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

 
"Baby Killer" is back in vogue
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, August 31, 2006

Not to put too much emphasis on this but it appears a certain element of our population, despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, doesn't "separate the warrior from the war".
The soldier was walking to a convenience store when a sport utility vehicle pulled up alongside him and the driver asked if he was in the military and if he had been in any action.

The driver then got out of the vehicle, displayed a gun and shouted insults at the victim. Four other suspects exited the vehicle and knocked the soldier down, punching and kicking him.

“And during the assault the suspects called him a baby killer. At that point they got into the car and drove off and left him on the side of the road,” Detective Ed Troyer with the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News.
It is anecdotes such as this which demonstrate to me, at least, that the meme which says "we support the soldiers but not their mission" is mostly BS. I acknowledge this is the extreme end of the internally contradictory meme and few would actually act it out as these thugs did, but it is a difference mostly of degree, not kind. The 5 cowards who did this to the National Guard soldier are at least internally consistent in their opposition to the war.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
McQ "they" are on the other side...

YES, Pogue or anyone else I question YOUR patriotism, as we will get either "this is cherry-picking/Selection bias" or "Don’t question MY patriotism.". I don’t question Michael Moore’s or Sheehan’s patriotism, it’s obvious they are pulling for the other side..
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
YES, Pogue or anyone else I question YOUR patriotism
If Dissent is the highest form of patriotism- as we keep getting told- then aren’t those guys who did this to the soldier really just being extremely good patriots?

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The liberals sure do love their guns and SUVs when they’re used to attack our servicemen.

I am entirely opposed to Bush’s war in Iraq, but I hope they catch these miserable $hit$ and turn them loose in the middle of a special forces training area for target practice.
 
Written By: MikeT
URL: http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com
McQ:

the meme which says "we support the soldiers but not their mission" is mostly BS.... internally contradictory meme

I don’t see why this is contradictory. Are you saying that you have always and will always support every mission that US soldiers are sent on? If a Dem president sends the troops where you don’t think they should go, do you think you’d find it impossible to object to that mission without suddenly developing a hatred of the soldiers themselves?

I don’t think the "we support the soldiers but not their mission" concept is inherently contradictory, I think it’s just that when liberals say that, you don’t believe them.
 
Written By: kenB
URL: http://
Lets see...who will show up first:

1) Mona trying to haughtily argue that what happened to the soldier may have been bad but the Republicans have done worse so you have no right to mention this

2) MK to gloss over the whole thing by attacking Bush or Israel in some of anti-war point

3) Glasnost to argue that the soldier was a war pimp, and thus had it coming

4) Oliver to leave a piece of snark that misses the point entirely
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I don’t see why this is contradictory. Are you saying that you have always and will always support every mission that US soldiers are sent on?
The soldiers are integral to the mission, and their sole focus and reason for being is its accomplishment. I find it internally inconsistent to say I support them (which to me means supporting what they do as well) and not what they’re doing or trying to accomplish.
If a Dem president sends the troops where you don’t think they should go, do you think you’d find it impossible to object to that mission without suddenly developing a hatred of the soldiers themselves?
Who said you had to hate them, Ken? If I objected I’d call for both the mission and the instrument of that mission to be withdrawn and I’d make it clear I didn’t support either in that particular endeavor. You can’t have a mission without troops. That doesn’t mean I have to hate the soldiers, but to be internally consistent, I’d say I support neither the mission or the instrument of that mission. That was my position on Bosnia.

And I’d call for Congress to cut off funding for the war (which takes care of both). That to me is the internally consistent position on this. That is if I really objected to the mission (and was not just using it as a political means of hammering the oppositon, which, I suspect, much of the left is doing).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Shark, Even money on any of those.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
A pack of 20-something white males in a late model American made SUV — armed with a handgun.

Sounds like your typical GOP demographic to me.

Anyone want to be these guys turn out to be skinheads or Young Republicans pulling a dirty trick?
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
skinheads or Young Republicans
’Cause skinheads and Young Republicans are really the same sort of people. Yeah.

Run with that, Hesiod, run far.
"O Lord make my enemies ridiculous."
Thank you, God.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
We are taking the initial reports on this story at face value why, exactly?
 
Written By: Jim Henley
URL: http://www.highclearing.com
We are taking the initial reports on this story at face value why, exactly?
Face value?

We’re talking about what police have reported happened, unless you have reason to believe the police think this soldier beat himself up and left himself lying by the side of the road. One should assume his injuries supported his story and thus the police took what he had to say as probable and consistent with his story.

Since it happened in broad daylight in a busy street, it’s also probable that there were other witnesses.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
If a Dem president sends the troops where you don’t think they should go, do you think you’d find it impossible to object to that mission without suddenly developing a hatred of the soldiers themselves?
WOW....that’s an incredibly telling statement right there. Sometimes the mask slips for a second...
Anyone want to be these guys turn out to be skinheads or Young Republicans pulling a dirty trick?
Ah....thanks Hesiod. I’ll add this type of comment to the list.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
’Cause skinheads and Young Republicans are really the same sort of people. Yeah.

I do recall typing the conjunction "or" in there somewhere.

But it’s just as plausible as a bunch of "antiwar" white males in their twenties, cruising around in a late model American made black SUV —- and a handgun — looking for a member of the US military to beat up and call a "babykiller."

I mean, "babykiller?" Couldn’t these Karl Rove wannabe dirty tricksters come up with something less cliched?



 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
We’re talking about what police have reported happened, unless you have reason to believe the police think this soldier beat himself up and left himself lying by the side of the road. One should assume his injuries supported his story and thus the police took what he had to say as probable and consistent with his story.

Since it happened in broad daylight in a busy street, it’s also probable that there were other witnesses.


Where in the report were the 20-something white males driving the late model Anerican made black SUV (and carrying a handgun) described as "liberals?"

Sounds more like they were on their way to a Young Americans for Freedom convention than to a Cindy Sheehan rally.
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
If Dissent is the highest form of patriotism- as we keep getting told- then aren’t those guys who did this to the soldier really just being extremely good patriots?

I blame Bary Goldewater.

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
I do recall typing the conjunction "or" in there somewhere.
A distinction with no difference. You were claiming each would be about as likely to have done this.
But it’s just as plausible as a bunch of "antiwar" white males in their twenties, cruising around in a late model American made black SUV —- and a handgun — looking for a member of the US military to beat up and call a "babykiller."
No, it’s much more plausible.

To be leftist is to be dumb or evil. You pick one out for yourself.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I mean, "babykiller?" Couldn’t these Karl Rove wannabe dirty tricksters come up with something less cliched?
Of COURSE they were Republicans, because the opponents of the War are NOTHING if not civil and well-reasoned...if you look past the BusHitler thing, and of course Ken Olberman and Paul Hackette.

I mean I’m with you Hesiod....except for the Occam’s Razor thing... is it easier to believe war opponets did this or that this was a Republican "Black Op" designed to make the anti-war groups look bad. Of course the "Reality-based Community" has been the home of COnspiracy Central, so I’m sure YOU believe it’s easier to imagine Rovian Forces at work. The rest of us will just choose, Anti-War nutz.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I blame Bary Goldewater.
Well of course you do.

Between dumb and evil, I know which one of the two at least applies to you.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
McQ, thanks for the reply. First, re "Who said you had to hate them": your post seemed to suggest that the actions of these psychopaths are somehow the full and natural expression of the feelings of the "support the soldiers but not the mission" crowd. So it seems to me that it was you who offered that choice.
I’d say I support neither the mission or the instrument of that mission. That was my position on Bosnia.
Well, maybe this is just a game of semantics then. There are plenty of liberals who feel much the same way about Iraq that you did about Bosnia. Unfortunately, being liberals, as soon as they voice their opposition to the war, they’re immediately under suspicion of being closet soldier-haters, and so they try to say things to show that they’re really not. What should a liberal say to convince you that s/he was against the Iraq war but isn’t an anti-military zealot?
 
Written By: kenB
URL: http://
Of COURSE they were Republicans, because the opponents of the War are NOTHING if not civil and well-reasoned...if you look past the BusHitler thing, and of course Ken Olberman and Paul Hackette.

So Paul Hackett and Keith Oldberman are assaulting people now? Like your Rovian wannabes out in Washington?

I realize that you are mental midgets and assume free speech you don;t like is the equivalent of 5 white guys jumpoung out of an SUV and kicking your ass, but why must you display your idiocy for everyone to see? Are you a glutton for punishment?

I mean I’m with you Hesiod....except for the Occam’s Razor thing... is it easier to believe war opponets did this or that this was a Republican "Black Op" designed to make the anti-war groups look bad.

But a lot of "war opponents" are a) Republicans and B) Rightwingers. In fact, Occam’s razor suggests that these are a bunch of rightwing skinheads in sympathy with Pat Buchanan and David Duke, not Cindy Sheehan followers.

Of course the "Reality-based Community" has been the home of COnspiracy Central, so I’m sure YOU believe it’s easier to imagine Rovian Forces at work.

I’m just suggesting a possibility. You tried to exploit it for political advantage, and I’m pushing back.

The rest of us will just choose, Anti-War nutz.

Rightwing anti-war nutz. Yup. Probably.
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
Where in the report were the 20-something white males driving the late model Anerican made black SUV (and carrying a handgun) described as "liberals?"
Other than yours, where in the post or the comments to you see the term "liberal" used, Hesoid?

