Shrub never had, nor will ever have, the backbone.

Republics must be so proud.

Are the families now allowed to be there when the caskets arrive? I am glad Obama did this – perhaps he got a small feeling that those were real people whose families have now lost a husband, a father, a mother, a brother or sister. They are not numbers to be counted – they are ours.

Oh, and if any conservatives whine about the salute as opposed to the hand-on-heart, ask them if they got upset when Saint Ronnie Raygun did it Obama’s way: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reagan_salute_1984.jpg

Yes, they are. They also have control over whether the visits can be photographed.

George P. Bush must get his sense of service from his mother’s side of the family. I hope no President has to greet his return like this.

I hate to be the cynic here, but I can’t help but wonder whether the President is pulling a PR stunt just prior to announcing an escalation in Afghan-Pak? Still, that he actually showed up at Dover is a damn sight better than Shrub, who was (presumably) down in Crawford clearing brush.

Great catch. Thanks PW

The cynic in me says that any time the Prez appears in public its got a PR tag on it.

It is not a PR stunt because the President is not a Rove-managed Republic.

Good move, too long in coming.

Mr. Obama should follow it by loosening restrictions on taking such pictures, which was prohibited by Mr. Bush.

He should then preside over at least one funeral of an active duty service man or woman killed in action in Iraq or Afghanistan. It’s a five minute drive by presidential motorcade from the White House, across the Potomac River, to Arlington National Cemetery.

Neither George Bush nor Dick Cheney had time to do that in eight years. Big Dick flew around the country to defend torture and to shoot ducks. Shrub spent many months “clearing brush” in Crawford and more months hanging out at Camp David in the nearby Maryland woods. But neither man condescended to cross the river to demonstrate humility, to express public and private grief over the fallen, and to look their relatives in the eyes and tell them their sacrifice was worth it.

The third thing Mr. Obama needs to do is to adjust his policies so there’s far less need to bury the dead – ours or theirs.

Now watch this drive!

WTF, I mean PR is “Public” relations. Everything they do is such by definition.

We misunderestimated Bush. He was worse than we thought in every way.

If it is for PR in addition to honor and ceremony, then this might bode well that our POTUS is calling attention to the fact that our troops are dying and may be inclined to bring them home? or reduce numbers?

Maybe I’m too hopeful.

Of course, the media is worshipful of Obama for this stunt, while George Bush would have been excoriated for exploiting troops’ deaths!
/politico

Bush did visit the wounded but that’s because they could talk and tell him how great he is…the dead ones can’t. I know that’s harsh.

It is kind of damned if you do, damned if you don’t, now that Presidents “choose” if they are going to or not. If it becomes an optional duty, the choice is under greater scrutiny.

But true.

I can’t believe any president would be callus enough to use dead US troops as a PR stunt.

But he wept. Yes, it was alone at night after a calming libation or four and the Oval Office rug absorbed his salty issue without a stain-blocked trace…But it’s only vicious jackboot liberal partisanship that denies Bush his moment of fleeting emotional contribution to self-pity – er, the troops.

;>)

one could argue that it is a PR stunt NOT to visit them. Support the WAR (I mean)Troops!

Yes, this is what Presidents do. They cynically exploit the military to stage photo ops burnishing their image as the Commander-in-Chief.

Perhaps Blue Texan perhaps how disgusted we were when Bush did this? But at least Bush only did it with soldiers he had not actually gotten killed yet. Obama found a way to make the exercise even more appallingly tasteless.

Prediction: The Sunday after Obama announces he is sending tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan – though not as many as McChrystal wanted, just to show who’s wearing the codpiece – David Axelrod will make an appearance on one of the blatherfests in which he will mention this photo op as evidence of how deeply Obama respects the troops’ sacrifice. So you just know that he wouldn’t send more of them into harm’s way unless it was Absolutely Necessary to… well, they’ll decide on a particular lie about our aims there when the time comes.

I wonderf if John Bush gets mad when people say that his brother George should have greeted fallen troops or military funerals?

“Big Dick flew around the country to defend torture and to shoot ducks his friend in the face.”

Fixed it.

How did Obama make this “appallingly tasteless” or is this just blatent trolling by you?

The very thought of Cheney with a gun in his hand is terrifying as crazy as he is. I certainly hope that he never goes hunting again.

Uh, I don’t see how showing up to pay your respects, which really, is the minimum, is cynical exploitation.

Staging an elaborate photo-op involving the troops and aircraft carriers, on the other hand, would qualify.

I’m pleased that, while still reviewing the policies he means to implement in the near military future, he took this step.

Anyone ever see the movie Taking Chance? It was very well done and moving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_Chance

Banners. You forgot banners.
Yeah, there’s a big difference between the twos pr stunts, I’d say.
It’s a sucky day when we can’t even feel better by putting Bush down, don’t you think?
Nice effort, though. Thanks, BT. Much appreciated.
Sometimes even Context sucks.

Cheney is an example of why guns should be licensed.

over at “they gave us a republic” there is an EXCELLANT point by blue girl

But more importantly, the President needs to carry the weight of the solemn duty he performed this morning with him every moment of every day as he decides what to do in Afghanistan. I want him to feel the pain of the families and the faces of the mothers and wives who were their to meet their sons and husbands, men whose presence in their lives will be replaced by a tri-cornered flag displayed on the mantle.

quite a girl that blue, isn’t she?

Look at it this way – given what we’ve seen as the Cheney prowess with firearms, odds are pretty good that next time he somehow ends up shooting himself in the face.

Or foot.

Or crotch.

*gotta shut down this fantasy* *g*

Standard disclaimer: Please assume that wherever the above comment is questionable in intent or seriousness, it should be construed entirely as metaphorical and whimsical, and is in no way advocating violence against the ex-Creep Veep.

even if he does it to himself.

P.S. that was a painful disclaimer.

I can’t imagine what possibly made you say that.
That’s just ugly.
Gotta grudge, bub?
Oh, don’t tell me yeah and it’s all Obama’s fault. You’ve already tipped your hand.

