January 31, 2007

WaPo Blogger: Soldiers Are Lucky We "Indulge" Them For Their Rapes And Murders, And Be Happy We Don't Spit On Them
— Ace

And yes, he then rounds it off by snarking:

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 big problem with kicking this little sissy's ass is that it would be too goddamned easy.

Did I say "problem"? I meant "bonus."

Yes, it's a good thing that the WaPo and other media outlets don't hire, say, me as a blogger. I mean, it's not like I know how to do it. Better to hire some little pinko tosser who knows how to pull in literally dozens of eyeballs.

And I use lots of spicy language and stuff -- I mean, you can't have that sort of that sort of trash bringing disrepute on your organization, right? I might actually write something excessive and controversial.


Bonus Material: (Like how I did that?)

Who'd've imagined he'd look something like this?

Or (badly) write agitprop like this?

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.

Now, it's hard to tell because his thoughts are incoherent and his syntax is, let us say, hypermodern (not like those are important when it comes to writing anyhow), but I do think this gibbering little chimp is posting fantasias about armed insurrections against the legal, democratic government of the US, no?

No: Allah explains that what he's suggesting is that the military is now so divorced from public opinion it will feel the need to state a military coup against the government, in order to save the people from their own non-troop-supporting ways.

Slightly less controversial -- but not really. So he's not calling for a revolution, he's merely saying our troops and generals are inclined to stage an auto-gulpe. (I should note that I'm not sure I spelled that right, or if it's actually the right word, but I just couldn't write "coup" again.)

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.

Well, one thing the soldiers are likely confused by is this entire "essay," because the shithead really, honestly cannot write coherently.

But he's expressing his rage, and, I suppose, that's all that counts for the left.

Who did he sleep with to get this gig? And can I get his number?


Not Just A Blogger! Apparently he's their "national security reporter."

Ah.

Well, I sit corrected.

I'm sure he brings this level of dispassionate, agenda-free professionalism to his expert reporting work as well.


Hugh Hewitt On Willaim Arkin: A Greenpeace activist (i.e., professional leftist), you'll be shocked to discover.

Dr. Rock wants to take this little tosser on a few patrols in Iraq.

I think that's inadvisable. He's too fat to easily carry and the smell of defecation would get pretty bad in the Iraqi sun.

Posted by: Ace at 03:10 PM | Comments (114)
Post contains 698 words, total size 5 kb.

1 404'd!

Posted by: Sinistar at January 31, 2007 03:13 PM (oHd6r)

2 Oh, there it goes...weird.

Posted by: Sinistar at January 31, 2007 03:14 PM (oHd6r)

3 This guy needs a cockpunch.

Posted by: Sinistar at January 31, 2007 03:20 PM (oHd6r)

4 He's not just a blogger, he's their national security reporter! (Follow the links at Allah's.)

Ahh, that right-wing media.

Posted by: someone at January 31, 2007 03:22 PM (I/t4f)

5 Time to go outside and shoot into the air, whilst chanting "Lululululululululululululu"!!!!

Posted by: TXMarko at January 31, 2007 03:30 PM (4mhBS)

6 Molly Ivins is dead.

She wasn't on my radar.

Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2007 03:31 PM (3+1X4)

7 He must be teh ghey

Posted by: Son ofa Pig and a Monkey at January 31, 2007 03:35 PM (UcfAU)

8 NRO has background.

By the way, Ace, you're looking more and more like a smart military blogger!

Posted by: Nordbuster at January 31, 2007 03:37 PM (jYT9+)

9 No, instead of a real conservative, they hire a shady fag like Domenich who proceeds to be the fat, loser a$shole of a conservative that fill the ranks of the "college republicans" the country over. There are few things I can stand less than lard-assed 20somethings thinking they're Rsh fucking Limbaugh.

Listen you supercilious faggots, arrogance only works if you've got something to be arrogant about, and pushing 300 on the scale ain't one of those things.

As for this enema-nozzle, I'd love to see this homo walking around the metro some night. Too bad I'm not in DC. Where's Ardlino. He's got a pair on him now like a bull after going over to Iraq. He back yet? Kick his ass, bill.

Posted by: hobgoblin at January 31, 2007 03:39 PM (p1s9n)

10 I think he's saying our soldiers are stupid enough to support a president who is evil enough to become a dictator.

Oh wait, he's saying he's NOT saying it. But he would say it, if he "weren't the United States" whatever that means.

I like this guy. He's honest. He is just extending lib axioms about the President and the troops to their logical conclusions. He really believes our troops are stupid enough to follow a leader who would ask them to make him a dictator of the US, and he honestly believes Bush and/or some proto-Bush would like to become dictator.

Try to understand the brilliance of this douchebag. He has convinced himself our troops don't guarantee his freedom from tyranny, but that his whining guarantees his freedom from the tyranny the troops would support!

It's friggin' brilliant. Al Gore may have invented the internets, but this guy just saved us from Hitler and the SS!

Posted by: Harkonnendog at January 31, 2007 03:40 PM (egL1a)

11 O/T: You know, just when you think Andrew Sullivan couldn't be a bigger disengenous jackass, he tops himself.  In a post called "Black Velvet Republicans," he puts up a painting of Zell Miller and says:

"A movement finds its artform. (The artist is Jorge Terrones.)

(Yes, I know Zell Miller is not a Republican. He's a Dixiecrat with
a passion for shooting things and a blind eye for torture. Which, in
2006, means he's a Republican.)"

It's as though he's found the bottom of the barrel, decided it wasn't low enough, and kept digging.

Posted by: Slublog at January 31, 2007 03:41 PM (XGSsc)

12 I have to hand it to the left, they've managed to hide their true feelings for over 5 years now but the can't keep it up much longer. I guess since November they don't think they have to.

The amazing thing is there is zero chance this little crap-weasel will be fired or disciplined in any way.  "Freedom of speech!", they'll cry, but just not for the people who make it possible.

Fuck'em all.




Posted by: Drew at January 31, 2007 03:49 PM (gNyUT)

13 Hmm, I'm no rapist, but whether or not I'm a murderer is open for debate. In any event, I'd like to take this guy on a few patrols with me. I'm sure he'd be a great asset (or shield, if you prefer).

And yes, my IP address will show that I'm in Texas. I'm on R&R from Iraq, getting my AoS fix.

Posted by: Dr. Rock at January 31, 2007 04:07 PM (dkWnD)

14 Thank you for your service, Dr. Rock.  I'm sure you realize that people like this piece of shit are in no way representative of the majority of intelligent, thoughtful people in this country, when it comes to our support of fine, brave people like yourself.

