Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
How dare they complain!? (UPDATED)
Posted by: mcq on Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Amazing, simply amazing. How do you describe this guy but condescending, arrogant, and clueless? In describing his reaction to the NBC clip I featured below, William Arkin of the Washington Post says:
These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.
Should they? They should be grateful, one assumes, that the American public has decided to overwhelmingly disapprove of what they're doing, but somehow still manage to "support" them? This guy doesn't get it either.
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
Oh, oh, thank you Mr. Arkin. What on earth were they thinking? I mean to ask that you also get behind what they're doing? Who are these people?
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
I mean, yeah, really — look what we do for them! After all they're nothing but a bunch of mercenaries, er, they did volunteer for this didn't they?

Now you're saying to yourself, "McQ, he didn't say that".

Well you haven't read it all have you?
But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.
Lovely.
America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform.
Yeah, "obscene amenities" and prosthetics not withstanding.

What America is left to ponder is where pond scum like Arkin come from and how they land a gig with the Washington Post.

UPDATE: Another example of the mood swing among some on the left?

Nice.

UPDATE II: John at OPFOR very eloquently destroys Arkin and his kind. After having read Arkin's gutless screed he writes:
And with that piece, every frustration that I've felt over America's new fifth column, every insult that smug anti-war pundits have hurled at the silent stoics in our armed forces, all the false pity, all the overused meaningless cliches ("we support the troops but not the war") that we in the military have endured, every bit of anger that I've suppressed in the name of good manners and honorable debate, reaches a fist-clenching apex.

This goes beyond mere opposition to the war. It represents the official demotion of the US military, from heroic to evil. Uneducated rapists and baby killers, mercenaries for hire. Soldiers were once the invincible GI, now they are war criminals. How far we've fallen, how pathetic we've become. As a society. As individuals. As human beings.

I can't fight this type of ignorance. I just can't. As much as I'd like to, I can't grab Arkin by the ear, and show him one of our squadron chefs, a young airman who works on her masters when she's not cooking meals for our crews. I can't take him to my friend Ryan's grave, a college graduate killed by an IED in Baghdad, who opted to honor his obligations as an enlisted man instead of pursuing a more lucrative line of work. Or introduce him to the security forces airman who walks long patrols through the winter snow, reciting the epics of Homer to himself so that he'll be prepared for his Classics exam. These people aren't the exception, they are the standard.

If there is a war that's unwinnable, it's the war on this type of horrid ignorance. The type of uniformed, intellectually lazy thinking that can only exist in the sheltered bubble of cocktail parties and classrooms. Arkin is a gazer. A man forever condemned to peering out the window into the real world, watching the exertions of men better than himself. And yet he fancies himself the educated one. Any logical human being would trade career in journalism for the expertise gained by serving a mere one month in the box, yet this slime fancies his opinion so informed, so expert, so utterly irrefutable that even the very soldiers who are fighting this war are shamefully ignorant for daring to challenge his infallibility.

Not only are they shamefully ignorant, those poor souls who volunteer to fight are poor uneducated yokels...no, Mercenaries! My God, this type of language from a so called professional!

How can we trust this man on matters of National Security if the very basics of soldiering, the very identity of our soldiers, is so completely foreign to him. He says Iraq was a poorly planned war, against a nation that posed no threat to our strategic interests. Yet without a hint of irony, he pushes for a poorly planned, hastily crafted retreat from theater, one that would be devastating to our strategic interests, both at home and abroad.

I've lost all respect for the Washington Post, the newspaper that I grew up reading. How they can consider themselves a serious publication after dripping this excrement over their pages is beyond me. For shame.
Emphasis mine.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
It is possible for the American people to "turn" on the military, but even though the American people do not support the mission, they still believe in (support) the troops.

Do you really want to convince the American public that if they do not support the mission, they should be as vocally opposed the troops lest they be hypocrits?

