Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (25301)	2/1/2007 12:32:28 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35834

If I said what I think of this guy I'd have multiple violations of SI's TOU. :-(

To: Brumar89 who wrote (25301)	2/1/2007 3:50:18 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

"But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work." The Peril of Newspaper Blogs... Power Line ...is that a reporter might say what he actually thinks before an editor catches up with him and makes him stop. A case in point: William Arkin writes on "national and homeland security" for the Washington Post. Yesterday morning, in his blog titled Early Warning on the Post's website, Arkin wrote a post that has to be read to be believed. Titled "The Troops Also Need to Support the American People," the post comments on an NBC program in which soldiers expressed dismay at the lack of support for their mission manifested by some people back home. Arkin appears to take the position that the U.S. military is not worthy of the nation that it protects. Some highlights: <<< These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect. Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order. >>> Arkin's indulgence, for one, is apparently stretched pretty thin. One thing I don't understand, though. If Abu Ghraib and Haditha were the result neither of "bad apples" nor of a "command order," what did cause them? Is Arkin suggesting that they manifest an inherent or widespread depravity among the troops? If not that, then what is his point? <<< So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society? >>> Yes, I think that's a fair characterization of what our soldiers have in mind when they ask for our support. I'd be curious to know, too, what Arkin has in mind when he refers to "obscene amenities." Serving in Iraq and Afghanistan--how cushy can you get? If you can understand this next paragraph, you're smarter than I am: <<< I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people. >>> I have absolutely no idea what Arkin is talking about here. Who are the "Hoover's" and "Nixon's"? And why doesn't someone who writes for the Washington Post know the elementary rules of grammar and punctuation? Finally, the climax: <<< But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work. >>> In other words, I guess, "screw them." I still don't get it, though: what is the "price we pay" for having a volunteer army? The fact that soldiers are disappointed if the folks back home don't support their mission? Wow, that's a heavy price all right! Arkin's conclusion: <<< I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them. America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one. >>> Actually, I've seen nothing to indicate that our volunteer soldiers and Marines are "young and naive." I would guess that the average newspaper reporter is quite a bit more naive than the average soldier. And the "lack of progress" may be Arkin's opinion, but it is not the assessment of a large majority of the soldiers whose views I've seen expressed. Then there is Arkin's final, puzzling reference to the fact that we have a volunteer army. America doesn't need a draft, he says--that's for sure!--but "we'd be having a different discussion if we had one." Maybe those editors have some value after all, since there is hardly a clear and coherent paragraph in Arkin's rant. As best I can understand him, though, Arkin regrets the fact that we don't have a draft, because if we did, instead of having motivated soldiers who are committed to completing their mission successfully, we'd have draftees who want to get out of Iraq and therefore are glad to hear that people back home oppose their mission. Arkin considers it an "ugly" thing when a soldier says that critics of the war "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing." I think the real ugliness lies much closer to home. UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt has more on Arkin's history here. weeklystandard.com Michelle M. has a roundup here. michellemalkin.com MORE Chris Muir weighs in this morning; click to enlarge: To comment on this post, go here. plnewsforum.com powerlineblog.com blog.washingtonpost.com daybydaycartoon.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (25301)	2/2/2007 12:26:03 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