Seems to me it is you making the assumptions here. One could fairly assume, given the action which took place, that they were certainly anti-war and they lumped the soldier in with the mission (which I noted, was at least internally consistent), but other than you, no one has accused them of being "liberals".

I called them "cowards" and "thugs".

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Well of course you do.

Between dumb and evil, I know which one of the two at least applies to you.


Sounds to me like you wingnuts have a weak non-conference schedule, and get rolled when your intellectual betters show up to kick your butts.

I think I’ll stick around for a while and kick some more butt. Should be fun.
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
Other than yours, where in the post or the comments to you see the term "liberal" used, Hesoid?

It was in Michelle Malkin’s link. The one this post so approvingly cited.

So you agree that they are probaly rightwing antiwar nutz then?

Seems to me it is you making the assumptions here. One could fairly assume, given the action which took place, that they were certainly anti-war and they lumped the soldier in with the mission (which I noted, was at least internally consistent), but other than you, no one has accused them of being "liberals".

I’m doing what you guys do all the time. If you don’t like it, stop doing it.
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
Going back to Jim Henley’s point, how do we know that, for examle, the soldier was actually trying to buy drugs and got beat up by some gangbangers, and then made up this story to cover up what actually happened?

Or, that the soldier didn’t make a nasty comment about the guys in the SUV first?

Who knows? There are a lot of possible scenarious that have yet to be examined here. I’d be interested in seeing the actual police report, and the witness statements.
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
I’m doing what you guys do all the time. If you don’t like it, stop doing it
.

BUT MOMMY, HE STARTED IT!!!!!!!!!!!

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Sorry, McQ, but you seem to have thrown your logical faculties out the window on this one. First, as someone else pointed out, this sure doesn’t sound like the handiwork of anti-war hippies. How many other incidents like this have you heard of, ever? You write:
It is anecdotes such as this which demonstrate to me, at least, that the meme which says "we support the soldiers but not their mission" is mostly BS.
Have you ever heard any other "anecdotes like this"? Do you even know much of anything about what happened in this instance? Are you really prepared to extrapolate from this that those of use who opposed the Iraq War don’t support the soldiers who bravely risk their necks everyday and have absolutely no say in what our policy is?

The suggestion that these thugs, whoever they are, are "at least internally consistent in their opposition to the war" is as stupid as it is insulting. Why would objecting to U.S. policy logically require not supporting our soldiers, much less assaulting them? They’re not the ones that make the policy. They’re just brave kids who are ordered to do a job. Do you actually know any of the 60% of Americans who think the war in Iraq is a bad idea? I know a lot of them, and I’ve never met one who harbors any ill-feelings toward the troops themselves. Not one.

You write:
You can’t have a mission without troops. That doesn’t mean I have to hate the soldiers, but to be internally consistent, I’d say I support neither the mission or the instrument of that mission. That was my position on Bosnia.
What total nonsense. You can’t have mission without a lot of things (supplies, equipment, food). Do I have to not support food to be internally consistent? What terrible logic. And are you really saying you didn’t support the brave members of our armed services who flew combat missions over Bosnia? You’re really incapable of separating your feelings for them personally from the your analysis of the mission they were ordered to engage in? Really?

I find nothing more insulting or illogical than this particular meme. You’re better than this McQ. You know better. People who oppose the war in Iraq are not secretly harboring malicious intentions toward our troops. Indeed, most are driven primarily by an intense desire to see them returned safely. This is not BS. There is no logical correlation at all between how one feels about the wisdom of a particular war and how one feels about the men and women who are order to fight in it.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
First, as someone else pointed out, this sure doesn’t sound like the handiwork of anti-war hippies. How many other incidents like this have you heard of, ever
LMFAO, of course nobody has EVER seen a leftist "peace" march turn violent. I doubt they were hippies (nice canard to throw in there) but there is a sizeable faction of the anti-war movement that has no compunctions about violence.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Ken:
I do not like going to the dentist. Even though it is necessary and the Dentist is only doing his job, I do not like it. But I do not seek out and attack Dentists in order to show my displeasure.

I do not like the war in Iraq. I was not a proponent of the invasion. I see the necessity of getting the job done now that we’ve stepped in it but that does not mean I have to like it. I do not go out of my way to attack members of the military for their participation.

I am a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel. I have been on the receiving end of peoples’ hatred of the military during and immediately following the Viet Nam conflict, another war I did not particularly agree with. As serving members of the military, we do not get to chose the fights we get thrown into. We do not get a say in the enemies we face. We voluntarily raise our right hands and swear allegience to do our duty. Failure to do so once we have sworn results in court martial action, incarceration and dishonorable discharge. Something nobody wants on their permanent record.

So you want to hate your dentist, be my guest. You want to hate the military, knock yourself out. But think about how you would feel one day when you need that emergency root canal. Or, God forbid, when you need that soldier to stand to and defend you.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
I find nothing more insulting or illogical than this particular meme
Since you hate memes, please take this opportunity to condemn the "chickenhawk" meme, to show you’re not a hypocrite.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
People who oppose the war in Iraq are not secretly harboring malicious intentions toward our troops. Indeed,most are driven primarily by an intense desire to see them returned safely.
Except for this particular bunch. That which has been demonstrated.

Where were you in life when "baby killer" was a more common expression for our troops?
It started small back then too, and it’s not refreshing to hear this kind of thing being resurrected in any amount.

Odd that it happened in a Blue State though isn’t it.
Hotbed of Republican sentiment that it is.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Since you hate memes, please take this opportunity to condemn the "chickenhawk" meme, to show you’re not a hypocrite.
Done. I don’t like the chickenhawk meme either.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
LMFAO, of course nobody has EVER seen a leftist "peace" march turn violent. I doubt they were hippies (nice canard to throw in there) but there is a sizeable faction of the anti-war movement that has no compunctions about violence.
Yeah, and this sure looks like a leftist peace march. A bunch of dudes with guns in an SUV? My point was simply that it’s absurd to suggest that these thugs, whoever they are, are somehow representative of how anti-war folks feel about the troops. We don’t even really know what happened in this incident. We don’t know who these guys were, why they did what they did. How is this type of generalization from a single murky incident any different than someone suggesting that—because of what happened at Haditha or Abu Ghraib—it’s clear that U.S. soldiers are really sick wackos? You’re doing EXACTLY what you claim others are doing.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
Where were you in life when "baby killer" was a more common expression for our troops?

Started after My Lai, I believe.

 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
but there is a sizeable faction of the anti-war movement that has no compunctions about violence.

If that were true, this country would be in flames right now. And that idiotic comparison between Philadelphia and Baghdad would actually have some merit.

I think, actually, given the level of opposition to this war out ion the country, the paltry few examples you can dig up of antiwar violance actually proves you wrong.

I can probably find twice as many incidents of antiwar activists or Bush opponents getting assaulted or threatened with violence.
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
BUT MOMMY, HE STARTED IT!!!!!!!!!!!

There you go. Finally a comment worthy of your intellect.
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
First, as someone else pointed out, this sure doesn’t sound like the handiwork of anti-war hippies.
It certainly sounds like bored, testosterone challenged leftists to me. No one said they were hippies.
Have you ever heard any other "anecdotes like this"?
Yes.
Are you really prepared to extrapolate from this that those of use who opposed the Iraq War don’t support the soldiers who bravely risk their necks everyday and have absolutely no say in what our policy is?
Yes, you want them to win or you want them to lose. Those are the only sides you can be on to a first order of approximation. Your side wants them to lose more than you want them to win. You see, leaving prematurely is losing. I have seen nothing whatsoever to show your (antiwar) side doesn’t want us to leave prematurely.

And the soldiers do have a say in what our policies are, and they have a strong tendency to vote against liberals.
The suggestion that these thugs, whoever they are, are "at least internally consistent in their opposition to the war" is as stupid as it is insulting.
But it’s true and therefore not stupid. They are carrying things to criminal, illogical extremes, but they are acting in a consistent fashion if one elevates antiwar to a priority above not being thuggish.
Do you actually know any of the 60% of Americans who think the war in Iraq is a bad idea?
A good many of those 60% say we should fight harder, not quit.
I know a lot of them, and I’ve never met one who harbors any ill-feelings toward the troops themselves. Not one.
You should get your buddies drunk more, you’ll hear it.
What total nonsense. You can’t have mission without a lot of things (supplies, equipment, food). Do I have to not support food to be internally consistent?
Food generally is too general a category, so you’re being illogical. To be consistent on the antiwar position, you must support the Congress defunding the mission—which means those troops don’t get food or any other support unless they come home.
I find nothing more insulting or illogical than this particular meme.
Sorry the truth hurts.

Oh wait, I’m not.
People who oppose the war in Iraq are not secretly harboring malicious intentions toward our troops.
You want them to fail. That’s malicious.
Indeed, most are driven primarily by an intense desire to see them returned safely.
And they are only in the military because they have conscioulsy discounted the importance of their safety not only in preference to ours, but they have pledged to support what orders and missions the current political climate generates.

You show the true degree to which you denigrate that choice when you say you want them home safely right after you say:
They’re not the ones that make the policy. They’re just brave kids who are ordered to do a job.
They are young but not children, and they vote against you. They believe in their mission and you want them to lose.

These thugs just wanted to make this soldier feel like he’d lost, and they were criminal thugs about it. They are just like you in that they wanted this soldier to feel like he’d lost.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Done. I don’t like the chickenhawk meme either.
Thank you, and it is appreciated!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I can probably find twice as many incidents of antiwar activists or Bush opponents getting assaulted or threatened with violence.
Go to it then. I’ll call that bluff
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
My point was simply that it’s absurd to suggest that these thugs, whoever they are, are somehow representative of how anti-war folks feel about the troops.
Yet you feel alike to those thugs in this;

You are willing to have our soldiers feel like they have lost.

