Billy Arkin bashes back
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Featured Stories | Liberals — Comments (50) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The WashPost evidently took the link off its page, but the column still exists.
I'm talking about Billy Arkin's response to those who attacked his military-bashing screed of yesterday. The new column, his hostile defense, is: The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out.
Contrary to the typically inaccurate and overstated assertion in dozens of blogs, hundreds of comments, and thousands of e-mails I've received, I've never written that soldiers should "shut up," quit whining, be spit upon, or that they have no right to an opinion.
I said I was bothered by the notion that "the troops" were somehow becoming hallowed beings above society, that they had an attitude that only they had the means - or the right - to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor.
I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.
These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.
Read the whole thing if it's not yet pulled, and don't worry. The guy is a miserable lightweight who tries to fashion thoughts around banal assumptions. Hopefully, the WashPost will pull the plug on this joker.
Stephen Spruiell has this one down.
I don't know if his anger has overridden his ability to draw rational and coherent conclusions or if he simply never had the capacity. I'd never heard of this clown until this tripe was dumped in front of me.
He's a lightweight, but perhaps he knows that such garbage -- albeit much less offensive -- helped make Kos. (Kos argued that civilian contractors were mercenaries. This idiot makes this charge, about which he admits he didn't really think, about those who'd actually put themselves on the line to defend this country against the mutants who cut off heads and blow up babies.)
He's impossible to take seriously, and this is a very serious matter. We've got to filter out this junk.
to use restraint in allocation of the over-appreciated apostrophe:
Bush and company, and the Abizaid's, Casey's, and Petraeus's have had years to make their case to the American people
which undermines his assumption of qualification for taking personal offense at "anti-journalism".
soli Deo gloria
Better columnists than him (and myself) have been foiled by punctuation-happy, grammatically-challenged editors.
as well. At least to grammatical conservatives, any possessive using a proper name of a man or a woman gets the aspostrophe-s.
I'm sure I've used Petraeus's in the last few weeks. It's what I was taught.
is the point of the sword in the breakdown of our civil society.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
And, in that context, incorrect. Not to mention the possessive of Petraeus would be Petraeus', not Petraeus's.
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."
The possessive of Petreus is Petreus's. When using a proper name, regardless of the final letter of that name, you use "'s." This is standard, American grammar, not some lazy stylesheet.
MY poor education is the point of the sword in the breakdown of our civil society.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
"Lightweight" seems to nail it.
I think he must get paid by hitcount or something.
The attitude that people risking their lives in your place aren't due a certain deference is astounding in its ingratitude, to say nothing of tone-deafness. Understand and accept that the soldier's opinion differs from your own, and celebrate the diversity. Right?
Smile that arrogantly smug smile and say nothing, at least while they're sleeping on dirt and hunting IEDs, all to make it possible for you to insult them.
Talk about biting off more than he can chew.
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
from anyone who advertises on the Washington Post until they apologize for allowing this piece of crap to be associated with their name. They the Washington Post owe all American's an apology period. I love how he got thousands of e-mails isn't the first amendment great!!! I also love the power of money because when free Americans choose to withhold their's it forces companies to make choices that the consumers demand. It is a free market economy and I am really hoping people will stick it to the Post, enough with this liberal rag bullcrap, either tell the news as it is or get out of the "news" business.
Peace through superior fire power:)
from years of dealing with public employee unions that followed the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" playbook was to sit back and let them be themselves for a while. You could count on their overplaying their hand, and then you struck. We should just keep them talking for a while.
In Vino Veritas
Many leftists have repressed this nonsense for years, and suddenly feel emboldened to venture away from Kos and into the greater world and spew this venom. Let them, encourage them, and hope they continue to have large forums made available. There is no way the American public, regardless of how it may feel about the Iraq War, won't be repulsed.
Dont let his apology fool you, though, that is what is in his and other left of center elitist.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
"You never need a firearm,until you need it BADLY!"
The guy is an a--hole, pure and simple. He should be kissing the ground these soldiers walk on because they give him his unalienable right to be an a--hole. When my back is up against the wall, I'd take soldier over this joker to back me up. Tell him to get the f--- out of our country.
From a person whose opinions I respect, but who strives to be nonpartisan, in my blog. It's probably not hard-hitting enough to qualify for the "red-meat" category but that's the most important point about it. The author actually works with veterans at Walter Reed and was so infuriated over Arkin's post that even as an Independent Voice it took almost 3,000 words to express the displeasure. Best line from the piece is the one about Arkin actually spending some time with Iraq war veterans, instead of just writing about them.
It's to Civilian Syndrome, which is a blog started relatively recently by someone I know in Washington who is fiercely independent but also has a lot to say about this issue, and on veteran's issues more generally, from firsthand experience.
I think it's worth the read because it really is about as nonpartisan a take as anyone is going to have -- and it still comes down pretty hard on Arkin -- just in case people had the idea that it was just the crazy right-wingnuts who are castigating him based on the secret instructions beamed into our fillings at ultra-low wavelengths by Karl Rove down in his boilerroom.
