April 25, 2004
EMPATHY FOR INK
Anti-war leftoids cry when cartoon soldiers lose a leg and laugh when a real soldier loses his life.
UPDATE. The Chicago Boyz have more on the tragedy of limbless drawings, and those who are moved by them.
Posted by Tim Blair at April 25, 2004 06:45 PMTim, more lefty idiots here.
A sample:
"On Thursday, Tillman's platoon was repelled after a baby-killing raid in eastern Afghanistan. The 27-year-old Ranger, who graduated summa from Arizona State University, was cut in half and killed. His brother Kevin, a former minor-league baseball player, is a member of the same platoon lost both legs and an eye."
Posted by: Reckers at April 25, 2004 at 07:19 PMTim, what a digusting display of hypocrisy!
At least, it would be, if the two pages that you link to were written by the same person, which is not the case.
Thus it is just a disgusting display of idiocy, in this case yours.
Posted by: Michael at April 25, 2004 at 07:25 PMI bet the real heroes to these arseholes are comrade Stalin's Commisars who motivated the glorious red army to victory against the fascists.
Posted by: JBB at April 25, 2004 at 07:36 PMJBB, that's an interesting thought! Man, if only the Romanovs had been able to hold on to power, or the Nazis had succeeded in their conquest of Russia. You were just advocating tyranny and invasion, weren't you?
Posted by: Michael at April 25, 2004 at 07:43 PM> "if the two pages that you link to were written by the same person, which is not the case"
The People! United! Will Never Be Defeated!
Oh, wait, seems The People aren't all that United after all. Some jeer at Tillman's death; others feel sympathy for him but think Afghanistan is a Racist War (Wait? isn't it the good Bush war? -- Y'know the one the UN and the French and the Germans approved?); still others approve Afghanistan but not Iraq.
Posted by: Uncle Milk at April 25, 2004 at 07:53 PMYes, confusing isn't it Uncle Milk. Not everything's as inked as black and white as Uncle Blair sees it.
Though that was a particulary disgusting headline for the indymedia thing. Complete at odds with the sentiments raised by by the first piece.
Tim, surely you can do better than this half-arsed attempt to knit together two quite disparate posts into one strawman.
Posted by: Eric Bogle at April 25, 2004 at 08:18 PMThat Indymedia post, together with some of it's comments, is the most revolting thing I've seen in a long time. I just posted this response:
>>You sick hate spewing morally anchorless bastards. How in the name of all that is good and holy can you post such depraved, hateful bile? Let's say you're right about Iraq; it's all a corrupt scam and we're accomplishing nothing good. Even then, the death of a soldier who--however misguided--gave up everything for what he believed in is absolutely *not* something deserving of the snide, detatched amusement reflected in this headline.
THINK about what you are saying! If he died for something worth fighting for, he's a hero. If he died for nothing it's a horrible tragedy. Under no circumstances is it something to laugh about. Some of you need to examine whatever malignant blight on your soul makes you capable of being amused by this, before it's too late.
I agree, though, with the comments above to the effect that this isn't so much an instance of hypocracy as it is more evidence that Indymedia is completely out of touch with the less psychotic elements of the Left. It really isn't fair to judge progressives by these people, any more than to judge conservatives by the KKK.
Posted by: Nathan at April 25, 2004 at 08:30 PMI suppose I should have said Afghanistan instead of Iraq. Think maybe they'll latch onto an irrelevent technicality and totally miss my point? If not, want to by some swamp land in Arizona?
Posted by: Nathan at April 25, 2004 at 08:32 PM"If he died for something worth fighting for, he's a hero. If he died for nothing it's a horrible tragedy. Under no circumstances is it something to laugh about. Some of you need to examine whatever malignant blight on your soul makes you capable of being amused by this, before it's too late."
Rather like that American girl who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer eh? :)
Lucky no-one found *that* funny...
Posted by: Michael at April 25, 2004 at 08:54 PM"If he died for something worth fighting for, he's a hero. If he died for nothing it's a horrible tragedy. Under no circumstances is it something to laugh about. Some of you need to examine whatever malignant blight on your soul makes you capable of being amused by this, before it's too late."
Rather like that American girl who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer eh? :)
Lucky no-one found *that* funny...
Posted by: Michael at April 25, 2004 at 08:57 PMYes, Nathan, people may argue as much as they like about whether a war is just or right, but that is no excuse for denigrating the sacrifices that people make for joining our armed forces - the people who do the serving and sometimes dying.
Tillman made a decision to put aside big sums of immediate money for adventure, service and a real challenge. It's pretty clear that had he survived, he would have gone on to be someone who'd have made a real difference.
That's the real tragedy of war and one that that I think the first post Blair linked to was trying to make.
While I tend towards the progressive end of the spectrum, the indymedia response was just nasty, f**king dumb and plain foul.
The only person who could possibly forgive indymedia for that post that would be Tillman himself - because he was (is) so much bigger than them in so many ways that'll they never know.
Posted by: Eric Bogle at April 25, 2004 at 09:14 PMRachel Corrie was in the same leauge as indimedia Michael.
Posted by: Gary at April 25, 2004 at 09:24 PMActually, the first link made Tim's point all by itself. Why would anyone choose to illustrate the cost of war by using undeveloped pen-and-ink characters instead of their flesh-and-blood counterparts?
There are plenty of stories about soldiers and Marines - real ones - recovering from war wounds. It takes a lefty to prefer a lefty cartoonist's self-projection rather than the real thing.
Posted by: lyle at April 25, 2004 at 09:37 PMHey, Michael, why don't you see if your doctor can prescribe something for mental halitosis?
