From last evening’s “Hardball w/ Chris Matthews” comes this bizarre bit: Shortly after New York Times columnist Bob Herbert condemned the US for forcing democracy on Iraqis “at the point of a gun,” Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen had this to say: “There’s another word for ‘insurgents’ in Iraq, and that’s ‘residents.'”
Not to be outdone, Matthews himself (channeling Brian Williams) then added: “‘Insurgents’ are what the British called us in the Revolutionary War. It’s true”–an observation which, if I didn’t know better, might lead me to conclude Chris was trying to draw some sort of parallel or something.
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win. –Michael Moore, April 2004
But DO NOT DARE question their patriotism! (via Malkin)
UPDATE: Say Anything notes the Moore parallel, as well. And, thank goodness, commenters are playing the moral equivalence games:
I don’t see what the big deal is. During the revolution, we WERE insurgents, we DID use the tactics of terror, and it WAS a rebellion. Pretty much the same as in Iraq.
And don’t miss:
What about what our rebels did to loyalists during the American revolution?
In areas under Patriot control, they were subject to confiscation of property and even tar and feathering or worse. They could be arrested for being loyal to the British, some were even blackmailed, whipped, abused, threatened, and attacked by mobs of Revolutionaries.
I think that could be considered terrorism. I’m not saying that the Iraqi insurgents are the same as our founding fathers, but to say there aren’t any similarities is a lie.
It’s the old “panties on the head is mean and removing the head is mean, therefore American guards at Abu Gharib and terrorists in Iraq are both mean–end of story” argument in colonial terms.