That shoe incontrovertibly fits, so wear it with pride or change your tune.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
McQ, thanks for the reply. First, re "Who said you had to hate them": your post seemed to suggest that the actions of these psychopaths are somehow the full and natural expression of the feelings of the "support the soldiers but not the mission" crowd. So it seems to me that it was you who offered that choice.
Not really. I made it obvious that these guys were the extreme of that group and that while they manifest their nonsupport through violence, it is, at least, an internally consistent position. They obviously don’t support the troops who are engaged in the mission because they don’t support the mission.
Well, maybe this is just a game of semantics then. There are plenty of liberals who feel much the same way about Iraq that you did about Bosnia. Unfortunately, being liberals, as soon as they voice their opposition to the war, they’re immediately under suspicion of being closet soldier-haters, and so they try to say things to show that they’re really not. What should a liberal say to convince you that s/he was against the Iraq war but isn’t an anti-military zealot?
I heard the same thing when I said no to Bosnia. So what? Obviously I had an advantage of 28 years service to point to which sort of dampened the "soldier-hater" nonsense, but being against a war isn’t being "anti-military" and the internally consistent position is to eschew support for both the mission and those charged with executing the mission.

For instance, if George Bush said he was going to level best to shut down every abortion clinic in the US, would you be comfortable with saying you don’t support what he wants to do (mission) but you do support the Republicans (troops)? After all they’re going to do their level best to accomplish the mission Bush set before them.

One other point. Honoring the service of soldiers isn’t the same as supporting what they’re doing. You can still honor their service without supporting them or their mission.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Yet you feel alike to those thugs in this;

You are willing to have our soldiers feel like they have lost.
Good lord that’s a dumb statement. First, the troops aren’t some monolithic entity that collectively has one view regarding the merits of this war. Many support it, but quite a few feel it’s a bad idea.

Second, I never said I was in favor of bringing the troops home immediately. I think the invasion of Iraq was a collossally stupid idea, but I’m not convinced that the proper course of action now is to pick up and leave. That said, I don’t think the people who want the troops to leave hate them. That makes no sense. If anti-war types didn’t care about the troops, why would they be so concerned about bringing them home as soon as possible? Why not just leave them there in harms way?

And how preposterously misguided is a philosophy that says we can never do anything that makes our soldiers feel like they have lost. What if we are engaged in a losing strategy or a situation where we cannot win? Are we just supposed to keep plodding forward, wasting more lives and resources? Isn’t that the definition of insanity?

Look, the question here is whether we can win. If staying the course is going to result in some sort of victory, I’m all for it. But if we are just delaying the inevitable or actually making a bad situation worse, we should start looking for ways to leave, even if that makes some soldiers feel that we lost. That’s looking out for their (and the country’s) best interests, not hating them.

The suggestion that those who oppose the Iraq War harbor some secret animosity toward the men and women of our armed forces is demagoguery at its worst.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
Where were you in life when "baby killer" was a more common expression for our troops?

Started after My Lai, I believe.
and I didn’t ask when it started - I asked AL where he/she was at that point in history, see the words in there ’Where were you’?

These aren’t to be confused with words like
"when did they start calling our troops baby killers".




 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Other than yours, where in the post or the comments to you see the term "liberal" used, Hesoid?
Just a point of clarification, McQ.

To whom exactly were you referring to with this:
It is anecdotes such as this which demonstrate to me, at least, that the meme which says "we support the soldiers but not their mission" is mostly BS.
To whom is the "we support the soldiers but not their mission" meme attributed to exactly? Because coupled with this statement:
The 5 cowards who did this to the National Guard soldier are at least internally consistent in their opposition to the war.
Are you really leaving open the possibility that these "thugs" and "cowards" who allegedly falsely subscribe to the "we support the soldiers but not their mission" meme and who are in "opposition to the war" could be characterized as something other than liberals?
 
Written By: John S.
URL: http://
The suggestion that those who oppose the Iraq War harbor some secret animosity toward the men and women of our armed forces is demagoguery at its worst.
Fair enough, not all of them, but it is naive to think that none of them do as well...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
For instance, if George Bush said he was going to level best to shut down every abortion clinic in the US, would you be comfortable with saying you don’t support what he wants to do (mission) but you do support the Republicans (troops)? After all they’re going to do their level best to accomplish the mission Bush set before them.
What a terrible analogy? Would Republicans be obliged to support Bush’s action in the same why soldiers are obliged to follow orders? Of course not. Bush isn’t the commander in chief of Republicans. They don’t have to do what he says.

McQ, what do you mean by "not supporting the soldiers." In what way did you not support the soldiers who served in Bosnia? Did you harbor ill-feelings for them? Did you wish them harm? Did you hope they would fail? Did you think they were bad people for following orders? If none of the above, then what exactly does it mean to say you didn’t "support" them?
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
I should proofread a little more carefully. Meant to say:

What a terrible analogy. Would Republicans be obliged to support Bush’s action in the same way soldiers are obliged to follow orders? Of course not. Bush isn’t the commander in chief of Republicans. They don’t have to do what he says.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
Yet you feel alike to those thugs in this;

You are willing to have our soldiers feel like they have lost.
Good lord that’s a dumb statement. First, the troops aren’t some monolithic entity that collectively has one view regarding the merits of this war. Many support it, but quite a few feel it’s a bad idea.
First, find a soldier who wants to lose. I’ll bet they are pretty monolithically against that. And it isn’t many who support it, its the overwhelming majority.
Second, I never said I was in favor of bringing the troops home immediately. I think the invasion of Iraq was a collossally stupid idea, but I’m not convinced that the proper course of action now is to pick up and leave.
Second, either you belive we need to stay until we’ve done what we can, in which case you agree with the President in all but the details, or you want to leave before we should—in which case you want us to lose. You think losing would be better, or do you agree with the President?
That said, I don’t think the people who want the troops to leave hate them. That makes no sense. If anti-war types didn’t care about the troops, why would they be so concerned about bringing them home as soon as possible? Why not just leave them there in harms way?
The "anti-war" types aren’t actually antiwar as a general rule, they are on the other side, whichever side is not "America" as it is. They want the troops to come home now or too soon so the troops will lose. Having the troops lose is more important to them than seeing the troops killed at the very low rate this war is bringing about.

You’ve made your bed, these sorts are your bedmates. Lay in it quietly and hope karma forgets you.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
AL -
Sorry, McQ, but you seem to have thrown your logical faculties out the window on this one. First, as someone else pointed out, this sure doesn’t sound like the handiwork of anti-war hippies. How many other incidents like this have you heard of, ever? You write:
It is anecdotes such as this which demonstrate to me, at least, that the meme which says "we support the soldiers but not their mission" is mostly BS.
Washington State, particularly the Seattle Metro area is a hotbed of violent Leftists. Enviromental terrorists. Anarchists. Workers Socialist Party. Anti-Globalists. All involved in acts of violence in the last 5 years.

While it is important to leave open other possiblities - soldier staging a hoax, a dark Rovian Plot like Getting Joe Wilson to Lie to the Times So His Superagent Wife Was Exposed and Her Terrorist Eradication Operation Ended....Republicans did it, Microsoft employees were just blowing off a little steam at the end of a 95-hour workweek, Canadians doing the usual cross border mayhem and pillaging they are famous for - it is equally important to leave open the possibility they WERE anti-war Lefties of the Seattle "violent persuasion" eager to avenge their Muslim Brothers and strike at a stupid tool of the Bush-Hitler.

Lets hope they get caught so we can all find out. The FBI is total crap at infiltrating Islamic Jihadi cells, but with the violent white Lefties of Washington State - chances are you pack 20 in a room - at least one is an FBI plant. Red jackets and red ballcaps...wonder of a local liberal arts college has those colors?

Doesn’t sound like criminal thugs. A gang of black thugs recently mugged an Army double amputee leaving rehab, but as I recollect, no one impugned their patriotism.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
Other than yours, where in the post or the comments to you see the term "liberal" used, Hesoid?
Just a point of clarification, McQ.

To whom exactly were you referring to with this:
It is anecdotes such as this which demonstrate to me, at least, that the meme which says "we support the soldiers but not their mission" is mostly BS.
I would think that would be fairly obvious: those who believe the meme "I support the troops but don’t support the war" is a legitimate and internally consistent position.
Are you really leaving open the possibility that these "thugs" and "cowards" who allegedly falsely subscribe to the "we support the soldiers but not their mission" meme and who are in "opposition to the war" could be characterized as something other than liberals?
Apparenly you and Hesoid believe that to be true.

Again, I’m addressing the specific meme in the statement for which you seek clarification. And now you have it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ, what do you mean by "not supporting the soldiers."
Cut off their funding and force an end to the war. Why aren’t the Democrats, who oppose the war, doing that every chance they get?

Of course, if successfully done, that means they’d have to leave pretty quickly, may or may not have all the things they need to ensure their tactical viability in the field much less their ability to sustain themselves until they can leave, but that is "non-support".

If the idea is to end the war, which I assume is the point of those who oppose it, political considerations aside, I can’t think of a quicker and more consistent way to do so. Can you?