Having photographers on hand to disseminate the image of oneself “honoring the sacrifice” of the poor bastard (or what pieces of him could be retrieved) in the coffin – as a means of pre-emptive ass-covering for one’s plan to send more of his brethren to similarly grisly fates – strikes me as Very Bad Taste.

And, I suspect, it would strike you exactly the same way if we were discussing President McCain. I understand that it’s supposed to be different somehow because it’s Our Guy… but the thing is, it’s not.

There’s really not much of anything good anyone can say about W.
Well, except the fact he’s gone.

You are completely wrong both about Obama’s motivations as well as mine in responding to you. How did you feel about Decider Bush playing dress-up?

More patriotic-jingoistic support the troops crap.

Disgraceful: “Obama continuing to murder thousands of people a week”? No.

Obama Bush insufficiently laudatory of America’s heroic baby killers.

Rah rah rah. We’re number one!

…when Bush did this?

Name me one time.

But at least Bush only did it with soldiers he had not actually gotten killed yet.

Otherwise known as the hand-picked rooting section?

As to the rest of your comment – feh. I’m not in the mood.

Which theatre did these troops return from; Bush’s or Obama’s?

Just bring them home NOW.

There is no doubt in my mind that a President McCain would have gone to show his respect for our fallen troops; that is what normal Presidents do. As a 21-year veteran, it galled me to no end that Bush did not have the personal courage to do the same.

At least Obama has taken the step to honor those that have fallen and they aren’t just a number that gets reported up the chain. I hoped that Obama had the courage to go and am glad he has.

it’s interesting someone wants to keep a president from welcoming home a fallen soldier by calling it “a pr stunt”

also interesting, I guess the point is missed, the families were asked if it’s what they want for their fallen angel

but there it is, when you point out how depraved the previous administration was, why then it MUST be “a pr stunt”

I cannot believe anyone in that party still wants to associate themselves with the man that did this to our country, did this to the future for generations to come

if they could have any hope of reclaiming their party the very first thing they need to do is recognize the depravity and distance themselves from him and his neo-con puppetmasters

Are you sure?
I suggest you— check again.

Which theatre did these troops return from; Bush’s or Obama’s?

What difference does it make?

They were American soldiers.

I feel your pain, jayt.
((jayt))
Did that help. Everyone needs a hug today, I think.

I don’t think President Obama did this as a PR stunt. If he sends more troops to Afghanistan & we suffer many casualties & defeat, no picture or video of the President at Dover would salvage his reputation. My guess is he probably realizes this is now “his war”, regardless of who invaded & mismanaged it for years, & he wants to do things right.

I’m surprised I’m hearing that from you tinman, is that fecetous or is this something you and progressives agree?

do you have something you think he did right?

if so, post a diary, I will definately participate and I promise to respect your point of view

Clearly, said commenter did not read the title of the post.
And, to said commenter: We’re not impressed with fancy language, bub.
There are very intelligent people here, but we hear with our hearts.

Take that baby killer shit and shove it.

Obama is a slicker version of Bush, no more and no less.
Honor the fallen by getting out of Afghanistan, baring that it’s all just lofty rhetoric and theatre of the absurd.

It is elementary that Obama will be smash-mouthed whatever he does or thinks or says or doesn’t do or think or say. It is the way of things. So he might as well do the right thing and get clobbered for that, eh?

Quite true and in doing those right things he will continually expose Bush as the small man he really is.

You are completely wrong … about Obama’s motivations…

And pray tell, what is your basis for saying “you’re wrong” rather than “I disagree”?

Because Obama seems like a nice guy to you? Or other similarly compelling evidence?

Sorry but I am fresh out of troll-food now.

America’s heroic baby killers.

You forgot to add, “But we support the troops”.

No.

If they quit killing babies, I’ll quit calling them baby killers.

Badwater can speak to you about your being wrong or incorrect about Badwater’s motivations. Don’t you see? Think for a second. Only Badwater would know the motivations. Clear up, person.

I’m sure you are going to prison because you are not paying taxes to support this enterprise huh loudmouth?

“Democracy is the process by which people choose the man who’ll get the blame.”
Bertrand Russell

The main purpose of Governments is to protect the people.

45,000 people die from inadequate healthcare, – so we turn to our Gov. for protection and Obama takes Universal Coverage off the table.

The Taliban have no capacity (no country on earth has) to invade American shores. Yet Obama insists that Afghanistan is a security risk.

BS is BS, and the rest is empty cynical gestures.

Always hilarious when trolls try to act as though they have a conscience.

Let me guess: you’re a baby killer yourself or know one?

I await your defense of baby killing with interest.

This vein runs deep, and will take years to mine.

Michael Whitney has a fresh cross-post up: “Halfway There: Donate for Organizers in Arkansas to Primary Blanche Lincoln”

(((Raven))) !!!

I’m thinking that you picked the wrong place to go all back-asswards ’60’s jerk. There are a lot of veterans here.

Stick around. Maybe you’ll be able to catch not only Raven, but Norske and Southern Dragon all here at the same time.

And then start slinging that shit and see how long you last.

fwiw, I’m the father of an active service-member. He hasn’t hit the shit yet, but you’re pissing me off too.

I didn’t read Raven’s comment as a defense. Not at all.
I think you missed his point completely. But, I’m not surprised.
Are you here to learn? Must stop and think for a moment.
Knee jerk gets you what, exactly?

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

GO

You’re welcome.

please list your military service.

Or any other kind of service.

You have no idea what you’re talking about, and if you don’t apologize immediately to Raven – then I respectfully, but forcefully, request that any Mod’s out there ban this piece of shit.

ah David, do you have some special straw concession allowing you to construct all these straw men arguments you’ve been throwing out here the last few days?

jayt, stand up for yourself, wont’cha.

Flameeater and Southern belle, are not going to change the reality of the perversity of the expanded Monroe Doctrine.

Let’s not get down into that mud…past history..Bush visited soldiers in the hospital so let’s move on. (No Shub lover)…

Raven, this same guy did a diary the other day where he conveniently built all these straw arguments on feminism and how evul the feminists are.

Take it from there with a grain of whatever.

