Free Markets, Free People

Ed Shultz– patriotic “chicken hawk?” Dissent is now “unpatriotic” …

Frankly this sort of stuff is just funny as hell, in an ironic sort of way.  The ever consistent left.  Remember when  any dissent, as long as it was the left dissenting and George Bush was the target, was the height of patriotism?

Yeah, not so much anymore.  Check out this from Ed Schultz.  Ed Schultz for heaven sake, talking about dissent and war:

ED SCHULTZ: Republicans are attacking the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war! . . . There should be no debate: we should be kicking [Gaddafi’s] ass . . . Whose side are you on, Sarah: are you with the terrorists, Sarah, or are you with the President of the United States? . . . And I have to ask the question tonight: where is the patriotism from all of these war-hawks? Where’s the patriotism of the Republican party? . . . What about being a patriot? . . . So the question now for the doubters who are out and about: why don’t you support the president? . . . We’ve been talking about the lack of patriotism from prominent Republicans . . .  Laura [Flanders] what about the patriotism?

Sometimes I have to wonder if these guys are like geese and just wake up in a new world everyday, because they apparently just don’t remember the Bush years at all or what they said during that time. And just as apparently they don’t seem to remember when they argued that dissent was as patriotic and American as apple pie.   As I recall Ed Schultz was the voice of dissent about Iraq – in fact he liked to brag about that fact.  Change each of the names above to “Ed Schultz” and it would be precisely what he whined about and pushed back against when he was the target of such nonsense.

But now, suddenly, because it fits his agenda apparently, he’s what I can only assume he’d have called a “chicken-hawk” a few years ago.  And he’ll brook no dissent, by gosh.  You’re simply “unpatriotic” if you disagree. 

Ed Shultz – another irony impaired  lefty blowhard with no integrity who has a memory as long as … well you pick the proper metaphor, but whatever you choose, it’s not very long at all.  You can see the clip of him “leaning forward” on MSNBC here.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

38 Responses to Ed Shultz– patriotic “chicken hawk?” Dissent is now “unpatriotic” …

  • Whose side are you on, Sarah: are you with the terrorists”

    Ah, Khaddafi is officially a terrorist now?   and Saddam WASN’T?   wow……

    • no. no. But this does bring into focus the Obama Doctrine or something.
      On one side, we have Khaddafi’s merry band of “screw ’em” mercenaries
      On the other side, we have a rag tag band of local jihadists with a “flicker” of al Qaeda
      Ed Schultz and the Democrats are of course, siding with the “locals” with that “flicker”
      I feel like I’ve seen this movie before.

  • This is just too blatant of Schultz not to be ironic

    • He’d have to demonstrate to me that he was bright enough to understand irony before I  credit him with deliberately being ironic.
      I mean, this is a guy who’s probably pulling down a high 6 figure income, probably 7 figure income, railing daily about ‘the rich’ and the the upper 2% that are screwing the country.  If he himself is not in the upper 2% I’ll eat one of his transcripts.

    • Does this mean that Schultz is now on-board for Obama’s “adventure in Afghanistan” .. you know the one that Bush tried to avoid ?

  • Schultz is a putz of the lowest order.
    It is a cardinal sin to be both stupid and aggressively dishonest.

  • If you dense righties would just embrace the holy writ of postmodernism, you would understand this, and agree with it. In the hands of wise postmodern leftists, words are like clay, fit to be molded into whatever form we need to move us further down the path to glorius leftist utopia. So it is with “dissent.” That word does not mean dense righties objecting to the wise policies of christlike leftist leaders. Oh, no. It means wise leftists objecting to the policies of the Bush regime, and the Palin regime if it ever gets that far. LOL {eyes rolling} 😉 :[]

    One of the commandments rules of postmodernism is that only the left has the delicate sensibility to know which wars to get into. If we oppose a war, it’s immoral, evil, and the biggest foreign policy mistake in history. If we support a war, it’s worthy and just, and you’re a traitor if you oppose it. Simply, really. {giggle}

    You see, only we wise pragmatic moderate leftists with advanced degrees, degrees, degrees, degrees, degrees, degrees, [*** AUTOMATIC RESET TO FIX INFINITE LOOP BUG ON ACADEMIC DEGREES ***] have the background and experience to judge which wogs noble brown savages we should be supporting. We’re the only ones who appreciate the fact that, just because the rebels are partly al Qkaida Quadada Qaeda that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t support them.