Posted by: Sue at April 25, 2004 at 09:59 PMTillman - gives up a life as a sports star, the new royalty of the US. Joins the army. Is sent to Afghanistan and is killed.
Corrie - flies into what is more or less a war zone. Puts herself in harms way, fighting for what she believes in. Is killed.
I must confess that I personally think that Corrie was a little silly putting herself in that situation, however neither of them were evil people and they are both dead. All this dancing on graves is shameful.
Posted by: Juanito at April 25, 2004 at 10:06 PMSo Lyle what you have got against "The Band Played Waltzing Maltilda"?
And from what I saw of that strip in the post in question, it was about one soldier really worried over his buddy.
You can see the post as lefty, anti-war/Bush however you like - but what I got out of it was that war is terrible and grinds up young men and women - so we should never forget who is actually making the sacrifice.
And yes, let's hear more stories about soldiers and Marines - real ones, they served and suffered - where are their stories?
I'm not being sarcastic, I do want to know where I can find real first hand accounts of what it is like now in Iraq and the 'ghan from people serving at the pointy end of what is shaping up as a very nasty little guerilla war.
Posted by: Eric Bogle at April 25, 2004 at 10:11 PM"Rather like that American girl who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer eh? :)
Lucky no-one found *that* funny..."
This isn't about who follows some abstract standard of morality the best - it's about alliegance. About what side people are on, and who they support in Act III of the Great Western Civil War. Our guy Tillman got killed fighting for the United States. Your gal Corrie got killed fighting for Mr. Arafat.
Neither side cares much about the losses of the other, although many still choose to feign some degree of sympathy depending on the circumstances as we still have to live together. (It's a civil war, after all...)
This whole thing will go on until one side kills off the other , or we decide to split up into new camps and fight over something else. Rather sad, really.
Regards, Döbeln
-Stabil som fan!
As Döbeln points out, Pat Tillman was fighting the terrorists; Rachel Corrie was fighting for the terrorists.
It's not that hard to understand, people.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 25, 2004 at 10:24 PMEric, you missed the point. Big surprise.
What was wrong with "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda"? Shallow, pompous, full of self-pity, but otherwise quite nice.
As for stories of wounded soldiers and Marines, they're easy to find. Do your own research. I can't be bothered to teach you how.
Posted by: lyle at April 25, 2004 at 10:39 PMDon't forget about Tillman's wife, Marie. Fifty percent of his choice to serve as a soldier was hers, it being reported that she gave her blessing to her husband's decision. Think of how much character there was in that: a newlywed young woman, with every reasonable expectation that the material and financial underpinnings of their new life be secured, supports - and thereby shares - in a self-sacrificing heroism.
Tillman's brother, Kevin, is also reported to have been seriously wounded in Afghanistan. 'Defend America' reported in July 2003 that the two brothers received the 11th annual Arthur Ashe Courage Award for service to a greater good outside the sporting arena.
"The brothers were deeply impacted by the Sept. 11 attacks, according to family and friends. It was the catalyst for pushing them to enlist. Pat turned down a $3.6 million contract with the Cardinals to join the Army. Kevin ended his baseball career for the same reason.
"Pat and Kevin both signed up for three years with the Army. They soon earned their place with the elite Army Rangers. There they were able to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom, from where they recently returned.
"They maintained a low profile while they served, said Lt. Col. Don Sondo, deputy commander of Infantry Training Brigade. They did not want special treatment for their celebrity status."
A third brother, Richard, was not surprised about the choice made by Pat and Kevin.
"They had talked about it for a long time, he said. He pointed out that they would look up at pilots flying over the stadium during their games and think, 'this is a game, what am I doing...I'm playing a sport.'"
High school coach, Scott Gillis, remembered that certain something both brothers possessed: "You'll spot a Tillman from a mile away," he said, mentioning how they stuck out in a crowd.
Typically, the brothers didn't attend the award ceremony. Brother Richard accepted the award from actor Keifer Sutherland.
Richard thanked the men and women of special operations "for the freedoms we've become accustomed to."
He then left his hearers and us with the best tribute possible for a fallen soldier - the words of a brother: "Pat and Kevin always try to save the day," he said.
They did. Indymedia's mockery proves it.
CHICKENHAWKS FLY AGAIN
Rightwing politicians have an appalling moral record in their treatment of legless war veterans. And not just fringe "indy" right wingers. The state Republican party of Georgia trotted out vicious lies about Senator Max Cleland's record on Homeland Defence, linking him to terrorists and fascists, in order to undermine his Senate candidacy.
Images of both bin Laden and Saddam are on the screen in a TV ad that Georgia Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss began airing Friday in his bid to unseat Democratic Sen. Max Cleland. The ad attacks Cleland as weak and "misleading" on homeland security.
In fact it wsa Bush that has short-changed Homeland Security, NYC still has not received the federal funding to cover increased post-911 security costs. Ad Bush has undermined the war on terroism by wasting $300 bill, and more than a thousand soldiers lives and limbs, in a bogusly justified war.
Mainstream Republican politicians should be ashamed of themselves for allowing, and then not denouncing, this vicious slur on an honourable soldier. Cleland is a vietnam war veteran who lost both legs and an arm in combat.
Meanwhile the current Commander in Chief was living it the "high" life, if you know what I mean, under the auspices of his sugar Daddy. And Cheyney, even though he supported the war, had "other priorities" when others people, like Kerry, did their civic duty, even though he opposed the war. With the noble exception of John McCain (a liberal Republican) the Tillman's and Kerry's of this world are spread rather thinly through the ranks of the current Republican elite.
The Republican leadership were happy to let others serve and suffer for the nation, but now see fit to denounce those people for political gain. There is a name for such folk: chicken hawks.
