Rule of thumb: If you think somethng is "pretty low", chances are its actually dead nuts on.
Posted on 06/21/2007 9:47:13 AM PDT by berstbubble
The partisans can only imagine how we soldiers must feel over here because few have ever been to any combat zone. A political line they love to use to quash opponents’ views always says something about “slapping the troops in the face.”
We heard it months ago, when the resolution disapproving the surge was passed. When Nancy Pelosi visited Syria and Harry Reid said Iraq was lost, we heard similar whining about facial slappage and disloyalty to country.
For the record, we soldiers don’t care. Let me clarify: Frankly, my dear, we don’t give a damn. We soldiers are not the ignorant, simple lot of lore. We stuff iPods in our rucksacks and watch DVDs in our sleep tents between missions. Soldiers study for college classes between missions and receive Army-mandated training on ethics and values.
......
Lively debate over the issues, heated disagreements and strong voter participation are bedrocks of our democracy. We don’t care when people with opinions different from ours run their mouths on Fox or CNN, regardless of whether those opinions are for this war or against it. What bothers us is when pundits use us troops as a trump card to insult fellow Americans as unpatriotic. That’s the true slap in our face.
(Excerpt) Read more at thestate.com ...
I suggest you personally tell him you think he is lying.
Maybe you could post his response?
That’s fine but does it mean Brad Hamlett is a liar?
I honor Russak and Hamlett, armchair.
Sure Ace. There were more than a few veterans punching back at treasonous weasels like John Kerry, your hero.
Are you going to call Hamlett a liar when you email him?
Why don’t you write him and thank him for his profound truthfulness.
As do the majority of people who pray for the success of the mission. The libtard freepers are another story.
No need to, FRick, we’re kindred spirits.
No sh*t. Two liberals.
(I’ve been away from the computer and wanted to respond to those who have replied to the article).
I thought several things were interesting. First, that I had never read an editorial like this before- like I said if a serviceman pipes up in anyway against the war it is usually at a Peace Rally and then months later you find out that he was never in the service anyway.
Second- The State has done a very good job covering locally soldiers and has even gone to Iraq and Afghanistan to follow our local troops. An article on Father’s Day covering a man and his son both serving was particularly moving. I didn’t get the feeling that this was an anti-war hit piece, just another view that I had not considered.
Unless I’m giving the guy too much credit, the message that I got from the piece is that the soldiers can take care of themselves and are not a monochrome of thought and opinion. There are certainly those who agree with the war and those who don’t, but none of us here at home have the right to use the soldiers as pawns for our arguments, for or against. Those in favor should not use the sacrifice of our troops as an argunment and those against should not use those who have suffered and died as props (like parades of flag draped caskets or empty combat boots).
Truth is that we should always support our troops wether we agree with the mission or not as they sign up to defend our nation. They don’t get to pick and choose based upon the popularity of the mission.
Some didn’t agree with Clinton’s use of the military in Bosnia but that doesn’t mean we don’t support and appreciate those who went to that conflict. When Bush I sent troops to Somalia, Rush (Limbaugh) called it a Pizza Delivery mission and belittled it from the start but no one assumed that he was making fun of the troops. You have to love and appreciate the troops no matter what, even when we are in an unpopular war or even at peace.
I think that this guy was saying just that. The military should not be used by either side as a prop.
Very . . . Very good.
Coming from a K.W., I’d expect nothing less.
Those who come from a brotherhood-in-arms understand your shortcomings.
I still think it’s pretty low that you would refer to a real warrior as a liar on a public forum, but not have the guts to do the same in a personal email. There are names for that type of behavior.
One can reasonably conclude two things. One, he is either left leaning or a Buchananite (going after both “neocons” and Christians makes one suspicious) Two, he is being dishonest when he says politics don’t matter to the troops, in as much as he may be taken for an example, as he has publicly been involved in political discourse for some time:
http://sjedit.us.publicus.com/article/20070501/NEWS/705010321/1051/NEWS01
http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070401/OPINION/704010313/1008/rss03
http://forum.newshounds.us/viewtopic.php?t=11835&view=next&sid=7d2d712af91b62a09ce7c0e5e5fdf8af
Rule of thumb: If you think somethng is "pretty low", chances are its actually dead nuts on.
In other words, a flaming liberal and hero to our libs here.
this is baloney. Most troops vote overwhelmingly Republican
we don’t even know if this guy is really a soldier.
I hope that you are not saying that you support the troops who agree with you and vote the way you want them too.
The author of the editorial does not say if he agrees with the mission or not, I think he is saying that wether you agree with the mission or not, it is not right to use the troops as ammunition in a political argument, pro or con, specifically because the troops are not all two dimensional. Troops are people and people come in all kinds.
see post 33.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.