It really sounds like you absolutely want one or the other, you WANT people to either shut up and salute the CinC, or you want them to spit on the troops.

Once again, you don’t do nuance.

This author is taking your bait, or perhaps baiting you himself.

I don’t like the path either of you think must be followed.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
From the WaPo website:

William M. Arkin, journalist and author of more than ten books on military affairs, is an NBC-TV News military analyst and a consultant to numerous organizations. He was an Army intelligence analyst in West Berlin during the 1970s, a nuclear weapons expert during the Cold War, and pioneered on-the-ground study of the effects of military operations in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. Arkin’s latest book — Codenames: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World — was published in January 2005 by Steerforth Press. His Dot.Mil column, launched in November 1998, appeared every other Monday on washingtonpost.com until January 6, 2003. Arkin also wrote a column for the Los Angeles Times from December 2001 until September 2004 (you can read the archives of columns here). Arkin lives in South Pomfret, Vermont.

that said, Arkin’s column is remarkably insulting.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
that said, Arkin’s column is remarkably insulting.
And that’s the point, Francis.
Once again, you don’t do nuance.
Nuance? You have a strange concept of "nuance".

I knew someone would show up to excuse this, and I’m not particularly surprised it was you, Cap.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Do you really want to convince the American public that if they do not support the mission, they should be as vocally opposed the troops lest they be hypocrits?
My god you are being thick about this Cap. It is one thing that you won’t see the proper use of the term support and drain the word of its meaning because it is a word you want to attach to yourself. It is galling however that you insist that McQ actually means something different than he says he does. You are misrepresenting what he says time and again.

In no way does your lack of support mean you have to be vocally opposed to the troops. It doesn’t mean you have to be like Arkin or Michael Moore. You can not be supportive of what they are engaged in (and thus them) and still be respectful of them, care about them, all sorts of things. It is only in the twisted semantic hell you live in that if you don’t support what they are doing means you have to be an a**hole to them.

Once again, look up the definition and usage of support in any other context. Ponder it, absorb it, please
 
Written By: Lance
URL: www.asecondhandconjecture.com
I don’t think there is very much to be "nuanced" about on this. This Arkin guy reads as though he was just hoping that he could hate on the soldiers, but bitter experience has shown him that that would be imprudent, so instead he beats all around the subject without actually indulging his left wing hate.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
I have an alternate theory: Some people liking coca leaf have had it added to their tea. Gradually over time, they went from one leaf to two, then three, etc. Then ended up raving maniacs disunited with reality.
Many of those who prefer their information flavored with a little liberal narrative limit their intake of information and who finally consume nothing but the NYT wind up in a similar situation - totally divorced from reality.
Arkin must support the narrative, whatever it takes. Despite his experience he has lost all perspective and seems totally incoherent to those not reading his stuff while believing in the liberal narrative. See Cap above:
"...even though the American people do not support the mission, they still believe in (support) the troops."
Cap too approaches incoherence as he stoutly defends the narrative. He wonders why those not addicted fail to understand.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Arkin is an ignorant ass. It makes his arrogance and hubris all the more unforgivable. His low opinion of our troops made me retch as I read him earlier. Thank you, McQ, for writing on it.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
I still don’t understand how non-support for the mission necessarily means non-support for the troops and/or that you hope their mission fails.

For example, suppose my brother decides to quit his job, sell all of his assets and invest them in his own personal cold fusion research, despite the fact that he’s an accountant. I tell him that I think that’s an incredibly stupid idea and that he should reconsider, but he refuses. Can’t I nevertheless be said to (a) support my brother as a brother; and (b) despite my opposition to his "mission," hope he succeeds?

Or to use another example, suppose I’m a huge Colts fan and they decide that their best chance to win the superbowl is to play Peyton Manning at tight end, Tony Dungy at QB and Marvin Harrison at left tackle. Manifestly this is dumb, does that mean I have stopped being a Colts fan and have to hope they lose?