    Sure, you’ll hear a lot of over-heated rhetoric from them about how they’ve sworn to bring about our destruction, but that doesn’t mean a thing. I decree it. It’s just for the consumption of the wogs Muslims in teh street. Of which, only a tiny, tiny, insignificant, can’t hardly see it minority are extremists.

    And why al Candida needs to cater their entire rhetoric to such a tiny minority is a complex political-sciencey thing that I would not expect you thick righties to understand. Besides, it’s beside the point. This is the anti tea party. You inbred, sterile, Nazi-like righties just don’t get it. Young people in that entire area are rising up and joining Twitter and fostering a completely new world. We’re moving beyond the stagnant past because of demographics. Both Newsweek and the New York Times said so, oddly enough using exactly the same phrase. So it must be correct.

    Why do you hate al Quaedia anyway? Do you have some kind of fantasy that they might someday harm us? I mean, really, what are the chances of that? {eyes rolling} Besides, we have plenty of buildings and cities, and we can certainly spare a few if that’s what it takes to achieve glorius leftist utopia and harmony with the Muslim culture, which has brought so much to the world.

    Now just stop right there, and don’t even think of asking for links to support the idea that Muslims have contributed so much. I mean, there’s the concept of zero. Well, yes, they did steal that from the Hindus, but still. They gave it to the west. Along with a bunch of other stuff originally discovered by the west which Muslims held in safe keeping while we were thrashing about in those Christianist crusades and dark ages and stuff.

    Really, how can you look at Obama giving a speech, with that christlike visage and fine, uplifted, chiseled chin, and fail to intuitively trust him? He will almost certainly be re-elected. So don’t even start about my preposterous 2010 election predictions. That’s in the past. This is the future. Obama is going to win, and his glorious campaign in Libya to foster peace and harmony with Muslim extremistsrebels will be a big reason why. You’ll see. Especially after Iraq, the project of the Bush regime, erupts into violence and ends up being completely dominated by Iran. Which is inevitable. I have foreseen it.

  • Unless I missed it, you used my NewsBusters item and transcript without a cite or link.

  • My bad: I do see the link now.  Thanks, Mark

  • Schultz is a remorseless slob.

  • Check out this from Ed Schultz

    Do I have to ?

  • But isn’t this what the left does?

    In 2002, 60% of Senate Dems voted for the Iraq War. Including Senators Biden and Clinton. That was the time for principled opposition to the war.

    Yet they turned on the war several years later, when it was politically expedient to do so, attacking General Betrayus on the floor of the Senate. And opposing Bush and McCain’s Surge.

    A few more years down the line, Biden is VP and Clinton SoS, and they are copying Bush’s Surge, and even selecting the same general to lead it.

    Now they are part of an administration leading a war without clear goals, without the backing of congress, and with a smaller internation coalition then the war they panned.

    This is insanely transparent. These people are tools. Anyone who supports a Democrat at this point is a fu*king idiot.

    • I have to add this point that should be obvious to most: the Dems turned on the Iraq War well after deciding to go in, when the proper discussion point was “how can we win?” (“should we go to war?” had already been decided).  Deciding that war is not the answer once you are hip deep in one is either very stupid, or nakid partisan politics that puts Party above country.

    • It’s the old “the world began the day before yesterday” sense of reality.

      But much has been revealed in this Libya affair, all around. Despite my vigorous defenses of Iraq and Afghanistan, I am not a doctrinaire supporter of military intervention, which I believe must be taken with great deliberation and prudential judgement, even in the case of Afghanistan where action needed to happen very rapidly after 9/11.

