:02:16 PM EST

first function is as an administration and GOP attack dog and damage control media spinner; like the Swift Skank, Hannity and Murdoch & Friends.

She wont go after McCain in any way because Shrub has less "traction with the base" right now than McCain does, and McCain is seen as an asset.

Maybe, maybe not (none / 0) (#3)
by roy on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 11:32:00 AM EST

Malkin will be attending CPAC and focussing on that for a few days, so if she stays silent it might just mean she's busy.

Plus, she's not a McCain supporter anyway. Every single reference to him on her blog is negative. So if she's deliberately silent, she might not be a hypocrit, but merely not as thorough as she might be.

Good appraisal (none / 0) (#5)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 11:56:57 AM EST

I'm not a daily, or even weekly, Malkin reader, but I do know that she's no fan of McCain.


: Bad appraisal (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:28:06 PM EST

See my comment above.

bwaaahahahaha (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:27:39 PM EST

Now you must be making a funny.

She a ctually wropte about McCain's appearance one Letterman where he siad these things.

You folks will defend anything and anybody won't you?

At least I sometimes criticize my own. And I darn sure don't defend the lame stuff they do.


A point to you, and a point to me (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by roy on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:43:15 PM EST

It didn't click for me that the appearance she blogged about was the same appearance in which he said lives were wasted. What can I say, I had to save a bottle of wine from going bad last night. So her silence on the "wasted" part probably is deliberate. A point to you.

On the other hand, when she blogged about it, she was criticizing him. That just continues her pattern of not liking McCain. Criticizing only some of one's opponents for the same actions is not usually considered hypocritical. A point to me.

I'd say she feels about McCain the same as you feel about Lieberman. He is not one of her own.


addendum (none / 0) (#12)
by roy on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:44:18 PM EST

I think we might actually be talking past each other by having different definitions for "hypocrit", but I don't have time to get into it right now. Maybe this afternoon.


And when one of my own acta as Lieberman (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:46:27 PM EST

and I ignore it then you will have a point.


Hypocrisy (none / 0) (#28)
by roy on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:42:22 PM EST

I think this hinges on whether McCain is one of Malkin's own. I also think it's established that he is not. Based on that...

Is it hypocritical for a person to criticize one opponent for an action, and not to criticize another opponent for the same action?

I think no. So that's why I don't think silence from Malkin would be hypocritical. Unfortunately, "hypocrisy" is a nebulous thing, so you may think the answer is yes and we're just having two different conversations and getting annoyed that they don't fit together.

Back to assumptions...

Is McCain actually one of Malkin's own? If so, then her silence would fall into a very straightforward definition of hypocrisy. But the only evidence I see that they are of a kind is that he is a Republican. I found her exclusively negative comments about him more weighty. So do you think his Republicanism is enough of a reason to group them together, that there is more evidence that they are of a kind, or that they are, in fact, not of a kind?

Does it actually matter whether he is one of her own? I think your 11:47 comment is a concession that it does, so I won't ramble on on this point any more.


: Time (none / 0) (#29)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:54:38 PM EST

So that's why I don't think silence from Malkin would be hypocritical. Unfortunately, "hypocrisy" is a nebulous thing, so you may think the answer is yes and we're just having two different conversations and getting annoyed that they don't fit together.
And my point is that it's been ::checks clock:: now only 14 hours since McCain's statement. Given that Malkin hasn't posted only once during that time period, isn't it a little presumptuous to assume that she is hypocritically remaining silent on the matter? Is it possible that she's a little distracted by CPAC?
Why is BTD and Atrios jumping down her throat before she's even mentioned McCain's gaffe? I don't know what it is about this woman but she makes some people on the Left go crazy. I've already been called a sycophant for simply pointing out that Michelle's silence is probably not indicative of anything at this point, other than that she's busy.

It's been less than 12 hours. (none / 0) (#10)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:41:53 PM EST

BTD, the Malkin-hate is just a little thick. It's been less than 12 hours since McCain's announcement and Malkin doesn't appear to have actually seen it yet.

I wouldn't be defending Malkin if she'd approvingly discussed McCain today. But the fact is, she posted about him last night before his appearance and is spending today at CPAC.

Your hysterical demand for her to criticize McCain is, well, silly. What if she waits 'til this afternoon to comment on it? Will you denounce her for not acting fast enough to suit you? Good grief, Charlie Brown.


She BLOGGED about it (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:47:02 PM EST

The blind Malkin love is absurd here.


Read much? (none / 0) (#18)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:54:54 PM EST

Can you read? She blogged that it was going to happen (future tense). Look at the timestamp. She blogged that he was going to do it, not that she'd seen it or heard what he said during it.