Or yet a third example, suppose my boss tells me that the next deal we’re doing is an investment in faster than light space travel. Despite my objections, the business decision has been made and I am supposed to do my assigned role. Do I somehow now not support myself and have to hope the project fails?
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
And regarding the asinine "mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer" comment, can we just have Uncle Milton cued up and ready to go? I’d like to have it handy as a soundbite for whenever I encounter this level of stupidity. Thanks.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
you WANT people to either shut up and salute the CinC
Your BDS is showing.

The CinC isn’t the troops. The CinC isn’t the mission, he’s just the CinC.
I can tell you I think he’s a knuckle head with regard to keeping the 7000-mile Screwdriver on the job as long as he did. I can tell you I’m less than dazzled by whatever ’plan’ he was overseeing before.

You guys keep getting your dislike for Bush tied up in everything the government does. Well, provided you don’t like what’s happening. Of course when you DO like something the government did, then you seem to be able to distinguish the government from the President, and the military from the CinC.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
... we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
Although laid on a bit thick (a tactic you should enjoy as use it yourself on this post, McQ), I can agree with some aspects his POV.

When I see no more squads of 18-22 year olds walking around an airport with fatigues on, doubtfully looking at the outside doors while telling me he/she wishes they would go anywhere but that plane for re-deployment,

When I see no more no-neck cops, prison guards, natural born killers, jock/bully/thugs and NASCAR dads leave their wives and kids with a tearful goodbye while being shipped out on their 3rd deployment, because, you know ’by God, they got Hajii’s to fry’, or, ’its fun to kill in the name of God!’ etc.

When I see no more torture, rape and murder charges being prosecuted,

That is when you will see me fall in line with your chest thumping hawk-strutting "Blind Obedience" to "The Almighty Uniform".

Most command staff I dealt with were drunks and cowards. There is no way, being a Vietnam era vet, that I am blindly going to ’honor all those in uniform’.

And no amount of impuning my character, morality or patriotism from the monkeys in the peanut gallery will ever change that.

Take off your star spangled glasses McQ. They make your nose look big.
 
Written By: Rick Day
URL: http://goplobby.org
Who (who only gets information from the MSM) knew?
“When the history of the Bush administration is written, its unsurpassed stewardship of our economy during what started out as very difficult times (recession and 9/11) will, I hope, get the credit it deserves.”
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Most command staff I dealt with were drunks and cowards. There is no way, being a Vietnam era vet, that I am blindly going to ’honor all those in uniform’.
Rick being a POL clerk-typist probably didn’t put you in touch with too many command staff. Plus the fact that you had your nose in the bong most of the time, probably didn’t improve the atmosphere between you and the command cadre...

The rest of screed was an incoherent dope rant... the 18. y.o’s don’t want to go, but the NASCAR Dads do? Explain how this works please? People WANT TO GO, but DON’T WANT TO GO? Huh?

And so the rape and torture crap... so you’ll support the war when we STOP Proscecuting the allegations? Really you mean when it stops happening? OK using this "logic" we might as well redeploy to Okinawa from pretty much the whole US, ’cuz rape, murder and torture occur here EVERYDAY and if perfection is your standard for support I got bad news for you...NO ONE, NO PLACE meets the criteria.

All-in-all a nice little rant on your part, foolish and illogical...I shall recommend your website to all who support "Legalization." The effects of the drugs on YOU might make them think twice.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Oh and Captin are you so tone deaf...you actually use "NUANCE" as a criteria, even after "Mr Nuance" managed to run the term into the ground? Sad...I guess the next Kerry Word-of-the-day for use will be "Pariah?"

H$(( No I don’t do "Nuance" most of those who do Nuance are Pommy little skinks running around trying to find a way to rationalize defeat in Iraq....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Ugh, a more apt analogy would be my support of Hillary to run for President.

I support her right to, but I’ll do many things (all legal of course) to see that she does not end up as our next President.