I’m gone fuck these assholes

I’ve never said this here, but Shut Up.
Myself, I’m going to make a chocolate cake.
It’ll make me feel better. Raven, jayt, waron,etc…I’ll let you know when it’s ready.
Can you imagine how miserable some persons must be to say some of the shit being flinged here?

As soon as the cake’s in the oven, I’ll meet you at the corner. And, I’m bringing My Stuff!

(((Dakine)))
(((Ravine)))
(((jayt)))

Yum! Actually, I’ve got to run to the grocery store, but thanks!

Bring back some ice cream?

Have you tried Ben and Jerry’s Peach Cobbler? It’s wonderful.

Military personnel are like law enforcement officials – servants of a public who as a body must accept ultimate responsibility for their actions, both good and bad.
Hopefully, you are taking your responsibilities as a member of the public toward those who serve on your behalf seriously, as frivolous ’60’s-style radical flamebait usually fails to indicate that.

depends whether knee jerk is an adjective or a noun.

Convoluted arguments and bizarre attacks on Obama are the only ways to defend Decider Bush.

Do you know what “straw man” means?
You don’t seem to.

Oh? Peach is my husband’s favorite. Will give it a try. Thanks, hon.
Are you ducking? Sheesh. Cwazy man.

Obama is expanding the AFPAK theatre, – how the fuck do you defend that?

You mean how you were conflating “worry about bystanders” to = “active participation in rape?” Yeah, I understand strawman arguments.

Ain’t it so?!

Have been under my desk for the last few minutes. “g”

jayt, stand up for yourself, wont’cha.

You wanna talk to me?

Bring it.

I appreciate your wild threats. They help show the character of the people who disgaree with me and like to defend baby killing. It’s good because so many here don’t think baby killing is a bad thing whereas apparently words on a blog comment thread can be.

Apologise for what?
Giving him a guilty conscience?

Ha!

Har! Har! Thanks, babe. Nice image. Noun.

so many here don’t think baby killing is a bad thing
Keep digging yourself in. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I don’t appreciate ignorant patronizing. Not a bit.

What on earth were you trying to say there?
That really was incomprehensible.

Why do you think baby killing is a service to the public? These people are not serving the public. They are serving Haliburton as the lowest form of vicious thugs. Go on. EXPLAIN it to me how killing babies helps the public.

again – why don’t you list your own military service, and please also provide specific examples of how you managed, as an 18-20 yr old young man, to courageously stand up against the machine you rage against?

You’ve got nothing. Ever even been in a fist-fight?

If so, how long were you hospitalized?

[Edited by Mod]. Go take a nap.

I liked it better when we were discussing balloon boy.

WTF? Nobody here’s even mentioned rape – but you.

in support of DavidByron @ 96;

Smedly Butler

Where the fuck was george bush on opening night of the world series?
President went to receive our best for four hours, from Midnight till after 4 in the morning and this is the shit he has to put up with.
Weather he saluted or put his hand over his heart.
Maybe President Obama can’t stop what george started , that’s right this may be not be stoppable by ANY man alive.In less than a year with nothing else to do end it all. Really

As to the asses ripping our vets, never because they did what they thought was best for their country out of a depth of love for their country you haven’t show yet.
Hate the two faced political bastards that put our vets in harm’s way with their vile disgusting lies for filthy lucre.

Barbara, you’re rockin’ today.

Vets, 1000
Trolls, less than zero…

pretty much sums ‘em up. Slime beneath pond scum always tells.

Just pointing out your words from your diary yesterday as an example of a strawman argument is all.

All I am getting from you is an outpouring of irrational aggression.
That what you were aiming for?

Oh I get it; you’re one of those [edited by Moderator] that fancies themselves some sort of global cop. You attack people and pick fights for no reason; I’m not interested.

I was talking about the attitudes to US forces that have collectively killed over a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you want to join that discussion fine. If not, also fine. If you just want to piss me off you’ll have to try a lot harder.

My dear sweet Davey-boy… [Edited by Mod.].

Why the fixation on “baby killing”?

Hit a nerve, have I? Of course you can’t comprehend what you haven’t bothered to think through. Reflexive leftist anti-authoritarian thinking (or playacting at it for the purposes of trolling) hoists itself on its own petard quite handily.

Now, who’s got cake?

;>)

If I follow your “logic” you are saying that unless I have personally murdered babies I have no standing to criticise those who have. Is that correct?

I reject that “logic”.

Well this thread was a barrel of fun.

Take it up on the issues, otherwise you’re just sounding pathetic.

Being against wars of choice is not tantamount to being against the vets!

Wouldn’t that be more appropriate in that diary?

Nobody here is a warmonger.
People who blame the soldiers for the shit that happens in war are plain, fucking stupid.

I’m not aggressively picking a fight. I asked you to stop and think. And, what I think is that you should you should [edited by mod]. Very simple.
Pissing you off? Not at all. There’s a saying Don’t go away mad, just go away.

you wanna talk about American foreign policy? That could lead to an actual discussion.

you wanna call the men who put their lives on the line doing what they believed was right – and please keep in mind that these were men not only very young, but most certainly not policy makers – you wanna call them baby-killers?

One way works – the other doesn’t. But you’ve already burned your fences here, [Edited by Mod.].

UNLESS – you wanna answer my #97.

All this talk about baby killing.

First I thought you were anti-military, but now I suspect you’re just anti-abortion.

Firefriends. David was mean to me.

I mentioned it once!!!
ONCE.

And then everyone else seemed so keen on it I just followed along.

I actually object to a whole wide range of people being offed by the US military. Democrats, Vegetarians, Britney Spears supporters….

…you are saying that unless I have personally murdered babies I have no standing to criticise those who have. Is that correct?

Of course that’s not correct – you know good and goddamned well that it’s not correct, and to attempt such a specious and cowardly response tells me a lot.

you’ve never done a goddamned thing – and you still got nuthin’.

Lindy in the brig and the Architects living it up? That’s one way of showing you care for the vets.

Making the public aware of the price being paid as a consequence of the policies of the leaders it elects is an essential act of both the press and government.

Who the dead are may be a private matter. That there are dead and dying, wounded and suffering, as a consequence of our government’s actions is a necessary fact that must be communicated to the public. A picture continues to be worth at least a thousand words.