Posted by: Jack Strocchi at April 25, 2004 at 11:59 PM
Cleland is a vietnam war veteran who lost both legs and an arm in combat.
Cleland is a Vietnam War veteran; he can even be justly described as a hero. But he didn't lose his limbs in combat. He picked up a dropped grenade at the end of a non-combat mission, and it exploded.
The rest of your blather is not even worthy of correction.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 26, 2004 at 12:22 AMThe degeneration of Jack Strocchi continues, now he's even resorting to throwing around the silly chicken hawk meme like a two-bit leftbot troll. Will we have to put you on suicide watch by November 2nd, Jack?
Posted by: PW at April 26, 2004 at 12:25 AM"And not just fringe "indy" right wingers."
What alternative universe is indymedia a right wing site.
How is the add "linking him to terrorists and fascists" Jack?
From the link no criticism of his war service or his injuries so what is your point?
Posted by: Gary at April 26, 2004 at 12:38 AMPixy Misa does not think that Max Clelands wounds were a result of his participating in combat.
Pixy, let me tell you about the way things are. The Vietnam war was a combat experience, ie it was one could get hurt by the weapons of combat, just by being in proximity.
Thats why they call it a war.
Cleland did see combat, and he was proximate to deadly weapons in the course of his combat-related duties.
You are an idiot and a moral cretin.
Gary by contrast, is just a little slow and needs to have analogy and allusion spelled out to him.
I am not going to bother.
Waste of time.
Jack, you said, and I quote: Cleland is a vietnam war veteran who lost both legs and an arm in combat.
He didn't.
He has pointed this out himself.
Words have meaning. When we say that a man lost three of his limbs in combat, we mean that he lost three of his limbs in combat. Cleland was not in combat when he was injured; it was due to an unfortunate accident.
He has pointed this out himself.
I await your apology. Well, I don't really, because I suspect you are incapable of such a thing, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if you did apologise.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 26, 2004 at 12:55 AMPW is all cut-up that I stooped to the Chickenhawk "meme", or slur as we call it in Australia.
Just because I give your role models a bad name you start with the pathetic whining when.
Whats the matter did-ums, just when the action gets a little vigourous you go all glass-jaw on me.
Maybe you are the one who needs to see the shrink.
The Internet makes brave men out of little boys like you Jack.
Posted by: Gary at April 26, 2004 at 01:07 AMHey Mike et al- you would no doubt be inspired by how the commies managed to inspire their troops; none of that worrying about whether the cause is right when you've got blocking battalions to cover any retreat. At least in Tillman's chosen game a defensive blocker might break your jaw, not stich you across the chest with MG rounds.
You leftists have a lot to learn about moral equivalence.
At least Tillman was prepared to fight (and die) for what he believed to be right- you spineless pansies wouldn't fight to defend your own family.
Tim makes a good comparison.
One guy, with a left wing bent, bemoans the tradegies of imaginary people. I see that as comparable to weeping over soap operas. The cartoons are entertainment for God's sake! Not flesh and blood.
Then Tim points to a group of people who are also left wingers, but are one notch above pyschotic in their hatred and opposition to the war. I most people would walk away from any physical debate involving these people, or at least call for a mental crisis team.
But where's the hypocrisy, some posters here ask? It's very simple, if you think about it.
These two sites disrepect, ignore, reject, or exult in the real suffering we see in Iraq and Afghanistant, but claim to be anti-war. Even the character from livejournal used photos of our dead coming home to make his point, although I grant that his post was far less disturbing. I still see it as disrepectful.
In short, these two sites are but two examples of the wide range of left wing anti-war rhetoric, where the real tradegies are ignored (the sacrifices of both our soldiers and the people in those nations), as well as the problems that caused them. In other words, the typical hypocrisy of the left wing who would prefer to see Saddam still in power to fit their notions of "proper international behavoir".
The tasteless part is that the left wingers show disrepect for the real casualties in the process. And they don't care in the least.
Screw 'em!
Posted by: JeffS at April 26, 2004 at 01:14 AMJack,
'Sugar Daddy' Bush was a WWII naval aviator, shot down once by the Japanese and a recipient of the DFC. I understand he was the youngest pilot in the navy at the time. Being a veteran does not, in and of itself, make a man sagacious regarding national defence policy. That's why most vets don't talk about war or what they experienced in it. John Kerry brags about his war service and imagines that it redeems a life otherwise lived as a kind of spaced-out matrimonial gigolo.
Senator Cleland wouldn't want you patronising him by implying everything he says is right because he's a veteran-amputee. Nor would he want you to cast aspersions on Republican veterans.
Incidentally, a majority of veterans in the U.S. Senate is Republican. A majority of veterans in the House is Republican. Most combat veterans in Congress are Republican. Most gubernatorial veterans are Republican.
My source is Richard Aragon. He is a disabled Vietnam Veteran who served in Vietnam 1970-72 with the 2/12 25th Inf Co. B; 3/22 25th Inf Co. B; Co. E 50th Inf; 56 Sup Co. USARPAC; USA Depot DaNang. Among his awards are the Purple Heart, Combat Medics Badge & the CIB.
(http://grunt.space.swri.edu/senatevet.htm).
Senator Cleland wouldn't want to be in a foxhole with someone as poorly prepared as you. I dare say he wants to hang on to that remaining limb.
Posted by: CurrencyLad at April 26, 2004 at 01:18 AMWar is combat-experience as proved by this dictionary definition:
Combat
adj. (kmbt)
Of or relating to combat
Intended for use or deployment in combat: combat boots; combat troops.
Cleland was wounded in the course of a "deployment in combat".
Is that clear enough?
