Scum like Arkin (see my previous post) who are helping to move the "anti-war" movement toward the "we hate the troops" movement are not going unnoticed or unchecked in their hypocrisy. Thank God!
This article ("Information Warfare: Bashing Baby Killers") from Strategy Page does a nice job of putting the hypocrisy under the microscope.
This article ("Information Warfare: Bashing Baby Killers") from Strategy Page does a nice job of putting the hypocrisy under the microscope.
... "The attack on the troops was also factually-challenged in one other aspect. In the post, Arkin also claimed that nobody had been spitting on troops and calling them baby killers. Apparently he did not hear of the incident involving Joshua Sparling during the protests in late January. At least one anti-war protestor spat at the Iraq veteran, who had lost a leg while over there. There have been other incidents reported by the blogosphere where veterans have been called baby killers as well. This was all about statements like those made by t Hersh in his speech last October. That said, much of this disrespect has not been covered in the mainstream media. Nor were Hersh's comments, for that matter." ...
Thank God we are no longer subject to the media funnel that was in use during the Vietnam war. Now, thinking people can use their own intellects to put all this in perspective. Thank you, Strategy Page!!
(Thanks for the heads-up on this, Mark!)
Comments
As I understand from reading about this spitting incident elsewhere, Sparling was spit at not upon. The spitter targeted the ground at his feet. Then Sparling returned the gesture.
Dawn -
I was prepareded to ignore Arkin's obvious, craven attempt at publicity, but something Hewitt said on his show last night has made me reconsider.
Calling our armed forces "mercs" is a libel which only his resignation will make right. It's not only our military Arkin has cheapened here, but the Post, too. I've sent my letter. We'll see if the Post is interested in maintaining the standards it claims to champion.
Arkin has blackened their eye, but good!
Anon, I'm sure you're right to be skeptical; however, after reading Lembcke's piece (http://www.rlg.org/en/page.php?Page_ID=95), I remain skeptical about his assertions myself. Yes, the anti-war movement wanted soldiers to convert to their point of view and speak as a part of their movement; however, that was more likely at the top levels of "leadership." At the citizen level of the anti-war movement, protestors were not quite as diplomatic.
I can tell you firsthand, being close to two men who served in Vietnam that they were seriously mistreated on their return from the war. One in particular, sailed under the Golden Gate Bridge into San Francisco Bay standing at attention on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Do you know how he and his fellow sailors were welcomed? They were pelted with tomatoes and other rotten produce by protestors who lined the bridge to "welcome" them home. Nice, huh?
Spitting on or at, it makes no difference to me. Either act is disrespectful to those who voluntarily make the sacrifice to do what they are called upon to do by our Commander-in-Chief. I think it takes either (a) someone who has served, (b) a family member of someone who has served, or (c) someone who fully understands the sacrifice we ask of these soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to realize that any disrespect is uncalled for and unwelcome regardless of how you feel about a foreign conflict.
I take this sort of thing personally because of my connection to Vietnam veterans. I have seen the toll that war takes on these good men and women and it's far too much for most of them to bear. They do NOT deserve the addition of insult to injury. It needs to stop NOW.