Girlie Men?

I just received an e-mail attachment from a dear friend, a likable fellow (though a bit of a Limbaugh dittohead). Fortunately, he is wed to a charming, warm-hearted, centrist Democrat who rubs the keen edge from his more extreme right wing opinions.

Nonetheless, he just forwarded a scurrilous bit of typical right wing nut job nonsense. Therein, it is urged, the conservatives are the he-men who build things, make them work, and provide for their women. Liberals are girlie men, whose women are blessed (or cursed, perhaps?) with a higher level of testosterone. These girlie men spend most of their time eating camembert, drinking chablis, and aping French fashions. The rest of the time they devote to dreaming up ways to steal from heroic, hard-working conservatives.

This e-mail was entitled HISTORY 101. So, let's test it against historical facts. How about recent history?

The conservative, George W. Bush, used family influence to evade service in Vietnam. He spent the war muttering into his beer that LBJ should nuke the gooks. Meanwhile, the liberal, John Kerry, though opposing the war, volunteered to serve. His family connections were just as well-placed as those of big-mouthed young Bush, yet he served. That other heroic conservative, Richard Cheney, of course, used the college deferment program six times to evade service.

Let's compare the service of Anthony Zinni and Paul Wolfowitz, antagonists during the run-up to the brain-dead invasion of Iraq. Zinni served in Vietnam with the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines. Seriously wounded in battle, with his guts spilling out on a hillside, he vowed to prevent our country from making such a bonehead mistake again. Wolfowitz, like that other hero, Cheney, made use of the college deferment program to evade service. Perhaps, had he experienced Zinni's painful Vietnamese adventure, he might not have urged on the misadventure in Iraq. He might have have gained experience in counter-insurgency, enabling him to appreciate General Shinseki's sober assessment of troop requirements for post-war Iraq. Instead, he made the following asinine statement.

"It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself."

Naturally, it was hard for him to "conceive that it would take more forces." He evaded the experience which would have enabled him to so conceive.

Shall we move on to another comparison? How about the two journalists, William Kristol and James Webb?

Webb, of course, wrote eloquently against Kristol's steady drumbeat for war. Kristol opined that an occupation would require 75,000 troops, costing about $16 billion per year. Webb warned that the entire venture risked the squandering of our primary strategic asset - Mobility - on a static occupation. The cost would be much higher. It has turned out to be 150,000 troops (which is still thin, according to counter-insurgency theory), costing about $12 billion per month.

Kristol took advantage of the college deferment program to study at Harvard. Webb, far more gifted intellectually than Kristol, served with the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, earning the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars, and 2 Purple Hearts. Perhaps, had Kristol gained the sort of experience Webb gained, he might not have made the following utterly dense pre-war remark.

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America that the Shi'a cannot get along with the Sunni and the Shi'a in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that. Iraq's always been very secular."

Consider the breathtaking scope of this kind determined ignorance. With a casual wave of the hand, Mr. Kristol dismissed 14 centuries of Islamic history. This is willful ignorance. Inspired imbecility.

I can draw more portraits of girlie men if you like. This historical pattern is evident when one compares the World War II biographies of the victims and victimizers of the McCarthy witch hunts. It shows up in the World War I biographies of KKK enrollment during the Twenties. It shows up when one compares the biographies of antebellum Southern moderates with the fire eaters. It shows up during the American Revolution.

The average right wing nut is all mouth, seduced by his own mythomania. In other words, he is a chap whose head is buried so deep up his alimentary canal that he needs a sphincterectomy to pull it out. Without the help of warm-hearted centrist Democrats, Lord knows what contortions they might put themselves through.. and the country!