From a perspective of foot troops on Hill’s 2008 campaign staff (or anyone wanting her to be successful), it would be nearly impossible to interpret my actions as support.

In other words, all the platitudes issued are meaningless unless you support the troop’s mission to win; clamors of supporting the troops while actively opposing their mission, tacitly at best, encourages their to failure.

Wail all you want, but that purple color you say is fuscia still looks purple to me.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
I support her right to, but I’ll do many things (all legal of course) to see that she does not end up as our next President.
The difference is that you’re actively acting to ensure that she fails in all (legal) ways and if she wins you will be unhappy. Whereas I think the vast majority of those opposed to the Iraq war would be happy if they turned out to be wrong and the mission objectives were fulfilled (democratic, stable Iraq, without WMD, not a threat to neighbors and, at least, nonhostile to the U.S. acting as a beacon of democracy in the Arab world).
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
Francis ... apparently Mr. Arkin somehow forgot to mention these stops on the resume trail, all places he worked: The Institute for Policy Studies, Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Human Rights Watch. He has also been a regular columnist for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
The military, like any other institution of government, can be questioned, criticized and even ridiculed. Don’t be so touchy.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
McQ: you need to ask how someone like this gets a gig at the Post? isn’t having anti-military biases is a requisite to getting a job there, one of the first things they ask applicants to demonstrate? in fact, given how anti-military the Post and the MSM as a whole is, it even lets a white guy like Arkin jump ahead of the applicants who have more of the ’diversity’ that the Post professes to prefer.
 
Written By: steve sturm
URL: www.thoughtsonline.blogspot.com
Mr. Arkin needs a close encounter with an IED.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Francis ... apparently Mr. Arkin somehow forgot to mention these stops on the resume trail, all places he worked: The Institute for Policy Studies, Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Human Rights Watch. He has also been a regular columnist for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Impressive! This guy has a great resume! Defending human rights, working for peace, concern for natural resources and science. Seriously, do you think that such a resume is a negative?! If so, you are out of touch.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Ugh, all the protests, all the pundits paraded before us by the MSM aren’t folks hoping the best for our forces in Iraq. They are folks that want us out of Iraq yesterday, and believe that our incursions within, or invasion thereof, are the worst of possible actions. These folks, while endlessly mouthing support of the troops are actively acting to ensure that [they] fail..."

The majority of which you speak... at least that which the MSM is only to happy to protrait, will not be happy if their pontifications, of which some have already, turn out to be merely wistful thinking. They are more concerned with having Bush’s head than they are with any activities within Iraq (in so far as it does not provide them with propagandic fodder).

It is this backdrop to which supporters of the mission listen to the likes of William Arkin professing "support" of the troops.

For me and many others, what some demand be called fuscia still looks purple to us.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
This author is taking your bait, or perhaps baiting you himself.
So this is all McQ’s fault?

Huh.

At least you didn’t blame Bush....
The military, like any other institution of government, can be questioned, criticized and even ridiculed. Don’t be so touchy
Yeah! Don’t be so touchy! After all, it’s not like he’s insulting some important segment of society like Ivory Tower academics....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
PS Erb, he’s not "questioning" the military, he attacking the soldiers. There is a difference that even you can grasp.

You know how I know you can’t defend this guy? You only weigh in with 1 sentence instead of your usual loooooooooooooooong screeds
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Ugh,