The public needs to know and be confronted with those facts, however pretty or ugly they may be, so that they know what is being done in their name and that they can accept, reject or modify the actions that led to them. It’s why Eisenhower paraded the locals before the human detritus of the post-war concentration camps in Europe. Avoiding that consequence – and avoiding creating a pictorial record of their actions – is exactly why Bush and Cheney hid such images from the public they claimed to lead.

Right. Blaming soldiers for war is like blaming bank robbers for robbed banks, or blaming rapists for rape. Absolutely ridiculous.

As I stated above, a master of the strawman argument

Ah, jeez, and I didn’t even use The Word. Sigh.

President Obama honored our troops last night. Mrs. Obama honored our troops and their families at the World Serious.

Would that those who are so quick to attack the sobering work of the current administration would give a thought to what they’ve done for honor.

I already answered you in #107

I engaged you in that diary until such time as you made the statement I referenced above. At which point I realized you were not engaging anyone in good faith.

Well I certainly apologise if you feel that way.
(not a joke or sarcasm)

that wasn’t an answer, it was an evasion.

Um, not at the #107 on this thread. Maybe in Dave’s world.

Maybe you should explain would you DID intend to say then?
That’s how people communicate.

If that isn’t what you meant I can only guess your whole post was an ad-hominem attack. That means you tried to make an argument by making remarks about the messenger, not the message, OK? It’s an irrational technique.

hey fucknut fuckno – haven’t heard back from you yet.

WTF would you know about honor?

The Prez and wife are honoring the donations from the Military Industrial Complex, we’ve been warned against by Ike.

Next he’ll dispatch 15,000 into the Waziristan meat grinder. Purrrfect.

You don’t consider calling someone an idiot is mean?

So WTF are you still talking to me about?!?
Engage or don’t. Pick one.

Praire, don’t listen to fuckno.

Sooooooooo,

wanna here how OldFatGuy almost got lucky last night??? Yeppers, almost happened. Was at the Dulles Marriott, and there was this hot chick there looking lonely, so I thought, what the heck. Bought her a drink, and told her if she was interested in finding out what 300 pounds of dynamite was like in bed, I’d be glad to get a room and show her. Well, eventually my persistance paid off (after 18 drinks) and she conceded

So we get to the room, and by now it’s nearly 2AM, and she sits on the bed and I tell her I’m going to the bathroom, get undressed, and when I return I’ll show her what 300 pounds of dynamite is like in bed. So I emerge from the bathroom, she takes one look at me, stands up, yells and screams loud enough to wake the dead, and tears out of the room, running at full speed and yelling at the top of her lungs.

The manager, awaken, finally caught her, grabbed her by her shoulders and said “Lady, PLEASE, calm down. It’s 2 in the morning, you’re causing a big ruckus. What is wrong?”

The lady replies “QUICK, run for your LIVES!!! No time to waste!! Down in room 138 theres 300 pounds of dynamite with only a three inch fuse! RUN!”

So, continue to argue about wars and baby killing all you want. Bet none of you had the awful night I did last night.

No I don’t. Unless they really are below 80 IQ, of course. Sometimes people get carried away is all. Ever happen to you? It happened to me.

Again: sorry.

Once? Look back at #38, #57, #63, #92, #96.

Because I was fairly certain that a lot of folks may not have been aware of your diary and arguments. You chose to engage with me this afternoon after I pointed out your straw concession.

Praire, don’t listen to fucknobrains.

Fixed. Briskly brushes the detritus off her hands and goes out to find the mop to clean up the home neighborhood. Not gonna be bowed by pipsqueaks–I have pavement on my block today for the first time in two months, ain’t nuttin’ bringin’ me down today.

[weird stuff in the preview...suits the tone o'the thread]

Unless they really are below 80 IQ, of course.

That does it.

You’re an irredeemable [edited by mod], and I most fervently hope that you would do us the small favor of [edited by mod].

Unless, of course, there are still people here you feel the need to personally insult.

I would imagine that most have moved to the next thread – please don’t feel any obligation to follow.

Just to make a point. We are humans. Words hurt.
You accused Prairesunshine of having no honor, did you not?
Not only is she a bright, loyal, kind-hearted friend here, but she just lost her husband two months ago. Imagine how your comment sounded to her?
Not picking a fight, just asking you to think before you hit submit. Might be better for a lot of folks.
Okay?

Proud of you. (big hug)

“a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.”
“In addition to his military career, Smedley Butler was noted for his outspoken anti-interventionist views, and his book War is a Racket. His book was one of the first works describing the workings of the military-industrial complex and after retiring from service, he became a popular speaker at meetings organized by veterans, pacifists and church groups in the 1930s.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

Look it’s just an expression.

It emphasises the cowardly and immoral nature of the US soldier in a neat two word phrase: “baby killer”. Obviously they murder all sort of people. I don’t personally think a foetus is a person, though I do think forcibly and violently attack a pregnant woman in such a way as to cause a miscariage is wrong and I’m sure the US forces have done plenty of that too… but murder is worse.

You’ve jumped the shark with this comment.

Why is anyone still talking to this moron?

What do you base these sweeping generalizations about soldiers on? The self-righteousness just pours off of your posts.

Dude! YOU attacked ME first!!

No reasonable answer. I’m over it now.

You seem to be equating disagreements with attacks. Just because someone thinks that your argument is full of shit and so states, it is NOT a personal attack against you. I noticed that trend in your comments yesterday.

You might try getting over yourself sometime.

Also I have never replied to “Prairie Sunshine”.

Body bags shipped in from across the world and demi sez:

“Words hurt”

What a pathetic disconnect!

Sorry, guys, I guys I got you two gentlemen mixed up.

gentlemen my ass

Actually, my brother is below 80 IQ. He has mental retardation. He is an absolutely charming, polite, respectful person living to the maximum of his ability. Are you getting my drift?

(wink)

Dear Mod:

How’s that body armor working for you? Needing it for this thread!

Right. I am done bickering with you lot.