Posted by: wiserbud at January 31, 2007 04:15 PM (56ssE)

15 Unf**kingbelievable.

Posted by: MikeZ at January 31, 2007 04:15 PM (GLMrI)

16

Here's a letter that Steven Spruiell reprinted from the WaPo blog on his NRO blog:



I just returned from my mercenary service in Iraq and I'm trying to adjust to life without obscene amounts of amenities. Thank you Mr. Arkin for helping me put this chapter of my life in perspective. For those who haven't been, as near as I can tell, the amenities consisted of a 10 X 10 room in a trailer under the flight path of F-16s, a one block walk to the shower and bathroom, a painfully slow internet connection, and a BX that stocked clothing in XXS and XL Short. Oh...there was the opportunity to work with the most dedicated and honorable people I've ever met.


Posted by: DonL | January 31, 2007 05:20 PM


 


Posted by: Nice Deb at January 31, 2007 04:17 PM (aAHWx)

17 Who'd've imagined he'd look something like this?

Has someone been cloning St. Sully?

Posted by: Entropy at January 31, 2007 04:24 PM (Uh5fR)

18 Ace does not like his commenters advocating violence against people like Arkin. Therefore I won't. Can I advocate spitting on him?

Posted by: Tushar D at January 31, 2007 04:27 PM (9ULFg)

19 Now why do I get the impression that this fucktard would be the first in line to spit on our soldiers if given the opportunity? It boggles the mind how many in the media put out such garbage and then are perplexed why so many consider them biased stooges and hold them in contempt. The irony will be lost on Arkin, but even for despicable bastards as him our soldiers will place their lives at risk to safeguard our freedoms. Of course, no doubt many of them will be in need of serious dental care from grinding their choppers after reading this...

Posted by: John at January 31, 2007 04:27 PM (Ynv7t)

20 How does one's blood not boil at this shit.

Ok, so, to the left, a civilian with no military experience is a ch*ckenh*awk (stupid mu filter). A soldier or veteran who supports the war is a mercenary. Perfect interlocked insults so that noone can support the war.

Oh, can someone explain to this cretin what a mercenary is anyway? Fighting under a head of state, or for your flag, is in no-way mercenary. There is no allegiance shift. This is what pisses me off about journalists. They, like most liberals, just throw around words that they think sound bad, without understanding them. All it illustrates to me that Arkin fails as a wordsmith and as an American.

Posted by: joeindc44 at January 31, 2007 04:29 PM (R4ojJ)

21 And this is what passes for a non-biased reporter at the WaPo! These people have gone beyond BDS into full blown seditious statements.

Put this little douchebag in front of me and have him repeat his slurs. I would relish the opportunity to beat this piece of shit to a bloody pulp.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at January 31, 2007 04:31 PM (3nKvy)

22 Thank You for you service to our country, Dr. Rock.

Rest up and enjoy.

Posted by: TXMarko at January 31, 2007 04:34 PM (4mhBS)

23 Arkin. Sounds Scandi.

He is a foul, cretinous vermin with a twisted soul.


Posted by: eman at January 31, 2007 04:36 PM (FWrFx)

24

Dr. Rock, thank you for your service.  You protect my present and my children's future.


I want you to know that here in Western Pennsylvania (more Southern than Yankee, actually), our students admire, respect, and cheer for our soldiers.  My 11-year-wants to go to the Naval Academy and then become a doctor in a militaty hospital so that he can take care of those who fight.


Posted by: goddessoftheclassroom at January 31, 2007 04:40 PM (5B7Im)

25 Iraq? He wouldn't last 10 seconds in a playground fight.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2007 04:47 PM (LITKT)

26 Lets see we have a rally where soldiers are (again) spat on my protesters, a column that says we overreacted to 9/11, and now a column echoing Joel Stein's moron "I don't support the troops" line.


Boy they really have swallowed the "Americans voted for Democrats because they are tired of the war on terror" lie they told themselves, havent they? This is disgusting to watch.


By the way I rewrote that asinine LA Times piece about 9/11 retrofitting it to Pearl Harbor. I wonder if the writer would even get the point?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at January 31, 2007 04:47 PM (FuM7z)

27 As a Soldier Arkin speaks so dismissively of, I can only say this: fuck you in the ear, pal.

Heh. Burn.

Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2007 04:53 PM (7Iqke)

28 I had to laugh at the implication that soldiers live lives of comfort the likes of which Caesar would envy, too. At my National Guard armory, most of our furniture looks like we bought it at a Lutheran rummage sale after years and years of hard use. If we DX something, it takes forever to get a replacement. And the culinary delights of the MRE (particularly the Jambalaya) have to be sampled to be imagined.

I'd tell this douchebag something else if he were near: I'd rather serve with people who volunteered. That means the guy protecting your ass in a firefight isn't doing it because Uncle Sam forced him to. It also means that he just might value those old-fashioned notions of duty and honor and country.

I just don't get how a_s*sholes like this can even develop in a free society, given the fact that they owe their freedom pretty much entirely to the United States' military might.

Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2007 05:01 PM (7Iqke)

29 Well, as a retired mercenary this little condescending bit struck a Jon-Karry-I'm-two-Dumb-and-stuk-here-in-Irak tone to me: Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

The implication being that the only sources of information those of us in, or formerly in, the service receive is official. No other sources of information could possibly exist in the WaPo writer's imagination that would be available to those serving.

Lastly, that turd is a watcher. A cowardly watcher of those who actually risk themselves in the service of others. He secretly knows he is worthless and his resentment of that self-knowledge is expressed in his writing of those who serve as 'mercenaries.'

Thanks Dr. Rock, Master Chief Airdale, Purple, geoff, Wicked, and all my brothers and sisters who risk, and risked, everything for pieces of shit like the WaPo writer.

Posted by: cranky at January 31, 2007 05:05 PM (Xj2Ev)

30 fine, brave people like yourself.

I'm actually a shiftless dilettante who's too much of an adrenaline junkie to be afraid much, but I appreciate your kind words.

How "fine" could I be anyway? I read this fucking blog!

Posted by: Dr. Rock at January 31, 2007 05:13 PM (dkWnD)

31 Let's seeif I have a handle on this 'reporter' or more accurately, propagandist, and his viewpoint, which skew severely leftward:

1. Volunteers are mercenaries, because they choose to serve their country rather than be self-serving pieces of shi'ite.
2. Only by being a militant pacifist, a sloganeering propagandist, and lying leftist shitheel is this turdhook doing his 'job', namely lambasting our armed forces, and keeping society safe by being the gatekeeper, i.e. preventing the volunteer military from becoming our own Praetorian Guard.