Cleland sustained his wounds in the course of his war-time comabat experience.
I used the word "combat" at a more general level of abstraction, consistent with the dictionary definition.
I did not commit any factual inaccuracy since I did not specify the form of combat-experience that Cleland sustained his wounds ie hostile fire, friendly fire or combat weapons-related accidents.
You do not deserve an apology.
In fact, you deserve further calumny for ignoring the main point of my post, which is that Republicans who remained silent about the slur on Cleland are moral cretins.
You are a moral cretin.
Posted by: Jack Strocchi at April 26, 2004 at 01:21 AM
CurrencyLad The term "sugar daddy" was intended to insult the idiot son, not the indulgent father.
I did not mean to impugn the honour of G H Bush who I regard as a good President and a brave man. However, he does appear to have spoiled the lad, somewhat.
Political dynasties are maybe not such a good idea, as they are subject to "regression to the mean".
"PW is all cut-up that I stooped to the Chickenhawk "meme", or slur as we call it in Australia.
Just because I give your role models a bad name you start with the pathetic whining when."
1.) You lied - just a little, but still - and got called on it. Stop whining and fess up.
2.) Whether or not someone served is hardly very relevant when it comes to defence policy issues. It might be relevant for character issues still, but hardly policy issues.
3.) The main problem with "liberals" (Read: Socialists) is the fact that they are unreliable. They were unreliable during the cold war, and they are unreliable during the current confrontation.
As illustrated by the Corrie / Tillman comparison the heroes of the left fight for the enemy - the heroes of the right fight against them. All the "chickenhawk" bluster is just the left's way of trying to muddle this distinction, so that ordinary people should remain unaware of their treachery.
Regards, Döbeln
-Stabil som fan!
Posted by: Döbeln at April 26, 2004 at 01:30 AMNo, Jack, you're still wrong. (And please not that I resist adding snide remarks like "as always".)
Your "definition" of combat is simply a reference to the actual definition of combat.
If you had said that Cleland was injured while in service, injured in Vietnam, suffered war-related injuries - all of these are true.
But he was not injured due to combat, nor was he injured during combat. Combat may have been taking place elsewhere at the time, but such is always true; and it did not, at the time he was injured, involve Max Cleland.
U.S. servicemen (and women) receive the Purple Heart medal for injuries received in combat. John Kerry - whatever I might think of him - received three Purple Hearts. Cleland did not, because he did not receive his injuries in combat.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 26, 2004 at 01:38 AMPrime Minister John Howard is in Iraq with his troops for ANZAC day. Good for him.
There is some connection between Waltzing Matilda and ANZAC Day, isn't there?
Posted by: Fred Boness at April 26, 2004 at 01:38 AMAre we sure that Jack Stocchi and fatfingers aren't related somehow? In fact, has anyone ever seen them together? They sure do sound the same.
Or is this just some infectious disease from the left, somehow contracted by Jack Strocchi? If so, GET BACK JACK! At least until I get my immunizations updated.
Posted by: JeffS at April 26, 2004 at 01:47 AMDöbeln serves up three puff balls, just right for hitting out of the park:
1.) You lied - just a little, but still - and got called on it. Stop whining and fess up.
I would not bring up the subjec of lying and war if I was a Bush Republican. I didn't lie, I used an English word according to a formal dictionary definition. This is literacy, not lying. You should try it some time.
2.) Whether or not someone served is hardly very relevant when it comes to defence policy issues. It might be relevant for character issues still, but hardly policy issues.
Correct, but you shoot yourself in the foot. The current Republican leadership have defective moral characters, as proved by their poor military service and slandering of good soldiers. As it happens, they are incompetent, for diffrent reasons. They are also chicken hawks.
3.) The main problem with "liberals" (Read: Socialists) is the fact that they are unreliable. They were unreliable during the cold war,
You mean like George Orwell? Kennedy?
You will have to better than that, although it is likely that ignorance, stupidity and mendacity are as good as you get.
By the way, I would like to add that anyone who thinks that regularly flying night missions in an aging and balky supersonic Century-series flighter is a "safe" or cushy job in any way is an aeronautical cretin, not just the moral kind.
Of all the whiny lefty themes, this may be the one that irritates me the most. I'll take it even farther: I'm no actuary, but I strongly doubt that Mr. Kerry, with four months In Country, ran a much greater risk of death than did Bush, who had hundreds of hours in high performance aircraft.
The Air Force does *not* hand over supersonic iron to a cretin or to someone's otherwise unqualified boy, regardless of the fantasies of feckless grad students who would pee themselves if handed the stick of a Piper Cub.
Posted by: Bruce at April 26, 2004 at 01:54 AM"I would not bring up the subjec of lying and war if I was a Bush Republican. I didn't lie, I used an English word according to a formal dictionary definition. This is literacy, not lying. You should try it some time."
First, I'm not a "Bush Republican". Few of us swedes are. I despise Bush's enemies far more than I dislike him, however, as pointed out in the post above.
Second, you know perfectly well what you did. You had a decent story, and tried to make it a good one. Nice try, but you still got caught.
"Correct, but you shoot yourself in the foot. The current Republican leadership have defective moral characters, as proved by their poor military service and slandering of good soldiers. As it happens, they are incompetent, for diffrent reasons. They are also chicken hawks."
The only thing defective here is your assumption that physical injury sustained in war makes your judgement in defense matters unassailable. It doesn't.
"You mean like George Orwell? Kennedy?"
Kennedy was a liberal, not a socialist. Orwell was a socialist who spent much of his time attacking the utter moral corruption of the dominant strains of socialism - that's why he's so popular around these parts.
Regards, Döbeln
-Stabil som fan!