      With Libya there are at least a half-dozen people on the right who have talked like idiots: Bill Kristol, Karl Rove, John Bolton (I regret to say that about him the most), John McCain (the worst), Charled Krauthammer (though he’s working hard to spin his way out of his early cheerleading, as if he were “shocked, shocked” at how Obama handled the matter), and nominal Democrat Joe Lieberman. They seemed interested in parodying the Leftist parody of “neocons.”

      Much to their credit, Andrew McCarthy and Stanley Kurtz both resisted the Libya contagion. And, uncharacteristically, Victor Davis Hanson was really really off his game and lurching around about it.

      It’s not my only point, but I don’t think you easily separate the man from the mission. I argue that no one should be encouraging Barack Obama to get onto military steroids, but he is indeed on them now.

      • I for one believe a good argument against the Iraq War existed. I also think that there was a good argument in favor. The problem is that the left failed to produce good arguments. The thing that gets me is people like Clinton voting FOR war when it mattered, turning on the war when it was easy and politically convienient) to do so, etc.

        Back in 2002, I was lukewarm to the Iraq War. I began to favor it with time, until all of a sudden I realized it was going poorly. I was thinking it was a mistake only shortly before Bush turned it around, and showed seriously good leadership.

        The assorted Democrats have yet to show good leadership.

        As far as the current involvement is concerned, I have serious reservations. I wasn’t happy to see the rebels being crushed by Daffy, but I don’t think it will end well if the rebels pull it out, either. But the curious thing is the total lack of leadership by Obama. I was thinkiing “Carter 2” ever since Nov 2008, but damn . . .

        • There were indeed good arguments both for and against going to war in Iraq, but it was never unwinnable, it was never the disaster it was made out to be, it was fought on the cheap, and it stayed a small, long war. It was dwarfed by comparison to any great battle of WWII. It was just stretched out over too much time for the American attention span, which likes its wars packaged for no more than four years. And it was certainly not even remotely the “greatest foreign policy disaster” ever. It wasn’t even a disaster in historical terms, and the original vision poured into might still produce at least a window on modernity in the Arab world. The very factional nature of Iraq makes it susceptible to parliamentary solutions, and the American impact there could well cut through the Islamist impulse coursing through the Middle East right now.

          • Greatest Foreign Policy Disaster: Its like Vietnam never even occurred! I wonder if that’s because a Democrat started that one. Or because Ezra Klein wasn’t even born yet.

          • Greatest foreign policy disasters?

            War of 1812; Yalta agreement winding up with Stalinist control over Eastern Europe; Post WWII State Department influenced by Chinese communist sympathizers into laxity as Mao was on the way to triumph and power; then Chinese communists entering the Korean War; the rise of European socialism under the NATO security umbrella.

            Vietnam was more of a domestic American cultural and political catastrophe than it was a foreign policy disaster, but it was a foreign policy disaster because of the domestic cultural and political catastrophe.

        • “But the curious thing is the total lack of leadership by Obama.”

          He’s just not leading on the basis of “bourgeois principles.”

          It’s important to understand that he’s in charge of the revolution now, and that he is “increasing the contradictions” at all points and opportunities. He’s not simply a Leftist, in the sense that he has all these ornamental Left attitudes hanging on him. He’s orthodox, and well-trained, and he is playing “false consciousness” like a fiddle.

  • I think we may be overanalyzing this.

    Perhaps the reason that the left has failed to produce a coherent, reasoned argument on Libyia is because there isn’t one to make?

    • No, actually, there was a case to be made, and they started with it, for a restrained humanitarian mission that would have protected civilians (and could in fact have established, and could still establish, a protected zone for those fleeing the regime), but it turned into heavy warfare with a “get Qaddafi” meme (much of that encouraged by conservatives, who I contend were “organized” to do that by the community organizer himself when he threw out the magical key words “Qaddafi must go” and they couldn’t help themselves.

      But… Military. Steroids.