Is this assclown serious? Can he not see how stupid he truly is?

3. Does he seriously think our military is the coup-d'etat starting  type when the leftists like his probable heroes, Fidel and Chavez, are the coup starting types? National military standing armies are a new thing, and only when they are taken from the general population do you stand a chance of not getting a group of pro-gov't ideologues ready to do one man's, any one man's, political bidding?

Is this moron that frigging stupid? Surely the lefties don't think they make society safer by constantly deriding and attacking our military unless, of course, they're out building villages, paving roads and handing out food to the children of our enemies, which are many, so mom and dad can concentrate on killing Americans while their kids eat a balanced US diet.

After all, who wants supermodel thin child martyrs blowing themselves up in the Middle EaSt? Not me.

Posted by: Al Franken Sucks Knob at January 31, 2007 05:15 PM (LEtQ8)

32 And he's an ex-Intel Weenie, too. What is it with ex-Intel Weenies. I never met one in civilian life who wasn't a flake and hustler.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at January 31, 2007 05:24 PM (clI2H)

33 "We hear that there are tumults and riots in Rome, and that voices are raised concerning the army and the quality of our soldiers. Make haste to reassure us that you love and support us as we love and support you, for if we find that we have left our bones to bleach in these sands in vain, then beware the fury of the legions."

--A Roman centurion of the 4th Century.

Posted by: The Fastest Squirrel at January 31, 2007 05:26 PM (L8pDY)

34 I'm not saying that I hope this cocksucker gets hit by a meteor and atomized, but I'm not NOT saying I hope this cocksucker gets hit by a meteor and atomized.
Sorry, was that over the top? Ungrateful mercenaries like myself just can't help ourselves.

Posted by: UGAdawg at January 31, 2007 05:31 PM (alGm/)

35 More evidence that Heinlein was right.

Posted by: JohnW at January 31, 2007 05:38 PM (Dc9q6)

36 I love columns like this. It means the Left is overplaying their hand. Again.

Showing their true colors is ALWAYS a bad play for them and their shrewder operatives (i.e. Hilary!) know this.

If a democrat like Edwards truly had a brain he would use this as a Sister Soljah moment. But I ain't holding my breath.

Any lefty trolls here want to disavow this shit or try to defend it?

Posted by: AFKAF at January 31, 2007 05:47 PM (o208Q)

37 Where does Arkins hatred of those in uniform come from? To answer that you have to think like a narcisist. Poll after poll has shown that the military is the most respected institution in the US .the mass media and academia are among the least respected. This just kills Arkin and his ilk. They are so much better than the dunb, disadvantage rednecks and brown people duped into joining the military.

Posted by: Bobster at January 31, 2007 05:51 PM (3Vwx1)

38 Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use ...

Jesus, the "National Security Reporter" can't even master basic punctuation.

Posted by: Lipstick at January 31, 2007 05:52 PM (VM7Fg)

39 Just because I'm a simpering, prancing, self important propagandizing piece of festering shi'ite doesn't mean that the mean assed old soldiers wouldn't overthrow my sorry ass if  I were someone important. But I'm not and they wouldn't and then it begs the question:
"Is there a bigger piece of shi'ite on the planet than me at the moment? I thought not."      

Has anyone seen my mommy? I'm a pussy. Please find my mommy...

Posted by: Don't call me a weenie at January 31, 2007 05:53 PM (LEtQ8)

40 Can I cry now? Doctor Phil?

Posted by: Don't call me a weenie at January 31, 2007 05:57 PM (LEtQ8)

41 Wow. I'm a mercenary? I always thought I was just a stupid jarhead who couldn't make it in the real world.

I've really heard about enough from jackoffs like this, who would not in a million years pick up a rifle and stand a post, even if there was a draft and certainly not of thier own accord. They'd split to Canada. A**holes, every last one of them.

Take it easy, Dr. Rock, and come back safe.

Posted by: dpr VIII at January 31, 2007 06:01 PM (K1P3f)

42 Molly Ivins is dead.

I'll stick with "never speak ill of the dead" and let others discuss this.

Posted by: DSkinner at January 31, 2007 06:05 PM (Z887G)

43 Piss on Molly Ivins: may her weathered carcass reside along that of Lenin. Two dead stalinist asswipes together.

Posted by: Don't call me a weenie at January 31, 2007 06:12 PM (LEtQ8)

44 Molly Ivins is dead.

If you sit by the river long enough, all your enemies will come floating by.  Still waiting for Castro.

Posted by: toby928 at January 31, 2007 06:14 PM (PD1tk)

45 Toby, you're going to be waiting a long time: turds seldom float and Fidel is defintiely a turd. A hairy one but a turd, nonetheless.

Not a floater. Maybe Chavez floats, will his sorry ass do?

Sandman™

Posted by: Don't call me a weenie at January 31, 2007 06:26 PM (LEtQ8)

46 Dr. Rock wants to take this little tosser on a few patrols in Iraq.

I think that's inadvisable. He's too fat to easily carry and the smell of defecation would get pretty bad in the Iraqi sun.


Only if he volunteers (or mercenaries, phh), of course, I was thinking more along the lines of strapping him to the front of one of my gun trucks, a la Road Warrior (thanks for the video the other day, Ace!)

Posted by: Dr. Rock at January 31, 2007 06:35 PM (dkWnD)

47
How "fine" could I be anyway? I read this fucking blog!

Hey, buddy, work with me here, wouldya? 

Posted by: wiserbud at January 31, 2007 06:53 PM (56ssE)

48 I hope Arkin goes to Germany and some hooker craps on his face.

Posted by: mikewing plover at January 31, 2007 06:54 PM (/InkS)

49 This guy has an International ANSWER and hard-Communist/Stalinist background. That he's working for the WaPo speaks volumes to the isolation of the WaPo.

As for why the guy thinks the way he does, don't forget Communists/Leftists/Liberals/Dems (variations on the scale) are all at heart Monarchists. Look at the Hereditary Monarchy of Castro, the Kims, Chavez, Mugabe, and Saddam. With of course the nobility taken from the ANSWER types. This guy would without a doubt be happy to be one of Kim's or Castro's Secret Police "for the people." And a nice palazzo to pass on along with the position to his son and something else for his mistress. It's an old dream as old as that of Kings, nothing more.

This guy is a hard-left ANSWER guy. Who dreams of holding the whip hand and hates those who defend freedom.

That he works at the WaPo particularly as a military reporter says it all. LGF has more.