I said US soldiers were baby killers. An emotive term but my comment was aimed at nobody in particular. That’s a very relevent comment to topic of this thread which is about Obama, Bush and whether its a good thing to pay homage to US soldiers. I am saying it is NOT good. I can see a lot of people here had a “knee jerk” reaction to that comment but are emotionally unable to really articulate why. Certainly nobody can claim that US soldiers are not killing huge numbers of babies (and others).

A lot of people here have a lot of emotional issues to work out I think. Perhaps they know people or have been in the position of “killing babies” themselves. But I won’t be toning down my position on this issue. Some have called for me to be banned for my political views here. If that’s the basis then so be it. I’m sorry if some are upset by such a simple truth. If you kill babies you have no honour. Well duh. Do you really need someone to point that out for you? I doubt it. Look to your own consciences for where your anger should be targeted.

Or just flame me; I won’t care I assure you.

You have misused the term “baby killer” to get reactions.

A derogatory term used to identify Vietnam-era veterans returning from the war in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

Why you want those reactions delves into the psychology of trolling. It certainly has nothing to do with the US soldiers of today

Certainly nobody can claim that US soldiers are not killing huge numbers of babies (and others).

Why yes, I can, and I do. What’s your proof that US soldiers are “killing huge numbers of babies”?

It’s not a derogatory term when it’s true. I’m not flaming soldiers. They really are mass murderers. That’s a fact. Over one million people dead in Iraq alone. Maybe as high as three million dead. They are not good people, OK? These crimes they are committing are the worst crimes humanity has.

What’s your proof that US soldiers are “killing huge numbers of babies”?

Don’t be absurd.

Further, what proof do you have that its their intention to “kill huge numbers of babies”?

What strategic purpose does this serve? Is it part of “winning hearts and minds”? Perhaps it’s part of their new counter-insurgency program? Do you imagine that babies pose a tactical threat to our military? Or perhaps they pose a strategic threat; perphaps there’s a mine-shaft baby-gap that the Russians Iraqis have over us?

Not being absurd at all.

Again, what proof do you have that babies are being killed in huge numbers by our troops?

You’re the one making what most people would consider an outrageous claim (even most people on the left); why do you think you deserve not to be ridiculed roundly if you can’t substantiate your claims?

Do you find it to be ok to blow up wedding parties?

You see, David, harping on dead babies cheapens your very valid argument about wars in general, and perhaps especially Wars of Aggression. Talk about innocent civilians and you will be making a stronger point.

Our Country, in our names is engaging in War crimes on foreign soil, and we should all wish and agitate for this BS to stop!

Our Country, in our names is engaging in War crimes on foreign soil, and we should all wish and agitate for this BS to stop!

That argument has nothing in common with David’s claim that US troops are intentionally killing “huge numbers of babies.”

Should we be enganged in these current wars with the stated goals? I’d say no. Does that make all US soldiers baby-killers? Also no.

Are Iraqis who merely seek to defend their country “guilty”?
They are all innocent.

I’m fine with “baby killer”. I don’t usually use it but it just seemed to fit the style of the prose at the time.

Of course, one of life’s little ironies is the visitors we get at FDl from Iraq would be condemning you just as readily for your lack of action as you condemn everyone else here.

Sux don’t it?

Well it’s good to know that you are more about style than substance.

I don’t think that hyperbole is necessary to make a point where reality already makes a sufficient point on its own. Perhaps you’re just a drama queen, so knock yourself out, but perhaps finding out whether anyone here thinks that , say, the Afghan War is a defensive security operation and therefore justifiable, might set a better table for your arguments.

OK. Wow. You’re actually serious.

Firstly I didn’t say “intentionally”, although of course it is intentional indirectly. It’s not intentional as in the babies are proximal targets, which is what you seem to mean. Probably. Who knows really? But we do know they kill a hell of a lot of babies.

The babies did appear to be proximal targets in the 90s. US policy was to destroy civilian infrastructure and blockade humanitarian imports (both crimes against humanity, incidentally). The aim was to spread diseases that would kill thousands of people and the youngest are often most vulnerable.

Nobody knows their real mind. But we do know 1 to 3 million people are dead. How many babies were among them in your view? Now back to “intent”. While it may not be true (might be, might not) that baby killing was the proximal goal, clearly it was the anticipated result. By continuing it wasn’t just reckless as to the consequences, it was premeditated murder.

You’re just playing word games if you deny they killed so many.

I’m fine with “baby killer”. I don’t usually use it but it just seemed to fit the style of the prose at the time.

That’s odd; I thought you were complaining about ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies. Let me say that an unsubstantiated claim is the mother of all logical fallacies.

So if you insist on being treated as a “good actor” in a debate, you must act that way too.

So, for what reason, other than your sense of self-righteousness, do you claim that US soldiers are “killing babies in huge numbers?”

I made no hyperbole. Why do you insult me?
OK I don’t wish to talk to you further.

Awwww, Is hism upset that no body wants to speak nice nice to him? Now, now, just relax and let Mother’s Little Helper take over and it will be all better in the morning.

I’m confident that Lancet could ‘ reasonably’ break down the numbers. But, from where I stand numbers are less important than the action itself. We are fighting an unjust war, for the benefit of the Military industrial complex, and as to Obama, it is because as von Clausewitz stated: war is an extension of politics.

So, fuck war, and fuck Obama and the Donkey he rode in on.

formatting problem

But we do know 1 to 3 million people are dead.
No we dont. Where are you getting those numbers from?

How many babies were among them in your view?
No idea. 1%? Youre making the claim so the burdens on you. BTW, dont use the Lancet Study cause they only claim ~600,000 killed, much lower than your 3million number.

Now back to “intent”. While it may not be true (might be, might not) that baby killing was the proximal goal, clearly it was the anticipated result. By continuing it wasn’t just reckless as to the consequences, it was premeditated murder.

Killing babies isnt an anticipated result at all in any number of scenarios. Particularly not in situations in which civilians are mistaken for combatants. Civilians die in wars; thats one of the tragedies of war. If we dont want civilians killed, we shouldnt go to war. The decision to go to war is made by our civillian government so it seems your beef is with them.

[BTW-what's the deal with apostrophes and this comment system?]

