From gordo, I see there’s been an incident at the Vietnam War Memorial that might have been vandalism, though the National Parks Service won’t commit to anything definitive. Naturally, the right wingers are going nuts, eager to use this incident to look tough without doing something so drastic as actually signing up to serve in Iraq. Michelle Malkin ends her angry (but not angry enough to serve, of course) post with this ominous quote:
Vandalism. Desecration. Cowardice. Coddling.
Enough is enough.
Coddling? Enough is enough? I dare say that Malkin is implying that our insufficiently fascist government should respond to a maybe act of vandalism by uncoddling someone, but who? It’s not like the police are shrugging their shoulders and saying, “Do de do, who cares if someone vandalizes the Vietnam War Memorial.” They’re investigating the crime. If they find who did it, I suspect that person or persons will be charged with a crime and be punished to the full extent of the law. What more could she want?
Eh, rhetorical question. We all know what she and the other mouth-breathers want, for this to be an excuse to start random round-ups of loyal dissenters.
I feel the strong need to point out that there’s something really rich about rapid war supporters adopting the Vietnam War Memorial as a symbol, considering that the memorial is an unsubtle protest against pointless, wasteful wars like the Iraq War. The list of names is supposed to remind the audience that war is a horrible waste of human life and shouldn’t be undertaken for reasons like right wingers and George W. Bush are insecure in their masculinity and/or just really get a rise out of killing some foreigners. It’s about the far-too-high price paid to line the pockets of war profiteers and to boost the egos of those in government who can’t stand the idea that there’s things in this world outside of their control. It’s not, like Malkin and company want it to be, a tribute to war but a protest against it.
Like Gordo says, there’s a chance that this really is vandalism and it really was performed by supposed war protesters. If that’s so, then it’s the insane anti-war protesters who don’t seem to really be in this to stop the war so much as to be self-aggrandizing assholes. They picked their target well, in any sense, because just like the war supporting wingnuts, the Vietnam Memorial’s quiet protest against the waste of war offends their sensibilities. If some leftist nuts did this, then they’re proving that there’s no substantial differences between extremists on either side; they need the war to give their lives dramatic juice as much as the assholes who clog up Malkin’s site. Ostensible enemies, the Malkin fans and the (supposed) leftist nuts who did this, but basically the same people.
74 Responses to “How not to protest unjust wars”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Let’s not forget just how much the flag-waving brigade hated the Memorial when it opened. Too much grief, too much awareness of the futility of killing good people for other people’s mistakes, so much so that they insisted on adding on a statue of some soldiers nearby. For the Right to impliedly claim the Memorial now as something like their own property is an act every bit as obscene as its vandalism.
I had to click on the link to be sure–the only “proof” so far that ANSWER had anything to do with this is that they’re holding a rally in DC soon? I mean, I wouldn’t put it past them–there are members of ANSWER who are stupid enough to do it–but there are also plenty of other people who would do such a thing, including, dare I suggest, someone desperate to make the anti-war movement look bad. But far be it from Gordo and Malkin and the rest to actually wait for the police to make an arrest or issue a statement or anything before assigning blame.
Incertus, the ANSWER people in DC have been defacing public property by GLUING their posters advertising their rally to posts, mailboxes, and walls, sometimes putting up half a dozen in the same place. I’m as anti-war as anyone, and I’m not saying they vandalized the Memorial, but they’ve been pissing people off in DC by their vandalism so much that it at least seems possible. They’ve been turning more locals against the rally than for, which is saying a lot in a town of liberal Democrats.
seeker–
Good point. In fact, the whole reason there was such a push to erect a war memorial (this was before there was a Korean or WWII memorial) was that many vets feared that the wingnuts were trying to flush the memory of the entire conflict down the memory hole.
Incertus–
Neither I nor Amanda mentioned the word “proof”. But as Meredith pointed out, ANSWER is already vandalizing sites around DC. I stand by what I said: if the perp turns out to be from ANSWER, I won’t be at all surprised. In fact, I’ll be surprised if it’s not someone from ANSWER.