Posted by: Jim Rockford at January 31, 2007 06:57 PM (4878o)

50 I go away to watch a couple of movies and bam! the Washington Post's credibility is blown to shreds. Again. My hatred is reaching Sith Lord levels for these idiots in the media.

Stay is a strange movie. Gotta go watch Top Chef and Top Designer now.

Posted by: Stormy70 at January 31, 2007 06:58 PM (7WJsV)

51 Well rather than gnashing my teeth (AGAIN) in a fit of rage directed at the MEDIA, I sent an unpleasant communication to 'HP' whose ad was displayed prominently on the page whereon Arkin's drivel was posted.

I don't expect any satisfaction but I advised their corporate advertising department that I would never purchase an HP product again since they were 'objectively' now indirectly supporting the employment of a creature such as Arkin at a major information outlet. A 'creature' whose 'thoughts' were so offensive to me that I could not simply conduct 'business as usual'.

At least in the future I won't be in the position of so doing.

Posted by: dougf at January 31, 2007 07:16 PM (2mdd4)

52 given the fact that they owe their freedom pretty much entirely to the United States' military might.

They take our position for granted and have no concept how it came about. They truly believe what we have here in the USA is the natural order of things rather than a very rare exception.

IOW - they're fucking retards.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2007 07:25 PM (LITKT)

53 Toby, you're going to be waiting a long time: turds seldom float and Fidel is defintiely a turd. A hairy one but a turd, nonetheless.Not only that, but he's actually being killed by his own shit! Oh, the poetic justice.

Posted by: someone at January 31, 2007 08:47 PM (I/t4f)

54 Don't even think about saying this guy doesn't support our troops!

Don't think about questioning this guy's patroitism either!

I love the left's crying about being silenced by the Right for having a dissenting opinion while they type out that dissenting opinion for millions to read.

Posted by: Bigun at January 31, 2007 08:55 PM (yine1)

55 May he spend eternity in hell Sucking the Barbed Cock of Satan.

The rest of you: have a nice day

Posted by: Jed Clampett at January 31, 2007 09:37 PM (S9gKw)

56 His Imperial Rottieness, Misha I,  had it right. Rope. Tree. Journalist.

Posted by: Cybrludite at January 31, 2007 09:41 PM (XFoEH)

57 Arkin, if you're reading this, I just wanted to let you know that I'm drunk, about to get laid, and in four days I'll be back in Iraq slaughtering mahdi army/aqi/whoever...I'm livin' a life you can only dream about, buddy...so fuck you!

Posted by: Dr. Rock at January 31, 2007 10:12 PM (dkWnD)

58 Oh, and I'm putting on some Enigma to set the mood...ain't America great?

Posted by: Dr. Rock at January 31, 2007 10:16 PM (dkWnD)

59

Jim Rockford,


No offense, but get another name.  The real Rockford, James Garner, is a world-class moonbat of the Kos type.


And to think I loved Maverick as a kid.


Posted by: Paulitics at January 31, 2007 11:36 PM (47+Ys)

60 It's people like Arkin that make me take notes when I watch CSI...

Posted by: Former Lurker at February 01, 2007 12:31 AM (Xm4xl)

61 You've seriously never read any Military article by Arkin in the WaPo before ?

I'd suggest if WaPo did have a criteria for who they wanted as bloggers (as opposed to military analysts with almost unrivalled access to Pentagon sources) that having read the paper at some point would be somewhere on the list.

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 03:23 AM (aOeXm)

62 BTW I must add how pissweak it looks for AoS to refer to another blogger as "knowing who Arkin is" who posts nothing you didn't, knows fuckall and merely points to another blogger who "knows who Arkin is" who posts nothing you didn't except for some discredited bullshit and another link to a 2003 HH article where it turns out he's a greenie.

Was this the collective effort to find some dirt on a prolifict writer in regard to undermining the GWOT effort ?

Because I live on the other side of the planet and my bookstore has a copy of his latest book complete with references to the leak investigation it sparked and a blurb from a senior commander (Wes Clarke I believe) commenting on how it lays bare a wealth of US military secrets.

Would that be something more relevant you could have found if any of you were capable of research -- if looking up a writer on Amazon could even qualify as such.

Here's a thought, send that tip over to Confederate Yankee so he can try to read one of 600 pages, declare he can't find anything to corroborate it and declare the book debunked and Arkin non-existant.

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 03:48 AM (aOeXm)

63 and now a column echoing Joel Stein's moron "I don't support the troops" line.

He didn't say he doesn't support the troops.
If you also missed the entire fkn point he was making it was a response to a video where troops criticise the American public - who overwhelmingly support the troops while overwhelmingly opposing the war.

I doubt you find this public opinion position completely agreeable so you might expect one position to shift to accommodate the other. Think the fkn Iraq war is going to get any more popular chump ?

No ? Well I guess that leaves the troops getting less popular if one of these positions is going to shift to accommodate the other. That hasn't happened yet, so it is merely a possibility which would undoubtedly qualify as an unenviable outcome. Such outcomes commonly result in warnings to head off such an event.

So your brain's interpreted his hope and advice that commanders took these troops aside to advise them how inadvisable this was as being based on what Arkin believes best serves him rather than what best serves the troops. Awesome guesswork.

And a recounting of all the aspects of this military campaign and it's participants which do lend themselves to a breaking point for this overwhelming public support isn't a warning worth heeding but amounts to nothing more than one guy's personal attacks. Super.

The fact that he has served and has got more friends in the military than you have acquaintences on the planet should be a hint as to whether he is stating his own opinions about whether these troops should continue to be supported or whether he's cautioning them on how exactly they might lose that support.

Anyway, it's not like missing or ignoring this point could have any negative outcome for anyone so why not stick with the original knee jerk interpretation.

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 04:16 AM (aOeXm)

64 Really Tank, this is the guy you wanna defend?

Not surprised, you little lying weiner.

Posted by: Rocketeer at February 01, 2007 04:42 AM (AnGlZ)

65 Well no, since I generally don't defend anyone. I couldn't give a fuck whether he lives or dies tomorrow. Personally I wrote him off as a cock when he wrote a rigged assessment of Petreaus which you can probaby still find there complete with my comments.

I didn't defend Arkin, I've attacked those who are going batshit crazy based on them not being able to understand what he wrote.
Or not being able to think of any alternative response than going batshit crazy if they did realise what he was saying.

After all, the polls say what they say, yet we've been assured that the masses of Americans who don't support the war equates to them not supporting the troops.
Either this has been a massive lie about the American public perpetrated by certain pro-war commentators or there a major correction due in public opinion.