ARKIN: IF AT FIRST YOU DON’T SUCCEED… By Rick Moran on Media Right Wing Nut House The strange and bizarre saga of William Arkin endures as the Military Affairs columnist and blogger for the Washington Post continues to offer up explanations for what he really meant in his January 30th post savaging the American military. Yesterday, Arkin posted an incoherent defense of his position that referred to his critics as “arrogant and intolerant” while furiously trying to backtrack from his original thoughts by lying about what he said in the January 30th post. Not surprisingly, this didn’t work very well. In fact, a couple of hours after the response to his critics was posted, it was hastily taken down. Someone somewhere at WaPo may have seen Arkin’s response as not only inadequate but insulting as well and subsequently removed the offending post from Arkin’s webpage. Arkin proved himself nothing if not dogged by posting a second, less inflammatory but still incoherent response to his critics that still contains obvious falsehoods about what he said in the original post while saying that he knew all along that his words would draw a huge negative reaction and that he did it on purpose to get a dialogue started on the issue of the military being put on a pedestal: <<< I knew when I used the word “mercenary” in my Tuesday column that I was being highly inflammatory. NBC News ran a piece in which enlisted soldiers in Iraq expressed frustration about waning American support. I intentionally chose to criticize the military and used the word to incite and call into question their presumption that the public had a duty to support them. The public has duties, but not to the American military. So I committed blasphemy, and for this seeming lack of respect and appreciation for individuals in uniform, I have been roundly criticized and condemned. Mercenary, of course, is an insult and pejorative, and it does not accurately describe the condition of the American soldier today. I sincerely apologize to anyone in the military who took my words literally. >>> Long time readers of this site know that I rarely use profanity in a post but Arkin’s words impel me to make an exception: What a crock of shit. Everything he writes rings hollow. I don’t believe for one minute he could have possibly sensed the firestorm of controversy that erupted over his insults. And his “apology” – that he’s sorry anyone in the military took his words “literally” – is a shocking prevarication. He didn’t just use the word “mercenary” in passing. He used it as part of what passes for humor on the left. It was a deliberate smear – the kind that keeps you in good standing with the anti-war crowd. It is a wink and a nod at the hard left, telling them that he agrees with them but that the mask must stay on so that the slack jawed, goober chewing, shotgun toting, mouthbreathers in the hinterlands don’t get their panties in a bunch: <<< But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary – oops sorry, volunteer – force that thinks it is doing the dirty work. >>> In effect, he was telling his friends on the left to take the insult literally while maintaining a certain deniability by making an awkward bon mot out of the phrase. Where Arkin refuses to back down is in his belief that the American soldier shouldn’t be dissing the home folks – not when patriots like him “support” them: <<< Those in uniform who think about and speak out about this predicament are rightly frustrated and angry. Many seem to find some solace in blaming the media or anti-war “leftists” or the Democratic Party or the liberals, or even an ungrateful or insufficiently martial American public. But if those in the military are now going to argue that we are losing in Iraq because the military has lacked for Ssomething, then the absence of such support should be placed at the feet of the Bush administration, Rumsfeld and company, and a Republican Congress—not on the shoulders of the American public, who have been nothing but supportive, even those who have opposed the war… In the middle of all of this are the troops, the pawns in political battles at home as much as they are on the real battlefield. We unquestioningly “support” these troops for the very reasons that they are pawns. We give them what we can to be successful, and we have a contract with them, because they are our sons and daughters and a part of us, not to place them in an impossible spot >>> Is it “solace” those men on the NBC report were seeking? It sounded to me like they were seeking an answer to a very good question – a question that Arkin refuses to even try and answer (except by muddying the waters by saying they shouldn’t be asking questions in the first place): How can you “support the troops” without supporting their mission? Arkin is silent on this point except to say that of course you can be supportive of the men while opposing the war! How dare you even raise the question! No explanation. Just platitudes about free speech – a curious defense given his scolding of the soldiers themselves for speaking out. I agree with Arkin that it is possible to be a patriotic American and oppose the war and agitate for bringing the troops home now. And while we shouldn’t question their patriotism, we damn well can question their judgement. Of course, they can similarly question the judgement of those of us who support our continued deployment. This is called democratic debate. Perhaps Arkin has forgotten how that works and that the soldiers also have every right to participate. All of this comes back to the mask being worn by Arkin and many on the left and how it hides their true feelings about the military and the United States in general. At the beginning of the war, we heard much from our lefty friends about how this time, unlike what happened in Viet Nam, they wouldn’t blame the war on the troops. No spitting please. No calling them “baby killers.” Of course, this doesn’t mean that they don’t really think that. They’re just not going to make the political error this time around of getting the rest of the American people angry at them for what they truly believe. This why it is impossible for Arkin and others to answer the simple question posed by the soldiers. There literally is no answer because the soldiers are correct. But for very good political reasons, most of the anti-war crowd will obfuscate and set up straw men about “free speech” rather than give a direct response. Simply saying that it is possible to support the troops while opposing their mission doesn’t cut it. By putting the onus on the troops for asking it, Arkin tries to shift the focus from the obvious answer – he doesn’t “support” the troops or the war effort – to why the interlocutor was wrong for inquiring in the first place. They are “intimidating” the American people or they are “blaming” the citizenry for our failures in Iraq by asking the question. We got a glimpse of Arkin’s mindset yesterday from this exchange that Michelle Malkin transcribed from an interview conducted by Fox’s John Gibson on his radio show yesterday: <<< GIBSON: The general tone of this piece is that the troops owe us, that we continue to support them through the war that they are losing. ARKIN: Oh, come on, John, that’s your characterization! (Voice rising) I don’t say they owe us anything! I just say that when the troops start to express their dissatisfaction with the American public, they should look in the mirror and ask themselves whether or not the American public is their servant or they’re the servant of the American public. (Voice louder) I nowhere suggested that the troops shouldn’t have the right to speak up. I merely said we shouldn’t put them on such a pedestal that they are above criticism IF THEY SAY STUPID THINGS! GIBSON: Well, what is so stupid about…[plays NBC segment…Staff Sergeant: “If they’re going to support us, support us all the way.”] GIBSON: What is so wrong… ARKIN: (Going bananas, sputtering at top of his lungs) HE’S JUST TOTALLY WRONG, JOHN. PEOPLE CAN SUPPORT THE TROOPS AND NOT SUPPORT THE WAR. AND THE FACT THAT THESE GUYS IN UNIFORM DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT TELLS ME THAT THEY ARE BADLY SCHOOLED IN THE REALITIES OF [unintelligible]... >>> Note that Arkin still makes no attempt to answer the question of how one can support the troops without supporting the war. He simply states it as fact – as if it were as much a part of the natural world as the sun rising and setting. No explanation needed. And his contention that he never asked the troops to shut up is patently false. In his original post, he hoped that their commanding officer took them aside and read them the riot act: <<< I’m all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn’t for them to disapprove of the American people. >>> He is clearly saying – despite his caveat about his supporting the idea of “everyone expressing their opinion” – that it “wasn’t for them” (not their place) to disapprove of the American people. This does indeed sound like he thinks they shouldn’t be able to express an opinion on the subject despite his hollow nod to the First Amendment. No amount of explaining. No attempt to set up additional straw men will change that singular fact. The only thing he can do is apologize – something Mr. Arkin seems intent on avoiding at all costs. In my post yesterday, I wrote that I was going to email the editor and publisher, asking them to fire Mr. Arkin. I didn’t do it because of this post by Don Surber that made me change my focus. I don’t think it’s necessarily “stupid” to ask for his resignation but I get Don’s point about not stifling debate. Arkin didn’t quite go far enough in his insults to warrant removal. But I don’t think it too much to ask for his apology – a full, honest, and complete mea culpa for the disrespect he showed to our people in uniform. rightwingnuthouse.com blog.washingtonpost.com blog.washingtonpost.com michellemalkin.com blogs.dailymail.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (25301)	2/2/2007 12:35:03 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