***
I’d also like to comment on a point that Amanda touches on: Malkin’s assertion that this is the result of “coddling” protesters. According to Malkin, anyone who demonstrates against the war ought to be arrested, and the publishers of the New York Times ought to be tried for treason.
It’s clear that Malkin would prefer to live in a fascist state. I just wish she’d move to one, instead of trying to screw up the USA.
Like I said, Meredith, it wouldn’t exactly shock me if there were some ANSWER people behind it–they’re really good at self-justification, and playing the whole “greater good” card, as though they have some special dispensation to act like assholes, so something like this wouldn’t be all that surprising. But couldn’t Malkin et al at least wait until the cops actually say something on the matter? Of course she couldn’t–she’d lose her chance to “out in front of the story” or something equally stupid.
No, I definitely agree with you. Malkin shouldn’t have made the accusation without proof, not the least because then if it is someone/a group with ANSWER, she’ll get to crow some more about how she rules, liberals drool (and should be imprisoned for treason), etc.
Well, even if it is or isn’t ANSWER doesn’t change the fact that there’s exactly no justification for advocating the arrest of loyal dissenters. She’s a fucking fascist. I’m mostly signing onto condemning the vandalism for the same reason I suspect gordo is, to remind people the vast majority of war opposers, even those of us who were against this from the beginning are solid patriots. In fact, it’s our patriotism that positions us against the war. We love our country and want it to do the right thing. But now I’m just ranting.
Can’t help myself, I just have to link to the Rude Pundit on this one:
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/full-metal-jack-off-night-before-his.html
It’s been well over a decade since I visited the Vietnam Memorial, and it’s still one of the most overwhelmingly sad experiences of my life. As you walk along, and the wall starts getting higher, and the names just keep filling it up, and you see the little things people leave against the wall, the flowers and the notes, and the people who just stand there, with their fingers pressed against an engraved name…it makes a crushingly powerful statement that even those tacked-on statues can’t dilute. And the thought of some shitbags desecrating that place makes me feel ill, but not nearly as ill as a total fucking fascist like Michelle Malkin cynically using that desecration to take a predictable cheap shot at the antiwar movement does.
It gives me a cold chill to realize how little the war supporters are affected by that. It’s a powerfully done monument, each name representing an entire mysterious little world, all gone in an instant and for nothing. It’s weird that names are so powerful. Each of us has a name and each of us has a bed and some books we like and pets and favorite music and personal eccentricities and moments of private victory and snuggles with lovers and moments of crushing sadness and people who love us and….hope I guess. A future. Every human is a world and war just runs over that like stomping out an anthill. I can’t see how you can really take in all those names and not walk away feeling that the only way a war can be just is in the most extreme circumstances, when the human spirit or life itself is on the line. Which is clearly not the case in Iraq, where it’s mostly oil profits on the line.
Bella, I’ve never been to the Vietnam Memorial, but when I was an undergrad, the traveling memorial came to my university and was set up for about a week, and it had a very similar effect on me. I felt destroyed for quite a while after that.
Steve Gilliard (bitterly, bitterly missed) used to make the point, that people and families are destroyed by these losses. Many of them never get over it, and sort of sleepwalk through the rest of their lives. I mean, it’s more than ten years on since I visited that memorial, and I still get tears in my eyes when I remember it. I can’t imagine how it would feel to have one (or more) of those names be directly, personally meaningful to me. My dad has four friends’ names on that wall, and he is, like Super Wingnut, but that wall just fucked him up. Whatever is missing in the spirits of the frothing war supporters like Malkin isn’t missing in him, I am so relieved to say.
I’ve always wondered how quickly sycophants like Malkin would change to the other end of the political spectrum if it became more profitable.
I get the feeling that for most of these people what comes out of their mouths is based purely on profitability. Very few of them really seem to have any actual beliefs (except the belief in money).
That’s why it’s so easy for them to go from decrying the obscenity and offense of the design of the Vietnam Memorial (which they all did when it was new), to upholding it as a black stone representation of the awesome might of America - and somehow conveniently skipping over the searing truth that lies behind the engraved names of those who died for nothing but the egos of small people.
