Radical Left Haters

[Guest Patriot]

That wonderful radical left, that has brought us so many great americans like Jane Fonda and Tim Robbins has blessed us with another great american. William Arkin, the NBC "war analyist" and Washington Post blogger has called our military "mercenaries". What a piece of sh-t.

[Guest bewildered]

That wonderful radical left, that has brought us so many great americans like Jane Fonda and Tim Robbins has blessed us with another great american.  William Arkin, the NBC "war analyist" and Washington Post blogger has called our military "mercenaries".  What a piece of sh-t.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He has since apologized.

[Guest Guest]

That wonderful radical left, that has brought us so many great americans like Jane Fonda and Tim Robbins has blessed us with another great american.  William Arkin, the NBC "war analyist" and Washington Post blogger has called our military "mercenaries".  What a piece of sh-t.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you post a link?

[Guest Doubting Thomas]

That wonderful radical left, that has brought us so many great americans like Jane Fonda and Tim Robbins has blessed us with another great american.  William Arkin, the NBC "war analyist" and Washington Post blogger has called our military "mercenaries".  What a piece of sh-t.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When I Google Willaim Arkin and mercenaries I get a large number of links to right-wing commentary but I've been unable to find a direct linl to Arkin's alleged statement.

Alleged? Absolutely! Given your demonstrated willingness to post lies her in the past it's purely an allegation until proven otherwise.

And if true the man's an idiot! But if you'd like to try and paint the entire left based on one man just remember that door swings both ways. It's no stretch to find a few examples on the right who are equally heinous.

And you conveniently overlook the fact that idiot though she may be, Jane Fonda's actions did nothing to validate America's ill-advised involvement in Vietnam. JFK knew it and MacNamara knows it now.

[Bryan]

When I Google Willaim Arkin and mercenaries I get a large number of links to right-wing commentary but I've been unable to find a direct linl to Arkin's alleged statement.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarnin..._to_suppor.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarnin...ponsibilit.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarnin...ml?nav=rss_blog

[Calybos]

Here's the relevant links.

Yes, William Arkin did say "mercenaries" in regard to U.S. troops: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarnin...uppor.html#more

He also apologized for it: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarnin...st_11.html#more

He has also reiterated his main point, that unquestioning blind support for anything--even the sacred "troops," especially after the numerous scandals that have emerged--is a dangerous mentality for so-called patriots to adopt. And on that point, I agree with him.

[Guest Guest]

When I Google Willaim Arkin and mercenaries I get a large number of links to right-wing commentary but I've been unable to find a direct linl to Arkin's alleged statement.

Alleged?  Absolutely!  Given your demonstrated willingness to post lies her in the past it's purely an allegation until proven otherwise.

And if true the man's an idiot!  But if you'd like to try and paint the entire left based on one man just remember that door swings both ways.  It's no stretch to find a few examples on the right who are equally heinous.

And you conveniently overlook the fact that idiot though she may be, Jane Fonda's actions did nothing to validate America's ill-advised involvement in Vietnam.  JFK knew it and MacNamara knows it now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well Thomas..here you go... of course i wont be surprised when an apology isnt forthcoming..

Commentary by William Arkin.

I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.

I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.

I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.

Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.

Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."

First up was 21 year old junior enlisted man Tyler Johnson, whom Engel said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing."

"You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me," Johnson said.

Next up was Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He complained that "one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."

Next was Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain," he said.

These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people.

But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work. The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.

I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.

Source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarnin..._to_suppor.html

Typical..first he insults their honor...then goes with the tired old Richard Belzer Defense, that they're stupid and Naive.

[Guest Patriot]

Well Thomas..here you go... of course i wont be surprised when an apology isnt forthcoming..

Commentary by William Arkin.

I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.

I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.

I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.

Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.

Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."

First up was 21 year old junior enlisted man Tyler Johnson, whom Engel said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing."

"You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me," Johnson said.

Next up was Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He complained that "one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."

Next was Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain," he said.

These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people.

But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work. The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.

I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.

Source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarnin..._to_suppor.html

Typical..first he insults their honor...then goes with the tired old Richard Belzer Defense, that they're stupid and Naive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On The O'Reilly Factor tonite, General McInerney referred to William Arkin as a "scumbag". Kudos to the General !!

[an American in Texas]

Guest, you seem to be unclear on the concept of a citation. It means you're supposed to tell us where these words came from . . . the published source. For example, a link to a transcript of the broadcast. Or heck, even the date, time, and name of the program on which the guy said the words you say he said (we could then try to find the source for ourselves). Or perhaps a link to his apology, in which he presumably tells us when and where he screwed up.

What you've provided leaves the question of whether he actually *said* this stuff completely up in the air. Perhaps he did; but if so, you should be able to tell us where and when.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

[Guest Doubtin Thomas]

  Typical..first he insults their honor...then goes with the tired old Richard Belzer Defense, that they're stupid and Naive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So? The man's an A**!

That doesn't mean that others' critcism of Bush's MISleadership and poorly thought out policies is not valid.

[Strife767]

On The O'Reilly Factor tonite,  General McInerney referred to William Arkin as a "scumbag".  Kudos to the General !!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, this is an unexpected twist. Instead of making the ad hominem yourself, the whole post is simply pointing out someone else's ad hominem and praising it. You must be so proud of yourself.