But they won’t do that will they AL? Because that would be very costly politically, wouldn’t it? So instead we get this "we support the troops but not the mission" rubbish.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Shark, do you have an ’enemies’ list, here, or what? Do you think it makes you look good to be obsessively focused on the opinions of other commenters, rather than the subject itself, to such an extent that you constantly straw-man ficticious run-throughs of their responses before they even show up?

Would you like it if the left-leaning commenters on here made it their mission in life to fill these comment boards with mocking cariactures of what they expect you to say? Shall we fill these boards with personal attacks? Would that be good?

No?

Well, the left-leaning commenters are already refraining from doing that. Why don’t you get over your playground bullsh*t and join them in waiting for people to comment before you invent your obnoxious rejoinders?

Thanks.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
I would think that would be fairly obvious: those who believe the meme "I support the troops but don’t support the war" is a legitimate and internally consistent position.
Your tap dancing is spectacular. Who are "those" people?
Apparenly you and Hesoid believe that to be true.
I asked you a question, which you seem incredibly reluctant to answer. You prefer to hide behind vague characterizations rather than simply state who you are referring. I’m open to the possibility that you are painting with a rather broad brush a picture that looks like something other than a liberal, but you’re not helping me keep a very open mind.
Again, I’m addressing the specific meme in the statement for which you seek clarification.
I didn’t seek clarification about the meme, and I’ll just take this as yet another dodge of my direct question. I specifically asked who you are referring to in holding this anecdote up as an example to repudiate X. Thus far, I don’t really know who X refers to, and you seem rather unwilling to say.

Your comment seems to be analagous to saying:

I think this anecdote demonstrates that those that walk on four legs and have tails and urinate in litter boxes are filthy mongrels. But at least their tendency towards micturating indoors is consistent with their animality.

But I’m not trying to cast any dispersions about cats.


 
Written By: John S.
URL: http://
If the idea is to end the war, which I assume is the point of those who oppose it, political considerations aside, I can’t think of a quicker and more consistent way to do so. Can you?

But they won’t do that will they AL? Because that would be very costly politically, wouldn’t it? So instead we get this "we support the troops but not the mission" rubbish.
McQ, you’re conflating two totally different things. Your post was about some thugs that beat up a soldier, not some politician who voted to fund a war he opposes. Beating up soldiers is not even close to the same thing as trying to end the war through political means. When people say that they "support the troops but not the mission", what they mean is that they bear no ill-will toward people of our armed forces, but that they oppose the war policy. You suggested in your post that this was "BS" and somehow illogical. Now you’re talking about voting to withhold funding for the war. That’s entirely different. You can support withholding funding (so as to force the troops to come home) without harboring any animus toward the troops themselves. These are entirely separate issues that are not logically connected.

Your post suggested that these people who beat up a soldier were simply carrying to its logical conclusion the feelings of those who oppose the war. It think that’s an entirely illogical and nonsensical argument.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
McQ:

When my girlfriend turns the music up too loud when she’s leaving for work, before I’m awake, I don’t like it. I don’t support her music-playing campaign. I still support (love) my girlfriend.

When a Democratic president does something I don’t like.. say, fail to act on campaign finance reform, or have sex with an intern, I don’t support this President’s actions. Whether I support the president or not is a separate decision. In Bill Clinton’s case, I supported him all the way, despite not supporting some of his actions.

In reality, people attempt to disagree with specific behaviors committed by others, while continuing to be friendly with, okay with, supporting of, those other people. In reality, your argument that this cannot happen with soldiers and war makes no sense.

This is the same thing as people who attempt to claim in good faith that people who don’t support the president’s war, must actually be in favor of Bin Laden’s extermination of western society. This is self-evidently and obviously false - unless you believe that tens of millions of Americans who believe that we should leave Iraq are active supporters of the annihilation of their society and the deaths of everyone around them that they know.

Do you believe this?

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Ah yes, this antecdote proves all you need to know about those damn anti-war liberals.

I bet they are lined up at Seattle airport so they can spit on returning soldiers, too. And I bet right after they called him a baby-killer they all shouted in unison, "Right on! Power to the people!".

’Cause...you know...anybody who disagrees with me hates soldiers.
 
Written By: Pug
URL: http://
Lets hope they get caught so we can all find out. The FBI is total crap at infiltrating Islamic Jihadi cells, but with the violent white Lefties of Washington State - chances are you pack 20 in a room - at least one is an FBI plant
I certainly hope you’re right about that, C. Ford.

These thugs need to be found, they need to be arrested, and they need to stand trial. For treason. (note the lack of the sarcasm tag)
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
Your tap dancing is spectacular. Who are "those" people?
The one’s who believe "the meme "I support the troops but don’t support the war" is a legitimate and internally consistent position."

Is English a second language, John? I have no idea how to be any more clear about this. If you believe that to be a legitimate and internally consistent position I’m talking about you.

Got it?
I asked you a question, which you seem incredibly reluctant to answer. You prefer to hide behind vague characterizations rather than simply state who you are referring. I’m open to the possibility that you are painting with a rather broad brush a picture that looks like something other than a liberal, but you’re not helping me keep a very open mind.
I have no idea if those people who did this were "liberal", and frankly don’t care. Not the point and, as I noted, the only people who’ve introduced the term "liberal" into the conversation have been you and Hesoid, so perhaps you ought to go look in a mirror and ask yourself the question about "liberals".
I didn’t seek clarification about the meme, and I’ll just take this as yet another dodge of my direct question. I specifically asked who you are referring to in holding this anecdote up as an example to repudiate X. Thus far, I don’t really know who X refers to, and you seem rather unwilling to say.
And for the third time those who believe "the meme "I support the troops but don’t support the war" is a legitimate and internally consistent position."

What part of that don’t you yet understand?

BTW, I’m talking about the meme. Whether you are talking about it or not, I answered your question. That is what the post addresses and that’s what this is all about. If you have another topic fine, introduce it, but quit pretending you’re not getting answers to your questions.
I think this anecdote demonstrates that those that walk on four legs and have tails and urinate in litter boxes are filthy mongrels. But at least their tendency towards micturating indoors is consistent with their animality.

But I’m not trying to cast any dispersions about cats.
Or aspersions.

Nope ... I’m pointing out that while extreme their position is internally consistent. Who you choose to apply that too is your business. The projection, however, is telling.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ, you’re conflating two totally different things. Your post was about some thugs that beat up a soldier, not some politician who voted to fund a war he opposes.
Wow ... I love this technique, AL. You ask me a question, "McQ, what do you mean by "not supporting the soldiers", I answer it, and suddenly I’m "conflating two different things?"

Heh ... look AL, I love you to death, but I’m not going to play these sorts of rhetorical games. You are better than this.

Discussions evolve. I answered your specific question as best I could. I’m not conflating anything, I’m answering a general question about how I would define "not supporting the soldiers", precisely as it was asked. That’s how it should be considered. And I gave some reasons why I think those who use this meme are trying to have it both ways as well as asserting that the position is internally inconsistent.

And your answer is to blow it off and erect a strawman about "conflating" two different events?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Wow ... I love this technique, AL.

And we love your technique, McQ. Take the purported actions of a few and use them to smear millions of your fellow Americans.

Brilliant technique that you could have only learned from Dick Cheney.
 
Written By: Pug
URL: http://
What a terrible analogy. Would Republicans be obliged to support Bush’s action in the same way soldiers are obliged to follow orders? Of course not. Bush isn’t the commander in chief of Republicans. They don’t have to do what he says.
Obliged by anything other than their almost rabid pro-life ideology? No. No more than Democrats would be obliged by their equally rabid pro-choice ideology. Each of those positions define and differentiate the parties more than any other issue in our time and to pretend otherwise is, well, not very convincing. Those positions are almost litmus like in their application and you know it.

So the analogy isn’t as "terrible" as you’d like it to be, but declaring it so sure does avoid answering the point, doesn’t it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
And we love your technique, McQ. Take the purported actions of a few and use them to smear millions of your fellow Americans.
So Pug, do you believe the meme "I support the troops but don’t support the mission" is an internally consistent position?

And how does my questioning that "smear" you?

As for the 5 thugs, they don’t support the troops and don’t support the mission ... obviously. So again, how is that a smear to you unless that’s how you believe as well?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I don’t think one can evaluate this situation without examining the political climate in Puget Sound from Seattle to Tacoma to Olympia-home of Evergreen College and Rachel Corrie. Puget Sound encourages extremism like this. Here are a few links for those unfamiliar with the poisonous atmosphere in the Seattle area.
link
link
link
link
This is the compost in which the seeds germinate.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
Where in the report were the 20-something white males driving the late model Anerican made black SUV (and carrying a handgun) described as "liberals?"

Sounds more like they were on their way to a Young Americans for Freedom convention than to a Cindy Sheehan rally.
And I guess if they had been African American you would be saying that what they really wanted was the soldier’s wallet, right?

Yow! There really isn’t anything left of the left these days, is there?

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Is English a second language, John?
Personal insult: The first resort of someone with an extremely flawed argument. Duly noted.
If you believe that to be a legitimate and internally consistent position I’m talking about you.
You have a pillory all lined up for me, or shall it be pistols at dawn?
I have no idea if those people who did this were "liberal", and frankly don’t care. Not the point
Except that most of your commenters here somehow magically latched onto that concept. Funny that. I guess they pulled it out of thin air.
perhaps you ought to go look in a mirror and ask yourself the question about "liberals"
Why? I thought you said this had nothing to do with liberals?
And for the third time those who believe "the meme "I support the troops but don’t support the war" is a legitimate and internally consistent position."
You’re funny.
What part of that don’t you yet understand?
The part where you keep pretending that you aren’t using this as an example to flog a certain group of people. Really, it is rather amusing.
Or aspersions.
Thanks for correcting my word choice, though I think you know what I meant. Glad you found no error in the accuracy of my analogy.
Nope ... I’m pointing out that while extreme their position is internally consistent.
When people behave in the way this anecdote illustrates, of course. That you feel the need to somehow ascribe this singular act of inconsistency to all people who adhere to your hated ’meme’ is interesting.
Who you choose to apply that too is your business.
Whereas you’ve made who you choose to imply this applies to everyone’s business.
The projection, however, is telling.