Sick…
Bella, thanks for bring up Gilliard. His loss was really tragic. We need people like him to slice through the patriotic bullshit and get right down to the raw undeniable reality underneath…
I’ve seen it and it takes your breath away. It’s a timeline, a collection of names, a piece of art, a slice of history…
It’s not what I expected. It sort of grows out of the ground into an angled wall, builds up to a corner, at which point you’re underground looking at it, it takes a turn, and goes back down into the ground.
advocating the arrest of loyal dissenters.
Amanda:
Exactly where did Malkin “advocate the arrest of loyal dissenters”?
Mike, I miss Steve’s voice so much. I could share his anger (oh boy, could I) but I never felt despair when I read his stuff. His anger was invigorating, and never hopeless. He made me want to go out and kick ass, not curl up and cry.
Well, Cowboy, please explain how one quits “coddling” in this situation. I’m serious. Explain who is being “coddled” and how such “coddling” led to this vandalism and how one proposes stopping such “coddling”. I eagerly await your explanation, because at current moment it seems she’s implying that allowing an anti-war movement is the problem and of course the only way to stop an anti-war movement is to terrorize war protesters with random arrests.
Remember before you begin to bloviate: There is no reason to believe the law is not interested in arresting the actual vandals. So any kind of “coddling” would have to be of people who did not directly vandalize, since the law is going to be enforced against actual vandals. By necessity, her argument invokes harassment and arresting of innocents since the guilty are not let off the hook. So which innocents do you feel she is suggesting we arrest or at least harass?
“Exactly where did Malkin “advocate the arrest of loyal dissenters”?”
She didn’t.
Just like the rest of the wingnuts, Malkin and her ilk usually speak in coded language and seldom actually say it out straight. You have to hear the dog whistle pitch and use your handy wingnut decoder to get the real meaning.
But Cowboy, you knew that already. You’re just seizing on something to form an attack on Amanda rather than actually listening to what she is saying.
But I guess facing the fascist truth behind the rantings of a nutcase like Malkin is just too painful…
They way wingnuts sleep at night is by imagining that all those dead soldiers were heros. Which is to say, they believed in the noble cause in Vietnam and gladly died to liberate the Vietnamese from themselves.
That is how they deal with the dead in Iraq too. The think that this is a cause worth dying for. (or at least they think that as long as they don’t have to be killed)
I appreciate vandalism that desecrates military worship.
The Vietnam Memorial looks like an almost literal enormous black scar upon the face of the nation, which is pretty much what pissed people off in the first place. Seeing it in person is just about overwhelming, and seeing it appropriated by warmongers is just about nauseating. Seriously, these people all need to see Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision.
Ah but it isn’t a high price Amanda. It’s really quite small, John Boehner said so.
(oh, and the new dissemblege buzz word is “investment”).
The WALL IS is the memorial of protest. If you want the “military worship” Vietnam Memorial, just turn around.
http://thewall-usa.com/wallpics/wallnew4.htm
This is the one commissioned after the (right wing hated) Wall went up. This is the one commissioned to appease the Rah, Rah, Flag Waving Brigade.
My deceased exhusband, a vietnam vet, could never work himself up enough to visit the wall - even the traveling wall was too tough. I don’t know of many, if any, other war memorials that vets of the era have to work themselves up to visit. I wish he would have, he may have been able to exercise some deamons, or at least finally, and really mourn his buddies.
tpx you are wrong on this one
As someone who is a foreigner, a student of the war and one who counts himself an anti-war sympathizer I found the memorial a most moving experience. As folks have commented, it was opposed by many right-wingers but is a far more fitting tribute than the one the more bellicose vets wanted. Just look at the ugly and inappropriate bronze near the black vee, all overstated muscular heroism.
The wall is a sacred place. So I hope the vandals get their just desserts. If they happen to be anti-war protesters, that’s just too bad. Proof that all organizations have their share of assholes who go too far and who deserve to be shunned.