This correlation of disapproval and opposition to both the Iraq war and the troops there hasn't happened to date and as pointed out the Iraq war isn't going to be the one to change.

So have certain pro-war commentators been peddling a bullshit dishonest straw man for the past 3 years or are the troops in Iraq in real danger of losing popular support with the American public ?

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 05:05 AM (aOeXm)

66 Ah. I see. You didn't defend him.

Liar.

Posted by: Rocketeer at February 01, 2007 05:11 AM (AnGlZ)

67 Tank did you take writing style lessons from Arkin?

Posted by: roc ingersol at February 01, 2007 05:17 AM (m2CN7)

68 Tank,

"I didn't defend Arkin, I've attacked those who are going batshit crazy based on them not being able to understand what he wrote."

Well, not being able to understand your interpretation of what he wrote. First, if you are claiming that his writing is clear or in any way intelligible, then I'm surprised.

Second, he clearly is calling the troops stupid (oh, excuse me, "confused"), among other insults.

Now, you may agree with that position, and somehow think it is not an insult, but it is difficult to claim you are supporting someone at the same time you are insulting them.

Yes, and this article pretty clearly shows he is very biased in one direction, which is what people here are attacking. How can you read this blog by him and not understand that this is further proof of bias in the media. Would you really be comfortable if the New York Times' main national security "reporter" wrote a blog which was clearly far, far right? I'm sure you'll claim you would not care, but that is not credible.

the point is you have a guy "covering" a news story who clearly has a point of view and an agenda. Based on that, how can you believe you are getting a full and fair story?

Now, imagine, if you will, that such people have been covering Iraq from day one - geeze you think that such people may have been slanting the press negatively for three years? You think that constant negative drum beat from the press has anything to do with the polls?

No, of course you don't.

I have no problem with this guy being a reporter. My problem is with his hidden agenda and claiming to be a neutral, fair reporter (as all mainstream journo's claim). If he would just assert his predilictions and biases up front, then the press would actually inform people b/c they could take his writings with those biases in mind. I'm not sure what is so wrong with that - or why the left and the media fight that so much. (actually, I do know - the presses ability to influence the public leftward would be diminished if they honestly layed out their biases up front - b/c then people would weigh the news they reported a little differently).

- GB

Posted by: Great Banana at February 01, 2007 05:19 AM (JFj6P)

69 Well no, since I generally don't defend anyone. I couldn't give a fuck whether he lives or dies tomorrow.

You crack me up. Seriously. It's like watching a retard eating peanut butter.

You defended his positions, not him personally. Got it.

Thanks so for clearing that up!

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 01, 2007 05:38 AM (pzen5)

70 "Now, imagine, if you will, that such people have been covering Iraq from day one"

I'm going to assume that's a joke.
Likewise for the assumption that a military analyst you've read one blog entry from is an anti-war liberal based on a bunch of assessments from people who have never heard of him before, none of whom interpret anything sarcastic in what he wrote.

If I thought it could help I could dig you up an Anwar-drilling recommendation and provide you with an assurance that the writer was an environmental conservationist.
Based on this and no independant critical thought of your own that should make complete sense.

After all, the military analyst with better access to the Pentagon than anyone else you've heard, whos an anti-war liberal who that hates the troops makes complete sense based on some uninformed assurance right ?

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 05:38 AM (aOeXm)

71 It's like watching a retard eating peanut butter.

I so needed that today.

Posted by: pajama momma at February 01, 2007 05:42 AM (+Aq+d)

72 Seriously Tank, take some writing lessons.

Posted by: roc ingersol at February 01, 2007 05:42 AM (m2CN7)

73 Tank-

I realize that your preening arrogance prevents you from accepting the simple fact that many of us have not only heard of William Arkin, but we have read read his pieces in the WaPo and heard him on MSNBC where he is identified as both a military and intelligence expert but what about you prevents you from correctly interpreting Arkin's very clear blog post?

When you call US soldiers mercenaries and condescend to them and basically question whether we are giving them to much support, do you expect people to think you are supporting them?  Go read the post at the WaPo and then read the hundreds of comments that continue to roll in.  Is everyone an idiot unable to discern his greater truth or is it you?

I'm glad pieces of shit like Arkin clearly articulate what douchebags they are.  It helps remove the patina of objective reporter from both them and the media organizations who employ them.

Fuck you very much, Arkin.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 01, 2007 05:52 AM (t+mja)

74 One way to get the point here would be to imagine that after Abu Ghraib broke that a bunch of soldiers in Iraq were interviewed for their views on how the scandal and the US public's response to it and it went something along the lines of....

"hey if the american public doesn't like it they can go fuck themselves"

....or whatever alternative counter-criticism you want to substitute that you're happy with. Really, replace with whatever you like. Any kickback works just as well.

Now that'd be a fucking dumb response and there'd be no shortage of commentators saying "how fkn stupid are you idiots".

Now you'll recall your own reaction of "fuck this is bad" immediately after Abu Ghraib (not Haditha though cause it was sooo staged) and the fear of what reaction it would cause.

Now an interesting exercise would be to compare the public opinion about the war in April 2004 following that and where that opinion is now.
Really, it would be. I haven't.

See Abu Ghraib could have happened yesterday and been a lot worse in terms of where public opinion is now about this war. That is the environment in which *this* exchnge is taking place between US troops and the US public and a military analyst advising that ain't real bright.

Arkin didn't say...
"hey you're a bunch of cunts because of that Abu Ghraib thing", he said....
"you remember Abu Ghraib thing and how you didn't lose public support then because they still supported the war, well you're on a lot fkn thinner ice now than you were then. wise the fuck up."

Not real fkn complex. Not that hard to argue either if you're capable of engaging in honest debate about topics if you are not intellectually handicapped by ideological lockstep positions.

There is after all such a thing as a great university professor, a morally required abortion and bad foreign policy decision that involved blowing some foreigner up. Only once you feel comfortable or permitted to admit they exist thought.

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 05:54 AM (aOeXm)

75 Tank,

First, I have read him before, so stop making assumptions. Second, I read the blog entry that this discussion is about, and you apparently are the one who lacks reading comprehension skills - as it does not say what you claim it says.

Again, I ask, why is the left so afraid for reporters to put their biases up front so that people who read their reports can take those baises into account? Why is more information bad? Could it be because the left knows that the left would do worse if people received more information? Nah, that can't be it. There must be some other reason the left is against giving people information.

You can be as insulting as you want to be, it won't change the facts. This guy's blog says what it says. You can spin what he wrote all day long, it does not change what he wrote.