    • Just like on Iraq, I can see that we can make an argument either way on Libyia. It isn’t the merits of the Libya action that are so much at issue, as the fact that we just got over listening to years of leftist lecture on Iraq, now in a war with less (any?) planning, no Congressional approval, fewer allies, and much less (if any) American national interest involved, the left is going ahead with its war.

      • I don’t think this is the Left’s war. I think it’s Obama’s war, in the very specific sense that Libya is marginal to his interests, even more marginal than American interests.

        He is moving very quickly now. He knows his re-election is not inevitable.

  • If Ed Schulz says something idiotic and nobody hears it’s just another day.

  • ED SCHULTZ: Republicans are attacking the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war! . . . There should be no debate: we should be kicking [Gaddafi’s] ass . . . Whose side are you on, Sarah: are you with the terrorists, Sarah, or are you with the President of the United States? . . . And I have to ask the question tonight: where is the patriotism from all of these war-hawks? Where’s the patriotism of the Republican party? . . . What about being a patriot? . . . So the question now for the doubters who are out and about: why don’t you support the president? . . . We’ve been talking about the lack of patriotism from prominent Republicans . . .  Laura [Flanders] what about the patriotism?

    >>>> “F**k you fatso”

  • It is not Ed Schultz.  It is his audience.  How many members of the audience really want to remember what Schultz said about Bush and expect some kind of “hobgoblin of foolish consistency”?

  • It’s a bad war when Bush is president. It’s a good war kinetic military action when Obama is president. Got it, Ed.

    • Since we have no ground troops committed, and since I have no doubt that  todays rebels are tomorrows enemies, I have absolutely zero moral qualms about hoping this becomes a prolonged stalemated civil war quagmire.  And if that drags Baracky’s approval ratings down, aw gee that’s a shame.

  • He remembers. He’s just a lying demagogue and he doesn’t care who knows it.

    • You’re half-right that he doesn’t care who knows it. The other half is that knowing he is a lying demogogue is your problem, in the sense that you are judging him with “bourgeois principles,” while he’s playing your “falso consciousness.”

      That perhaps doesn’t quite make sense to you, because you do not think your thoughts in orthodox Marxist terms.

      Obama’s purpuse is to “increase the contradictions,” the goal of which is to make things worse. As things get worse, the cloud of “bourgeois ideology” will fade and the historical class struggle will re-emerge and history itself will be moving again according to the laws of socialism.

      I’m as guilty as anyone for referring to this or that Leftist, rather casually, as a Marxist. Well, now you’re seeing what a real Marxist is like, his stealth aside. The vital secret as to why such unreal ideas have been able to gain power so often over the past century is not, as is often claimed, that they lead to popular uprisings; it is because the leaders of Marxist revolution totally discount the bourgeois view of the world. They use it and manipulate it, but its principles and any critique of the revolution based on those principles, are irrelevant and discounted by definition.

      If you’ve ever run into even the most penny-ante but serious Marxist ideologue, you’ll note that they own the world in a separate reality and always with great arrogance and assurance. They are not on this side of the looking glass, but they know how to reach back through it in order to play “false consciousness” like a fiddle.

      This also explains why in the grand scheme of things that, despite the inevitable catastrophe Marxism in power always causes, the true Marxist remains undaunted: his total detachment from bourgeois principles and ideology is a source of great command and intellectual power, because you, you see, live in a false world, while he lives in the hard scientific world where the laws of socialism apply like clockwork. That is power, and it’s not for nothing that it has led to the greatest death machines in human history.

      • My mistake in that comment is that you’re talking about Schultz. I’m talking about Obama.

        So if I’ve confused you twice, that’s my fault.

        • No no Martin, you must blame Bush, or the stupid silent mass of Americans living between the coasts!

          You’re so difficult to teach!

          • It is rather remarkable, to pause for a moment and consider just how long Bush has lasted.

            He’s still not Nixon, and certainly no Joe McCarthy. But for such a relatively benign man, Bush has served as a staple bogeyman for rather many years now.