It's funny: all of a sudden bloggers are being held to public figure-like standards, maybe higher.
Not to condone Kos's over-year-old comment, but blog's are the ultimate in freedom of expression, akin to daily diaries (err, diatribes). It's the perfect venue for speaking one's mind.
I'm sure everyone of us who's posted at least once wishes they could retract certain incendiary, over-the-line statements. But that's the beauty of this thing, you really can't.
In that vein, I don't know whether I'll ever forgive myself for postin' about cereal: http://twogoodlegs.blogspot.com/2004/05/versatile-solutions-to-modern-living.html
ARM, you can't really be confused. He's saying that we shouldn't be there. He's also making the observation that the military desperately needs people, and those of you who are all gung ho about this war from a distance aren't rushing to enlist to help out the effort where it is needed most.
And T-bag, I think Kos described pretty well the sentiment behind his comments. Yeah, unfortunate.
But, I understand from both of you that it is much easier to attack the messenger and change the subject than defend your vehement cheerleading for a war you have no intention of putting your own neck on the line for.
arm - there is nothing inconsistent between his distaste for hiring mercenaries with our tax money and his calling for the fervent supporters of this war to put up now that we're running short on enlisted soldiers. Puffy, you know this.
T-bag - you've reverted to the tired business of accusing your fellow citizens of being less American than yourself, and of hoping we "lose" in Iraq. Patent nonsense. We're all hoping that the democratic Iraqis succeed. (I guess that means we "win")
At the end of the day we've got over fifteen hundred Americans and countless other people who have been killed to protect us against a threat that did not exist. Now we're running short on people who are willing to sacrifice their lives for that duty. I'm saying those lives weren't worth it. You war cheerleaders are saying those lives most surely were worth sacrificing, but YOUR lives most surely aren't.
(1) Kos did not "cheer" the death of anyone. If you had an honest desire to get to the bottom of his sentiment, you'd read his retraction, apology, and explanation of his childhood experience with mercenaries, in which he stepped over bleeding bodies. Know what that's like? Me neither. Ready to ignore the retraction and explanation in order to shoot for cheap political points? Well, you've already answered that.
(2) It's not "the liberals" who are saying the Army is running short on recruits. It's the frickin Army.
(3) "To claim those who haven't enlisted shouldn't be allowed to support a war they are not personally fighting is absurd." Fair point. Support the war all you want. But acknowledge the moral calculus you have engaged in. You have determined that the Iraq war is worth putting hundreds of thousands of lives at risk... but not your own. Ah, the bravery.
(4) Israel has breached many more UN resolutions than Iraq ever did. I suppose we invade them next. How about trying some other rationale.
(1) Kos did not "cheer" the death of anyone. If you had an honest desire to get to the bottom of his sentiment, you'd read his retraction, apology, and explanation of his childhood experience with mercenaries, in which he stepped over bleeding bodies. Know what that's like? Me neither. Ready to ignore the retraction and explanation in order to shoot for cheap political points? Well, you've already answered that.
(2) It's not "the liberals" who are saying the Army is running short on recruits. It's the frickin Army.
(3) "To claim those who haven't enlisted shouldn't be allowed to support a war they are not personally fighting is absurd." Fair point. Support the war all you want. But acknowledge the moral calculus you have engaged in. You have determined that the Iraq war is worth putting hundreds of thousands of lives at risk... but not your own. Ah, the bravery.
(4) Israel has breached many more UN resolutions than Iraq ever did. I suppose we invade them next. How about trying some other rationale.
(1) The cheerleader has made the determination that the war IS worth sacrificing SOME American lives.
(2) The cheerleader has also made the determination that his OWN life shall NOT be put at risk of being sacrificed for this cause.
(3) The fact that the cheerleader does not handpick the soldiers who DO go to war does not diminish the veracity of points 1 and 2. The cheerleader has determined that whatever lives may be put at risk, his own will not be one of them.
Freak - No, I wasn't saying that Bush's life isn't at risk (though I question your suggestion that he is in greater danger because he chose to send soldiers to Iraq). I suppose the lives of all American Presidents are at risk in a sense.
I was simply drawing a parallel between the FIGURATIVE war "cheerleaders" (those folks who avidly support sending other young men to Iraq) and Bush, who was LITERALLY a cheerleader in his youth. That's all.
So ARM, assume the military runs drastically short on manpower (and we're not there yet, but assume). Does the cheerleader oppose a draft as a matter of principle, because it violates individual autonomy? Does the cheerleader believe that the war should be fought with an undermanned (and far less effective) military if necessary?
Freak, you seem to have bought deep, deep into the system.
Just curious (seriously), did your opinion ever change from the day Col. Powell scared the be-jeebus out of us--testifying to the world that Saddam had WMD and was working on nukes and an attack imminent--to NOW when it's clear that that was all merely fiction and different reasons are given for justifying the war?
From my position, frankly I feel betrayed, and I'm far from being a soldier riding around in an unprotected HumV in the heart of the kill-zone.
11 Comments:
Kos retracted and explained his unfortunate comment.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/2/175739/8203
Um, end of story.
Come on, T-bag. I expected more out of you than to recycle wingnut non-scandals.
Now pick up those pom-poms and get back to work.