<

You’re just playing word games if you deny they killed so many.

No, I’m just asking you to justify an outrageous claim. You’re inability to do so indicates that you are, in fact, the one playing word games.

Further your juvenile insistence on couching your argument in the most outrageous terms possible puts the lie to your concern for the Iraqis. If you really gave two craps about them, you’d try to win people over to your point of view rather than glorying in your self-righteous rhetoric.

But hey, it wouldn’t be the internet if it wasn’t for guys like you.

So basically you’re a holocaust denier. No different from someone who goes around saying it wasn’t really six million dead Jews in WW2 but “only” one million. I’m not going to play that game. I’ll say to you what I would to them.

You say its “only” 600,000 dead.

How does that change the moral calculus one jot? 1% still makes 6000 dead babies.

The decision to go to war is made by our civillian government so it seems your beef is with them.

The Nuremberg defence? (”Just following orders”) You actually just used two Nazi defences in one post there. Unintentionally I assume?

Do you understand why the Nuremberg defence is invalid?

Do you understand why you haven’t established that involuntary civilian deaths can be equated with genocide?

You do seem to make some long distance leaps of logic. From your yesterday where “bystander” = “active participant” to today where someone questions your figures so they’re a “holocaust denier”?

How does one become so pure of thought and intention to know all that you state Master? How does one achieve such a highly enlightened sense of what is truly being said when the words do not reflect what you think they say?

Involuntary ???

Where did I say genocide? It is of course, genocide but I didn’t say that. Do you want to swap sides and you make my case for me?

Yes many political figures have stated that the US action in Iraq constitutes genocide. I think getting into the exact definition is a distraction but in brief, “Duh”, of course it is. But I don’t wish to get bogged down in that argument.

What do you mean by “involuntary” deaths?

Are you suggesting the US ACCIDENTALLY killed 3 million people? Do you know what that word means? That’s one hell of an accident. A real piece of bad luck you might say.

As I said above you are reduced to playing word games and here it comes. I shoot you in the head with the muzzle pressed against your skull but I didn’t intend to kill you – I just wanted to take your wallet. Ridiculous. Legally its murder still.

You are responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions. That is a moral axiom. At a minimum then the US soldiers are murderers, but as I say, genocide it was, and that includes intent. I have no wish to prove it (you were the one that brought it up). I simply sad the US soldiers were baby killers.

You did not reply when I asked if you understood why the Nuremberg defence is invalid. I’ll assume you are retracting that attempt to excuse the US soldiers baby killing.

Bush is a fucking coward who went AWOL while serving cushy stateside duty. He is a sniveling bag of shit who didn’t care one whit for our servicemen and women. They were merely playthings for him to use while launched his recreational war. He didn’t give a damn whether our troops lived or died. George W. Bush can go straight to hell.

Eric Watada?

Are you suggesting the US ACCIDENTALLY killed 3 million people? Do you know what that word means? That’s one hell of an accident.

You keep mentioning that number but you keep refusing to substantiate it.

Funny how how you don’t seem interested in justifying the terms that your argument is pinned on. Yeah, the Nazis policies and actions in Germany are not the same as the US’s in Iraq.

At a minimum then the US soldiers are murderers
How so exactly? Explain your claim.

Let’s say we have a US soldier in an artillery unit who is part of team that receives a fire mission to send 4 rounds to the coordinates specified, killing 4 people. Later we find that the forward observer who called in the coordinates mistook a civilian vehicle for one that was being used by insurgents. Is that the same as “I shoot you in the head with the muzzle pressed against your skull”? I don’t think it is. You continue to conflate very different scenarios with very different moral and ethical concerns in order to make your argument.

And you can say US soldiers are “killing babies in huge numbers” but that doesn’t mean that the argument behind your ad hominem attack is a good one or one that should be taken seriously.

Someone asked about the holocaust denier label.

I don’t see any moral difference between someone low-balling the six million (or whatever) dead Jews in WW2 while they are defending the Nazi regime, and someone low-balling the two million (or whatever) dead Iraqis while defending the American regime. That’s not to say these numbers can’t be legitimately contested of course. But to do so while trying to deny any wrong-doing by the empires involved is clearly morally repugnant. Certainly I would strongly suggest that Americans avoid doing it. Obviously the US regime itself low-balls its victims deaths all the time. You really don’t want to be a fellow traveler and after all what good purpose can be served by trying to low-ball the number of victims?

Yes I did. I asked you why you thought you’d established a logical link between the Nazi genocide and US actions in Iraq. This gets back to the question of intention, which you also glossed over.

I don’t see any moral difference between someone low-balling the six million (or whatever) dead Jews in WW2 while they are defending the Nazi regime, and someone low-balling the two million (or whatever) dead Iraqis while defending the American regime.

Well, you’re going to have to call a lot of people Holocaust Deniers, including the people at Iraq the Body Count, because your number is way higher than any I’ve seen to date. Which gets at two things, your original claim that US soldiers are “killing huge numbers of babies” and the overall soundness of your argument. Both still seem highly questionable.

“Let’s say we have a US soldier in an artillery unit who is part of team that receives a fire mission to send 4 rounds to the coordinates specified, killing 4 people.”

If it’s on foreign soil where we are the aggressor? – war crime.

Eric Watada gives you the only valid position. And it worked!

More word games.

People are responsible for the reasonable foreseeable consequences of their actions. It is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of shooting off shells that someone will get killed by them. In war, as you said, (believing it excused the soldiers) people die. A lot. As a result any soldier knows that his actions will in all likelihood end up killing huge numbers of people. If he commits to those actions regardless, he is culpable for the deaths.

This is all elementary ethics.

You do violent shit, and bad stuff happens, it’s your fault.

That’s nothing to do with the Nuremberg defence. It’s just called that because it was the defence the Nazis used at the Nuremberg trials and that the “international” (essentially American) court rejected.

“Just following orders” is the Nuremberg defence.
I asked if you understood why the defence was rejected.

If it’s on foreign soil where we are the aggressor? – war crime.

War crimes are “violations of the laws or customs of war”; including “murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps”, “the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war”, the killing of hostages, “the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity”

Sorry not seeing it yet.