Indeed it is.
 
Written By: John S.
URL: http://
I don’t think one can evaluate this situation without examining the political climate in Puget Sound
Sorry, tom, but that’s incorrect. What these thugs did was to attack a US soldier on US soil because he was wearing the uniform and acknowledged that he’d been deployed to a foreign theater. There is no justification for that. This action cannot be construed as protest, and should receive absolutely no protection under the first amendment. American citizens who attack american soldiers in time of war are committing treason. Puget sound, kansas cornfield, or baghdad. Treason. Period.
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
Your post suggested that these people who beat up a soldier were simply carrying to its logical conclusion the feelings of those who oppose the war. It think that’s an entirely illogical and nonsensical argument.
Absolutely incorrect. What I said was their position was internally consistent. That has nothing to do with their actions and it is now you conflating things.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Is English a second language, John?
Personal insult: The first resort of someone with an extremely flawed argument. Duly noted.
If you believe that to be a legitimate and internally consistent position I’m talking about you.
You have a pillory all lined up for me, or shall it be pistols at dawn?
I have no idea if those people who did this were "liberal", and frankly don’t care. Not the point.
Except that most of your commenters here somehow magically latched onto that concept. Funny that. I guess they pulled it out of thin air.
LOL!

Incredible comeback there, John. Whine about me not answering your questions and then respond with this?

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Gil wrote:
I don’t think one can evaluate this situation without examining the political climate in Puget Sound
...This action cannot be construed as protest, and should receive absolutely no protection under the first amendment...
Tom Scott did not mean that, I think, to be in any sense exculpatory. I believe he meant the plausibility that it was done by anti-war types was enhanced by the political slant common to the area.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Where in the report were the 20-something white males driving the late model Anerican made black SUV (and carrying a handgun) described as "liberals?"

Sounds more like they were on their way to a Young Americans for Freedom convention than to a Cindy Sheehan rally.

Written By: Hesiod


Hesiod,

Just ’cause you are gutless and all your friends are gutless does not mean that all liberals are incapable of violent action.

Stop projecting, and develope more appreciation for your fellow liberals.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
So the analogy isn’t as "terrible" as you’d like it to be, but declaring it so sure does avoid answering the point, doesn’t it?
Look, Republicans don’t back president Bush because they have to. They back him because they agree with him. Soldiers, on the other hand, are simply doing what they are ordered to do. If they disobey, they can be prosecuted. Sure, many soldiers support the war policy, but many don’t. And it doesn’t matter what they personally believe. The point is that they are in Iraq because they were deployed there by their commanders. So it would be downright illogical to translate your disagreement with the war policy into animus toward the troops themselves. You claim that this is the logically consistent position, but that’s just total nonsense. Perhaps there are some poor deluded souls who personally blame the troops for fighting in war than had they had nothing to do with instigating. Maybe the guys in the truck were such people. Who knows. But that is certainly not the position held by the vast majority of people who oppose the Iraq war, and it is reckless demogoguery to suggest otherwise.

You are extrapolating from one murky event to impugn the intentions of a vast swath of the country. I repeat again, how is that any different than someone who looks at the events in Haditha or Abu Ghraib and then concludes that most of our troops are sadistic thugs? It’s no different. Both are unfair and illogical.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
Gil, Tom is correct. Perhaps I didn’t state it strong enough but I believe the radicalism of Puget Sound encourages the extremism of this attack or will at least minimize the approbation due the act.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
Tom Scott did not mean that, I think, to be in any sense exculpatory. I believe he meant the plausibility that it was done by anti-war types was enhanced by the political slant common to the area.
I did not think he meant it to be. My point was simply that the political slant common to the area is immaterial to understanding the case. They did what they did. Why is of no concern to me. Or, for that matter, whether or not the thugs were internally consistent in the act. The act itself is unacceptable, motives be d@mned.
 
Written By: Gil
URL: http://
Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
LOL

That is the best you can manage after I respond to you line by line?

It was a rather interesting game, though.

For all those screaming about the treasonous "liberals" here, it’s obvious what the point of your Malkinesque post was. They got it, the rest of us get it and you know precisely what you meant to come across.

As far as your "I didn’t say ’that’ because I didn’t use the word ’that’" game, better luck next time.
 
Written By: John S.
URL: http://
Tom Scott wrote:
I believe the radicalism of Puget Sound encourages the extremism of this attack or will at least minimize the approbation due the act.
And now I’m confused about what you meant. I can see the radicalism in the area encouraging lefties to do this and making it more probable that they did, but I can’t see it minimizing the approbation due the miscreants. I also don’t think it will get them a hung jury, let alone and acquital.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Wow, a visit from Hesiod. I wondered what happened to him after he closed his blog. Hesiod became well known for calling Colin Powell "Mr Step and Fetchit". Nice to see some things don’t change.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
The suggestion that those who oppose the Iraq War harbor some secret animosity toward the men and women of our armed forces is demagoguery at its worst.

Written By: Anonymous Liberal
Certainly you can oppose a war but support the troops; I was in that position in the case of Bosnia. However, if you think the war is immoral, you naturally come to the conclusion that those who support or enable the war are also immoral, and you cannot support any of them.

So it breaks down like this:

1) Some oppose the policy of the war in Iraq on various grounds, but don’t think the war is immoral. They can logically oppose the war and support the troops (although they may not support the troops; but their opposition to the war does not preclude support for the troops).

2) Others view the war as racist, motivated by greed, etc.; inherently immoral. Their logical conclusion must be that the troops are also immoral, or clueless fools without the capacity for moral thought.

In my opinion, quite a bit of the far left falls in category 2 above. And the real world is often ’gray’, with quite a few blending 1 and 2 above (thinking the war is immoral does not preclude one from opposing it on more pragmatic grounds as well). I’ve seen elements of 2 in the arguments of various ’reasnable’ liberals.

In addition, it makes political sense to claim to support the troops, so at least some who make that claim are probably lying.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
You are extrapolating from one murky event to impugn the intentions of a vast swath of the country.
There you go again.

Tell you what AL, tell me, do you think "I support the troops and not the mission" - given the troops are an integral and irreplaceable part of accomplishing the mission and in fact can’t be accomplished without them - is an internally and logically consistent position?

If you do, I’d love an explanation. And "they have to obey" isn’t going to cut it. They also volunteered and chose to be put in a position where they have to "obey". And in case you haven’t noticed, they are also doing their level best to accomplish the mission.

So, either you don’t support the mission or you do. If you don’t how in the world can you support the very instrument of its accomplishment and pretend to be internally and logically consistent?

How?

If you choose not to be intellectually and logically consistent fine, say so.

But please don’t pretend that you are and that the position is anything more than having it both ways and avoiding the criticism that comes with the intellectually honest position of saying you don’t support the troops (which, btw, doesn’t mean you have to hate them or wish them harm) because they are an integral and irreplaceable part of the mission you don’t support.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
John S.

Please, you tried to spin McQs statements into something they weren’t and he called you on it. Then, you settled into a pathetic whine and he showed you the door. As they say, don’t let it hit you in the ass on your way out.

:)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I’ve seen elements of 2 in the arguments of various ’reasnable’ liberals.
Don, why are you framing this as a "liberal" issue? Don’t you mean:

I’ve seen elements of 2 in the arguments of various ’reasonable’ people who believe "the meme "I support the troops but don’t support the war" is a legitimate and internally consistent position.

After all, McQ said he wasn’t referring to liberals in this post, so why are you?
 
Written By: John S.
URL: http://
Please, you tried to spin McQs statements into something they weren’t and he called you on it.
Is that so, Joe?

Then pray tell why do people keep referring to "liberals" in their discussion of this anecdote?

Ah, but judging from the quality of your posts I daresy you’re capable of answering this.
 
Written By: John S.
URL: http://
Soldiers, on the other hand, are simply doing what they are ordered to do.
Which, as we learned at Nuremburg, is no defense.

Since our soldiers are volenteers, many signing up (or resigning) after 9/11 or even after the invasion of Iraq, they are indeed showing general support for our war efforts. And further, some troops have refused to participate, so clearly more could, even thought they would have to face consequences; if the war is immoral as many believe, then the proper course of action for troops is to refuse their orders.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
That is the best you can manage after I respond to you line by line?
Respond?

Those weren’t responses, John, those were avoidance dressed up as pseudo-intellectual snark. Sorry, you can play that game by yourself.

I had to give you the same answer three times and you still didn’t understand it. I see no reason to spend anymore time on someone who can’t do any better than that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Those weren’t responses, John, those were avoidance dressed up as pseudo-intellectual snark.
I find your projection rather telling.
I see no reason to spend anymore time on someone who can’t do any better than that.
Your commentariat provides far clearer answers than your quasi-intellectual snark. So by all means, refrain from any further direct response. Let them answer for you.
 