Posted by: Döbeln at April 26, 2004 at 02:04 AMPW is all cut-up that I stooped to the Chickenhawk "meme", or slur as we call it in Australia.
Just because I give your role models a bad name you start with the pathetic whining when.
If I had felt insulted by it, I would have called it a "slur", don't worry. The thing is, nobody cares about being called a chickenhawk, since it's a completely useless and content-free word only thrown around by idjits like you who think they can get one-up on us nasty right-wingers by using it. But it does make for a nice, instant conversation stopper, in that it's pretty safe to ignore anything further from the person after "chickenhawk" is said.
Of course, you didn't actually get the hint from my or Pixy Misa's post, likely because you're so blinded by your Bush-hatred (Iraq! I-RAWK! RAWWKKK!) that you don't even realize you're making an idiot of yourself in public, even when it's pointed out to you.
As for "pathetic whining", I'll leave it to the other posters to decide for themselves who's whining here, you or me. At least you still got that superior intellect, eh Jack?
Posted by: PW at April 26, 2004 at 02:05 AMAccording to Jack, "The current Republican leadership have defective moral characters, as proved by their poor military service and slandering of good soldiers."
Good Lord, take out the 'Republican' part and that could be a memo written by J. Edgar Hoover.
Senator Cleland is a politician in a tough game and he was criticised - fairly or not - for his views on a particular policy front. He can take it - he sounds like a tough old bird.
My objection is that you are 1) patronising the disabled by suggesting they shouldn't be treated normally, and in politics 'normal' means brutal; and 2) you open a big old can of Non-Sequitur by connecting this local tiff to big generalisations about a whole class of people whom you deride as cowards.
Would Senator Kennedy be fairly numbered amongst the Democratic leadership Jack? Isn't he a part of a dynasty? What is his war record? I think technically he's an army vet but it's not chopper blades that give him the cold sweats but re-runs of the Dukes of Hazard.
The left is always affecting 'outrage' about something not being 'denounced.' God that's a chilly word - 'denounced.' Say it often and fast enough and you'll sound like the VC commander playing Russian Roulette with de Niro and Walken in 'Deer Hunter.' Then you'll know what it's like to be a stroppy, sanctimonious, left-wing nazi.
Senator Cleland can take anything Saxby Chambliss has to offer.
JFK I admire. His wonderful vision is being implemented in Iraq now in some ways: "pay any price, bear any burden for the promotion of liberty."
PS: Orwell, as Hitchens has shown, had the good sense to abandon the left but the bad grace to do it secretly. I'm not sure what comfort that provides. None I'm guessing.
Posted by: CurrencyLad at April 26, 2004 at 02:10 AMAccording to Jack, "The current Republican leadership have defective moral characters, as proved by their poor military service and slandering of good soldiers."
And the funny thing is, if that logic held, Jack just proved his defective moral character by slandering GWB's National Guard service. I'm sure the irony is lost on him, though.
Posted by: PW at April 26, 2004 at 02:15 AMBruce: re Bush's flying record. Damn straight. Laughed aloud.
Posted by: CurrencyLad at April 26, 2004 at 02:22 AMNo, Pixy Misa I, literally, proved my usage of the word "combat" is consistent with the dictionary definition, and I stand by that. Dictionaries are independent referees, so sorry. Not.
I concede that my usage of the phrase "in combat", rather than "in the course of combat-related duties in a combat zone", is a shorthand that could be misleading to the nitpicking types and question-begging types who seem to pop up whenever questions of Bush Republican ethics arise. This is a blog, not a conference on semantics.
The basic point I made with the "combat" reference is undeniable: Cleland was a brave man to put himself in harms way. Bush Republicans were scum for slurring him. Its a pattern of behaviour. They did the same thing to other Democrat candidates with honourable service records.
First Gore,
Fortunate Son: Bush's game of dress-up is a prelude to the smearing of some Democrat's military record.
Then McCain
Bush loyalists...claimed...that McCain’s wife, Cindy, was a drug addict, that McCain might be mentally unstable from his captivity in Vietnam, and that the senator had fathered a black child with a prostitute.
And now Kerry.
Kerry's war record may backfire on critics. Those slamming [his] Vietnam hitch may be shooting themselves in the foot.
Do I have to paint you a picture as well as spell it out?
So, to return to the main point, do you think it morally cretinous to slander a legless veteran who lost his limbs (I will spell it out to avoid ambiguity) serving-his-country-in-hazardous-action-in-a-combat-role-in-a-combat-zone.
Or is it more important to try to create a diversion from the basic moral issue by focusing on linguistic ambiguity?
Still waiting for an answer on that. Not holding my breath. Posted by: Jack Strocchi at April 26, 2004 at 02:32 AM
Jack Strocchi — "Being in Viet Nam was a combat experience?" Really? I'm reminded of Nam vet/comedian Blake Clark's standup routine about his time in-country (Marine rifleman): "What kind of flashbacks does a cook in Da Nang have? Does he wake up at night screaming 'Pancakes'!"
Lyle — it's easier to feel sympathy for wounded cartoon veterans because their artists won't let them tell you, "Fuck off, you condescending asshole."
That's why leftists _love_ victims who can't speak for themselves, like wildlife and trees. What was it Meryl Streep so pompously told Congress during the Alar farce: "I speak for those who cannot speak..."
Posted by: Richard McEnroe at April 26, 2004 at 02:34 AMJack Strocchi — Oh, Jesus...
"serving-his-country-in-hazardous-action-in-a-combat-role-in-a-combat-zone.
