Give them a week, and they will be sounding like Andy Rooney at CBS again.

Here’s Washington Post national security reporter/blogger William Arkin’s screed against NBC’s report, which quoted troops who want Americans to support their mission. An excerpt from Arkin’s unhinged diatribe: So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage…

I ask you, is he supporting his son? Yes or no.

Silly liberals. You can’t support the Troops but not the mission, the Troops ARE the mission!

I dunno, Professor … I have a slightly different take on why liberals would rather be “right.”

I think they’d rather feel superior.

Spurius Ligustinus on January 30, 2007 at 6:16 PM

I stand corrected – “superior” is more accurate than “right.” Being “superior” is always at the crux of everything liberals do and say.

In fact, I’ll admit that when I was a liberal, I actually felt I really was superior to those who didn’t think like me. Which is EXACTLY why I (like all young liberals) was able to hide from the truth for so long.

Because if I know I’m superior to all those non-believers, why would I listen? (Sound familiar?)

Once I listened – and grew up a little – I realized where I was wrong. Fortunately, it happens to a lot of liberals.

Superior is exactly right.

IMHO, there are way too many of them in America, and they will be the first to scream their outrage when we next get hit by the terrorists at home.

There should be a #### law …

I hope she kept her big mouth shut around around the soldiers, but I doubt she did. Last night one of the local news affiliates interviewed her on the scene, and she said, on TV and still at the rehab center, that she supports the troops but not their mission. She also said that the troops are much braver than the people who sent them into war.

Unfortunately, my son heard me yell the f-word and some other choice ones. I just couldn’t believe that creature couldn’t keep her thoughts to herself for just one day. I’m still furious.

Just ask them:NBC Nightly News story on US troops in Iraq, who are frustrated by American criticism of the Iraq war (Hat tip – Hot Air): “If they’re gonna support us, support us all the way.” “[The Apache Company] worries their country may be aband…

“They only want to be right. Have George Bush win is too high a cost for them, no matter what.

Professor Blather on January 30, 2007 at 4:31 PM

I dunno, Professor … I have a slightly different take on why liberals would rather be “right.”

I think they’d rather feel superior.

It’s an outgrowth of what Napoleon Hill identified as the “Seven Major Negative Emotions,” the ones that underpin liberalism in its modern, American expression. One of those emotions is Greed – wanting to have something for nothing in return. Consider what we see so often in what liberals seem to want for themselves:

- Safety, security and reward without hardship or risk;
- Equality of results without regard to different levels of performance;
- Self-esteem without accomplishment;
- Rights without responsibilities.

Mix Greed with another one of the negative emotions – Fear – and you get the snobbery that liberals so often display. They want to feel superior to those they disagree with, but are generally too mentally lazy to prove it on the evidentiary or logical merits (and are in fact deathly afraid of how they’d feel about themselves should they lose such an encounter).

Liberal snobbery allows its adherents to dismiss non-liberal viewpoints without having to actually engage them. Conservatives are too selfish, too mean, too stupid or too evil to grasp the inherent enlightenment of liberal beliefs compared to their own; so the “rightness” of the liberal view is never in question and therefore need not be proven.

In this way, liberals can feel “right” (i.e., “good”) about themselves even when taking intellectual or moral positions that conservatives find incomprehensible if not repulsive (e.g., believing in social and economic theories that deny human nature, or taking tactical instead of principle-based stands on matters like foreign policy or war, or wallowing in bizarre conspiracy theories about their opponents, or indulging in “by-any-means-necessary” tactics to achieve political objectives).

A neat side benefit of Greed/Fear based snobbery is that it also offers an outlet for expressing one or more of the other negative emotions: Anger, Hatred, Jealousy, Superstition and the desire for Revenge are often on display when they present what they call “arguments.”

Anyway, my good Professor, you’re right as far as you go in your statement above; but I suspect that you’ve only scratched the surface.

Stefka on January 30, 2007 at 11:00 AM

Tell her that you support her but not what she is trying to do. And everytime she mentions it, remind her that you do not support her goal. After a while ask her if your support in light of your non-support really means a dang thing when taken as a whole.