I was in Iraq in 2003 as an active duty Marine, same as Pantano, and I blog about my support for the Iraq war. While I’ve always considered my combat experience to be germaine to the debate, I’m careful to deflect any praise with my standard reply, “I’m no hero, though I did serve with a few.”

As the joke goes: How many vets does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: You don’t know, man. You weren’t there!

There’s some truth there that goes beyond chickenhawker reverence. Or flip-side patronizing.

He is a murdering, lieing, living monster who should be taken out back and shot.

Psychotic ranting aside, what is it with these people and their aversion to spelling words correctly? Easy words, like “lying” are too advanced for them, apparently. And then there’s the promiscuous use of commas. I think Mark Steyn once referred to it as “commas interruptus” or something of that nature.

I know this is a pedantic complaint. Sorry.

We will have forces there propping up whatever gov’t there is for many years. Which is what Osama and co. want us to do.

Vanya, that’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.

A patriotic, pro war hispanic *gasp* what will the liberals do?!?!?

Pantano is of Italian descent, not that it ought to matter, aside from your point that the left would hate him that much more if he were.

I have to agree that Jon was very respectful during the interview.

Also agreed. Jon Stewart, while a left-winger, is willing to listen to what people have to say if it isn’t outright B.S. or party-line talk.

I honestly believe had it been O’Reily or Hannity interviewing this guy he would have been cut off mid-comment and redirected in a way that either interviewer wanted him to go in, rather than just letting him speak his mind.

That’s a given… an interview with either of those people isn’t so much an interview as a forced extraction of desired sound bites, followed by back patting and emphatic claims of impartiality. Blech. The constraints of ad-supported television and the frenetic pace of Fox News-esque style commentary shows make complete and honest interviews impossible. I’d rather read an editorial.

What difference should it make to the merits of the argument for or against the war if the arguer served or not?

The discussion wasn’t so much about the merits of the war, but rather if the troops weighed or considered or debated the merits of the war or its methods. And a civilian can’t speak to that as well as someone who has been over there talking with the troops and getting to know them on an intimate level.

For every veteran of the Iraq war who supports the war, I can find one who is against it. So giving more credibility to someone who has been there doesn’t make much difference.

Vanya, you’re lying.

You should quit while you’re “even.” You don’t know squat.

—

I have read Lt. Pantano’s book, Warlord. It is well written, riveting even. My son was in Iraq in the rotation that relieved Lt. Pantano’s one. For a two week period, they were serving less than 10 miles apart.

After reading Lt. Pantano’s book, and his depiction of Marine life in 2004 Iraq, I started asking my son some questions, given his meritorious mast and the two written “attaboys” his CO mailed to us, one from another unit’s CO to which he was temporarily assigned.

Men like Lt. Pantano are leaders that we cannot afford to lose. The DU crowd is insane, as we all understand. And it is because of the leftist’s open hatred similar to that expressed after Lt. Pantano’s TV appearences this week, coupled with those coming from jihadis overseas that convinced him to resign his commission to take care of his family — who were directly and personally threatened with violence, too.

Read the book and judge for yourself exactly how much our nation lost when Pantano resigned his commission.

My 2 cents.

Watch it here. H/T: Blackfive. Allah: …

Video: Ilario Pantano leaves Jon Stewart speechless (Update: DU surprised Pantano wasn’t fragged)     Ilario Pantano was a Marine accused of murder in Iraq.  He was a troop that served proudly, and shares with us an hones…

Let me address each one individually so you can follow along.

“Maybe then he wouldn’t have told us the war would be over quickly and we could pay for it all with Iraqi oil.”

The ground war was over quickly, a matter of days actually. What they have been dealing with since is an insurgency. The enemy fighters are not an organized military, they are the remnents of the loyalists to the former regime and foreigners that are willing to take up their cause. What Bush referred to was the force on force combat between the army of Saddam and the US forces. The ‘War on Terror’ continues in the broad sense, but the ground war against the Iraqi army is over.

“We stayed in Europe to keep the Soviets out, not because of the “climate of Europe” (which is about to heat up).”