[Guest Guest]

Guest, you seem to be unclear on the concept of a citation.  It means you're supposed to tell us where these words came from . . . the published source.  For example, a link to a transcript of the broadcast.  Or heck, even the date, time, and name of the program on which the guy said the words you say he said (we could then try to find the source for ourselves).  Or perhaps a link to his apology, in which he presumably tells us when and where he screwed up.

What you've provided leaves the question of whether he actually *said* this stuff completely up in the air.  Perhaps he did; but if so, you should be able to tell us where and when.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well Leigh, obviously they don't teach reading comprehension in Texas..because, if you had bothered to LOOK, you would have seen this, which was pretty prominently displayed at the bottom of my original post, just before my own comment.

"Source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarnin..._to_suppor.html "

The Clue for you should have been the designation "Source" which was the Washington Post Blog that this individual writes for... Oh wait..isnt it the "Source" that you were looking for?? Now that tells ME that You

A: Were unable to recognize the word "Spource" (obviously not since you demanded it)

B: Were just so utterly quick to bash anything said by anyone on this forum that you just didnt bother to READ the article in the first place, or;

C: Are just another ignorant ass who has to try and get the last word in no matter what, even when you are incorrect.

[Guest Steve_C]

Technically since the American military is supposed to be somewhat under the auspices of Iraqi control i.e. setting the rules of engagement and determining where the troops can go...

There is a mercenary aspect to their role in Iraq.

From dictionary.com

noun;

3. a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.

They are professionals and they are serving in a sense as a foreign army.

And it is a volunteer army. Also many soliders when they're tour is done

are signing up to join "private security" firms, where they are paid better

than in the U.S. military.

Oh and Patriot is a D**bA**.

[Guest Patriot]

Well, this is an unexpected twist. Instead of making the ad hominem yourself, the whole post is simply pointing out someone else's ad hominem and praising it. You must be so proud of yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

More accurately, I'm proud of General McInerney.

[Guest Guest]

More accurately, I'm proud of General McInerney.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

General McInerny has become just another stooge of the right wing.

Anytime Fox News to be a military mouthpiece for the delusional , he's only a phone call away.

I think it's well past dog track time for him.

[Guest Lazarus]

Actually, a lot of the soldiers in Iraq are part of private security firms that pay their soldiers better, but generally do a poor job, as demonstrated in Fallujah. So yeah, those guys are mercenaries.

[an American in Texas]

Well Leigh, obviously they don't teach reading comprehension in Texas..because, if you had bothered to LOOK, you would have seen this, which was pretty prominently displayed at the bottom of my original post, just before my own comment.   

"Source: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarnin..._to_suppor.html "

The Clue for you  should have been the designation "Source" which was the Washington Post Blog that this individual writes for... Oh wait..isnt it the "Source" that you were looking for??  Now that tells ME that You

A: Were unable to recognize the word "Spource"  (obviously not since you demanded it)

B:  Were just so utterly quick to bash anything said by anyone on this forum that you just didnt bother to READ the article in the first place, or;

C:  Are just another ignorant ass who has to try and get the last word in no matter what, even when you are incorrect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

None of the above. Simply blind as a bat and overlooked it. Mea culpa and apologies.

Leigh

Leigh

[Guest Patriot]

Actually, a lot of the soldiers in Iraq are part of private security firms that pay their soldiers better, but generally do a poor job, as demonstrated in Fallujah. So yeah, those guys are mercenaries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ha ! I suppose we can credit your brilliant insight to the vast experience you've gained while watching CNN and swiging beer. Loser.

[Guest Guest]

Well, this is an unexpected twist. Instead of making the ad hominem yourself, the whole post is simply pointing out someone else's ad hominem and praising it. You must be so proud of yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Back to your town job strifey.

[God Save Us From Christians]

None of the above.  Simply blind as a bat and overlooked it.  Mea culpa and apologies.

Leigh

Leigh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Note to the Christians: this is how free-thinkers are able to exist in the world without Jesus. We can admit our mistakes, apologize, and move on.

we admit when we are wrong, not like Christian fundamentalists, who know all the answers and condemn everyone else to hell.

[Guest Guest]

Note to the Christians:  this is how free-thinkers are able to exist in the world without Jesus.  We can admit our mistakes, apologize, and move on.

we admit when we are wrong, not like Christian fundamentalists, who know all the answers and condemn everyone else to hell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ad hominem.

[Strife767]

Back to your town job strifey.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Friday's my day off.

[Guest bewildered]

Ha !  I suppose we can credit your brilliant insight to the vast experience you've gained while watching CNN and swiging beer.  Loser.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As opposed to watching FOX and swigging moonshine?

[Guest Patriot]

Note to the Christians:  this is how free-thinkers are able to exist in the world without Jesus.  We can admit our mistakes, apologize, and move on.

we admit when we are wrong, not like Christian fundamentalists, who know all the answers and condemn everyone else to hell.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You haven't admitted the biggest mistake of your lives.

[Strife767]

You haven't admitted the biggest mistake of your lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh! Pray tell, what mistake is that, o ironically-named one?