Lee Brimmicombe-Wood–
It took me four paragraphs to say that. And I think the shunning part is important. And I think the shunning part is important.
I came across the story about the wall being vandalized while I was writing something on John Boehner’s comments, the ones Clytemnestra refers to. My point was that by refusing to repudiate Boehner’s comments, the wingnuts tacitly endorse the idea that the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is a “small price to pay.” While I was checking to see if Malkin had any comment (she didn’t), I saw the bit about the Memorial.
Well, if they’re required to shun the crazies, we’re required to do so as well. But It’s worth pointing out that our crazies are a bunch of trustafarians that make us feel embarrassed. Their crazies are the most powerful people in the movement.
Amanda,
Ever read “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer? The last two sentences of your post would make a fair summary. My prefered one is that religious/communist/facist/whatever crazies are more crazy then whatever.
Wise words. We must be seen to shun them. Though only after the evidence is in an due process makes it clear that these were misguided protesters and not simple malicious vandals.
clytemnestra, I didn’t know that was supposed to be the warmongering memorial. I really like the analysis in Preacher, stated by a character who’s a Vietnam vet. I don’t have the book in front of me here at school, so I’m going to have to paraphrase — but he says something like “It’s like these guys just came off patrol in the boonies, and they come out of the trees and they see this wall, and they’re like ‘Damn….somebody remembered.’”
Preacher has a complicated sensibility to it, but it’s definitely not pro-Vietnam-war, and that character is certainly not.
And dude, if that’s the war-mongering memorial, it’s the least war-mongering one I’ve ever seen. Those guys look scruffy, exhausted, and stunned — like real people, in other words, not like fantasy heroes.
And agreed — tpx is wrong on this one.
tpx - you can’t separate the individual personal tragedies of soldiers killed in war from the military memorials to them. You can’t separate them because the memorials are always designed to keep them intertwined. You attack the memorial because of military associations and you inevitably attack the people memorialized, wether they volunteered or were drafted.
I’m tempted to simply tell you to go fuck yourself, as I’ve been to the memorial and seen the families tearfully making rubbings of their loved one’s names, and the little gifts they leave. Trampling on their grief in order to make a statement that could just as easily be made in some other way is simply the work of an unmitigated asshole.
Caroline -
Granted, it’s not Grant on a horse, or the typcial solitary civil war solider statue - but ideas about appealing, strong, protective masculinity have changed somewhat and statue like that wouldn’t fly these days. But the three in the vietnam war memorial are young, strong, tough, self assured, etc. etc.
I never used the words “war-mongering memorial” in either of my comments. I used the term “military worship” (with quotes) to throw tpx’s own words back.
I also used the words “Rah, Rah, Flag Waving Brigade” but I am hardly the first one to say that. The first comment on this post from seeker6079 used the last three words, I just added “rah, rah” to them.
It may have had a more modern, unkept sensibility, but I thought it still projected muscular heroism. An image of unbowed strength, however weary. In proximity to the chapel-like wall, it seemed clumsy and inappropriate.
clytemnestra, I wasn’t intending to attack you, and war-mongering wasn’t intended to be a quote. I’m sorry it came off that way. I was rather clumsily trying to express honest surprise. I’m too young to have been around when the Wall and the statue were erected, so I’m not aware of the political context of the statue, and had drawn a pretty different conclusion about its meaning.
And of course, nobody (I doubt even ANSWER) is applauding this vandalism. Nobody. If anyone has a link to ANY liberal saying “yay rah, but let’s pretend to be upset for the PR value”, I think it probably goes straight to pulledoutofmyass.com.
Malkin et al know this. They truly don’t give a shit about Vietnam veterans or, for that matter, any veterans; they just want talking points to keep them in power and speaking fees.
False Flag? It makes sense to me. Ask yourself who benefits. If you need to get your prowar busybodies dander up enough to “patrol the mall” what do you do?
You know, my “concernitarian ” persona suggested GOE coordinate a round the clock volunteer patrol of the Vietnam Memorial to ensure just such an incident wouldn’t occur. For some reason, they weren’t so enthusiastic, despite that being the purpose of the first GOE.
