Over the past week, several of our friends from the organization Vets for Freedom (VFF) have returned to Iraq. All of the men and women on the trip are veterans of the Iraq War, most of them combat veterans. The idea was that they would return to the areas where they served so they could see what had changed and what work remained to be done.
Perhaps predictably, Salon.com published an indignant screed regarding this trip. Author Alex Koppelman protested that Vets for Freedom is a conservative organization, and thus should not be whipped out to Iraq on "the taxpayers' dime." Belying Koppelman's claim to a scoop regarding VFF's "bias," Vets for Freedom hasn't exactly laid low in terms of expressing the political implications of its desire for victory in Iraq. VFF members have published frequently in magazines like the Weekly Standard and the National Review, and they haven't been reticent regarding where their sympathies lie in the current presidential tussle.
Also contrary to the gist of Koppelman's breathless exposé, the VFF delegation didn't receive any special treatment from the military. The Daily Kos, the Huffington Post or even little old Salon.com could credential correspondents for a similar trip; the military will pretty much host all comers regardless of biases. Whatever biases the VFF delegation might have, odds are a Daily Kos delegation could match them and then some.
More damningly, Salon.com had to subsequently correct Koppelman's piece and acknowledge that the Vets for Freedom delegation got itself to Baghdad rather than jetting over on "the taxpayers' dime" as originally "reported." What's more, in an appearance on MSNBC's Hardball, VFF Chairman Pete Hegseth invited Jon Soltz, co-founder of the anti-war group VoteVets to tag along on the trip, an offer Soltz declined. This motley collection of inconvenient facts undercuts Salon's entire casus belli.
There's of course nothing wrong with Koppelman and Salon.com expressing their righteous indignation over Vets for Freedom's existence, albeit in a factually and intellectually confused manner. But here's where the story turns ugly - over the weekend, the Huffington Post reran Koppelman's piece, corrected material included. Once on the Huffington Post, the story became subject to the comments of the Huffington Post community. Here are a few of the cheery barbs that HuffPo readers directed at the VFF combat veterans and their return to Iraq:
- "May they stay in peace."
- "Where is that rocket propelled grenade launcher when you need one ... ?" (Ellipsis in original)
- "Let's hope the dissidents' aim is good!"
Lovely, no?
One wants to avoid making too much of the comments that appear on a blog (or whatever the Huffington Post considers itself these days). Nevertheless, we've seen enough of this kind of thing in recent weeks to get some true insight into the far left. Let's not forget that many members of the virtual left greeted Tony Snow's death with undisguised and unhinged glee. Either their anger has curdled their souls, or they have no idea how to conduct themselves in public. Needless to say, the two possibilities aren't mutually exclusive.
The people who sit atop the left's virtual communities know better. And they surely know that such behavior is counterproductive for their movement. So, one must ask, how does Arianna Huffington explain the affronts to common decency that emanate from her community, and why does she allow them to continue?