Written By: John S.
URL: http://
McQ, my friend. Are you feeling okay?...
You’re not dizzy, or seeing spots???

Because I thought you were a stickler about this sort of thing. You know, carefully choosing headlines and doing your best not to infer anything not supported by fact.

I log onto QandO this afternoon to see this,
“BABY KILLER” IS BACK IN VOGUE
And I immediately thought, Oh, McQ must have some off the cuff remark from a disoriented Howard Dean, or some ill-conceived rhetoric from MoveOn, or even a passage from an obscure blogger at The Huffington Post.
But instead I’m treated to a story about five assh*les that beat up a National Guardsman.

“Back in vogue”… Really!?
Who would have thought that these five assh*les could have such cultural and political sway?


Vogue
vogue  /voʊg/–noun
1. something in fashion, as at a particular time.
2. popular currency, acceptance, or favor; popularity
“Back in vogue”!?!?!?

Using this standard could one not post something as ludicrous as this?

GEORGIA INFANTRY GAY BASHING: BACK IN VOGUE
Five Third Infantry Division soldiers are in jail for attacking a man over the weekend. Police say the soldiers beat the man outside a Savannah gay club. The motive behind this crime? Investigators believe it was because the man is gay. In fact, one of the suspects even admitted it.
The beating has left one man a bloody mess, and an entire community looking over their shoulders, wondering if they could be next.

Now prosecutors in Chatham County are telling the story of five men ganging up on one and leaving him beaten half to death. It happened early Sunday morning in front of Blaine’s Back Door Bar on Perry Lane in Savannah.

That’s where investigators say the five Fort Stewart-based soldiers chased down, and then beat down David Bennett. After their arrest, police say one of the men used a slur while telling them he attacked Bennett because Bennett was gay.
It is anecdotes such as this which demonstrate to me, at least, that the meme which says "we support one’s right to be gay, but not their admission into the military." is mostly BS. I acknowledge this is the extreme end of the internally contradictory meme and few would actually act it out as these thugs did, but it is a difference mostly of degree, not kind. The 5 cowards who did this to the gay man are at least internally consistent in their opposition to “Don’t ask, Don’t tell.”
So I thought to myself, McQ isn’t holding to his Rumsfeldian principle of avoiding “Moral and intellectual confusion”. This is a post categorized under “The War”, so surely he must wish to separate the disgusting actions of five individuals from others who oppose the administration’s policy handling the Global War on Terror… - err… The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism… - err… The War on Islamofacism. (it’s tough keeping up.)

I hope you get well soon, McQ.

 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
Don, why are you framing this as a "liberal" issue? Don’t you mean:

I’ve seen elements of 2 in the arguments of various ’reasonable’ people who believe "the meme "I support the troops but don’t support the war" is a legitimate and internally consistent position.
No, I meant what I said. Anyone displaying elements of "2" probably doesn’t really believe the "I support the troops but don’t support the war" meme, assuming they are logically consistent.

But you may have something of a point; there are elements of the anti-war right my arguments also apply to. It isn’t exclusively a left or liberal POV, but it is primarly a left/liberal POV.
After all, McQ said he wasn’t referring to liberals in this post, so why are you?


I wasn’t aware that my arguments had to be in lockstep with McQ.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I wasn’t aware that my arguments had to be in lockstep with McQ.
It’s not really a matter of being in "lockstep". It’s more an issue of adhering to the topic at hand.

See, if McQ is talking about people who believe the meme "I support the troops but don’t support the war" and here you are responding by talking about liberals, then there seems to be some sort of disconnect.

It’s as if I brought up the color blue and you respond by telling me water is wet. One really has nothing to do with the other. So either McQ is being disingenuous with the motive behind his post or the majority of you are responding by going off on a somewhat unrelated tangent.
 
Written By: John S.
URL: http://
Just ’cause you are gutless and all your friends are gutless does not mean that all liberals are incapable of violent action.

Stop projecting, and develope more appreciation for your fellow liberals.


Speaking of gutless...have you enlisted yet?

 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
Wow, a visit from Hesiod. I wondered what happened to him after he closed his blog. Hesiod became well known for calling Colin Powell "Mr Step and Fetchit". Nice to see some things don’t change.

You can throw as many ad hominem insults at me as you want. You’re still busted for being liars and hatemongers exploiting the assault on a young service member for political gain.

How do you scumbags live with yourselves? Seriously?
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
It certainly sounds like bored, testosterone challenged leftists to me.

No it doesn’t. You think it sounds like a pack of white supremacist, rightwing antisemites.

You are just trying to pin it on "leftists," for cheap political gain.

 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
So Pug, do you believe the meme "I support the troops but don’t support the mission" is an internally consistent position?

Of course it is. The logical outcome of which is to favor ending the conflict so we can bring our troops home safely as soon as possible and give them a heroes welcome.

It’s really not that hard to understand.

It is hard for me to understand why people who think it’s a life and death struggle that we absolutely MUST win are compoletely unwilling to voluntarily serve in the conflict.

Especially with an acute shortage of manpower, 3rd and 4th tours for stressed out troops, a large strain on our guard and reserves, and recruiting problems across the board.

Either you believe it’s a life and death struggle or you don’t. And your actions speak louder than words.


 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
Go to it then. I’ll call that bluff

How many pro-Bush episodes of violence and/or threatened violence do you want me to list?
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
Tell you what AL, tell me, do you think "I support the troops and not the mission" - given the troops are an integral and irreplaceable part of accomplishing the mission and in fact can’t be accomplished without them - is an internally and logically consistent position?

If you do, I’d love an explanation. And "they have to obey" isn’t going to cut it. They also volunteered and chose to be put in a position where they have to "obey". And in case you haven’t noticed, they are also doing their level best to accomplish the mission.

So, either you don’t support the mission or you do. If you don’t how in the world can you support the very instrument of its accomplishment and pretend to be internally and logically consistent?
I’m sorry McQ, but this makes no sense to me. Armor and tanks and jets are also integral and irreplacable parts of accomplishing the mission. Do I have to not support those things if I think the war is a bad idea? Am I being internally inconsisent if I think we should still continue to purchase and maintain those things?

Let’s use a different analogy. Suppose my friend and I are at a bar and some jerk says something to him. Now suppose I think it would be a big mistake for my friend to respond by picking a fight with this guy, and I tell him so. But he goes ahead and does so anyway and it turns into a bloody mess. Does that mean I’m logically compelled to no longer support my friend and hope that he loses the fight? Of course not.

I think invading Iraq was a terrible idea. But I don’t blame the troops for that policy blunder. I blame the Bush administration. And I still hope that our troops can make the best out of the crappy hand they’ve been dealt. I think they’re brave, competent people who are doing their best, and I wish them good luck and safety. Am I being logically inconsitent? If so, how?
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
if the war is immoral as many believe, then the proper course of action for troops is to refuse their orders.

What if you merely think the war is a strategic disaster of epic proportions?

You can still believe our troops should do the best they can to protect themsleves and establish a modicum of order for as lolng as reasonmably possible.

But at some point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

George W. Bush lost this war. Not our troops. Not our commanders on the ground., Not the Democrats, Not the leftists. Not the liberals. Not even Donald Rumsfeld.

Bush did. It’s 100% his fault. He screwed up the strategy from the beginning, then put domestic political considerations ahead of sound military and political strategy IN IRAQ and the Middle East every step opf the way. Everything Bush is doing in Iraa right now has nothing to do with "winning" there, but to hold onto the idiots like you all who still thik Bush gives a crap and taht we CAN win there.

Bush is playiong to domestic politics. Period.

If you want to know why Bush lost teh war, it’s because you dumbasses enabled him to do it. You attacked critics who actually mght have prodded him to do smarter things earlier on.

And you are still doing it.

You are scum.
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
It certainly sounds like bored, testosterone challenged leftists to me.
No it doesn’t. You think it sounds like a pack of white supremacist, rightwing antisemites.

You are just trying to pin it on "leftists," for cheap political gain.
Nope. Sounds like leftists, that whole Black Flag pack of a$$holes.

If they’d been shouting white power and beating up on a ethnic minority, yes. Then, I would still condemn them, but I wouldn’t feel any desire to share the condemnation with you.

But the weren’t. They were playing your tune.
You are scum.
Quit posting in self referential second person. It’s true but creepy.
George W. Bush lost this war.
Funny thing is, the war’s almost won, and nowhere near lost.

Unless you get your way.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Armor and tanks and jets are also integral and irreplacable parts of accomplishing the mission. Do I have to not support those things if I think the war is a bad idea? Am I being internally inconsisent if I think we should still continue to purchase and maintain those things?
I’m sorry AL, I can’t play this game any longer. I’ve either explained it badly or you’re really not interested in answering the questions and prefer to go ’round and ’round.

Specific war. Don’t support it. Wouldn’t that mean to the intellectually honest person that they wouldn’t support any part or aspect of it?

And other than an red herring, what would tank maintenance have to do with that?
I think invading Iraq was a terrible idea. But I don’t blame the troops for that policy blunder.
That’s totally irrelevant to the point.
And I still hope that our troops can make the best out of the crappy hand they’ve been dealt.
Then apparently you support the mission and just think it was a bad idea that has been badly executed.

That’s fair. There, see? I’m not talking to you.

One more time: don’t support the mission. At all. Don’t want anything to do with it. Think it is wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

How would someone who falls into that category be able to intellectually and logically support the troops?