After all, the military analyst with better access to the Pentagon than anyone else you've heard, whos an anti-war liberal who that hates the troops makes complete sense based on some uninformed assurance right ?

I read plenty of people with pentagon access - so your nose up this guy's butt telling me he has the best of anyone is not going to change the facts of what he wrote. Moreover, I have family in the service, I served, and I know people who work at the pentagon, so I have a pretty good b.s. meter for people with "pentagon access". I'm not saying this guy does not do some good reporting. I'm saying he has biases that color his reporting and that color what he investigatres and/or reports.

You may want to ask yourself why you are so invested in this guy not being a lefty? Because you want someone to confirm your worldview that you believe has credibility, perhaps? Everyone has biases, so people claiming to have none are suspect.

I read what he wrote in the blog. I read and write for a living. I would say that my reading comprehension skills are way above the average. You are interpreting and spinning what he wrote in your own mind, and that is fine. You spin is unpersuasive and unconvincing, and the guy's own words betray your spin. Calling me names and telling me I have no independent thought or no critical thought does not advance your point or convince me. Instead, it makes me realize that you have no ability to have an actual logical discussion - and will resort to name calling like an infant. Which, I have come to expect from the left. Usually, when one does not have an argument to make, one insults.

Again, if the situation were reversed, and some reporter who wrote positive articles about Iraq on a consistent basis wrote a blog that clearly showed a right-wing bias, the left would lose their minds. Indeed, look at the left's hatred for Fox news to demonstrate that point.

- GB

Posted by: Great Banana at February 01, 2007 06:04 AM (JFj6P)

76 Let me amend my statements:

confused, incoherent liar

Posted by: Rocketeer at February 01, 2007 06:07 AM (AnGlZ)

77 Not real fkn complex. Not that hard to argue either if you're capable of engaging in honest debate about topics if you are not intellectually handicapped by ideological lockstep positions.

You really are one of those people who think they are smarter than anyone else and don't realize people are laughing at you. Good luck with that.

Posted by: roc ingersol at February 01, 2007 06:08 AM (m2CN7)

78 Abu Ghraibb, Abbugraib, abba baabb ABBA take a chance on me, blah blah Abu Yabba dabba doo.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 01, 2007 06:13 AM (pzen5)

79 Not that hard to argue either if you're capable of engaging in honest debate about topics if you are not intellectually handicapped by ideological lockstep positions

Physician...heal thyself.

Posted by: Rocketeer at February 01, 2007 06:14 AM (AnGlZ)

80 Tank - Your misrepresentations, assumptions and conclusions are astounding in their amazingly audicious stupidity. Hope you never require the "mercenary" services of a cop, firefighter or serviceman. Thanks for playing.

As for Arkin, his association with various communist and socialist front oranizations is clear and documented. Mr. Arkin does not forward knowledge of the military, he forwards an agenda.

Posted by: MCPO Airdale at February 01, 2007 06:19 AM (3nKvy)

81

He didn't say he doesn't support the troops.


Really asswipe? Um, was that before or after he called them mercenaries?



If you also missed the entire fkn point he was making it was a response to a video where troops criticise the American public - who overwhelmingly support the troops while overwhelmingly opposing the war.


Problem is, this twisted logic isn't possible.


And everybody, even dimwits like you, know it.


Posted by: Jay at February 01, 2007 06:23 AM (VZ0Yh)

82

I didn't defend Arkin, I've attacked those who are going batshit crazy based on them not being able to understand what he wrote.
Or not being able to think of any alternative response than going batshit crazy if they did realise what he was saying.


Please, explain it then genius.


I'm just one of those dummies who somehow was a Captain in the Army.


And I can't figure it out...


Posted by: Jay at February 01, 2007 06:25 AM (VZ0Yh)

83

Hey Tank,


Say "fuck" as many times as possible.


That's how people know how serious and smart you are.


Plus it breaks up those long strings of drool you keep tossing off.


As an aside, personally, Arkin has always struck me as a Scott Ritter type guy.


You remember him, right Tank?  Another guy whose word you've been taking as gospel for 5 yrs.  Just don't let him near your 13 yr old daughter.


Issues, deep deep issues.


 


Posted by: rickinstl at February 01, 2007 06:29 AM (MvmeX)

84 Jay,

Rambling + verbose = crazy smart

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 01, 2007 06:29 AM (pzen5)

85 Tank- I realize that your preening arrogance prevents you from accepting the simple fact that many of us have not only heard of William Arkin, but we have read read his pieces in the WaPo and heard him on MSNBC where he is identified as both a military and intelligence expert but what about you prevents you from correctly interpreting Arkin's very clear blog post?
Yeah you wonder about that and I'll wonder why you opted to dedicate a paragraph to contradicting this blog, the one it links to and the one that links to and trying to pass that off as being my ignorance.
When you call US soldiers mercenaries and condescend to them and basically question whether we are giving them to much support, do you expect people to think you are supporting them?
He didn't just call them mercenaries though did he. He called them mercenaries, being those who fight for money, before correcting himself to the far more generous term "volunteers" as troops are referred to. Strange. He didn't really need to do that did he... in classic form you've seen a 1000 times on blogs.

What could he expect people would interpret from this ? Hmmm.... who knows.... but you know it does remind you that the position troops hold in the public consciousness as selfless volunteers for goodness and freedom could be undercut if the public were pushed to question their role further. That's a pretty implausible concept though right.... it's not like anyone in the US has conversations where troops are portrayed as selfless volunteers for freedom. You know... where a realisation that this isn't actually an accurate portrayal could be a bad thing. Or that people seeking less reasons to support them would use such a distinction as a reason not to.

You know... like the other sentiments and incidents he recounted which you've seen previously -- here from anti-war screamers talking about troops -- who don't yet represent a majority sentiment.

Pffft..... who knows what he's implying when he reminds people that public perceptions of US soldiers could be much worse than they are given the circumstances. Probably just an anti-war hippy who's built a career on military analysis and friends at the Pentagon.
Go read the post at the WaPo and then read the hundreds of comments that continue to roll in.
FFS Why ? Are there some that talk about panda's infiltrating the Iraqi police force ? Because that would amount to a non-predictabe response I haven't yet read here.
Is everyone an idiot unable to discern his greater truth or is it you?
Let's wait and find out together.

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 06:30 AM (aOeXm)

86 1. Tank is the only one "defending" Arkin here. He does so very poorly, and kisses Arkin's ass along the way---Arkin has access, you don't, nyah nyah nyah. Kinda like having his posts read on the Senate floor. Hmmmm.