The author is a patriot, and a volunteer at Walter Reed, but strives to maintain a nonpartisan perspective.
In his original article Mr. Arkin states:
"So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?"
If all of our government employees were paid based on their contribution to this country the troops would definitely be on top and there would be a lot of starving Senators and Congress members.
Mr. Arkin, you're an idiot.
Guys like Arkin are exactly the reason I oppose a flag burning amendment. As Achance infers above, we need to tone down our rhetoric and just make sure he gets plenty of coverage. This column and the CodePink-O's spitting on wounded vets.
Nothing will kill their movement faster than letting them freely express themselves. That and keeping Arkin away from me.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
and they will hang themselves.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."
I've got one in the garage I've been saving for Kerry that I will donate.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
You're fooling yourself if you think any one is going to change their minds about anything, even if this was stuck in every mailbox in the US. The war about the war is pretty much over. And for the most part, people opposed to it don't necssarily see themselves at "leftists," or associated in any other way with the author. The idea that any significant number of people are going to change their views about the war, or their political persausion, because of this article (or 20 or 100 like it), is just wishful thinking.
but the public won't tolerate gratuitious attacks on soldiers. I'm very cynical these days, but certain people won't stomach Vietnam-era behavior towards the troops and that seems about to come out of the closet.
There isn't any significant number of people who are going to "come out of the closet" (interesting choice of words) with Vietnam-era behavior towards the troops. In a perverse way, some conservatives (Cal Thomas) would probably love that, because they think it would result in people changing their attitudes about Iraq. ("Gee, I hate the war in Iraq, but I don't want people to think I'm a 60's-era hippy, so I guess I'll have to change my mind and support the war after all!"). It's just not going to happen.
The idea that you can't support the troops without supporting the war in Iraq is nonsense.
and not the mission. And don't even go there with any of the mealy-mouthed platitudes people on your side toss out.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
So if I'm against the mission, i.e., the war in Iraq, that means I do not support the troops? Is that really what you think? Because as a 20 year Navy vet, with two sons who also served (Marines and Air Force), I'm really curious if you care to explain that a little further.
I hope I just misunderstood what you were trying to say.
me exactly. And I don't know how you could possibly face your sons.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
I'll use small words so that you can follow. Troops go where they are sent. I respect and admire them for serving. But, I don't support this war for any number of reasons, including that it's never going to result in making the US safer. If either of my sons were still serving, and if they were in Iraq, that wouldn't change my opinion of the war.
If you can't understand that, try to accept the fact that most other folks can.
find any number of people to believe any hokum. Too bad you didn't view the video posted here for a couple of days and see what real soldiers think of the booshwah you're peddling here.
So some good folks serving in Iraq think that I'm not supporting them because I don't support the war? Great. They're entitled to their opinions. That doesn't make them right. Or you, either.
Insult me all you want, but I'm fine with the idea that some people, "real" soldiers even, think that we all have to believe the "booshwah" that the President is peddling in order to support them. But, I was a real sailor before you were conceived, so I happen to believe that my opinion counts for just as yours.
...you've both expressed your opinions, now stop personalizing your reactions. Bill Arkin never learned to stop, and look what happened to him: that's right, he turned into a bile-filled hatemonger.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
but so many have been busting at the seams to engage in some old-fashioned troop-bashing, and seem willing to go full steam ahead now, that it can't all be concealed.
Vietnam veteran/poet Russ Vaughn has come up with a nice poem in response to Arkin. Here is the link
http://www.oldwardogs.us/2007/02/wapo_weasels_ii.html
I think you will appreciate his sentiments.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
There is an "un-winnable war" out there, but it's really the great war to breech the arrogant impenetrable ignorance that is the American Left. That's the most un-winnable war that any patriotic Americans will ever face, and maybe the most important for America to win.
This week we see Biden, with his non-racist veneer rubbed off. Now we see the innards of a true-to-life antiwar, anti-American bigot in full blood rage.
And of course America's shrew, Nancy Pelosi, is now demanding special priveleges for her and her retinue on American militar aircraft.
All we need is to get our part leadership out of their shell shocked woosiness, demand we charge that hill, and go forward. the dhimmiecrats of 2007 may be the fastest implosion in American political history.
and what nobody has really drawn attention to, is that nobody complains when active duty and veterans go on television and complain about the conduct and direction of the war. The catalyst for Arkin's trash was probably the first report I'd seen in a year in which troops complained on network news that they believed in the job they were doing and wished people back home felt the same way. What Arkin and others like him are saying is that soldiers can say their mind if they agree with him but if they don't they should shut up...that to me is much more important, and more disturbing, than the hodgepodge of halftruths and asinine value judgments that pervade his work.
How inaccurate could they be if he was dead wrong? Make this loon a national figure,his own regular column, a tv spot, and the '08 electrion will start to look up.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
argument, this is especially ironic:
So which is it, Billy boy? Is military experience required to have an opinion on the war? Or have you just sunk the harpoon into the chickenhawk argument that I bet you personally have made?
What an absolute, Hardball stupid, fool.