It's funny: all of a sudden bloggers are being held to public figure-like standards, maybe higher.
Not to condone Kos's over-year-old comment, but blog's are the ultimate in freedom of expression, akin to daily diaries (err, diatribes). It's the perfect venue for speaking one's mind.
I'm sure everyone of us who's posted at least once wishes they could retract certain incendiary, over-the-line statements. But that's the beauty of this thing, you really can't.
In that vein, I don't know whether I'll ever forgive myself for postin' about cereal: http://twogoodlegs.blogspot.com/2004/05/versatile-solutions-to-modern-living.html
Ahh, cereal, sugary sprinkles from heaven.
ARM, you can't really be confused. He's saying that we shouldn't be there. He's also making the observation that the military desperately needs people, and those of you who are all gung ho about this war from a distance aren't rushing to enlist to help out the effort where it is needed most.
And T-bag, I think Kos described pretty well the sentiment behind his comments. Yeah, unfortunate.
But, I understand from both of you that it is much easier to attack the messenger and change the subject than defend your vehement cheerleading for a war you have no intention of putting your own neck on the line for.
arm - there is nothing inconsistent between his distaste for hiring mercenaries with our tax money and his calling for the fervent supporters of this war to put up now that we're running short on enlisted soldiers. Puffy, you know this.
T-bag - you've reverted to the tired business of accusing your fellow citizens of being less American than yourself, and of hoping we "lose" in Iraq. Patent nonsense. We're all hoping that the democratic Iraqis succeed. (I guess that means we "win")
At the end of the day we've got over fifteen hundred Americans and countless other people who have been killed to protect us against a threat that did not exist. Now we're running short on people who are willing to sacrifice their lives for that duty. I'm saying those lives weren't worth it. You war cheerleaders are saying those lives most surely were worth sacrificing, but YOUR lives most surely aren't.
(1) Kos did not "cheer" the death of anyone. If you had an honest desire to get to the bottom of his sentiment, you'd read his retraction, apology, and explanation of his childhood experience with mercenaries, in which he stepped over bleeding bodies. Know what that's like? Me neither. Ready to ignore the retraction and explanation in order to shoot for cheap political points? Well, you've already answered that.
(2) It's not "the liberals" who are saying the Army is running short on recruits. It's the frickin Army.
(3) "To claim those who haven't enlisted shouldn't be allowed to support a war they are not personally fighting is absurd." Fair point. Support the war all you want. But acknowledge the moral calculus you have engaged in. You have determined that the Iraq war is worth putting hundreds of thousands of lives at risk... but not your own. Ah, the bravery.
(4) Israel has breached many more UN resolutions than Iraq ever did. I suppose we invade them next. How about trying some other rationale.
(1) Kos did not "cheer" the death of anyone. If you had an honest desire to get to the bottom of his sentiment, you'd read his retraction, apology, and explanation of his childhood experience with mercenaries, in which he stepped over bleeding bodies. Know what that's like? Me neither. Ready to ignore the retraction and explanation in order to shoot for cheap political points? Well, you've already answered that.
(2) It's not "the liberals" who are saying the Army is running short on recruits. It's the frickin Army.
(3) "To claim those who haven't enlisted shouldn't be allowed to support a war they are not personally fighting is absurd." Fair point. Support the war all you want. But acknowledge the moral calculus you have engaged in. You have determined that the Iraq war is worth putting hundreds of thousands of lives at risk... but not your own. Ah, the bravery.
(4) Israel has breached many more UN resolutions than Iraq ever did. I suppose we invade them next. How about trying some other rationale.
(1) The cheerleader has made the determination that the war IS worth sacrificing SOME American lives.
(2) The cheerleader has also made the determination that his OWN life shall NOT be put at risk of being sacrificed for this cause.
(3) The fact that the cheerleader does not handpick the soldiers who DO go to war does not diminish the veracity of points 1 and 2. The cheerleader has determined that whatever lives may be put at risk, his own will not be one of them.
No sleight of hand there.
Freak - No, I wasn't saying that Bush's life isn't at risk (though I question your suggestion that he is in greater danger because he chose to send soldiers to Iraq). I suppose the lives of all American Presidents are at risk in a sense.
I was simply drawing a parallel between the FIGURATIVE war "cheerleaders" (those folks who avidly support sending other young men to Iraq) and Bush, who was LITERALLY a cheerleader in his youth. That's all.
Take a breath, Freak, and step away from the keyboard. You might crack a nail for your overzealous stance on the war.
So ARM, assume the military runs drastically short on manpower (and we're not there yet, but assume). Does the cheerleader oppose a draft as a matter of principle, because it violates individual autonomy? Does the cheerleader believe that the war should be fought with an undermanned (and far less effective) military if necessary?
Freak, you seem to have bought deep, deep into the system.
Just curious (seriously), did your opinion ever change from the day Col. Powell scared the be-jeebus out of us--testifying to the world that Saddam had WMD and was working on nukes and an attack imminent--to NOW when it's clear that that was all merely fiction and different reasons are given for justifying the war?
From my position, frankly I feel betrayed, and I'm far from being a soldier riding around in an unprotected HumV in the heart of the kill-zone.
Post a Comment
<< Home