Open the more button to read it, and my response.
Okay. You're saying that, in some way, Chomsky's opposition to Israel's occupation of Palestine is equivalent to, say, voting for someone who opposes your basic civil rights? There's a big difference between supporting someone who seeks to oppress your particular group in some way and telling members of your particular group to stop oppressing others. Saying that a Jew who opposes the occupation of Palestine is an antiSemite is as ridiculous as saying an American who opposes the invasion/occupation of Iraq is UnAmerican...oh, hold on a sec.... The point is, being against the occupation is not equivalent to being anti-Israel. Being against the occupation is not the same as being in favour of the (often actually anti-semitic) terrorists who attempt to fight it.
It's also worth pointing out that 'Uncle Toms' and so on don't actively hate their own group, they merely (in the mindset of people who use such terms) betray their group, usually for some manner of personal gain. I don't think it'd be valid to call a black person who voted for a conservative- even an (anti-black) racist- a racist themselves, merely a sellout of some kind. Therefore, even if you believe that Noam Chomsky is in some way betraying all Jews by asking the Israelis to stop occupying Palestine, he is merely a traitor (to his ethnic/religious group) rather than an anti-Semite.
And as for the soldiers affected by Bush's statement? How about these guys? They (by which I mean the entire 2nd BCT) certainly don't seemed too chuffed about Bush and co, and I'd wager that those comments of his had something to do with it. I've been looking for the past wee while for any comments by actual soldiers in iraq about the 'bring it on' comments, and can't find any, either on the blogs you linked to or elsewhere. But if I remember rightly, when the story broke there were a lot of veterans, army family and other people affected by his statement that were seriously unhappy with bush for his latest moronism.
I'm not presuming to speak for the troops (they seem very capable of speaking for themselves, and a lot of them seem to be agreeing with me) or trying to further some kind of agenda- I'm really not the agenda-making type. I'm not necessarily asking you to buy into my worldview. All I'm asking is that the right-wingers at least concede that encouraging enemy troops to kill your own country's soldiers is really not a very clever thing to do, rather than coming up with ridiculous justifications for it. If Clinton had done said the same things there would have been outrage from the right (and rightly so). Why do they make excuses for this particular incident?
I will comment first on your two links. The first one is to a news article that indicates that there are a significant number of soldiers who are not too enamored of the Bush Administration right now. That is true (and I never claimed otherwise). The reason they are peeved, however, has nothing to do with "Bring it on"; it has everything to do with shifting return dates. If I was over there, and my deployment was operationally extended, I'd be irked too. (It happened to me in 1990, and again in 1996, and again in 1998). However, while I was a little torqued about the unplanned changes, they didn't change my opinion of the presidents or SecDefs who made the decisions. Nothing is writ in stone, and everyone in the military knows about unscheduled changes.
Your second link is a link to a Tom Tomorrow cartoon. There is one factual statement in the whole stripBush's statement. Everything else is TT's mind at play. What was the point?
Going back to the first part of your post, in which we discuss individuals who don't toe the line on prescribed attitudes, you use the thermonuclear "traitor" and "sellout" to describe dissenters. One cannot be a traitor to one's race, whether it is a Jewish Nazi, a black KKK supporter, or a gay Focus on the Family activist. Treason is an action against nations, not against identity groups. We are all Americans (well, those of us in the US, at least), not blacks, Latinos, Jews, Catholics, lesbians, or any of the myriad "Hyphenated-Americans" who seek to eliminate the "American" portion of their identity. And while there are those (on the fringes of both sides) who would seek to deny civil rights to certain groups, it is disingenuous to portray conservative minorities as equivalent to the fringe elements. Ward Connelly is no racist, and Rich Tafel is no homophobe. Simply disagreeing with the concept of special rights does not mean they advocate wholesale revocation of basic civil rights, and I think you know better. And you say they are selling out. What personal gain do these people get? They are often ignored or rejected by those who they support, and are crucified by those who embrace identity politics. For some, personal beliefs trump identity, and they usually endure a lot of abuse as a result.
Regarding ChomskyI don't think he is an anti-Semite, just an idiot. He is most assuredly anti-American and anti-Israel, but not necessarily an anti-Semite. However, his shrill ranting has become ever closer to the rantings of the anti-semitic left, so it's a matter of the company he keeps. (If you are going to tie the right to some of our less reasonable ranters, I see no problem with replying in kind).
You misunderstood the purpose of my links to Smash, Pontifex, and PMO. What I was trying to convey is that there are plenty of military types over there who probably don't have a problem with what Bush said. You have to read their blogs on a regular basis to get a feel for what they think about the whole thing. As far as I know, only Smash has actually blogged a response to what Bush said (link), and it's quite supportive of Bush. The point is that the current anti-Bush line is all about compassion for our troops, when most of the people doing the talking don't give a rat's ass about our troops unless they can be used to score points against the Republicans.
There are undoubtedly some military types (and more family members) who were disturbed by Bush's comments. The media seem to go to great lengths to provide "dissenting voices" when it suits them, and this appears to be one of those times. I strongly suspect that if you asked the people over there what they think about the statement, you'd find that a majority agree with the sentiment. In fact, the sooner all the terrorists and Saddamites are rooted out, the sooner our people can go home.
Clinton would likely not get a free pass, you're right. Of course, for someone who "Loathed the military", he was certainly eager to trot us out for every little humanitarian mission that came along (never mind that that type of mission is not what we train for; the skill sets are a bit different). If not for September 11th, it is likely that we would not have had any major deployments at all. (Remember, the Europeans were denouncing Bush's isolationistic impulses prior to the attacks.) The kicker is that I seriously doubt Clinton would ever say anything like that; it offended the Eurocrats (not Europeans in general, just the leftist elites who shape opinion over there), and Clinton placed special emphasis on their opinions when formulating his foreign policy.