"
Max Cleland lost his limbs when he ditched an assignment to stay back in camp and drink beer, by his own admission. He saw a grenade on the ground and _picked it up_. Nobody, and I say this as a veteran, with the brains God gave Howard Dean would pick up a hand grenade just laying on the ground.
The people of Georgia, the state Cleland represented, are perhaps the most supportive of the military in the US — not surprisingly considering how many military bases are located in this state. They would not have turned out a wartime veteran unless they were not satisfied with his performance as their representative.
Posted by: Richard McEnroe at April 26, 2004 at 02:43 AMHe was not 'slandered' BECAUSE he was "a legless veteran who lost his limbs." That remains a straw man created by you for the purpose of calumniating certain Republicans. You are
Cleland was criticised on policy grounds. Are you suggesting the ideas of the disabled should not be criticised Jack? I know what FDR would have said to that proposition - something genteel but steely like "butt out Mister."
Three links establishing an alleged pattern of behaviour towards a few Democrats. How many thousands would it take to demonstrate the world-wide hatchet job being done to Bush at any one time?
He can take it too, which is why there's no point getting hysterical in defending him.
Posted by: CurrencyLad at April 26, 2004 at 02:54 AMIt’s slightly off topic, but I’m having trouble with a couple of crossword clues in the FT:
-Italian soldier who succeeded Mussolini as prime minister in 1943 (8)
-Fish found in the Great Lakes (5)
Sorry to butt in like this. I’d ask my neighbours were it not for the fact that they are, through no fault of their own, cretins.
(I posted the above on Atrios’ site ten minutes ago and the miserable anus banned me. Maybe one of you can help.)
Posted by: Harry Hutton at April 26, 2004 at 02:57 AMJack Strocchi: Your spiritual brothers- the fellow citizens of your virtual nation, the one that you owe your loyalty to- are fighting right now against what you would call a great evil. Why don't you go pick up a rifle and head to Fallujah? Go prove how brave and honorable you are, by actually putting your ass on the line for your beliefs. Go join your brothers in their struggle.
Go fight the Marines.
Or are you just a chickenhawk?
Posted by: DaveP.. at April 26, 2004 at 02:58 AMThis is disgusting: I wake up with a sinus headache and I find that a post about one of my countrymen killed in action has been infested with trolls. I have had it; I don't pay for bandwidth and server space so people like this can spew their garbage. "Michael," "Eric Bogle," and Jack Strocchi have been banned. Any subsequent entries by these persons from another IP will be deleted and that IP banned also.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 26, 2004 at 02:58 AMOh, and Harry Hutton -- off-topic posts are not allowed. Ask one of your cretinous neighbors, or email someone who cares.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 26, 2004 at 02:59 AMJack Strocchi:
You are splitting hairs and backtracking to justify your original statement. You are rejecting solid, logical points brought out by other people. And you are refusing to accept the possibility that you might be wrong, or perhaps offering an argument that is not applicable to this thread.
And you are being very sanctimonious about all of it.
You might want to think about this before your next post.
Posted by: JeffS at April 26, 2004 at 03:01 AMHmmmmm.....regarding Andrea's decision, I guess Jack will just have to think about it, period!
Posted by: JeffS at April 26, 2004 at 03:03 AMPS:
Andrea, I hope you're feeling better soon. This is a bummer of a way to wake up.
Posted by: JeffS at April 26, 2004 at 03:05 AMStrocchi has his own website; he can whine about it there.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 26, 2004 at 03:06 AMPS: I am hoping that coffee and Advil will soon make a woman of me.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 26, 2004 at 03:07 AMDarn, and here I was all set to beat Jack over the head some more.
Well, might as well get it out of my system:
Jack, you clown, that so-called definition of "combat" your provided does not stand alone; it defines the adjectival use of the word by reference to the noun form, which you completely ignored. You didn't prove anything, except that you are incapable of using a dictionary and incapable of admitting error.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 26, 2004 at 03:11 AMJack,
Using an uncommon/unpopular definition of a commonly used word, with the intent to decieve, in a popular forum is lying. Unless you expected your audience to use the the obscure, abstract definition you chose to interperate your rambling, you lie. If you expected your audience to use the obscure, abstract defintion you are incompetent.
Posted by: aaron at April 26, 2004 at 03:18 AMThanks Currencylad. That fits.
I'd better go now before sourpuss bans me.
If you used an obscure, abstract definition of an ajective as a noun you are lying and incompetent.
Posted by: aaron at April 26, 2004 at 03:22 AMDammit, Andrea, here I was waxing all wroth, and you banned Jack! I was gonna whack him like a mole, but...oh, well, better make another pot of tea.
And, appropos the thread of this post, of course it's easier for lefties to sob about cartoon characters than living people. Those darn living people might have minds of their own, and that's anathema to the highly-educated LLLs--after all, living people might disagree with them--as did, very much so, Pat Tillman, who walked the walk instead of yammering a whole bunch of talk.
Posted by: ushie at April 26, 2004 at 03:32 AMUshie: oh, go ahead and whack Jack. Like I said, he still has a blog he can piss and moan on. (You can get to it by clicking on his name in one of his posts.)
Harry: awww, here's a widdle kiss to make it better -- mwah.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 26, 2004 at 03:38 AMPerch! I stand to win a "Poolside Radio".
You can all borrow it.
This time I really must be going.
Posted by: Harry Hutton at April 26, 2004 at 03:45 AMAndrea:
I hope that coffee and Advil won't lead you to change your mind about Jack and Company. I can't afford to up my dose of blood pressure medicine.