Only partially true. The ‘climate of Europe’ I referred to wasn’t simply the Russians sitting on the doorstep of eastern Europe, it was also the weakened state militarily of the western European states to defend themselves. After years of occupation and war countries and been decimated in all aspects of infrastructure, economy, and labor. Our being on the lines in Germany was to be a buffer against the Russians, to be sure, but it also allowed those countries to reconstitute and reorganize so that they would be able to defend themselves should the need ever arise again. Nice attempt at throwing the environmental whacko line in there though. I assume though from your sentiments that WWII didn’t actually end in 1945 when the accords were signed and Berlin fell. It actually ended in 1952 or thereabouts? I mean, after all, that’s when their government was acutally able to function without us for the most part, and the bulk of the insurgency ended. Should we have tallied those casualties against those of the total war as well? If your reasoning stands, we should, as even though the declared war was over, casualties still occured.

“So we will stay in Iraq to keep Iran, or Islamic fundamentalists, or someone, out. We will have forces there propping up whatever gov’t there is for many years.”

I’ve already said that. And anyone on either side that didn’t see that coming is a fool. You don’t erase an entire countries infrastructure and expect to be out in a short time. Won’t happen, unless done wrong of course. This was a jaunt in the desert, it was a campaign that required a long term commitment. To say you are shocked or outraged that we aren’t out and done in a year, two, or even three smacks to me of the same intelligence and logic that spews from people claiming they didn’t know that smoking cigarettes for decades would be harmful to their health. I simply can’t believe that level of stupid could possibly exist. We will do what we have to there, for as long as we have to there, because once things get into motion you must stand behind your decisions and see things through, even if the road is tough. To do anything less (especially in this situation) would makes things a thousand times worse. But I think your side would actually like that, sad as it is to say.

“Which is what Osama and co. want us to do.”

Sadly, I think your side knows exactly what he wants, and are willing to anything to see that he succeeds.

Your pal,

Also, why can you not respond to his statement? Instead you pull out “standard bush bash answer #34″
Your comment abut bush is irrelavant. What is relavant is your earlier statement about producing 1 vet against the war for every vet against it.
I live in Norfolk Va, and we have a fairly large milatary base. I have met quite a few people that went over their, and they all support the war (about 85 or so that I have talked to at the University and local bars).
Unless you are counting frauds like Watanada or Macbeth, I do not think your argument is valid.

There are few Men who can serve, twice, in combat, be accused by the service they love of murder, and then continue to love and honor that service through your every day routine and life as if they had not wronged you. It takes a Big Man to be able to do that.

Mr. Pantano is one of them. The last time I heard of a Man such as this was when I read about Gen. Robert E. Lee. Honor is Mr. Pantano’s watchword. And Service is his lot in Life.

God Bless LT Pantano. I wish we had more Men like him.

Subsunk

Being a vet, I said before this war ever started (the Afgan phase first and the Iraq phase later) that if we commit to this that we will be in those countries for at least eight years, if not more. For some reason people think you can run in, topple and entire government, and skip on home all in a week or two. I have no idea why. History has taught us otherwise. Germany after WWII had an insurgency. There were assassination. There were bombings. There were kidnappings. Everything that we are seeing now in Iraq was seen there. It took about seven years for a functional government to be in place and running the country. And after that, due to the climate of Europe, we stayed in force as a military, and continue to even now, though in much smaller numbers.

In order for this to be ‘done’ the government must be able to stand up on it’s own. And once they are able to the military will pull out, simple as that. The only thing that will keep us in the country will be if their government asks us to stay in some capacity, or if our government asks for permission to keep people stationed there as a strategic site and their government agrees.

I live in the DC area and I know LOTS of soldiers and vets of the Iraq war. In fact, I live near an army base and I can hardly avoid it. Add to that the fact that my dad’s a retired officer and I literally grew up around the military.

I doubt you know ANY, based on your comment. You lefties love to pretend you know people in the military. Anyone who actually does know these folks can see right through you.

What I think some people here are seeing as condescending silence was in fact solid interviewing. It looked to me like Jon simply would throw a question or comment to him and then step back and allow him the floor to speak, uninterrupted, about the question or comment. Once he appeared to have fully answered or explained his position Jon would simply throw something else out to him to comment on. Very well done on his part. I was actually suprised.

I honestly believe had it been O’Reily or Hannity interviewing this guy he would have been cut off mid-comment and redirected in a way that either interviewer wanted him to go in, rather than just letting him speak his mind.

I’m wondering if the heat the left has been getting about their disdain/disrespect for the troops is the reason he conducted himself that way or if Jon actually found his comments interesting enough that he wanted to hear him out. Either way I enjoyed it, hopefully some of those people in the audience and viewing at home will take what he said, digest it, and learn from it, I won’t be holding my breath though.