The left wing and the military in Canada and the US
Seems like those on the left have a real problem knowing where to draw the line when it comes to their natural inclination to heap abuse on the military. The problem knows no boundaries, as we see the same problem in Canada and in the United States.
But the symmetry goes further, as we also see similar restrained, measured, and professional responses to the provocations.
In Canada, we had the infamous military ad put forth by the Liberal Party, suggesting the Stephen Harper and the Conservatives would use the military to impose some sort of martial law if they won the election, and that the military would go along with it. Today with the election safely in the past, and the Conservatives forming the new government, our Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, made his disgust clear:
Gen. Rick Hillier, the head of Canada's armed forces, has waded hip deep into federal politics, warmly praising Stephen Harper's ambitious proposals for the military — including a call for Arctic icebreakers — while slamming a Liberal election ad that "insulted" Canadian troops.
The outspoken general didn't mince words in condemning the controversial ad that used ominous music and drumbeats to darkly portray Harper's plan to boost troops in Canadian cities to assist in disaster relief.
"I, like almost every other man and woman in uniform — and I heard from thousands of them and their families — were insulted by that commercial," Hillier told reporters yesterday.
Hillier made his comments following a lavish Ottawa ceremony to mark the creation of four new military commands meant to streamline operations at home and abroad.
Conspicuous by their absence were representatives of the Liberal government, even though the Conservatives don't officially take over until Monday.
Things aren't much better in the United States, where the Washington Post ran a cartoon by Tom Toles. It shows a wounded soldier in a military hospital, missing his arms and legs, and US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, dressed as a doctor, saying "I'm listing your condition as 'battle hardened.'"
That has generated an equally angry reaction the Joint Chiefs, who wrote a letter to the editor:
...While you or some of your readers may not agree with the war or its conduct, we believe you owe the men and women and their families who so selflessly serve our country the decency to not make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices.
The funny thing is, while the left wing in both Canada and the United States seem happy to portray the military as callous thugs who don't respect democracy and the rule of law when such a portrayal will score political points, when confronted with those insults, the military seems to respond with remarkable constraint, with news conferences and letters instead of bullets and bombs.
The irony seems entirely lost on those who revel in insulting the military.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Steve
Hate to say it. But when I was in the Armed Forces, If I was ordered to deploy in a Canadian civilian area, I would have deployed in the civilian area.
Soldiers act within a command structure, not for them to ask why.
That's how PET got guns on the rues of Montreal.
Posted by: Brian Lemon at February 1, 2006 08:04 PM
To the left we who serve our countries, are to be treated as ornaments, only to be marched out when there is a great photo op to be had...Rememberance Day etc. They would be very content to have us rot away in a warehouse somewhere. That is....until they need us. And when we respond with the out of date equipment that they have supplied to us,,,,they scream blue murder that we are not doing enough to save their hides. That is the Left wing social elite view of our Forces...Hell they even took the Armed out of our name because it was too offensive to their sensitive ears!
Posted by: odie441 at February 1, 2006 08:07 PM
Like everything else with the Liberal method of governing, if it doesn't make them or their friends money, why do it? Taking care of our Armed Forces was a cost with no clear immediate return. The Conservatives will make sure that the needs of the Military are met, they can see the sacrifices being made by these men and women and that those needs are only going to escalate with the turmoil in the Middle East. The Liberals showed during the election the amount of respect that they have for the Canadian Forces, this is something the Canadian people should not soon forget.
Posted by: Platty at February 1, 2006 09:25 PM
The US is involved in a war, and so Martin picks Graham and Pettigrew as envoys to represent us to a nation involved in a very serious war.
So, now, of course, Graham is picked to stand in as Liberal leader while they re-image themselves to Canadian voters.
So, let's get the background on Graham. Maybe A&E can do a bio. Let the picture do the talking.
Posted by: brock at February 1, 2006 10:28 PM
The problem with the CDN armed forces started in this country because we have essentially had 40 yrs of PMs from Quebec. Quebec had no record of service in WW1 and very little in WW2. Vandoos blah blah blah, you can't even google any info on them. Military tradition and pride is something that comes from fighting for the values of one's country. Quebecers, the collective, have never believed in 'English' values of freedom and individualism. In fact some well known Quebecers ridiculed English Canada's war efforts even when they were fighting to free France. This is one of many reasons I think that we and Quebecers would be better off as two separate entities. Rene Levesque was right and Trudeau was wrong to waste our time and money on this failed laboratory experiment of multi-tribalism. At the very least there should not be another PM from Quebec ever. No matter what Andrew Coyne thinks.
By the way I grew up by the Cold Lake Air Base and loved watching and hearing the jets.
Posted by: rockyt at February 1, 2006 11:36 PM
Is there any doubt among objective and informed people that the crypto-fascist hard left in both the US and Canada are enemies of democracy and Western Civilization?