Posted by: Dean Douthat at April 26, 2004 at 03:49 AMI must admit that I am pissed at Gary Trudeau's abuse of his character, B.D. I've been a reader of "Doonesbury" since 1970 or thereabouts, sometimes it's not funny (a lot of times it's not funny) sometimes it is. B.D.'s an interesting character, he volunteered for Viet Nam in order to get out of a term paper in college... ha-ha! BD did quite well for himself, hooking up with Vietcongster Phred and all. What isn't right, more than BD's losing a leg is that he's not made it past Lieutenant and he's got to be, in comic book years, in his late 40's. (Bernie aged the most, though). BD's at least good enough to have made Major in the Gulf War.
WARNING - PEDANTIC POINT FOLLOWS
Jack said:
War is combat-experience as proved by this dictionary definition:
Combat
adj. (kmbt)
Of or relating to combat
Intended for use or deployment in combat: combat boots; combat troops.
Hmm... You posted the adjective definition. But originally you didn't use the word as an adjective, you used it as a noun, so why offer this definition? It makes no sense in the context in which you used the word "combat". Sure, Cleland was injured in his combat boots (adjective), but he was not injured in combat (noun). Big difference!
The same dictionary.com web page that you linked to defines the noun form of combat as:
n. (kmbt)
Fighting, especially armed battle; strife. See Synonyms at conflict.
Which brings us back to your original (quite common) mistake - Cleland was not injured in combat (while fighting or in armed battle). Since Cleland happily acknowledges this fact himself, where's the controversy, or moral cretin-ness, in correcting you on this point?
As for slurs against him - life in politics is rough. I see nothing said about Cleland that is tougher or less fair that stuff said about, say, Bush or Kerry.
All the best,
Skevos Mavros
http://www.mavart.com
Dean: no fears there.
Dave_Violence: agree on the misuse of BD. I think his unchanging rank is a reflection of Trudeau's ignorance on military matters. Of course, he could have, I don't know, researched it -- but that would have taken effort, caring for accuracy, etc.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 26, 2004 at 04:07 AMBut Andrea, I don't wanna go to Jack's site! Undiluted Jack causes my eyes to roll back in my head!
Posted by: ushie at April 26, 2004 at 04:16 AMAndrea is correct. We all waste too much time with these trolls. What they do is switchthe topic and make us devote time and space to refuting irrelevant arguments. The subject was and always will be the pan-arabists and fundamentalists who are waging war against the infidels. the rest is just a distraction of the ostriches. Who really cares. Self preservation of civlized society is the only aim we all have.
Posted by: Ted at April 26, 2004 at 04:16 AMIt is probably worth pointing out that Cleland did not receive, nor was he eligible for a purple heart for his injuries. Given the informaion dripping out on Kerry's three wounds, it would seem there wasn't much of a hurdle to getting one, but nonetheless, Cleland didn't qualify.
Posted by: TomB at April 26, 2004 at 04:18 AM"The cartoons are entertainment for God's sake!"
Or, in this case, amputainment.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at April 26, 2004 at 04:19 AMTrue Ted. It's so lame to say it but to the Tillmans and the hundreds of other families who've made sacrifices in order to squash the enemies of liberty and enlightenment: THANK YOU.
Posted by: CurrencyLad at April 26, 2004 at 04:26 AMMore on trolls.
Roger Simon had a blog about halliburton. He invited the trolls to discuss this. Only one did and he made only one comment. That is because they only want to talk about Halliburton if you want to talk about something else. Oil for Food for instance.
If we all made an effort to refocus the trolls to the subject at hand we would waste less time on a hopeless mission of getting the troll to change his mind. I have thought a lot about this of late and my new tactic is to refocus and not respond to a troll. For instance, the tasteless posting on another site was the topic here, not Cleland.
I know it is tempting to joust with a fool, but it is more productive to ignore him.
Posted by: Ted at April 26, 2004 at 05:17 AMTim, you are not the only one who noticed this and got pissed about it. Apparently some NPR commentor also got all misty-eyed about BD, on the air.
Posted by: Yehudit at April 26, 2004 at 11:13 AMAw, geez, I can't believe I missed out on another episode of Jack Strocchi, Man of Ineffable Causistry. Glad to see the rest of you were up for it, he will not be missed.
JeffS: fatfingers and Jack are different breeds of troll. Fatfingers takes cheap shots and resorts to fuzzily dishonest way of playing "devil's advocate" to make a point. When cornered, he begs for civility.
Jack, on the other hand, builds a trojan horse out of bad logic to deliver a false or baseless claim. In this case, he waves a dictionary around to make a meaningless point and to browbeat the opposition as a cover for the rest of his meandering garbage. When cornered, he can only insist that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot or cretin.
Between the two, I'd say fatfingers actually has more intellectual honesty. Jack is the worst of the trolls.
There are some fools worth ignoring, but when a guy like Jack builds dishonest arguments to score points, he needs to be answered. When an idiot like Michael tries to spin away any look at the anti-war crowd's fake "respect" for the military, they need to be answered.
Posted by: Sortelli at April 26, 2004 at 12:15 PMI figured out Jack and fartfingers were different when Jack didn't complain about everyone being mean, and started calling people names instead. But they do share the same love for splitting hairs, backtracking, and redefining words to their own ends. Oh, well, there goes a perfectly good conspiracy..... ;-)
At any rate, Our Mistress Of The Blog laid down the law. And good riddance to Jack!
Posted by: JeffS at April 26, 2004 at 12:45 PMI agree with Sortelli here. Fatfingers is just contrarian for the hell of it (and I have to give him credit for being better at that act than Nemesis). But I don't think he is really taken serious by anyone even at first glance, so no big deal in the long run. Jousting with him can be fun. ;-) Although it's probably rather pointless, I guess.