When I went to an Iraq War protest in DC, after it was over the first memorial I wanted to see was the Vietnam Memorial. I had to tell a woman to kindly stop TALKING LOUDLY ON HER CELL PHONE so that some of us who choose to actually, you know, feel something upon viewing the memorial could actually do so without hearing about her plans for the night.
According to Malkin, I would have been the one talking on the cell phone — THROUGH A BANDANA MASK!
Caroline -
So we are both guilty of, at times, being clumsy in expressing ourselves
…. no problems
I remember very well when the memorial was first dedicated, but I don’t really remember that the “flag-waving brigade hated it” as seeker says. That may have been the case, I just don’t remember it.
However, I don’t think it’s that difficult to see how the pro-war crowd can claim this memorial as their own.
For one thing, as gordo has suggested, hawks don’t see a list of 48,000 dead Americans as an anti-war argument. The thought of a dead soldier might make someone like me say “how can we stop this from happening,” but it makes someone else say “this was for the best.” The fact is, the memorial doesn’t belong to either of us. It makes an emotional impact by overwhelming us with the names of real people who died in that war, but it allows us to make our own conclusions about why they died and whether it was necessary.
In addition, the Vietnam memorial represented a national act of contrition. For those who believed that the GIs returning from ‘Nam received no welcome home other than being spat on by dirty fuckin hippies, the memorial was a belated but imperative induction of Vietnam vets into the club of the honored dead.
We all take our own lessons from the debacle of the United States’ intervention in Southeast Asia. For some of us, it warned us to avoid adventuresome wars. It reminded us to reserve our scorn for the generals and politicians, not the footsoldiers. For others — among them, people sitting in the Executive branch — it simply demonstrated that the government needs to work harder to manufacture consent and crush dissent.
from wikipedia:
*James G. Watt was so right wing that when he came to Colorado and looked out at a beautiful mountain ridge all he could think of was how many homes could be built on it.
Some people’s psychic insights into Malkin’s motivations are amazing. Life would be a lot easier for me if I could divine people’s true feeling by consulting my own.
I don’t think Malkin is advocating a government crackdown. I think she is arguing for something I read about a lot on this site - changing what is socially acceptable. This kind of statement -
“I appreciate vandalism that desecrates military worship.”
when viewed as acceptable, enables vandalism of military recruitment offices, attacking soldier-students on college campuses, and vandalism of war memorials.
A social attitude among anti-war supporters that condemns attacking the things held sacred by war vets would go a long way to reducing the frequency of this kind of incident. Instead, it is not hard to find articles on DailyKos and Huffington post stopping just short of calling soldiers bloody-minded mercenaries.
Kudos for bringing this up, Amanda. The great thing about the Vietnam War memorial is that it is personal for everyone. You see it as a war protest. I see it as a tribute to the selflessness of men like my father who may not have agreed with what their government was doing, but stepped up when their government called. I think it would be a stretch to seeing it as a celebration of that war, but I’m sure there are some deluded souls out there who see it just that way.
If this defacement is anything more than just stupid kids trying to destroy something, I can’t see it as anything but an attack on those who gave their lives for this country.
Wow, what an asshole. Even as a sixth grader who fancied himself a Republican, I did a little dance when Watt resigned.
Anyway, thanks for the info, clytemnestra.
The wall is a sacred place. So I hope the vandals get their just desserts.
So let me ask an interesting question - what if the people doing this were victims of your war, relatives of one of the millions killed or perhaps one of those maimed by the chemicals you dropped on Vietnam?
I love the way the assumption that it is all about the domestic costs creeps into every discussion of war in the US. You can see it happening with Iraq already.
Wow, Phoenician in a time of Romans, as a person who went to college with someone whose entire back and top of their head was so badly scarred it was barren of hair and due to the Napalm we dropped on his village, me thinks you know, you’re insightful question stopped me in my tracks.
