Ames: Newsmax blog advocated treason until lefty blogs called them out

Here's a new rule: rightwing pundits and bloggers shouldn't be allowed to declare their (almost sexual) love of our nation's military -- a love which they assume gives them special claim to speak for the best interests of our military, and our nation -- unless they have done an actual combat tour in 'Nam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Simple rule, right? And yet how many writers would disappear from view forever if it were followed?

They're all pencil-necked geeks, flabby wannabes, and chickenhawks who have read too many Tom Clancy novels and not enough history books. They don't know the first thing. Oh, but they think they do. Because the LOVE our armed forces. Gimme a break.

Know what our generals are really good at? Doing what they're told. That's what they're educated and trained to do; and the ones who do it the best with the snappiest "Yessir!" rise up the ranks the fastest. Our generals have no special insights into politics or the human condition, and certainly no special gift for governing. Our top military brass are there because they are the best political chameleons and career climbers, able to shift and wiggle their way up the ranks through successive Democratic-Republican administrations.

I'll tell you another secret: our military works because civilian prick politicians who smoked dope, snorted coke and never fired a gun at anybody, like Clinton and Dubya, get to tell it what to do. They don't need the military's approval. They (and by extension, we) tell it whom to fight, and the military gets to tell us how many things they can blow up, how many people they can kill, when, and with how many resources. Now that's service. And the USA pioneered it. That's what we should be proud of.

Our only job is to avoid sending them into impossible missions that they can't possibly execute, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Such situations require civilians with independent minds, because, per secret #1, generals are always going to tell their commander-in-chief that they can get the job done, if only they are given the right resources. Unfortunately, the general who says to his president, "Sir, we can't do that," probably won't be reporting to that president much longer. To be sure, successful U.S. presidents should recognize that they're surrounded by sycophantic yes-men, whether they are appointed bureaucrats or career soldiers. They need to exercise common sense, and know a little history and geography -- or at least have advisers who do. But when all their advisers are like, "We love the generals, the generals are rock stars, they say we can win it!" then the President (and by extension, America) is in deep trouble. Exhibits A and B: Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rightwing Pussies Run Screaming From Liberal Bloggers

By Mark Ames

September 30, 2009 | Exiledonline.com

URL: http://exiledonline.com/rightwing-pussies-run-screaming-from-liberal-bloggers/

Zoinks! I think I heard a liberal blogger!

This is just like America's rightwing pussies: all bluster and no fight. When no one's looking, they're screaming crazy treasonous shit like they're badass revolutionaries, but at the first whiff of liberal-blogger criticism, they're fleeing with their tails between their legs.

Yesterday, on a rightwing webzine site called Newsmax, one of their columnists called for the US military to overthrow President Obama, in order to "resolve the 'Obama Problem.'" The column, headlined "Obama Risks a Military 'Intervention,'" laid out a nerdoid fantasy-scenario in which the U.S. military ousts Obama, and the junta rules America for an interim period to "restore" the Constitution:

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

You can almost smell author John L. [for "Loser"] Perry's urine-scented basement bedroom and sticky underwear wafting up from each word of his waffentwerp fantasy column.

In the great tradition of waffentwerp loudmouths like Perry, as soon as a few liberals started to blog his article, the yeasty pussies at Newsmax screamed "RETREAT!" and pulled the article down, and used the ol' grammar school excuse of "I've never even seen this guy in my life!" claiming that Perry isn't even on Newsmax's payroll. Translation: WE'RE TOO AFRAID TO STAND BEHIND OUR YAPPING POODLES.

It's like the screaming loudmouth jerk who makes a lot of noise about "I'll kick yer fuckin ass man!" but then when the other guy finally gets tired of it and starts to lift himself from his barstool, the loudmouth flees like Snagglepus, exit stage left, even. Fucking pathetic.

I'll write more about this soon, but a couple of points to note:

1. I've been following the angry-rightwing's obsession over the military coup in Honduras which overthrew the democratically-elected leftwing president, Manuel Zelaya. If you've watched how the rightwingers have framed that coup, it's been clear that they see it as both a proxy-coup for the battle they believe is unfolding in America, and a blueprint for how to get rid of Obama.

2. Since the John Loser Perrys of America are truly such big gigantic pussies that they can't feel safe without guns, it's time some of us who don't want to be part of John Loser Perry's twerp fantasy to brush up on our marksmanship skills at the local shooting range too.

And now, just to make sure that this article is posted in as many places as possible, I give you the mighty John L. Perry's coup blueprint:

Obama Risks a Domestic Military 'Intervention'

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:35 AM By: John L. Perry Article Font Size

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic. America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes: Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States." Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized. They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office. They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments. They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home. They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag. They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time. They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse? Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims? Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog. Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility? Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making. Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible. Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later." In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass. John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents, is a regular columnist for Newsmax.com. Read John Perry's columns here.