Posted by: Dave at February 2, 2006 12:20 AM
rockyt - FYI the proper name for the Vandoo's is the Royal 22nd Regiment. Maybe try googling that instead - it'll give you 58,600 hits.
Posted by: the bear at February 2, 2006 12:24 AM
While the LIberals were so busy trying to convince Canadians that:
A - Only they could fix all of our problems
AND
B - All the conservatives would do is make our problems worse
How many of us were thinking.....Its the Liberals who are the cause of all our problems?
BTW....I've ssen what it is like to have the military on your doorstep and in your streets.
Waking up to the thump of choppers and the rumble of a convoy of transports moving down your street....yep 1997 and Winnipeg is about to get the big dunking from the Red River....I was sandbagging suburban homes a few hundred meters from where the army guys were working 24/7 to build emergency dikes.
And you know what PM Chretien did? Showed up to campaign at someones home while they were desperately trying to sandbag! Good thing that came from that? Someone handed the little twerp a bag! The look on his face "Priceless".
You know what CBC did? They had some clown sit in on the daily emergency measures meetings and then turn around and report absolutely nothing factual.
I like to see my armed forces guys around!
Because they unlike most knobs in this world are doing something usefull!
Posted by: PGP at February 2, 2006 01:44 AM
To be fair, I interpreted the cartoon to imply that Rumsfeld is abusing the military (to the detriment of the military). Isn't that a criticism of Rumsfeld, not the military?
Posted by: Jonny_eh at February 2, 2006 08:37 AM
I agree Jonny_eh, that's exactly what I though too. So much for 'support our troops' if you happen to think they administration is doing right by it's soldiers.
Posted by: the bear at February 2, 2006 10:02 AM
Wow, did I ever mangle that. Thoughts were coming out and the fingers weren't keeping up. Basically what I was trying to say was that the cartoon is a comment on the treatment of the soldiers by the administration NOT a comment on the soldiers themselves.
Posted by: the bear at February 2, 2006 10:05 AM
But in both cases, soldiers are being used crassly to score a political point by those who have no respect whatsoever for the military, its role, or the sacrifices made by its members.
Posted by: Steve Janke at February 2, 2006 10:26 AM
Jonney_A and the bear.
You folks have a valid point; the cartoon’s criticism is aimed at Rummy/Bush and not the soldier.
But if a person disagrees with the war and/or the Rummy/Bush Admin policies, why use a mangled soldier as a tool or prop to bring that point home? This is the obvious source of the outrage.
Soldiers put their lives on the line for their country, and some pay a hideous or ultimate price in that service, and that alone should eliminate all Armed Forces Personal from being USED by anyone to advance their political agenda.
Posted by: Pete at February 2, 2006 10:41 AM
I guess it suck's when a cartoonist cares more about the troops than Bush does.
Remember earlier this month, the Pentagon study found at least 80% of marines killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived with body armor. If they buy their own, only the officer class is getting the refund.
There are people on the right whose only use for the military is to bash the left.
Posted by: steve at February 2, 2006 11:06 AM
Pete - I don't know how you can possibly make a statement about the treatment of the US soldier by the US Admin without the soldier being in the cartoon. It gets the point across very efficiently that the US Admin has little care about it's defenders.
Posted by: the bear at February 2, 2006 11:42 AM
In an ideal and make-believe world there would be no wars. The problem with the left is that's where they live. And I'm not making this up.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at February 2, 2006 12:27 PM
Left wing don't like the Army?
I suggest all parties should not get too cosy over the military - this has "First refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism" written all over it.
Posted by: Floyd Low at February 2, 2006 02:03 PM
Mr. Low:
It's "last refuge," not "first," and when Dr. Johnson said it he was talking about protectionism, not the defence of the realm.
Your post has "superficial" written all over it.
Posted by: Jim Whyte at February 2, 2006 05:36 PM
The Post today interviews a representative of a disabled vets organization who thought the cartoon was fine:
Dave Autry, deputy communications director for Disabled American Veterans, said he was "certainly not" offended by the cartoon.
"It was graphic, no doubt about it," he said. "But it drove home a point, that there are critically ill patients that certainly need to be attended to."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102465.html
Posted by: steve in bc at February 2, 2006 08:01 PM
Ouch! http://www.samueljohnson.com/qotw02q2.html
Draw your own opinions from the explanation of what is and isn`t a "refuge" at the link. I don`t see protectionism listed. I do see a spin being put on as mentioned above - points are still being scored.
Posted by: Floyd Low at February 2, 2006 08:09 PM
Zing! Not my intent to stir up a hornets nest here. See http://www.samueljohnson.com/qotw02q2.html
My comments stand about wrapping yourself in an issue - because everyone starts taking shots at you.
So draw your own conclusions from the explanation of what is and isn`t a "refuge" at the link. I don`t see protectionism listed.
Posted by: Floyd Low at February 2, 2006 08:14 PM
 
|
|