suppose I’m a huge Colts fan and they decide that their best chance to win the superbowl is to play Peyton Manning at tight end, Tony Dungy at QB and Marvin Harrison at left tackle. Manifestly this is dumb, does that mean I have stopped being a Colts fan and have to hope they lose?
Like cap you are not listening. In the case above you would be right to not support them. It does not mean you are not a fan or hope they lose. You are confusing things. Not supporting someone involved in something dumb does not mean you want them to lose or that you don’t care. How many times does the distinction have to be made? To support someone means you have to "support" them, as in give them support in their endeavors. It has nothing to do with your love or feelings about them at all. Because support is usually accompanied by all kinds of caring and desire many seem to confuse the two. In fact support can be given even if you don’t want them to succeed or despise them. It is not done as often, but it surely can be done. Haven’t you ever supported someone even though you didn’t like them or care about them particularly?
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com
Everyone listen to Scott "the enlightened one" he has excellent ideas!! We get the UN to take over in Iraq! Then maybe just maybe, the UN will step up to the task of talking about stabilizing Iraq. Or how about we just infiltrate the Iraq government with sudo-teachers that call themselves professors. They talk and talk and talk until the mideast begs us to stop the noise! Scott and his marry band settle in Babble and the rest is history.

How is syriana 101 going? Found a new set of mush brains to corrupt with your nonsense?

Sorry for the personal hits but that is all you give me, unfortunately there is never any substance in anything you write. By the way, you never answered, do you require the class to buy your book???
 
Written By: coaster
URL: http://
Like cap you are not listening.
I just learned that I support the troops and the mission, even though I think the mission is a terrible idea, but because I send care packages and other goodies to Iraq in support of the troops, I am defacto supportive of the mission.

So maybe you lunatics are right, you can’t support the troops but not the mission because when you support the troops, you ARE supporting the mission.

However, you CAN suport the mission and NOT support the troops. How? By supporting a dumb mission that should not be supported and by NOT doing anything to support the troops.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"The military, like any other institution of government, can be questioned, criticized and even ridiculed. Don’t be so touchy"

LOL. This from someone who cannot seem to write more than one sentence without whining about ad hominem attacks.

*********************************

This is one of the problems you get with a volunteer army. Rudyard Kipling wrote about it a hundred years ago. Back when there was a draft, almost everyone had either been in the service or had at least one family member or friend who had been in the service, and the ones who hadn’t been drafted yet at least thought about what it waould be like. Most people had at least a tenuous connection to the military and some knowledge of military affairs. With a small, volunteer military, there are many people who have never known anyone with military experience, and thus have no knowledge of the military. Even worse, they have no knowlege of or empathy for those who do serve; they are an entirely different demographic. With a "decent wage" and "obscene amenities", all those military types should know their place and stay in it and keep their mouths shut. Like those who used to be called "welfare queens". One could almost think of the military as a ghetto, populated by second-class citizens.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Armed Liberal has Arkin’s (and the WaPo’s) number:
“...if you look at his opus in Google, you find him on the anti-military side of almost every issue that’s come along since the 1980’s. And to appoint him lead blogger on military affairs ...I’m not saying that the major media are liberal, or biased against the military or anything. But this sure makes a good case for it.”
BTW, use of the above link is strictly limited to liberals. Others should go here.
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
Jules Crittenden writes “Jackass the Columnist”:
“I nominate Arkin for a combat embed. On the peacenik chickenhawk theory that, if you want to talk about something, you have to do it. He should be able to tell those GIs to their faces what ingrates they are. Or, because he doesn’t have much time for American soldiers or much concern about terrorism, a walk down Haifa Street all by himself will do.”
 
Written By: notherbob2/robert fulton
URL: http://
The beginning of this thread infuriated me.

My son is a Marine. The medical care that WE provide him, he pays for, it is deducted from every paycheck that we give him. The decent wage that he earns is about $450 - $500 per week. Sometimes he worked for 2-3 days continually, only catching cat naps here and there if possible.

During his seven months in Iraq, the housing that we provided, was anyplace he could lay his head. While he was in Fallujah, their housing was the city dump. While at Al Asad, it was a tent.

Please explain to me these "obscene amenities" that we are shipping. Try living out of a back pack for seven months with three changes of clothing. Carrying that 80-100 lb backpack constantly in 120 degree temps. And the list goes on and on.