That was my position on Bosnia and I DIDN’T support the troops being involved and wanted Congress to cut off funding to a war I felt it was Europe’s job to take care of.
Suppose my friend and I are at a bar and some jerk says something to him. Now suppose I think it would be a big mistake for my friend to respond by picking a fight with this guy, and I tell him so. But he goes ahead and does so anyway and it turns into a bloody mess. Does that mean I’m logically compelled to no longer support my friend and hope that he loses the fight? Of course not.
I’ve always found it instructive to let people who pick fights over the advice of friends not to do so find out what they’ve gotten themselves into. You gave your advice, he ignored you and your advice and now he gets to enjoy the fruits of such a decision.

But it isn’t a good analogy for the situation we’re talking about because you’re emotionally invested in the friend, so you’re not likely to "hope he loses" even if it might be a good thing.

Try coming up with an analogy which doesn’t have the emotional baggage that one carries with it.

I know, some stranger asks your advice and you tell him he shouldn’t pick a fight but he does anyway. Same reaction?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Shark, do you have an ’enemies’ list, here, or what? Do you think it makes you look good to be obsessively focused on the opinions of other commenters, rather than the subject itself, to such an extent that you constantly straw-man ficticious run-throughs of their responses before they even show up?

I think it’s funny that you all show up and prove me right...

-War Pimpin’

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Go to it then. I’ll call that bluff

How many pro-Bush episodes of violence and/or threatened violence do you want me to list?
Depends...how many do you want to make up?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Depends...how many do you want to make up?
Shark, that’s funny. I can think of one.

By contrast, there’s the Democrat agents knifing tires up in (was it Milwuakee?), a good many R offices with windows shot out in 2004.

The Dems are funny.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Hesiod
You can throw as many ad hominem insults at me as you want.
Ok, now you are denying making a cheap sleazy racial slur against Powell. Very nice. Maybe you and Hamsher can get together and draw blackface pictures of people you don’t like.
you scumbags
back at you, dude.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
*100* HOORAY! Usually it’s Scientology or McKinney but today it’s almost meaningful!

HESIOD IS AN UNPATRIOIC COMMIE

McQ IS A BABY KILLER!

There I’ve insulted everyone AND taken us over 100!
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Another detainee told military investigators that American soldiers sodomized and beat him. The detainee, whose name is being withheld by The Post because he is an alleged victim of a sexual assault, said he was kept naked for five days when he first arrived at Abu Ghraib and was forced to kneel for four hours with a hood over his head. He said he was beaten so badly one day that the hood flew off his head. "The police was telling me to crawl in Arabic, so I crawled on my stomach and the police were spitting on me when I was crawling, and hitting me on my back, my head and my feet," he said in his sworn statement.

One day, the detainee said, American soldiers held him down and spread his legs as another soldier prepared to open his pants. "I started screaming," he said. A soldier stepped on his head, he said, and someone broke a phosphoric light and spilled the chemicals on him.

"I was glowing and they were laughing," he said.

The detainee said the soldiers eventually brought him to a room and sodomized him with a nightstick. "They were taking pictures of me during all these instances," he told the investigators.
It is anecdotes such as this which demonstrate to me, at least, that the meme which says "it’s a few bad apples" is mostly BS. I acknowledge this is the extreme end of the we-don’t-torture-except-when-we-do meme and few would actually act it out as these thugs did, but it is a difference mostly of degree, not kind. The 5 cowards who did this to the helpless prisoner are at least internally consistent.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
And I still hope that our troops can make the best out of the crappy hand they’ve been dealt.
Then apparently you support the mission and just think it was a bad idea that has been badly executed.
So your problem is just the verbiage, “we support the soldiers but not their mission”. Well that’s fine, then 99.9% support the mission.

The problem that you now have, is that 99.9% do not share your aversion of the terminology.

Most people will still be able to understand “we support the soldiers but not their mission” as “I hope that our troops can make the best out of the crappy hand they’ve been dealt and I believe it was a bad idea that has been badly executed.”

Notwithstanding your campaign.

Bit of advice. If you wish to convince reasonable people that this verbiage is inaccurate, perhaps you shouldn’t use five jerks out of Washington as an example.
 
Written By: p
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
That was me.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
Retief,

Charles Graner was doing nasty things as a prison guard in the US. He was a bad apple, all right, and nothing in the antidote suggests widespread behaviour or higher level approval.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
If you want to know why Bush lost teh war, it’s because you dumbasses enabled him to do it. You attacked critics who actually mght have prodded him to do smarter things earlier on.
Written By: Hesiod
He hasn’t lost the war yet. But it’s clear which side you are rooting for.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Charles Graner was doing nasty things as a prison guard in the US. He was a bad apple, all right, and nothing in the antidote suggests widespread behaviour or higher level approval.
Don, you entirely missed Retief’s point. He was mimicing McQ’s logic to reach an equally absurd conclusion. Pogue did the same thing earlier in the threat.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
But it isn’t a good analogy for the situation we’re talking about because you’re emotionally invested in the friend, so you’re not likely to "hope he loses" even if it might be a good thing.

Try coming up with an analogy which doesn’t have the emotional baggage that one carries with it.

I know, some stranger asks your advice and you tell him he shouldn’t pick a fight but he does anyway. Same reaction?
Huh? Am I not emotionally invested in the United States, the country in which I was born and raised? I don’t want my country to lose, even if it would teach us a good lesson. The only thing wrong with the analogy is that the same person who made the bad decision is the one fighting. In reality, it is our political leaders who pick the fights and our servicemen and women who get stuck with the tasking of actually doing the fighting.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
So your problem is just the verbiage, “we support the soldiers but not their mission”. Well that’s fine, then 99.9% support the mission.
OK ... even if true, that has what to do with anything?
The problem that you now have, is that 99.9% do not share your aversion of the terminology.
Again, what possible difference does that make?

Words mean things, Pogue. This is a medium that uses words. When you say "I don’t support the mission", what am I supposed to believe? That you really do and you’re just saying you don’t? That in reality you want it all to succeed but you say that to show your displeasure with Bush, Cheney, Republicans, whatever?

Or that you mean what you say?

The fact remains that "I support the troops but don’t support the mission" is in internally inconsistent position and intellectually dishonest if, in fact, you really, really, no crossed-fingers, don’t support it.

But apparently if you admit you want the mission to succeed that is more unpalatable (at least politically) to some than being intellectually consistent and honest.

It is a political meme which has replaced having to deal with the honesty of saying "I think the war sucks, I think we did it for the wrong reason and I wish we weren’t there, but I hope we win".

If you did that, you couldn’t use "I support the troops but not the mission" could you?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
But apparently if you admit you want the mission to succeed that is more unpalatable (at least politically) to some than being intellectually consistent and honest.
I understand that. But you should know, I care not for my comments to be palatable.

This isn’t the first time – and it probably won’t be the last – that you have expressed your displeasure with the terminology. Trust me, I get what you’re saying, it’s just that I disagree with it. Many phrases, if broken down and analyzed, could be proven to be intellectually inconsistent. Take for example, “Same difference”. It logically makes no sense, but people nevertheless use it.
I understand your contention with the phrase, I’ve read many posts and comments where you have explained your logic. I find your campaign academic at best and hopeless at worst.

My problem with your most recent reasoning is the use of five idiots out of Washington to somehow connect your displeasure of the term. And whether or not you specifically state that these jerks are similar to those that use the phrase that you find so objectionable, the inference is there. Evidence is the many comments your post has gathered.

It doesn’t work. Just like my parody of GEORGIA INFANTRY.

Same difference.

“Support the troops, but not the mission.”
It’s just what people say.
And if you really want to examine “words mean something”, you could easily examine the etymology of just about every word used in contemporary conversation.


Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
My problem with your most recent reasoning is the use of five idiots out of Washington to somehow connect your displeasure of the term.
They aren’t an example of the term, Pogue. As I note, they are consistent based on the story. They don’t support the mission or the soldiers.

So my reasoning doesn’t even touch them except as an entre into discussing the meme. And I figured a careful reader like yourself wouldn’t have missed that.

Oh, wait ... Pogue.

Never mind. ;)
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
They aren’t an example of the term, Pogue. As I note, they are consistent based on the story. They don’t support the mission or the soldiers.
Point taken.
It’s the same as my Georgia Infantry: Gay Bashing Back in Vogue.

The five Georgia military thugs isn’t an example of the military’s hatred of homosexuals, it is, however, consistent based on the story. It doesn’t support the military, or Georgians in general.

You see. We can agree on something from time to time.
;)
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://ceilidhcowboy.typepad.com/
I mean, "babykiller?" Couldn’t these Karl Rove wannabe dirty tricksters come up with something less cliched?

Jesus H. Christ. Yes, Karl Rove is so smart he can get gangs of operatives in the street in America with nobody the wiser, and still not smart enough to plant the WMDs in Iraq.

Did the space aliens beam that to you there, Mr. Spock? Or are you wearing your tinfoil beanie?
 
Written By: Pete Jensen
URL: http://
Just what does "support the troops" mean?

"We’re talking about what police have reported happened, unless you have reason to believe the police think this soldier beat himself up and left himself lying by the side of the road. One should assume his injuries supported his story and thus the police took what he had to say as probable and consistent with his story."

Any witnesses or other corroborating facts? Nobody has ever filed a false police report?

I only read the first few comments. Why?
Mountain, molehill, etc.
Conclusions, jumping, etc.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The Sheriff’s spokesman on the radio this afternoon said sometimes people find themselves in a situation where they decided to make up a story. He said there are wholes in this guys story and although the do believe he was attacked - it appears he knew his attackers, and he was not attacked because he was in the military.