Do you SEE much? (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:02:03 PM EST

She has a VIDEO of it!

Sheesh. Take a deep breath. Malkin love is something I can not fathom, but clearly you suffer from it.


Tsk tsk tsk. (none / 0) (#20)
by Gabriel Malor on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:05:48 PM EST

Ian at HotAir has video. Any proof that Malkin actually watched it?

Then why the presumption that she approves of McCain, or just doesn't want to bad-mouth him? You've jumped the gun.


: Oy vey (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:20:39 PM EST

SHE linked to the video. Hot Air is her site too of course.
You are really quite the sycophant aren't you?

: She approves of McCain? (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:21:37 PM EST

I have no idea. She HATES Democrats and will smear them at every opportunity.
Are you acting this way on purpose?

After her little show on Obama? (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:47:35 PM EST

You really must be joking.


BTD, the Malkin-hate is just a little thick. (none / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 08:27:49 PM EST

Stick around. You aint seen nothing yet.


Saving Face (none / 0) (#4)
by glanton on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 11:45:12 AM EST

Is less important than speaking the truth and doing what is right.

Say this to anyone, and they'll say they agree.

But do they really?

Better to come to terms with the fact that the government has wasted lives and then stop wasting them, than to keep wasting them just to avoid the pain and humiliation of acknowleding it.

Patterico isn't a fan, either (none / 0) (#6)
by roy on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:25:43 PM EST

He made this pledge in May of '05, during the Gang of 14 kerfuffle:

The next time John McCain runs for any elective office, I pledge to support his opponent. I will use my blog to encourage others to vote for his opponent.
I am singling him out because of his fascist campaign finance law, which will not stop me in any way from using this blog to oppose John McCain for the rest of his days.
That is my solemn pledge to you.

He's a fan of Malkin apparently (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 12:51:57 PM EST

and just viciously attacked Glenn Greenwald for "hypocrisy."

That is the issue I highlight, not whether or not he says anything about McCain.

Are these strawman arguments beign raised in this thread deliberate or due to misunderstanding?


: At least partly misunderstanding (none / 0) (#26)
by roy on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:26:34 PM EST

This part of our disagreement is nice and straight forward: I thought you were implying that Patterico ought to criticize McCain. Instead you're saying that Patterico ought to criticize Malkin, so of course Patterico's opinion of McCain is irrelevant.
As for whether you're right that Patterico should criticize Malkin, that hinges on whether it's hypocritical for Malkin to remain silent about McCain, and we're still hashing that out.

Interestingly, Roy (none / 0) (#21)
by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:06:24 PM EST

McCain was NOT invited to speak at CPAC.

Let them all rally behind Malkin and her ilk. They deserve her. We've got the soldiers on our side, now that they are standing up to the liars. Malkin will prove to be a miserable failure.

Can we litter the CPAC with US Army applications for service?

OT I'm watching Fox noise (what can I say, I'm blogging and someone else changed the channel) and one of their bobble heads says Osama is just a distraction. 3K people and they want us to leave him alone!!

I am/was a McCain supporter, (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 01:13:48 PM EST

despite McCain/Fingold and despite the Keating Five Scandal.

But he is fast loosing traction with the Repub base because of his association with Teddy K on immigration. A few more comments like that and he may find himself taking an early train to retirement.

McCain's comment (none / 0) (#30)
by diogenes on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 03:23:23 PM EST

McCain has very consistantly for four years criticized the way the war has been conducted, not the way itself. Undoubtedly some soldiers in the field agree. Any reasonable person would realize that what he meant to say was that Bush/Rumsfeld's failures in conducting this otherwise worthwhile war have led to a waste of American lives and treasure.
Isn't it time for the drive-by media and blogs to discuss real issues rather than spin wheels on this kind of stuff?

If only Obama had recieved the same consideration (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by roy on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 03:35:42 PM EST

Obama's comments were clearly directed at the leadership too. They were widely misrepresented as critical of the troops.

In a perfect world, both would be treated fairly. Short of that, it's not at all clear that treating one fairly and the other unfairly is better than treating them both equally unfairly.


: Pooooh (none / 0) (#34)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 08:30:28 PM EST

If only Barrack H. Obama had been anyplace and done anything anything worthy of mention...
McCain made a big mistake.
Obama meant his.

LOL (none / 0) (#35)
by jondee on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 11:27:18 AM EST

Quit emabarrasing yourself.

ema.. (none / 0) (#36)
by jondee on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 11:28:12 AM EST

thats the Italian version.