(I never asked if the scarring affected any other part of his body)
Apart from the comment by tpx above, what exactly would be the polemical point of throwing goo on a war memorial? Breaking the windows of Starbucks or McDonalds is a stupid way to protest, but it’s following a logic: “I hate what this stands for.” Burning a flag, same idea. Who hates what the Vietnam memorial stands for? (Apart from the original righties who found it insufficiently triumphalist.)
I can imagine someone writing a message on it, trying to capitalize on attention to the last war to lament the current one: “Remember Vietnam, Remember Iraq”; “Coming Soon: Iraq War Memorial,” that sort of thing. But an oily substance… I don’t see how that would be a political message, not without some additional context.
from gordos blog
Dwight, your insincere attempts to imply there’s broad social support for vandalizing war memorials have fallen short. No one really believes it exists. So, we need to move on. Having eliminated all potential alternate meanings about social support (which doesn’t exist), perhaps then Malkin is expressing a zero tolerance policy for the real anti-war movement, which is respectful? Since she already personally has zero tolerance, to move beyond would require some sort of force….perhaps government force?
Look, if Malkin sends out messages that are intended to be read between the lines, you can’t cry foul if the “wrong” people read the message that the “right” people were meant to hear. We’re not stupid, yo.
dwight who in this forum agreed with the staement “I appreciate vandalism that desecrates military worship”?
Look at the comments that follow. Nobody agreed. It was ignored precisely because we did not approve of it.
Maybe that is insufficient but it is pretty obvious that nobody else, and specifically Amanda, thinks that the people who vandalized this memorial should be treated as anything but criminals.
Phoenician in a time of Romans - and for my next trick I’ll write a coherent sentence …
I hope you understood what I meant.
I’ve been to the Vietnam Memorial several times. Each time I leave absolutely destroyed.
How many more people need to die for nothing?
Still trying to figure out how throwing some oily goop could be any kind of antiwar statement… is it supposed to be a “No blood for oil” kind of thing? Or is it mostly that people around Malkin’s environs figure that krazy lefties are just prone to smash up things, logic be damned?
I had the same reaction at first FlipYrWhig vefore I found out what it would do to the granite.
Before I found this out I was going to leave a “hairbrained” comment that I thought the light oil might have been done by a right winger warmonger.
Because if this were a “no blood for oil” why not use a heavy oil, like motor oil - just go pick one up at the local Shell or Mobile on your way to your protest.
A light oil sounds more like something/someone was being annointed — which related to war, would be a right winger warmonger.
I never implied that there is broad support for this kind of action. I certainly never implied that Amanda thinks the vandals should be let off easy. In fact, I commended her for bring it up. I did state (and stand by it) that there is a lack of opposition to this kind of action. Right now this incident is not mentioned on the front page of either HuffPo or DailyKos.
The lack of response to that one comment further up in the thread is the kind of inaction that concerns me. If you don’t loudly condemn that kind of statement when it pops up, you deserve to be judged with the worst of your supporters, just like it is correct to judge those on the Right by their lack of condemnation of Ann Coulter. Which is why I applaud this post. You obviously don’t approve of this action, and publicized your disapproval.
Is there a difference between “lack of broad social support” and active disapproval by an entire community? I believe there is.
And while I agree that there is not widespread general approval for these kind of statements, you don’t have to look very hard to find established, respected bloggers and commentators on major sites stating outright that soldiers are stupid and mean, and that the military is evil. You don’t have to look hard at all to find these kind of statements in comment threads. Usually, if there is any response, it’s along the line of, “well, I wouldn’t go quite that far…”.
Malkin has already stated that she agrees with the internment of Japanese American citizens during WWII. I doubt that if she thought we should be arresting protesters that she would feel the need to hide behind fuzzy implications. The more shock and outrage, the bigger her paycheck, no?
The difference between us and the right wing is that mainstream right wing commentators retransmit the ideas of their radical fringe in a slightly tamer or more obtuse form and we generally do not. Look at Boehner’s statement and then look at the contemptous statements made by Malkin and Coulter about the unwillingness of the Left to fight and stick it out and how if our current leftists had been present during previous conflicts, when so many more soldiers died, then those conflicts would have been lost too. The implication of latter is that the sacrifices made in this war have, in fact, been small.
