February 01, 2007
Secular Progressive Twins Separated at Birth?
Take a listen to this audio clip of Wa Po columnist William Arkin as he labels U.S. troops mercenaries and says that they should not expect that there will not be Americans back home who criticize the worthiness of their mission.
Uh news-flash Mr. Arkin, most Americans recognize the vacuous and craven bromide of "we support the troops but not the war" for what it is, which is a carefully reworded and updated Vietnam era anti-American slogan.
Anyway, does this Arkin guy sound like a certain anti-military, lame, secular progressive Puget Sound blogger / radio show host or what?
And you just have to enjoy the harmony and natural order wherein whiny anti-military, anti-American cowards have been blessed with whiny nasally pubescent voices to match.
Posted by JeffB. at February 01, 2007
11:37 PM | Email This
Thanks for the link JB. Unfortunately we're sliding back to the 60's with mobs screaming "BABY KILLERS!" as they attend rallies, make that freak shows, now stocked with the likes of Sean Penn and his grandma Jane Fonda. Ah those rallies; all those stilt walkers, huge papier-mache heads, Bush masks - costumes and banners galore. Wonder where they get the time to do all that creative design work? Probably part of their masters or PhD programs.
Spitting on homecoming GI's is coming.
One soldier's take on Arkin:
WaPo Weasels II
Contributed by Russ Vaughn
Want to slam our soldiers, Arkin?
Well here is one to slam.
I got used to Lefty slamming
When I came back from Vietnam.
So you want to put a muzzle
On our brave fighting men?
Well try muzzling me you jerk,
Just tell me where and when.
Your profession needs a lesson
In basic free speech rights,
For those you worms all hide behind,
For those who fight your fights.
Like all your soft and smarmy kind,
You really have no clue,
Who American warriors truly are,
What our warriors truly do.
How many times in your four years
As a chair-borne analyst,
Were you within an oceanís width
Of combatís hard mailed fist?
How many medals did you earn
In those warrens at Fort Meade?
In four years of four-eyed service,
Just what was your bravest deed?
FOX news has combat warriors
To help us understand the score,
While MSM uses clerks like you,
Who have never been to war.
Your resentment of your betters,
Seeps through your bitter writing,
And shows you have no clue or care
Of those who do the fighting.
Like your ivy-cloistered Comrades, your warís between the classes,
Dialectics, speeches, theory, your heads firmly up your asses.
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
3. Uh news-flash Mr. Arkin, most Americans recognize the vacuous and craven bromide of "we support the troops but not the war" for what it is, which is a carefully reworded and updated Vietnam era anti-American slogan.
Uh, newsflash for you, Jeff. "Support the troops but not the war" is the sentiment most Americans hold, so I doubt that they find it vacuous or craven. Still, it's nice to see that you and your ever-dwindling minority have a place where you can hang out and comfort each other with myths of widespread disrespect for our soldiers.
They are not my words, they are Arkin's. There is a widespread disrespect for the soldiers. Saying that the soldiers are living with obscene amenities is disrespect when the actuality is they are in difficult and often deplorable conditions with their lives on the line. Go look at the pictures. Do you call soldiers hunkered in a mud foxhole an amenity?
If you can't connect the dots and see that calling the soldiers mercenaries, or undeserving of obscene amenities, or believing that they have the moral high ground at all times, or that they are engaged in daily Hadithas, or that they are unaware of antiwar sentiment, (all Arkin's words) then it is you that is living the myth.
There's a big difference between not supporting the war as a tactical mistake, and questioning whether there were enough troops at the beginning, or whether we should have first concentrated on Iran, and outright denying the inevitable need to confront a violent extremist philosophy that attacks us.
The number of Americans, including myself is definitely on the rise when it comes to the former. However, when it comes to a general sense of pacifism, isolationism, and an ignorance of real threats, those craven and vacuous abdications are the province of only the Americans on the extreme and America hating left.
The words I quoted at the top of my comment were clearly yours, Jeff, not Arkin's. You said that most Americans think the idea of "support the troops but not the war" is a vacuous bromide. I pointed out that wasn't likely, since "support the troops but not the war" is precisely the sentiment held
by most Americans. If that's not what you meant to say, I can't help it. Try proofing your posts next time.
Most Americans do respect our soldiers. Arkin is just one guy. Condemn his words if you like, but you're fighting a strawman if you think most of us think of our soldiers as pampered mercenaries. I certainly don't, but I do think the Iraq war is a horrible mistake that was dishonestly launched and ineptly prosecuted by the commanders and their commander-in-chief.
Your rage is blinding you, but you need to take a look around. You are not part of a growing movement that thinks we need to escalate in Iraq or start another war in Iran. You are part of a shrinking minority. Despite the name-calling, most of the rest of us are as serious about dealing with Islamist threats as you claim to be, we just recognize that Bush's policies have been making things worse, not better. And we hold him responsible, not the troops.
Scott, there are two different arguments, I will address both:
My original argument was with Arkin. You seem to agree, that he is indeed one guy who does not support the troops. Dispense with the nitpicking, Arkin has back pedaled, the point is that he is wrong. His characterizations of the military were over the top.
Secondly, with respect to virulent Islam, fine, let's take the name calling out, etc. We are still left with a violent ideology. What's your solution? You seem to think that confronting Iran or Iraq or any action is wrong, with 20-20 hindsight of course. I'm in agreement that Bush has conducted the Iraq war poorly. But the solution in not more cautious policy. War is a blunt tool. It was never meant as a simple and quick means of resolution.
We are not thinking about starting a war with Iran, it is the opposite. It is five minutes until midnight. Iran has been conducting a proxy war against the US in Iraq, and with respect to their Saddam like escalation of nuclear capability. They have called for the extermination of our ally in the Middle East, and done little to respond to calls for diplomacy. Their escalation continues. You might view the world as a place where isolationism, or focusing on our failures is a means to and end, but reality will not support that thesis.
If not now, then when Iran does something more egregious, there will be grounds for action.
That's the nice thing about violent Islam. If it hasn't made itself clear enough to cowardly American secular progressives, it will do so soon.
Hopefully then we will be able to count on your support, and you won't take offense when we say "I told you so." And you will apologize and note that there would have been less casualties to begin with if our military was not continually hamstrung by anti-war harping from the left in the first place.
Most Americans want to win. And if win means refocus, then fine. But it does not mean retreat.