It would be nice if at least one Democrat would express concern about Arkin's attack on our troops, especially since the Post is widely seen as a house organ of the Democratic Party. Senators Challenge Post on Arkin Column Power Line This afternoon, three Republican Senators--Cornyn, Kyl and Inhofe--sent the following letter to the Publisher of the Washington Post, Donald Graham: It reads, in part: <<< Many Americans have concerns about the war in Iraq. Yet we are confident that almost every American would disagree with Arkin's reference to our country's troops as "a mercenary force." We think they would share our disgust with Mr. Arkin's contention that "through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform." Recently, the New York Times admonished one of its reporters, Michael Gordon, for expressing a personal opinion about the war--that the President's plan for a surge of forces in iraq may "be worth it." We wonder if the Post will have the same reaction to one of their columnists calling our nation's volunteer soldiers "a mercenary force?" Clearly, every American has the right to express his or her personal opinion on the war and Mr. Arkin's column was an opinion piece. But at a time when thousands of our soldiers have given their lives in Iraq, it is countrary to your own standards that a representative of your publication would malign our troops in such a vicious and insulting manner. We would be curious to know who at the Post, if anyone, was the editor of such a piece--and what standards of conduct Mr. Arkin and other columnists are held to, if any. >>> Ouch. It would be nice if at least one Democrat would express concern about Arkin's attack on our troops, especially since the Post is widely seen as a house organ of the Democratic Party. powerlineblog.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (25301)	2/7/2007 2:48:31 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Arkin Responds. Again. Power Line The Washington Post's William Arkin has undertaken another response to his critics. It's titled "Demonization and Responsibility." We know where the demonization comes in; Arkin writes: "For the critics, I have become the enemy and have been demonized." But where is the responsibility? It isn't in evidence in Arkin's latest salvo. Arkin writes: <<< The torrents of other mail -- biting, fanatical, threatening -- represent the worst of polarized and hate-filled America. >>> But there is no acknowledgement that Arkin's own column, in which he viciously attacked American soldiers serving in Iraq--and, no, it wasn't just the "mercenary" tag--in fact represented "the worst of polarized and hate-filled America." Arkin praises, sort of, the reaction he has gotten from active duty servicemen: <<< The many e-mails I've gotten privately from people serving in the military are, not surprisingly, the most respectful and reflective. Some correspondents are downright indignant, some are sarcastic, and most are hurt by the "mercenary" epithet and my commentary. But they are philosophical about their service and where we are in the war and the country today. >>> What Arkin fails to acknowledge is that his original tirade was a denunciation of comments by soldiers in Iraq, who answered questions about the home front posed by NBC News in just the same "respectful and reflective" spirit shown by recent emailers. Arkin says that his editors insist that he stop writing about this topic for now. A good idea, no doubt, but many will now read what Arkin writes on other topics with a more jaundiced eye. Arkin talks about the hazards of the blog format, and he has a point: my original post on his anti-military tirade was titled The Peril of Newspaper Blogs. It will be interesting to see how Arkin's relationship with the Post develops from here. Via Power Line News. plnewsforum.com powerlineblog.com blog.washingtonpost.com powerlineblog.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (25301)	2/9/2007 1:02:32 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Obscene Amenities Vent with Michelle Malkin Hot Air TV hotair.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (25301)	2/20/2007 1:33:46 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

In Protest of NBC Expert's Insult of Troops, Allard Resigns Media Research Center In protest of NBC's lack of action after NBC News military analyst William Arkin used his WashingtonPost.com blog to describe U.S. soldiers as "mercenaries" enjoying "obscene amenities" for ungratefully daring to criticize Americans for not supporting the war effort, retired Colonel Ken Allard last week resigned his position as a military analyst for NBC News. In a February 16 op-ed for the San Antonio Express-News, "NBC sinks too low for this talking head," Allard, an "executive-in residence" at the University of Texas at San Antonio, regretted that "sometimes the only way to show where you really stand is to vote with your feet. And so with great reluctance and best wishes to my former colleagues, with this column I am severing my 10-year relationship with NBC News." mrc.org