No one in this forum is offering even a modified version of the statement made upthread. It is disingenuous to assert that our behavior is the same as the right wing. The right wing does not disavow it’s nuts it uses them as inspiration.
Really I don’t recall reading any established bloggers who said soldiers are “stupid and mean”. I have read a lot of commentary about how the strain of war forces people to do “mean” things but I have never seen the Eschaton post that read “Our Military: Made of Mean Idiots? Indeed”
Personally, I’d like to have a bit more information about what happened before expending a lot of indignant energy decrying The Kind Of Person Who Would Do Such A Thing. We don’t know that it’s an “action” or “a statement,” let alone who was making that statement, or who created the conditions that may have led someone else to make that statement. There’s a lot of dots to connect to get from “Goop found on memorial” to “liberals tacitly condone memorial be-gooping.”
you don’t loudly condemn that kind of statement when it pops up
The nice thing about this kind of game-playing is that you can define “loudly” to mean whatever you want. Oh, you condemned it? It’s not on the front page, so it doesn’t count. Or, it’s not on EVERY liberal blog. Or, you didn’t use strong enough language to condemn it. Etcetera.
You wag your finger at ‘mind-reading Malkin’ when it’s negative, but are happy to turn around and read her thoughts in a good way to your own ends.
B+ for effort, though.
“…you don’t have to look very hard to find established, respected bloggers and commentators on major sites stating outright that soldiers are stupid and mean, and that the military is evil.”
Sorry Dwight, you don’t get to make this kind of statement without providing at least one link to a “established, respected blogger” at a “major site” stating outright that soldiers are stupid and mean without someone calling bullshit. Link please. Just one?
Something tells me that’s going to be a bit harder to find than you think.
calls them mercenary, naive, frustrated, confused:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_troops_also_need_to_suppor.html
Kos called soldiers bad parents for risking their lives. He also said the Blackwater soldiers deserved what they got.
I can’t remember which HuffPo contributor argued that joining the military is voluntary, thus all that have joined since the war began are morally corrupt.
I don’t argue that the left and the are equally guilty of this. I think RW radio, in particular, is horrible about repeating falsities. But pointing to the other side and saying “They’re worse about it!” doesn’t excuse our own behavior.
Mercenaries.
Blackwater is a vile company beholden to no one but its owner. It should not exist.
The lack of response to that one comment further up in the thread is the kind of inaction that concerns me.
See comment #30 by yours truly.
“Kos called soldiers bad parents for risking their lives. He also said the Blackwater soldiers deserved what they got.”
Markos IS a former soldier, so that “bad parent” thing doesn’t fly.
As far as Blackwater is concerned, they’re being paid much of the money that should be used to pay and care for our legitimate soldiers, while operating beyond the law. Their salaries are many times what a real American soldier is paid, and in effect that money is coming right out of the soldier’s pocket.
Blackwater and the other mercenaries are only there so Commander Codpiece doesn’t have to call for a draft (with its corresponding heavy political price), and to pay off loyal Reichwing contributors. It’s crooked as can be…
MAJeff–
Right. Blackwater mercenaries, not soldiers. Big difference. And the real soldiers often have to risk their lives extracting these mercenaries from the messes they’ve blundered into.
And good point about Kos being a veteran.
dwight–
Please explain what Malkin meant by “coddling” peaceful antiwar demonstrators. Was there an incident where police cooked lunch for demonstrators, or offered to give them foot massages? If she’s not talking about the occasions on which protesters were not arrested, what is she talking about?
Also, you take William Arkin’s words out of context. The fact that you have to pull out individual words instead of citing complete sentences is certainly revealing. Quite clearly, he’s saying that soldiers aren’t justified in equating protests against the war with lack of support for the troops. He’s right, of course– after all, nobody criticized those soldiers for not supporting their fellow Americans, and there are now many soldiers in Iraq who favor withdrawal.