2. Tank's prose is a notch below Arkin's. I've reread his comments and still can't quite identify a coherent thesis or argument. Very similar.

3. My Theory: ARKIN'S SOCKPUPPET

OK, you bloggers do what you do best. Git'im boys!

Posted by: Cuffy Meigs at February 01, 2007 06:35 AM (JefgB)

87 This jackoff got roundly smashed in the comments section to his blog...so much so that it appears WaPo had to save his miserable hide and disable commenting (or at least it was disabled when I went there to bash..

What a cocksucker. was only a matter of time before these pukes dropped the pretense of supporting the troops, etc.

Asswipe.

Posted by: Nico at February 01, 2007 06:36 AM (059Fh)

88

Pffft..... who knows what he's implying when he reminds people that public perceptions of US soldiers could be much worse than they are given the circumstances.


Um, ok.


And then what?


You do realize, master of silly, run on sentences and periods, that perceptions could be much better if what is actually happening in Iraq happened to be portrayed in an unbiased manner?


Posted by: Jay at February 01, 2007 06:39 AM (VZ0Yh)

89

What could he expect people would interpret from this ? Hmmm.... who knows.... but you know it does remind you that the position troops hold in the public consciousness as selfless volunteers for goodness and freedom could be undercut if the public were pushed to question their role further.


It sounds like you wish this to happen. You would be gleeful if this happened.


Because if the "role" were "questioned further" (which means the public embraces lies of silly leftist like yourself) then the "illegal war" would be over and your abject simpleton worldview would be vindicated.


Don't worry coward, I get it. It's all about your intellectual insecurities.


Always.


Posted by: Jay at February 01, 2007 06:42 AM (VZ0Yh)

90 Ah. I see. You didn't defend him. Liar.
Posted by: Rocketeer on February 1, 2007 10:11 AM
I see you opted for this cop-out instead of defending your own position. Pussy.

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 06:43 AM (aOeXm)

91 And by Sockpuppet, I mean Arkin has his hand up Tank's ass making him jibber incoherently like Charlie McCarthy on meth. Either that or Tank is Arkin's Brazilian cabana boy.

Posted by: Cuffy Meigs at February 01, 2007 06:49 AM (JefgB)

92 1. Tank is the only one "defending" Arkin here. He does so very poorly, and kisses Arkin's ass along the way---Arkin has access, you don't, nyah nyah nyah. Kinda like having his posts read on the Senate floor. Hmmmm.
Posted by: Cuffy Meigs on February 1, 2007 11:35 AM
Under what circumstances would pointing out someone had access amount to a defense of them fuckwit ? Did you not think that far through your point #1 ?

I've repeatedly pointed out that he has far more access at the Pentagon than practically anyone else writing about military affairs simply to ridicule his portrayal here as an anti-war hippie. I'm not going to explain what this "Pentagon" is and how the two don't gel that well so if you haven't got the point already you're not going to.

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 06:52 AM (aOeXm)

93 You defended his positions, not him personally. Got it.
Thanks so for clearing that up!
Posted by: Dave in Texas on February 1, 2007 10:38 AM

What do you mean got it ? I wrote it you retard.
You're in Texas okay. Understand ?

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 06:56 AM (aOeXm)

94 Under what circumstances would pointing out someone had access amount to a defense of them fuckwit ?

When someone's wittle ego has been so bruised that he has to trot out his super special abilities in order to thump the thick noggins of the fuckwit trogs belittling him.

"You must agree with his analysis because he has Pentagon access, and ... has been quoted on the Senate floor!" Thanks, Arkin.

Posted by: Cuffy Meigs at February 01, 2007 06:57 AM (JefgB)

95

I've repeatedly pointed out that he has far more access at the Pentagon than practically anyone else writing about military affairs


You know this how ________?


 


Posted by: Jay at February 01, 2007 06:58 AM (VZ0Yh)

96 Tank-

Unlike when I read Arkin, reading your posts leave me confused with what you are trying to say.  The only point I have ever see you make on a consistent basis is that you are the smartest little boy a mommy could ever want.  If that thought is comforting to you, Mazel Tov.

But allow me to disabuse you of one small point.  There is nothing oblique or confusing about the term mercenary.  To use it in the context of our troops is to accuse them of being professional fighters with no allegiance other than to the almighty buck.  It is insulting in the extreme.

It also would put them outside the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

Art 47. Mercenaries


1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a)  is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;(b)  does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;(c)  is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by
the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf
of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in
excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and
functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d)  is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;(e)  is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and(f)  has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.For a guy who has a day job as a mainstream military analyst this bias is telling and disgusting.  Why you, at the very least, can't come to grips with this betrays your objectivity and makes me wonder what gauge you use to judge your own intelligence.


Posted by: JackStraw at February 01, 2007 06:58 AM (t+mja)

97

 affairs simply to ridicule his portrayal here as an anti-war hippie.


So "pentagon access" which you have no idea if it is true nor can you really define, makes one "not" anti-war?


Can you even think through the bullshit you're trying to type?
I realize that's a lot to ask.


Posted by: Jay at February 01, 2007 06:59 AM (VZ0Yh)

98

So Tank,


What you're saying seems to be that his "access" guarantees his objectivity and accuracy.  Is that right?  Try a yes or no answer this time. 


When you've got that one nailed down, we can discuss the long list of people with "access" to one thing or another who turned out to really, really, hate that thing and were using that "access" to  actively seek the destruction of that thing.


So, yes or no?


 


Posted by: rickinstl at February 01, 2007 07:02 AM (MvmeX)

99 I've repeatedly pointed out that he has far more access at the Pentagon than practically anyone else writing about military affairs

Which completely misses the point, but you are correct, in so far as you have been repeating that.

Want some more peanut butter?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at February 01, 2007 07:06 AM (pzen5)

100 Peemut Bubber, Peemut Bubber, YAAAAY!

Let's go to PEMGAGON and ride DANKS! DANKS! DANKS! YAAAAAAY! I special! I have special access! YAAAAAAY!

Posted by: Cuffy Meigs at February 01, 2007 07:10 AM (JefgB)

101 If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings

Mr. Tank , did we not comprehend what was trying to be said here also? I've got a few other articles and quotes from various supporters of the troops I would like you to clear up for me. Me not so smart.

Posted by: roc ingersol at February 01, 2007 07:16 AM (m2CN7)

102

Tank


Does your whole argument boil down to the notion that you know what Mr. Arkin is really saying, and that we don't? 


If not, then I have to admit to being unable to decypher your meaning.


