The hippies of the Spanish Civil War

Even by The Corner's standards, this moment of congnitive dissonance is truly stunning.

Take the hippies for example — by which I mean the Howard Dean left. These folks are the heirs of the European and American leftists who, during the Spanish Civil War, went to Spain to fight the rise of a fascist dictatorship. Their slogans ("Attack Hitler Now" and "Fascism Means War") are now long forgotten. These same people now think that fighting fascism is a terrible crime. But what do they really think? Do they regret their intervention in the Spanish Civil War — their finest hour? Do they think that fighting fascism was a mistake because war is bad even in the defense of life and liberty? Do they now think that dictatorships are o.k. as long as there is stability? (Michael Moore clearly thinks that, if little else). So ... [sic] a little dose of police state and loss of liberty is fine, so long as there is general security? Is that what they think?

Don't know who "they" are, but I'd venture to say the answer is, "No."

We have obviously come to a new stage of conservative denial. Calling the Spanish Civil War, which, even at the time, was known to have been co-opted and corrupted by Moscow -- the left's "finest hour" is a revelation. "Fighting fascism was a mistake..." who thinks that? That code -- opposition to the war in Iraq is "objectively pro-fascist" -- just doesn't work so well anymore.

Which is why idiots like Mario Loyola (is that a real name?) end up falling back on even more tired codes, like "hippies."

And I would be interested to know which member of the so-called Howard Dean left -- or even Michael Moore (whose brain Loyola is mysteriously able to read) himself -- is willing to accept a "little dose of police state and loss of liberty is fine, so long as there is general security." Quite the contrary, that's what the bedwetting keyboard kommandos tend to think, not those of us on "the left," who believe that we are dangerously close to giving up our civil liberties as an overreaction to Islamowhatever.

The post is typical of those remaining few who still think Bush is doing the right thing, he's just not executing it as well as they'd like. He cricizes Bush for not "communicating" well -- as though a more sophisticated argument (never mind "sophistication" is equated with John Kerry frenchedness) would hypnotize us into thinking those IEDs really are rose petals. But Loyola's argument that Bush should respond to his critics by repackaging their criticisms as being anti-freedom and saying, "See?" is exactly what Bush already does. Every fucking day.