Finally, it’s beyond silly to criticize the left for not picking up this story. The fact is, it hasn’t been in the media. I only happened to see it when I looked at Malkin’s site for info on another story. Amanda only saw it when she looked at mine. And of the 5 wingnut sites I looked at, only Malkin’s had anything on the vandalism, and her report came 4 days after the actual incident.
Which is exactly what Markos was reacting to in anger. Mercenaries put soldiers’ lives at risk.
This is just wierd.
There really isn’t any propaganda value (for anyone) in “discolouring” a war memorial. Blowing it up, maybe, but a minor act of vandalism like this serves no purpose (except, perhaps, the one it already has begun to accomplish, encouraging centrists to dissasociate itself from the active anti-war movement).
I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to be police agents provocateurs. Or someone from the far right.
remember when I was in high school sometime between 1986-1988, my school group visited Washington D.C. Reagan was President and the week we were there someone carved a swastika into one of the panels of the Vietnam memorial. While disgusting and tragic it was pretty much treated like a random act of vandalism. It does require a lot of work, sanding down and re-engraving the names.
In fact, I commended her for bring it up. I did state (and stand by it) that there is a lack of opposition to this kind of action. Right now this incident is not mentioned on the front page of either HuffPo or DailyKos.
Oh, because I didn’t get shrilly exercised about some bullshit stupid vandalism, which may have even been a stupid mistake instead, and because I let the police do their work rather than trying to make it into some kinda cause celebre, that means it’s my fault Dwight? So, if some random idiot squirts WD-40 on the vietnam memorial for some stupid reason, and I don’t spend like a day trying to ‘get the word out’ about it, that means I somehow support the random idiot and his/her act of random idiocy? Do you and I have to protest every act of random idiocy in the world, or in my country? If so, Dwight, we are gonna be really, really busy. In fact, Dwight, I really doubt that you or I could protest every random idiot and their act of idiocy.
But thanks for trying to blame it all on me, asshole.
I’m tired of this bullshit from people who, because of whatever mental problem, take symbols and flags far more seriously than they take people’s lives.
The fact that nearly 4000 US troops have died, and tens of thousands of US troops are severly wounded, many for life? No problem. A small price to pay. That something like 100,000 Iraqis have been killed, and their country reduced to rubble? Who cares?
Oh, but some dumbass kid sqirted WD-40 on the Vietnam Memorial? Well fuckin’ stop everthing, it’s a national emergency!!
dwight, call them what they are: the Blackwater employees are mercenaries, effectively outside the chain of command, ludicrously expensive, and wholly accountable to the oversight process.
But pointing to the other side and saying “They’re worse about it!” doesn’t excuse our own behavior.
Actually, dwight, I’m not claiming two wrongs make a right. I’m pointing at you and your shrieking buddies and saying “You’re being dishonest, opportunistic assholes who just showed us all–again–that your most fervent wish is for your ideology to be the dominant regime in a Stalinist state.”
Even though I appreciate the desecration of military worship displays, I do not consider the wall to be such a memorial. I was just stating my dislike of all of the public displays for warrior worship in America. In my city they actually fly the South Vietnamese flag next to the US one at their Vietnam Occupation memorial.
Sure, the Americans who killed Vietnamese were trapped by circumstances and their sacrifices are worthy of grief; their memories and descendants should be free of political comment. However, the public displays of our warrior worshiping culture need to come down just like the statures of Stalin were.
Anyway, almost no-one outside of Michelle Malkin seems interested in this, so who gives a shit.
I’ll bet that Michele Malkin would have done very well in Vichy France.
Let us not forget that Petain was an arch-conservative, a veteran and a member of the establishment.
The list of names is supposed to remind the audience that war is a horrible waste of human life and shouldn’t be undertaken for reasons like right wingers and George W. Bush are insecure in their masculinity and/or just really get a rise out of killing some foreigners.
you see, those are their MARTYRS now. And all the Iraq war dead are also their Martyrs. Plus and especially the ones who will die in the next few months, covering Bushco’s ass - er, SUCCEEDING in Iraq.