Posted by: Defense Guy at February 01, 2007 07:31 AM (Akts8)

103 Nothing amuses me quite like watching leftists defend a scumbag like this and his hateful, disgusting remarks by saying things such as "he didn't say he hates the troops" or "he never said he doesn't support the troops." Yes, those phrases were not written word for word, just like Ann Coulter doesn't say "I hate liberals" in every single column, but you pretty much get the point anyway don't you.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 01, 2007 08:01 AM (FuM7z)

104 Fine, call me a pussy. But just to be clear, nimrod, the only point I am making is that you are a liar. You lie about Arkin's creds somehow making him objective, and you lie about the fact taht you're "not defending" him.

Liar.

Posted by: Rocketeer at February 01, 2007 08:51 AM (nXfXt)

105 I dunno about what others think, but I'd say that if this URL - http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulf-secret04.htm - is right about mr. Arkin's bio - and it appears to be his bio in his own words, as it's an appendix to a book of his , then my hypothesis is that the sudden switch from undercover intelligence operative in W Berlin to left-wing activist with amazingly well-informed connections about the US military can have a single explanation: Soviet double agent and mole.

Posted by: valachus at February 01, 2007 09:46 AM (JVKtf)

106 "It also would put them outside the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by
the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf
of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in
excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and
functions in the armed forces of that Party;(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Posted by JackStraw at February 1, 2007 11:58 AM"


You just described the Hajis. Well done, sir.

Posted by: dpr VIII at February 01, 2007 05:15 PM (K1P3f)

107 You do realize, master of silly, run on sentences and periods, that perceptions could be much better if what is actually happening in Iraq happened to be portrayed in an unbiased manner?
Posted by Jay at February 1, 2007 11:39 AM

No, and I don't think you do either.

After all, you are posting on a conservative blog which routinely makes such observations. Yet never brings this lack of any liberal bias to the news accounts coming out of Iraq. There are no shortage of conservative sources for Iraq reporting and the US military provides scores of reporting sources from after action reports, reconstruction projects, Iraqi forces training, literally plugged in to every aspect of operations in Iraq.

If you believe the positive news available from the complete opposite of a liberal-biased source is being under reported to the detriment of the US war effort, why do you think such news doesn't see the light of day even in conservative commentary ?

Could it be that reporting that reporting 90 more police graduated training is insignificant compared to a report that 50 executed citizens turned up dead as a result of the same police meaning nothing in terms of the sucurity situation ?

Or that painting another school really doesn't rate next to the fact that all but one of it's students have been killed, kidnapped or too scared of this to turn up ?

I dunno. It almost approaches the absurdity of suggesting relations with Iran could be better if only more stories about the positive uses of 3000 centrifuges were given more press attention.

You don't see Iran good-news-stories on FDL just like you don't see Iraq good-news-stories on AoS. Somehow the most unlikely culprit in either case is to blame.
Or you're kidding yourself and nobody else.

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 07:45 PM (aOeXm)

108 It sounds like you wish this to happen. You would be gleeful if this happened.
Posted by Jay at February 1, 2007 11:42 AM

What gave me away ?
The part where I said nobody would disagree this is an uneviable outcome ?
The common theme of every post where I referred to this as a warning of what should be avoided ?

Sounds reasonable. Sleuth on Sir!

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 07:57 PM (aOeXm)

109 You know this how ________?
Posted by Jay at February 1, 2007 11:58 AM

Like I said, I have the amazing research capabilities to locate, access and use amazon.com to look up an author and find what books he has written. Why not do this yourself rather than waiting for me to fill you in.

If I've spoiled this one for you then you could try the same excercise with "James Bamford" who recently wrote an op-ed about Bush not yet having been prosecuted for breaking the law.

In both cases when authors write books publishing a plethora of previously secret details about US defense and those publications even result in leak investigations, officials remarking on how much access the author had etc, this might constitute a hint as to whether they have a lot of access in order to pull something like that off.

Or not. There could be any number of scenarios which result in someone being able to publish an encyclopedia of 3000 previously secret US plans, military excercises, security codewords, etc.
Maybe I am wrong and he's just a really good guesser.

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 08:12 PM (aOeXm)

110 But allow me to disabuse you of one small point. There is nothing oblique or confusing about the term mercenary.

Why ? I referred to the term "volunteer" having alternative meanings that weren't applicable to soldiers.
I didn't suggest mercenaries was more appropriate or that it was applicable if you just interpreted it differently.

You've seen, heard and even witnessed your peers make the same arguement I have. That these forces joined of their own free will. They get paid unlike other volunteers and the situation where they get put in harms way for the good of the nation is one they sought out for pay.

Is the portrayal of these soldiers in the public's eye as selfless volunteers untouchable ? Is there no way in which this could change, unlike say the common claim that they are protecting the free speech of US citizens (from Saddam, Sunni insurgents, Shiia militias, the Taliban, etc one presumes) ?

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 08:31 PM (aOeXm)

111 Fine, call me a pussy. But just to be clear, nimrod, the only point I am making is that you are a liar.

Gee if that was your only point it might have helped if you explained why that was the case rather than just stating it. Make it more of an actual point rather than an assertion.

You lie about Arkin's creds somehow making him objective, and you lie about the fact taht you're "not defending" him.
Liar. Posted by Rocketeer at February 1, 2007 01:51 PM

Actually I referred to Arkin's access at the Pentagon to suggest those portraying him as an anti-war hippy had less credibility, not that Arkin had more. This was explained previously.

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 08:40 PM (aOeXm)

112 So "pentagon access" which you have no idea if it is true nor can you really define, makes one "not" anti-war?
Can you even think through the bullshit you're trying to type?
I realize that's a lot to ask.
Posted by Jay at February 1, 2007 11:59 A
Speaking of troops comments hurt them rather than helping their position...
Didn't you just get through telling us you are/were a Captain in the Army there Jay ?

And you've followed that up by calling bullshit on the perception that anti-war liberal activists are unlikely to have a lot of friends and willing sources at the heart of the military.

Well why not throw in some personal accounts to knock that arguement down. Recount some anecdotes of how when you were a Captain in the Army you were happy to discuss military insights and secrets with anti-war hippies and that didn't sound hysterically implausible at all.

Posted by: Tank at February 01, 2007 08:52 PM (aOeXm)

Posted by: wewywuri at February 03, 2007 03:53 AM (UrMFd)

114 t2bpiddr http://www.676454.com/727326.html vcg0lr50nzdujap

Posted by: l07tm7ekkb at February 04, 2007 03:14 AM (K0rG5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
161kb generated in CPU 0.14, elapsed 1.582 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.4696 seconds, 350 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.