According to KIRO TV (see link below) a witness has said it was three men in military uniform who assualted the guy.


http://www.kirotv.com/news/9772949/detail.html

You can all apologize now. and while your at it why don’t you email Drudge and the others who so badly wanted to believe this that they didn’t notice the problems with the story from the begining - and demand they correct themselves and condemn this soldier as strongly as they did when they thought it was anti-war folks who were responsible.

Myself, I spotted problems right away and contacted KIRO to complain about them running a story that was so weak. We should be getting better from our media

 
Written By: johnq
URL: http://
JohnQ believes he’s posted something very relevant, when every truth of logic and perspective remains as it was.

You cannot with any consistency say you support troops but not their mission, because not supporting the mission means you want them to lose. Ask a soldier about the consistency of that, and you leftos won’t like the answer you get 9 times or more out of 10.

It is certainly plausible that five young men motivated by anti-war sentiment would beat up a lone soldier—I’ve seen the sort in DC for the IMF protests. If it crossed their mind and they weren;t too stoned to get out of the van, they’d do it. They are working hard at being bad people.

And JohnQ your conclusion is fairly weak in itself. Unless this witness was REAL close, they can only say the attackers wore fatigues, not that they were in the military.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
You cannot with any consistency say you support troops but not their mission, because not supporting the mission means you want them to lose. Ask a soldier about the consistency of that, and you leftos won’t like the answer you get 9 times or more out of 10.

Tell that to James Webb, jerk.
You people are despicanle. Truly despicable.


http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va—webbmarines0831aug31,0,1951356.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia

"Senate candidate Jim Webb will miss the Labor Day weekend parades, picnics and speeches that open the fall campaign stretch run to be with his son, who ships out with his Marine unit to Iraq next week.

Webb decided Thursday to skip the traditional holiday gatherings in Buena Vista, Covington and elsewhere that are normally must-attend events for those seeking statewide office.

Marine Lance Cpl. Jimmy Webb, 24, is deploying with his unit to combat duty, and the Democratic challenger to Sen. George Allen chose to visit his son until he leaves.

"I’m very proud of my son. Neither he nor I want him to be viewed differently than any of his fellow Marines. He’s a tough young man and a fine Marine," Webb said in an e-mailed statement to The Associated Press.

Because Webb knows combat firsthand as a Marine who fought in some of the bloodiest engagements of the Vietnam War, the experience is particularly painful. When asked about it in an AP interview, tears glazed his eyes and he was momentarily unable to speak.

Webb, 60, said he saw his father, a tough career military man, cry just once: the day he left for duty in Vietnam.

"I can look at it as a father and as a Marine, but, for better or for worse, I am just more visible than other fathers," Webb said."

 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
Did the space aliens beam that to you there, Mr. Spock? Or are you wearing your tinfoil beanie?

Consideriung that Mr. Spock had a super genius level of intelligence, and was hyperlogical, that’s not much of an insult, you doofus.

At least call me, Chekov or something.
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
They aren’t an example of the term, Pogue. As I note, they are consistent based on the story. They don’t support the mission or the soldiers.

Ummm...nope. If we take that story completely at face value, then the only thing you can logicaly conclude is that they objected to things like the Haditha massacre, not the "mission" as a whole.

But since when do wingnuts and scumbags like you think logically?

 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
BTW, today we got bone more interesting detail about this situation. The national guardsman who was attacked is an African American.

While the police are ruling out racism as a motivating factor, I ain’t so sure about that.

 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
You cannot with any consistency say you support troops but not their mission, because not supporting the mission means you want them to lose. Ask a soldier about the consistency of that, and you leftos won’t like the answer you get 9 times or more out of 10.
Tell that to James Webb, jerk.
You people are despicanle. Truly despicable.
Why would I tell that to James Webb? There’s nothing in anything you’ve posted to make any rational person think he’d disagree with me.

In the event his son is wounded or killed, you want his sacrifice to be in vain. The despicable person is you, Hesiod.

You want us to lose.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Hesiod also spewed:
"The national guardsman who was attacked is an African American.

While the police are ruling out racism as a motivating factor, I ain’t so sure about that."
Of course you’re not Hesiod.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
While the police are ruling out racism as a motivating factor, I ain’t so sure about that.
I agree. Nobody is as racist as while liberals...just look at all those minorities in power in the DNC (crickets chirping)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
You people are despicanle. Truly despicable.
Coming from someone like you....I wear that with pride.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"The national guardsman who was attacked is an African American.

While the police are ruling out racism as a motivating factor, I ain’t so sure about that."
Great, so Washington state has racist left wing sickos.
Good on you Hesiod! You go girl!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Great, so Washington state has racist left wing sickos.
Good on you Hesiod! You go girl!


They may well have. What does this have to do with the present topic of discussion, though?
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
Coming from someone like you....I wear that with pride.

Of course you do. You are a spcipopathic scumbag. You have no conscience or moral compass.
 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
Why would I tell that to James Webb? There’s nothing in anything you’ve posted to make any rational person think he’d disagree with me.

You do know that Webb opposed the war in Iraq, and supports a withdrawl of our froces from there, don’t you?

So, by your dumbass logic, Webb doesn’t support his own son — a marine Lance Corporal who is shipping off to Iraq after Labor day.

 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
In the event his son is wounded or killed, you want his sacrifice to be in vain. The despicable person is you, Hesiod.

Me and Jim Webb, who obviously hates his son. Right, dumbass?

Did you people suffer sever head trauima when you wre toddlers or something? How else to explain your complete lack of intelligence.

Nobody could be born that stupid.

 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
Well, well, well....
Authorities are continuing to investigate a National Guardsman’s claim that he was attacked earlier this week in Parkland and called "a baby killer."

A witness who came forward after the incident told KIRO 7 Eyewitness News a different story about what happened on Tuesday morning, but deputies said the witness later changed that story when they interviewed him.

The witness told police he saw several men in uniform beat a man in civilian clothes, but later changed his account to back the guardsman.

Investigators said the witness’s stories were inconsistent with the guardsman’s, and they are back to "square one" in the investigation.
Who knows what the hell happened.

 
Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://
Great, so Washington state has racist left wing sickos.
Good on you Hesiod! You go girl!

They may well have. What does this have to do with the present topic of discussion, though?

Written By: Hesiod
URL: http://


Two elections worth of voting ’left’ for President...
Presumably anti war, certainly anti military white guys beat up on a
black soldier...
Hmmmmmm
What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Yesterday it was likely these guys were Republican lackeys of Rove, today you don’t know what happened.
How else to explain your complete lack of intelligence.

Nobody could be born that stupid.
My sentiments exactly....


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Me and Jim Webb, who obviously hates his son. Right, dumbass?
If like you he wants his nation and his son to lose, then yes.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
BABY KILLERS in Canada

I came up with a replacement technology for chemical paint removers.

Which a Scientist at Environment Canada claimed
would reduce the incidence of
1)Childhood Leukemia
2)Bronchitis
3)Asthma
4)Infant Mortality
That makes my opposition responcible for baby’s deaths...therefore they are BABY KILLERS

Designed a replacement for chemical paint removers, pirate versions are everywhere (Vac Trucks)Prior to Boeing approval on all the aircraft they manufacture.

"Scientists" claim would reduce the incidence of Childhood Leukemia, Bronchitis, Asthma and Infant Mortality.

Designed a Nuclear Waste clean up and disposal system (that works).

Designed an Alternative Energy System "Human Excrement + Nuclear Waste = Hydrogen"

First to suggest GPS ground art.

Stopped the Deep Rock Disposal of Nuclear Waste at Sudbury Ontario

First to suggest that the planet will shift in its rotation to achieve a new position of dynamic balance after the polar ice caps melt.

First to suggest Gravity Fluctuations killed the Dinosaures.

Ran in a Federal Election against Stockwell Day to stop the lowering of age of accountability from 12 years old to 10 years old.

"Exposing the conspiracy for the mass incarceration of Canadian Youth".

Charged the Commissioner of the RCMP with perjury before the Senate of Canada.

Solicited evaluation of The Earth Charter by the Earth Council prior to presentation at the Hauge and endorsement by U.N. Security Council.

Solicited evaluation of the Nafta Environmental Act by the University of Southern California at Berkely Global Peace and Conflict Studies.

Designed Environmental Technology that will reduce the use of Pesticides and Herbicides in the Tree Fruit Industry.

Terminated a serious Air Rage incident over Washington D.C.

Taken Hostage in Mid east, got my self released.

Air Ambulanced a Canadian out of Africa .



3

Drove ambulance in Toronto for 2 years, while prohibited from driving as a "danger to society" in B.C.

Stopped the City of Kelowna from victimizing citizens and tourists with $100 j-walking tickets.

Stopped the City of Penticton from ordering the illegal arbitrary searchs of all rental accomodations.



What have they done to poke the bear?



Arbitrary imprisonments, malicous prosecutions, numerous assaults, tortured, prohibited from working and driving, and on and on and on !

I am prohibited from owning Intellectual Property Rights (arbitrary beaurocrat actions)

Federal Government refusal of Compensation (arbitrary beaurocrat actions)

I am prohibited from working (arbitrary beaurocrat actions)

I am prohibited from driving (arbitrary beaurocrat actions)

I am denied welfare (arbitrary beaurocrat actions)



Dennis Baker

103-66 duncan avenue west

penticton B.C. canada

V2A 6Z3


 
Written By: dennis baker
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