I lost a brother in Vietnam. It irritates me to no end to hear MEN (and I use that term loosely) carry the crutch of being a Vietnam Vet with them throughout their lives. Not that I have no compassion. However, to imply that they deserve more compassion, or suffered greater than any other vet who has served in a war is appalling. Vets from wars prior to Vietnam, from Desert Storm and those coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan deserve just as much compassion.

I support our troops to the highest level, and I support their efforts.
 
Written By: Marine Mom / Avid Troop Supporter
URL: http://www.myspace.com/nsbharleygirl
because I send care packages and other goodies to Iraq in support of the troops, I am defacto supportive of the mission.


Well, obviously you are completely unwilling to listen. You just keep making things up that nobody has said.

I will say sending goodies is supportive, if not the most important thing. It shows you are concerned about them. On balance though, no, you are not supportive. The main thing in their lives is that mission. Cookies are nice though, keep sending them. My brother loves when he gets cookies.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://www.asecondhandconjecture.com

Sorry for the personal hits but that is all you give me, unfortunately there is never any substance in anything you write.
The irony of this charge is delightful. :-)

 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
>>>The military, like any other institution of government, can be questioned, criticized and even ridiculed. Don’t be so touchy.

Jimmy Carter, on the other hand...
 
Written By: frendlydude2k
URL: http://
So, if the left supports the troops, but not the mission, how do we explain the treatment the troops who showed up in Washington over the weekend, as a counter-protest, at the hands of the anti-war morons?
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
I don’t know who this Arkin idiot is and I don’t care...
But elsewhere,
Lance:
Once again, look up the definition and usage of support in any other context. Ponder it, absorb it, please
I will say sending goodies is supportive, if not the most important thing. It shows you are concerned about them. On balance though, no, you are not supportive.
!?!
...
Not supporting someone involved in something dumb does not mean you want them to lose or that you don’t care.
How many times does the distinction have to be made?
A lot.

Lance, if you, like McQ, intend on being Johnny Linguist, you have your work cut out for you. Battling grammatical pragmatism for semantics is often grueling work.

You see, the phrase (or variations of) "support the troops but not the mission" is used in modern dialogue exactly as how Cap describes it. Wishing the troops no harm and wishing their success all the while deeming their mission and the commanders policy as unwise and calling for the cessation of the policy is easily and now widely acceptably surmised as "supporting the troops but not the mission".

Sorry, its just the way its done. And fighting the terminology seems like an exercise in futility... but hey, knock yourself out. And while your feeling anxious, I have a laundry list of words and phrases that mean something now, that which didn’t have the same definition as from when it originated.

For starters, I have one that bothers me somewhat. You know the two-wheeled hand device utilizing leverage to move large and heavy objects and how its commonly referred to as a "Dolly" (which, btw, has its etymology in prostitution)? Well... the "Dolly" is something completely different than that what should be referred to as "hand-truck".

So if you can work on that one that would be greeeeat, thanks. I grow weary of correcting my guys when they ask me where the "Dolly" is and I have to reply, "the hand-truck is over there, and stop calling it a whore."

But whatever. If you guys insist that seeing as how I don’t think the current policy is wise and that we should cease the action, but nevertheless wish the troops well and happy hunting and wholly desire for the action to succeed in addition to humbly donating frequent flyer miles, somehow means that I don’t support the troops....

Then go ahead and continue to piss into the wind.

Much like accusations made elsewhere that describe my dissent as "unpatriotic" "treasonous" "embolding the enemy" and who could forget "cowardly" and my personal favorite, "surrender monkey", these additional accusations of "not supporting the troops" will fall on deaf ears.

And I will proudly continue to offer my dissent while wishing the troops abroad speedy victory.

Hell, I think it would be great if it worked out. It would basically rewrite the rulebooks. It would give a template for solution.
Suggesting that all one has to do to bring stability, prosperity, and comity to a hostile and chaotic region is to invade it.