4 A.M. is when all the best PR happens, of course. He’s a sly one, that Barrack.

You don’t seem to understand which actions it was deemed indefensible for. You need to go back and refamiliarize yourself with where it was and wasn’t applied.

Please stop giving Lord Byron and fucknut fuckno a platform.

They’ve made their cases – shown their asses – let ‘em fall away into the nothingness which they have demonstrated that they so richly deserve.

What don’t you see? That wars of Agression are war crimes, and that every violent action that flows from it constitutes, by definition, a war crime?

Again, as a counterpoint: Eric Watada. A real American hero!

Iraqi Body Count doesn’t count how many Iraqis died.
If you go to their site they will explain all that.

They are often misrepresented as giving an estimate of the war dead by people who want to low-ball the Iraqi dead (eg. George Bush)

You’ve asked me to prove the 3 million dead figure. I am not interested in that digression. Tell you what. How about you provide evidence of any other number? You might find it more difficult than you imagine. And btw (per discussion about the 90s) I am including the war dead since just after the “end” of the “first” Iraq war — although hostilities never ceased. So for example it includes Madeleine Albright’s famous half million dead children, (”we think the price is worth it”).

Are you applauding the two wars George got us into?

I actually agree with you there.

Many of the dead died “legitimately” as seen within the rules of war (no “war crime”). However they are still criminal acts because war itself is a crime. So I think “fuckno” was technically incorrect.

are you confused?

In war, as you said, (believing it excused the soldiers) people die. A lot. As a result any soldier knows that his actions will in all likelihood end up killing huge numbers of people. If he commits to those actions regardless, he is culpable for the deaths.

You do violent shit, and bad stuff happens, it’s your fault.

Oh, well why don’t you just say that all war anywhere at anytime is unethical and indefensible. So all soldiers that every were or ever will be involved in a war are murderers? OK.

Well that’s certainly a clearer formulation of what you were saying, and it’s certainly elmentary, but I’m not sure many people will agree with you.

Good luck.

Let me explain the difference between generic deaths in a criminal war and deaths from a war crime.

Let’s have a war that kills a million people. But we have little rules for the game. A gentleman’s agreement. If you kill people with bullets that good. If you kill them with chemical gas that’s bad. You get points off for that. That’s a “war crime”. Either way a million people are going to die.

Wars of aggression vs. defensive Wars.

Well I did simplify somewhat for you. That’s the rule for the aggressors in a war. All war is a crime but not all people fighting in the war are criminals. Just like all rape is a crime but not all people involved in a rape are criminals. There are criminals and there are victims — “defenders” I suppose might be a better term.

In Iraq the US is the aggressor. Pretty much every war it’s ever been involved in, the US has been the aggressor and for Israel it is every war ever I think. At any rate in Iraq you had a rare case. There probably hasn’t been a more clear example of one country violating international law and attacking another for no reason in all history.

Yeah, it was pretty black and white.
You’re the “bad guys”.

George Bush did serve his country. Not denigrate it. Bush did not play golf during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush did VOLUNTEER,Yes,VOLUNTEER to go to war in NAM. Bush did not make up false histories and apologise for wrongs not done by his country. Obama hates the military just like his mentors. To compare a photo op by a avowed anti military president to a man that truly cared about his military is ludicris. You should be ashamed.

I am. It is going down in history as one of the greatest moves ever. It will be proven to save millions of lives.

Bush did not play golf during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Zzzzt, I’m so sorry. That’s incorrect.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/15/georgebush.usa

Bush did VOLUNTEER,Yes,VOLUNTEER to go to war in NAM.

Zzzzzt, sorry. Wrong again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm

“In a sense he was trying to remain a centrist in a time when there wasn’t anything left at the center,” said Craig Stapleton, who is married to Bush’s cousin and has been a confidant of Bush’s for 25 years. “All of the sudden everybody moves and you’re still standing in the center. He didn’t dodge the military. But he didn’t volunteer to go to Vietnam and get killed, either.”

He could have gone to Dover without the cameras.

With Axelrod and Emmanuel behind Obama, you know this was contrived and created for public consumption. It was not earnest, everything Team Obama does is scripted, planned, staged, and controlled.

You’re just wrong. You’re not considering.
Everything the president does is photographed.

ZZZZZZTT wrong. Watch the Rathergate trial. It will all come out. He did volunteer and was turned down as there was already a full billet.

Bush ended his own brief military career as a deserter. What did you expect?

Yeah, Bush’s cousin by marriage is lying.

Taking Comfort in Ignorant Hatred

As the wife of a deployed career Marine and daughter of a career Naval Officer, I’ve never understood the ignorant malice of the antiwar Left.

I grew up during the Vietnam era. It was a troubled – and troubling – time. The nation was rocked by protests, riots, and civil unrest. All this was understandable, even to a small child of 6 or 7. Though my father and my friends’ fathers were fighting a war many Americans opposed, I could understand the pain and the passion of those who wanted us out of Vietnam. Anyone who appreciates the terrible cost of war must understand those troubled by that cost.

What was never understandable to me was the vicious spite and hatred of those who lined up outside military bases screaming epithets like, “Baby killer” to men who had been drafted. You would think we might have learned something as a nation in the nearly four decades since we abandoned the South Vietnamese to the tender mercies of a Communist-led genocide. But sadly, hate is alive and well in modern America:

This is what a president does.

US President Barack Obama has paid his respects to 18 Americans killed in Afghanistan, the first time he has honoured the fallen in this way.

NPR notes that,

The dramatic image of a president on the tarmac was a portrait not witnessed in years.

Why?

His predecessor, George W Bush, visited the families of dead troops but never received the bodies at the base, in Dover, Delaware.

Mr Bush also did not go to military funerals, telling the military newspaper Stars and Stripes three years ago that he preferred to meet families privately.

Notice how no one at Firedoglake wonders what took President Obama so long? The ban, after all, was lifted in February. Obama could have visited Dover at any time during the past 8 months – 10, if you take into account the fact that there was no need to have the press document his visit for the TV cameras. But I don’t think the facts matter to these people at all. Their hatred is so strong that it blinds them to anything but simmering anger and poisonous contempt. To them, fallen warriors are nothing more than cannon fodder, conscripted against their will – even in death – to fight an obscene war against a President who is no longer in office. Consumed by hatred, they just can’t let it go.

