Is there some sort of strategy going on? A pattern?

There have now been repeated examples of exortations -- by Americans -- to kill U.S. soldiers.

And then, when a heroic soldier has been killed, the same crowd tells us he deserved to die.

When a soldier-traitor kills his fellow soldiers, the battle cry becomes "WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS WHEN THEY KILL THEIR OFFICERS."

So much for supporting the troops (who are of course portrayed by Indymedia as Nazis).

How about the deliberate killing and mutilation of American civilians?

"Screw them," says one blogger.

Victims of 9-11? Cruel ridicule by Ted Rall, who, far from apologizing, attacked the bloggers who criticized him for it, calling one of them "a right-wing blogger typing in his parents' basement in Tennessee."

Rall doesn't identify the Tennessee blogger who types in his parents' basement. But another Tennessee blogger (who says he does not write from his parents' basement) thinks these folks are not anti-war, but they're on the other side.

There are two sides to every war. The anti war U.S. people freely admit what side they're on, even using titles like "Iraq From the Other Side." [I have posted about the latter, Ted Rall, here, here, here, and here.....]

One of these guys, propagandist Micah Wright, had the unmitigated gall to call himself a veteran. Michelle has a very thorough analysis here. Ted Rall dared to characterize himself as a "patriot." About as believable as the claim that they "support our troops."

I'd seen some of Wright's propaganda, but it never would have occurred to me to question his background. Precisely why such people get their way. I can't possibly do justice to all the fine work the blogosphere has done exposing them for what they are: truly rotten and evil to the core.

What disturbs me the most is that if I wasn't blogging, I wouldn't ever hear a thing about any of this in the mainstream media.

What's with so many of the people who claim they "support our troops" -- while doing everything possible to undermine them? If I didn't know they were anti-war, I'd almost swear they were helping the other side.

I sure hope they're not the softer side of the same strategy.

UPDATE: Forgive me, but I can't resist quoting from Lileks today:

Forgive us for believing that fascism's side ought to lose.

MORE: My blogfather's Weekly Check on the Bias (one of his best so far) reveals that Ted Rall is outspokenly pro-Second Amendment. If Rall means what he says [and this is not the first time he's said it], well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. And it's not the first time leftists have supported the right to keep and bear arms. In my days as a youthful Marxist, this was one of the things I liked about the Black Panther Party. In fact, what put them on the map politically -- their first media splash -- was their high-profile opposition to a bill in the California legislature which would limit the Second Amendment. Whether Ted Rall's Second Amendment views will be influential on the left remains to be seen. I'm inclined to believe that his remarks will be largely ignored. (Or, worse, used against the Second Amendment.) He may also be afraid for his own safety, though, as perhaps he should be. But why isn't he more appreciative that this right, which the founding fathers acknowledged as predating the Constitution, exists because of people who died to preserve it? People upon whom he heaps scorn and ridicule.

I'd like to think there's hope for Rall, but color me skeptical.