Jack, on the other hand, embodies everything that's wrong with the chattering classes these days, in particular the propensity for trying to dazzle people with lots of well-written prose, hoping that nobody will see through it and actually notice the garbage that makes up his arguments. (I kinda like the trojan horse comparison for it.)
And that garbage needs to be answered...not that it'll change Jack's mind one bit, but people caught in the middle need to see that his stuff isn't given a pass, because, let's make no mistake about it, on the surface his stuff occasionally sounds convincing enough, mostly due to his undeniable writing skills. The worst kind of troll indeed.
BTW, I wish Andrea hadn't pointed out that Jack has a blog of his own, as I couldn't resist the siren's call to check it out...Bush-Orwell '04? Geez. Moonbattery at its finest.
Posted by: PW at April 26, 2004 at 01:04 PMThat's the problem with trolls, especially the superficially "logical" ones. People accept the written word as "law", even if it comes from an idiot.
And engaging trolls like Jack is very much like what Tim did on this post. The less distasteful post with the cartoons was in the same class of thinking as Jack -- superficially logical and emotionally manipulative.
But as Ted noted, we need to try and stay on thread, although that is difficult in an unmoderated discussion. Too bad the Hell Brick T-104 can't be fitted with a Moonbat Direction Finder, and launched from a submarine anywhere in the world.
PS: I went to Jack's blog, too, PW. Notice the dates of his posts? It's been a while since he put anything up. I guess even moonbats can be lonely.....
Posted by: JeffS at April 26, 2004 at 01:49 PMJack--
English lesson.
An adjective modifies a noun or pronoun.
You did not use "combat" as an adjective when you said "in combat." You used "combat" as a *noun*, that is, the abstract idea of armed conflict.
n. (kmbt)
Fighting, especially armed battle; strife.
Combat is also a verb.
v. intr.
To engage in fighting; contend or struggle.
Long story short: you're wrong.
Posted by: Sailorette at April 26, 2004 at 01:52 PMPardon, Pixie, SGM. I got a little steamed and didn't read through to your posts.
Posted by: Sailorette at April 26, 2004 at 01:55 PMNotice the dates of his posts? It's been a while since he put anything up. I guess even moonbats can be lonely.....
I did notice them, but now that you've reminded me, I finally realize how uncaring we've been. We all thought Jack is an idiot and a pathological twister of the truth, but his posts here were really just a desperate plea for attention and affection! He left his own safe area looking for a better life, a life filled with understanding and happiness here at Tim Blair's. And we kicked the little puppy out, how shameful of us.
Posted by: PW at April 26, 2004 at 02:17 PMOkay, that sucked. :) I guess I just can't do 'bleeding heart' convincingly enough.
Posted by: PW at April 26, 2004 at 02:19 PMBleeding hearts be damned. I just read over my last post and now I regret implying that fatfingers has any intellectual honesty. Hah!
Posted by: Sortelli at April 26, 2004 at 03:34 PMPW, that you can't emulate a bleeding heart liberal is good news, my friend! You just can't think like them!
Sortelli -- did you mean that fatfingers is intellectually consistent (even if it was a low level)? That seems more likely. Ol' Jack struck me as trying to play to the audience, now that I think on it.
But I think we can forgive you your faux pas on using the term "honesty" in relation to fatfingers, though. This time.
Oops! I just used a French term.....is that another faux pas? d:-{)
Posted by: JeffS at April 26, 2004 at 04:08 PMI AM French. :P
Fatfingers consistent? Nah. You can't consistently argue from a premise you know to be false, eventually you're going to screw up and be right wholly by accident.
Posted by: Sortelli at April 26, 2004 at 04:31 PMWell, fatfingers was consistently a fathead, that's for sure!
And thanks for letting me know you're French......that is yet another faux pas on this thread! Ah, consistency! ;-)
Posted by: JeffS at April 26, 2004 at 04:36 PM(from Chicago Boyz):
" .. but I hate the asshole Michael Moore and his ilk, people so selfish and stupid that they will gladly forgo confronting a festering global problem, increasing the odds that my kids will be in some future war in the godforsaken Middle East."
That about sums it up for me.
We confront this problem NOW, or our kids will have to. I'd rather confront it NOW.
Posted by: Chris Josephson at April 26, 2004 at 06:10 PMGetting back to the original thread.
When lefties emote over wounded cartoon characters instead of real soldiers and Marines, they prove that their empathy is bogus.
If you care deeply about, let's say, the challenges of the blind, would you get all weepy about Ben Affleck in Daredevil, lovingly post his picture, and write tear-jerking commentary? Of course not. You'd be interested in the real lives of real blind folks. You wouldn't even consider crying over poor Ben Affleck.
There is something creepily adolescent about the Left's failure to recognize this distinction.
Posted by: lyle at April 26, 2004 at 11:17 PMPS: I am hoping that coffee and Advil will soon make a woman of me.
Uh-oh, that's what I have for breakfast every day. Is there an antidote?
Why hasn't my comment been posted to the Indymedia site? Was it the word "bastards?" Or maybe the word "think?"
Posted by: Nathan at April 27, 2004 at 04:55 AMThe comparison is interesting, but inapt. I know the anti-war blogger linked to above. I met him while parachuting - he’s a fine parachutist and a responsible Christmas-card sender.
Comparing a Howard Dean supporter to the denizens of the dark bowels of Portland Indymedia is like comparing one of Bilbo’s neighbors to a Mordor-dwelling Uruk-hai.
Pro-Intifada Indymedia brownshirts like to cheer for terrorists and cop killers. They’re more comparable to the members of Stormfront or the National Alliance. Strangely enough, these extremes of right and left are both violently anti-US govt. and pro-Palestinian.
Well, when you think about it, that’s not so strange.