What they cannot understand is that unlike Barack Obama, who makes sure the few sops he throws to the military are well documented by the press, George Bush understood our wish not to be used as photo ops. It ought to be simple to understand why George Bush was never photographed at Dover: under George Bush, the press were not allowed at Dover. So there would be no photograph. But more importantly, President Bush understood that the families of the fallen had given enough. The last thing grieving families want is to have a camera or a microphone shoved in their faces; to have legions of Secret Service, White House aides, and other support staff invade an exquisitely private moment that ought to be reserved for those who knew and loved the deceased. Our funerals are not public spectacles, but private observances of grief. Our last President, unlike the antiwar left, understood and respected that.

To gain an idea of just how military families view having the President turn the homecoming of their loved ones into a photo op, one need only look at what happened when the families whose loved ones came in on this flight reacted to the news of Obama’s visit.

Of the 18 families involved, 17 declined to allow the media to photograph the return of their loved one. But more than that, 6 of the 18 (that’s one third) were undecided until they learned Obama would be there. According to the article, nearly two thirds of Gold Star families have allowed the press to be present.

…11 of the 17 had already reached a decision against coverage before they were notified that Obama would be there, said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

The knowledge that the President of the United States planned to attend seems to have reduced the number of families willing to allow press coverage from 67% to 5%. It’s hard to think of a more damning indictment of the idea that the families of the fallen want to be used as political props.

What takes more courage? To stand on a deserted tarmac in the dead of night and salute for the cameras? Or to meet with the families of the fallen – even those who don’t support the war?

If the reality based community weren’t afraid to venture out of their bubble, they might try talking to Rachel Ascione about whether the President grieves for our fallen warriors, whether he just brushes their grief aside lightly:

Ascione wasn’t sure she could restrain herself with the president. She was feeling “raw.” “I wanted him to look me in the eye and tell me why my brother was never coming back, and I wanted him to know it was his fault that my heart was broken,” she recalls. The president was coming to Florida, a key swing state, in the middle of his re-election campaign. Ascione was worried that her family would be “exploited” by a “phony effort to make good with people in order to get votes.”

Ascione and her family were gathered with 18 other families in a large room on the air base. The president entered with some Secret Service agents, a military entourage and a White House photographer. “I’m here for you, and I will take as much time as you need,” Bush said. He began moving from family to family. Ascione watched as mothers confronted him: “How could you let this happen? Why is my son gone?” one asked. Ascione couldn’t hear his answer, but soon “she began to sob, and he began crying, too. And then he just hugged her tight, and they cried together for what seemed like forever.”

Ascione’s family was one of the last Bush approached. Ascione still planned to confront him, but Bush disarmed her in an almost uncanny way. Ascione is just over five feet; her late brother was 6 feet 7. “My whole life, he used to put his hand on the top of my head and just hold it there, and it drove me crazy,” she says. When Bush saw that she was crying, he leaned over and put his hand on the top of her head and drew her to him. “It was just like my brother used to do,” she says, beginning to cry at the memory.

Before Bush left the meeting, he paused in the middle of the room and said to the families, “I will never feel the same level of pain and loss you do. I didn’t lose anyone close to me, a member of my family or someone that I love. But I want you to know that I didn’t go into this lightly. This was a decision that I struggle with every day.”

As he spoke, Ascione could see the grief rising through the president’s body. His shoulder slumped and his face turned ashen. He began to cry and his voice choked. He paused, tried to regain his composure and looked around the room. “I am sorry, I’m so sorry,” he said.

But this is more ‘reality’ than the reality based community is ready for. It conflicts with how they wish to see the world – a stark, black and white version of The Truthiness in which it becomes more comforting to believe that our leaders are callous and cold (no matter how many military families say that’s untrue), that they lie (no matter that the official record says otherwise), that they are using our military (no matter that our armed forces are all volunteer and that they keep volunteering).

When hatred is so strong that its adherents fear the truth, no factual rebuttal is likely to pierce the wall of lies that surrounds the willfully ignorant. But the truth remains, regardless of their stubborn refusal to admit it.

I was lucky enough to meet the President of the United States not once, but three times during my husband’s last deployment to Iraq. The third time he was slightly late.

You see, he’d been talking with a Gold Star family in the Oval Office just moments before he met with us and appeared on national TV. And just as he did when he met with Rachel Ascione, he gave them all the time they needed.

No one who has ever seen the President in the company of our armed forces or their families could doubt the genuine love and respect he felt for us. And that feeling was mutual. It mattered. It gave me comfort during those long, dark months when my husband was on the other side of the world. And that’s a comfort I no longer feel from a President whose idea of supporting the troops consists of turning their homecoming into a photo op.

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2009/10/taking_comfort_1.html

Yes, the cousin is lying.

The Wingmen Assert the Following:

1. Bush enlisted in the ANG knowing that he and his unit could be sent to Vietnam.
Critics and opponents of George W. Bush have accused him and others of “hiding” in the Air National Guard (ANG) to avoid service in Vietnam. Such an accusation is invalid. If the ANG was a “haven” from the war, tell that to the New Mexico ANG, the Colorado ANG, the Iowa ANG, and the New York ANG. These states sent F-100 fighter-bomber squadrons to fight in Vietnam during the spring of 1968; simultaneously, Bush, then a student at Yale, took the Air Force tests to enlist in his state’s ANG.

History shows that individual ANG units had been flying supply mission in Vietnam since 1965. During Bush’s tenure in the Texas ANG, his unit could have been sent to fight in Vietnam on a moment’s notice. However, such an order to further mobilize the Guard or Reserves would have had to come from President Johnson and/or Secretary of Defense McNamara. According to Lt. Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush, “Johnson and McNamara . . . deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community’s attention.”

While Bush could have chosen a desk job in the Guard, he chose to become a fighter pilot, a duty imbued with risk, and, as illustrated above, potential for a combat assignment.

http://www.wingmenforbush.com/