And there’s definitely one thing America is good at, opening up cans of whoopass.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com
The military, like any other institution of government, can be questioned, criticized and even ridiculed. Don’t be so touchy.
I’m sure McQ understands that Americans can insult the men and women in uniform. It would require a strained and deliberate effort to misconstrue his post as saying that they cannot.

McQ was taking offense at insults to the military, which is something entirely different than trying to disallow them. Of course, he might be "touchy" about it since he is ex-military himself. I thought his reaction was rather restrained, myself.

I too have noticed an increasing tendency among the anti-war Left to attack the soldiers as well as the war. I suspect most mainstream Americans of all political persuasions would agree with McQ’s "touchy" sentiment that military people who put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us are worthy of respect and that people who insult them are not.

 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
And I will proudly continue to offer my dissent while wishing the troops abroad speedy victory.
And Pogue, old buddy, perhaps one day you and others will finally realize that, in this case, this isn’t about you.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
So, if the left supports the troops, but not the mission, how do we explain the treatment the troops who showed up in Washington over the weekend, as a counter-protest, at the hands of the anti-war morons?
If active duty troops decide to engage in political activities, they are not going to get deference because they are troops, they will get the expected adversarial relationship that any counter-protest group would get, and realistically, isn’t that precisely why they were there.

If they were not active duty, then it needs to be noted that there are VETS on both sides of this debate, so disagreeing with either side puts you in direct contradiction with one group of VETS or another... in other words, you are supporting the former troops AND opposing the former troops.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
If active duty troops decide to engage in political activities, they are not going to get deference because they are troops, they will get the expected adversarial relationship that any counter-protest group would get, and realistically, isn’t that precisely why they were there.
Does the expected adversarial relationship include being spat upon and called baby-killer? Just asking.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
You apparently hadn’t seen the reports I saw... where that "adversarial relationship" included being kicked, punched and spat on, Cap.

Or perhaps you consider such to be valuable political discourse, so long as liberals aren’t on the reciveing end.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
Does the expected adversarial relationship include being spat upon and called baby-killer? Just asking.
I certainly hope not. Are you inferring that is what took place this past weekend, or just blowing smoke?

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
You apparently hadn’t seen the reports I saw... where that "adversarial relationship" included being kicked, punched and spat on, Cap.
No, I did not see those reports. I did see reports where a wounded Iraq Vet claims that one of the anti-war protestors "may" have spit "NEAR" him, but no reports of any punching, kicking.

Oh, and at the risk of impugning a soldiers integrity, I would suggest that of all the Iraq vets out there, it seems that anti-war military haters seem to want to single this guy out.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Not particularly.
They simply want to single out anyone who stands in the way of their attanting power.

And that’s really all this is about.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://
They simply want to single out anyone who stands in the way of their attanting power.
After you had this...
You apparently hadn’t seen the reports I saw... where that "adversarial relationship" included being kicked, punched and spat on, Cap.
I was expecting to see a response that addressed your unfounded assertion, but I guess admitting that you use right wing blogs propaganda machines as news sources might compromise any credibility you may have thought you had.

No punching, no kicking, and one guy (new friend of Hannity) who claims that one person "MAY" have spit "NEAR" him.

Cap


 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Ah, yes.
I should’ve you expected you to try that claim. Not unlike the efforts on the part of the left to claim that it didn’t happen incidental to Vietnam, either.

It must be a BEAR, trying to pass yourself off as "peaceful people" when upon given the opportunity you start ganging up and beating the snot out of military types. Further it’s difficult to complain that they support the troops but not the war, when they treat the troops so very badly , so very publicly. if nothing else, their actions, give lie to their statements.

And of course the press reporting on such incidents is nigh on non-existent, given the leanings of the press... (the press is unquestionably hostile to the war, as demonstrated time and again, and most recently by the inflated numbers who supposedly showed up to protest the war) both then, and now. Yet,these reports keep filtering through from people who were there.

You will of course discount them, because such reports don’t match your myopic worldview. I will not.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider