Audio: William Arkin supports the troops in his own funny little way

posted at 10:18 am on February 1, 2007 by Allahpundit

Here’s the man of the hour, playing softball last night with Alan Colmes about the WaPo column heard ’round the blogospheric world. Well, the right side of the blogospheric world, anyway.

N.B.: The clip has been heavily edited.


Update: He’s got a new post up at WaPo. I wonder what Maureen Dowd and the rest of the patriotic dissent crew who granted Cindy Sheehan absolute moral authority because her son died in Iraq would say about this?

Contrary to the typically inaccurate and overstated assertion in dozens of blogs, hundreds of comments, and thousands of Emails I’ve received, I’ve never written that soldiers should “shut up,” quite 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.

And then the crux of it: creeping military dictatorship by authoritarian robots, whom he’s certainly not calling authoritarian robots even though he pretty much is.

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…

[S]omething is inculcated into the minds of military members from day one of duty. It is not just defense of the Constitution, it is also unanimity of thought and an unwavering regard for hierarchy. Without this, you can’t have a military and you can’t expect human beings to go against their instincts to put their lives on the line.

I’m not saying that this makes people in the military automatons, or that they are stupid. But this unanimity of thought and this absolute allegiance to a hierarchy of ideas is and should be foreign in the civilian world. That’s what makes the two different.

Update: A reader e-mails to say that Arkin’s new post, from which I quoted above, doesn’t appear on the front page of his blog. Only if you use the permalink can you see it. Just a glitch or did he try to remove it?

Update: One of Ace’s readers did some Lexis-Nexising and pulled a few profiles of Arkin from the online archives. Seems he has a habit of disclosing secrets.

Update: Good question:

I’m especially taken by [Arkin's] central complaint about the connn-unnn-drumm that the US military no longer (as if it ever did) perfectly represents the broader beliefs and traits of American society.

Question: What about the connn-unnn-drummm that the US media represents the broader American society even less?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

What an idiot.

amerpundit on February 1, 2007 at 10:24 AM

“the troops need re-education”…”those young soldiers are our servants”???? What country is he living in? I would call him an idiot but that assumes he doesn’t know any better. He knows exactly what he meant. Furthermore, he should be publicly humiliated by his employer for his demeaning and derogatory remarks toward the troops.

“Our military no longer represents the society at large”? Should have read “our press no longer represents the society at large”…if only…

Centurion68 on February 1, 2007 at 10:34 AM

Wow, the high-pitched voice is a shocker.

I’d say if this “man” ever made the comments he made on his blog in front of me, he’d be on his chubby rump before he could say “Keith Olbermann.”

Malpaso on February 1, 2007 at 10:35 AM

Uncle Jimbo over at Black 5 has some colorful and mil speak comments for arkin. WARNING CRUDE LANGUAGE Link: http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/7728838

Bob the RhinoKeeper on February 1, 2007 at 10:37 AM

Let’s not lay into him too much. I think it’s a good thing when liberals tells us what they actually think.

frankj on February 1, 2007 at 10:37 AM

I would recommend that he fly to Iraq then visit one of the infantry line companies and tell them exactly how he feels about them. This bum is nothing but a big do nothing, slimy loud mouth.

rplat on February 1, 2007 at 10:37 AM

I guess I can’t link for sour beans so I’ll try again:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/02/william_arkin_v.html#trackback

Bob the RhinoKeeper on February 1, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Go to the original blog post and go to the last comment and check the date & time. The last comment posted was January 30, 2007 09:11 AM. Obviously it’s ok over at WAPO to malign the troops, but when the comments start to roll in, they don’t want to post them. Cowards.

JustTruth101 on February 1, 2007 at 10:44 AM

I take back my comment. I wouldn’t want to lay a hand on this “person.” I know one thing: I’ve lived in DC for over 35 years and I’ll never buy that rag or visit their website again. Let’s hope more layoffs are in their immediate future.

Malpaso on February 1, 2007 at 10:46 AM

ameripundit,

Just so you know, I wasn’t referencing you saying he was an idiot. Your posting hadn’t shown yet when I wrote mine. Didn’t want you to think I was slamming you.

Centurion68 on February 1, 2007 at 10:46 AM

I smell fear. Good. (robot speaker off)

Limerick on February 1, 2007 at 10:47 AM

I read a great deal of the responses to his column last night and agreed with the vast majority that this man is an idiot of the first degree.
I struggle with my reactions to people of Mr. Arkin’s ilk. At first I want to engage them in a discussion. Try to persuade them to the reality of the situation, but that has only led to frustration as they refuse to acknowledge basic facts and their own hypocrisy. I would then get angry and want to just slap these idiots silly er….siller. But, I don’t because well that would be wrong. I’ve always felt that it would be improper to simply laugh in the face of these people when they spout their bile because it shows a deep disrespect, but I am slowly coming to the conclusion that that may be the best thing to do.
When you meet people like Mr. Arkin and they begin their great magnum opus just laugh (and maybe point). It expresses your opinion of their opinion and laughter is good for the soul. It’s a double bonus!

Mich_93 on February 1, 2007 at 10:51 AM

I recall an Onion headline along the lines of “Local Man Refuses to Support Troops Who Gave Him Wedgies.”

mymanpotsandpans on February 1, 2007 at 10:53 AM

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…

I am quite sure its the other way around.

shooter on February 1, 2007 at 10:55 AM

If this is your idea of supporting the troops then you need to re-evaluate everything you know about “support”.

Do you support your wife by having an affair? Do you support your children by selling them to kiddie-rapists? Do you support the troops by under-mining the mission? Do you support the troops by shutting them up?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 1, 2007 at 11:00 AM

It’s because of those people who “hide behind the constitution and the flag” that a semi-literate hack who can’t construct a sentence enjoys the freedom to insult those who defend his freedom.

RedWinged Blackbird on February 1, 2007 at 11:03 AM

this unanimity of thought

He’s so incredibly stupid he doesn’t realize he’s describing himself and every other upper west side of manhattan elitist liberal.

Capitalist Infidel on February 1, 2007 at 11:04 AM

Arkin and his pimp, Colmes, are beneath contempt.

MCPO Airdale on February 1, 2007 at 11:10 AM

This guy is just trying to sell his book. A book btw that reveals secret code names for secret US operations.

This guy is 100% tratior.

csdeven on February 1, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Why is it so difficult for these people to understand? If you start spouting off about how we shouldn’t be in Iraq, we need to ‘redeploy’, etc, that is just emboldening the enemy? If the terrorists thought that the American people were 100% behind the mission (even if they didn’t agree with it in the first place), they’d be a lot less likely to continue the violence. When they here jerks like this Arkin fellow, they see victory much closer at hand.

“Aid and comfort to the enemy” doesn’t just mean food or guns.

dalewalt on February 1, 2007 at 11:23 AM

Arrogance and stupidity.

Although at times this combination can provide normal people with a chuckle (think darwin awards). In this case it is infuriating and dangerous.

What he needs is a good quality journalist embed with an infantry squad who have read the trash he has spewed.

Trooper on February 1, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Here’s a possible solution. Drop this man into the middle of Iraq. On one side he has American troops and on one side he has radical Islamic terrorists. Which side will he run to?

Glynn on February 1, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Does his analysis include the likes of Lt Watada, and former NAVY members Kerry and Murtha (he’s a 2-fer Marines which are part of the Navy).
This guys has not a clue and is projecting his own neurosis on entirely foreign, to him at least, group of people. He know more understands our military men and women then he does radical Islamics.

that they had an attitude that only they had the means – or the right – to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor.

Well sir, I dare say that those closest to the situation, and those most familiar with it and those who have the most to gain or lose certainily deserve to have more weight given to their opinions then yours.

LakeRuins on February 1, 2007 at 11:28 AM

Here’s a possible solution. Drop this man into the middle of Iraq. On one side he has American troops and on one side he has radical Islamic terrorists. Which side will he run to?

Neither,

He would lie face down and butt up while offering himself to anyone that looked the strongest.

Trooper on February 1, 2007 at 11:30 AM

Who are WaPo’s sponsors? Would it be possible to list them so that we can inundate them with emails? These people in the media will not listen until we hit them where it hurts: their pocketbook

JasonG on February 1, 2007 at 11:36 AM

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…

I am quite sure its the other way around.

shooter on February 1, 2007 at 10:55 AM

He’s so incredibly stupid he doesn’t realize he’s describing himself and every other upper west side of manhattan elitist liberal.

Capitalist Infidel on February 1, 2007 at 11:04 AM

I agree totally–this punk looks like a classic case of projection. Everything he accuses the military of, he’s guilty of himself–from the left-wing anti-American side, obviously. Accusing the military of being automatons, as if you don’t find unanimity of thought among America-hating liberals. Go over to Daily Kos and DU and you’ll find way more of that than I ever found in the military. Which is not to say that there’s none of it in the military, quite the contrary. But if you want to talk mindless automatons spewing talking points, you can’t do any better than the drones produced by the liberal-controlled public education system. Especially once they get to the collegiate level, where they really put the liberal in Liberal Arts.

Notice that once again, just like he did in his original column, this P.O.S. differentiates between the military and the American people, as if we aren’t Americans who are at least as good as he is and who therefore have the right to have an opinion. He’s just p*ssed that it’s an opinion that overwhelmingly disagrees with his, and that there aren’t more sh*tbags like Ehren Watada who’ll abandon their men, their duty, and their oath to serve. He’d genuinely support those guys. Typical. As better people than me have said, the Left hates the military because the military represents everything they don’t have–which also happens to be old-fashioned traditional American values–like honor, courage, service before self, dedication, teamwork, and love of country. Just to name a few.

Arkin and his all-too-common ilk are like the old saying, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?” With “support” like his, who needs opposition?

ReubenJCogburn on February 1, 2007 at 11:40 AM

Lets see if we can’t keep this guy running his mouth and blog. This is nothing but an unalloyed win for conservatives. It always is when leftists let their true feelings be known.

Fred on February 1, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Maybe Arkin can support these members of the military.
Two Senior Iraqi Generals Eyed in Brazen Attack on U.S. Soldiers

LakeRuins on February 1, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Arkin what are you and your lefty buddies saying? Only non-chickenhawks are permitted to express opinions about the war – except when those opinions support it?

Also, the majority of the military is against the war, but they unthinkingly support it en masse.

You guys keep self-contradicting. Pick a side would ‘ya!

Then again, don’t worry about it – we can draw a bead on your screwed up thinking whatever hemisphere it pops up in.

The Ritz on February 1, 2007 at 12:01 PM

Use him for the tool he is. Find a way to allign the clean black candidate and the fat pant suit with him.

Alden Pyle on February 1, 2007 at 12:04 PM

Here’s a matrix.

1. Oppose war, never served = OK
2. Oppose war, served = OK
3. Support war, never served = chickenhawk
4. Support war, currently serving = can’t express opinion because people in categories 1 and 2 should run the show.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on February 1, 2007 at 12:07 PM

Here’s a possible solution. Drop this man into the middle of Iraq. On one side he has American troops and on one side he has radical Islamic terrorists. Which side will he run to?

From the excerpt AP posted, he sounds like he would be more comfortable in the “free-form” organization of the terrorists. More chance to express his rage. The US military is too rigid with all it’s hierarchy and structure. Since he’s a lib, he would be in no danger from the terrorists, because, according to the libs, the terrorists can be reasoned with. He would “connect” with them and they would surely let him go unharmed. On the US side he would be safe, but he would be forced to listen to someone and follow orders. Not his style, apparently.

Mallard T. Drake on February 1, 2007 at 12:09 PM

quite whining

Heh – Arkin’s a graduate of the Lohanian School of Grammar.

I love the idea that to support the war without being in the military makes you a chickenhawk, but you’re not allowed to support it while you’re in the military either. Heads they win, tails we lose.

Info to contact his advertisers is here, along with the code to repost it.

Laura on February 1, 2007 at 12:11 PM

With a little modification, just about everything Arkin wrote can be said about him and his position in society.

Self-selected? Ditto his associating with personal and politcal groups, including, in the latter case, the Washington Post.

Hiding behind the Constitution and the flag? Ditto, big time. Even to the point of following the Democratic line of leaders like Kerry, with their fake “dissent” quotes by Jefferson.

Feelings of being the one true nation? Give me a break. Of all the bodies in this country made up of self-selecting members of society, none compare to the self-sanctifying, self-deifying, tyrannical, oppressive, and vengeful body called the mainstream media. Is there any other group that talks more about their representing the people; hell, even the Congress does that less. Which is the only group that, alternately, claims to have, then demands to have, exceptions to other laws when it comes to free speech?

Of course Arkin did not say soldiers should shut up. He said that their officers should shut them up. Of course he didn’t say they should be spit upon. He said they are lucky they haven’t been yet, not from the position of father telling son the world is dangerous, but from the position of stranger telling soldier that he’s got a loogie in his mouth.

Yes, the arrogant and intolerant spoke out. Arkin didn’t like the harsh response he got after doing so.

Dusty on February 1, 2007 at 12:12 PM

dorkwad wrote:

Contrary to the typically inaccurate and overstated assertion in dozens of blogs, hundreds of comments, and thousands of Emails I’ve received, I’ve never written that soldiers should “shut up,” quite 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.

Gee, dorkwad – you think? After all, it’s you and your left-wing bretheren that keep invoking the chickenhawk argument that says those that have not gone over to fight in Iraq have no right to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor. You guys are the ones that have promoted the very notion that you are now whining about with your repeated refrain of “why aren’t you signing up to fight over there” and other variations thereof.

In short, Mr. Arkin, kindly STFU.

thirteen28 on February 1, 2007 at 12:13 PM

His article was written solely because a soldier had the guts to say that in order to support the troops people need to let the military finish the job saying,

“I’m all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn’t for them to disapprove of the American people.”

And now he claims he wasn’t telling the soldiers to shut-up? I guess to him shut-up and having the military hierarchy he thinks plays mind control with the troops practice said mind control so the troops won’t talk again or make criticisms of the anti-war left are two different things.

What I find interesting is that Arkin and his ilk never complain about military members who speak out against the war like Jim Webb (and gosh, he was part of the dreaded hierarchy).

Nope, because those individuals while also being clothed, fed and housed by taxpayers and hiding behind the constitution and flag aren’t somehow evil mercenaries or dupes. No, since they’re opposed to the war they need to be heard.

Sensible Mom on February 1, 2007 at 12:21 PM

What a putz. What will he write when the enemy is at his door?

Scotsman on February 1, 2007 at 12:27 PM

I know in my heart it’s not right but I’m getting too close to the point of breaking for my own good. This is one a-whole whom should thank his lucky stars he doesn’t live in the same city as I.

Griz on February 1, 2007 at 12:36 PM

No comments to his latest whine have been allowed since 11:02 EST. Guess this courageous blogger/military analyst has now had enough of the “arrogent and intolerant” citizens who disagree with his communist agitprop.

MCPO Airdale on February 1, 2007 at 12:46 PM

“Here’s a matrix.

1. Oppose war, never served = OK
2. Oppose war, served = OK
3. Support war, never served = chickenhawk
4. Support war, currently serving = can’t express opinion because people in categories 1 and 2 should run the show.”

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on February 1, 2007 at 12:07 PM

Excellent.

I was wondering if someone else was scratching his head about the contradiction evident in Arkin’s reasoning (if it can be called that): We keep hearing the “chickenhawk” line from the left when those out of uniform support the effort in Iraq … but when those in uniform comment in support of what they’re doing, then they’re somehow threatening a creeping oligarchy over those not in uniform.

You just can’t win with people like this; because by the time you think you’ve nailed them on one argument, they’re already off on another tack that can be 180 degrees opposite of the one they were just on.

This is what happens when one has no real principles, only negative emotions coupled with situational ethics: one becomes unmoored to any sense of consistency, blind to one’s own hypocrisy, and ultimately stuck in a morass of projection and incoherency.

But hey, at least he’s not trying to claim that it was all just a “botched joke….”

Spurius Ligustinus on February 1, 2007 at 12:55 PM

Im hoping that he runs into some of those “mercen… er I mean troops who he has so much contempt for..

I for one would like to see him get the Saddam treatment.

Viper1 on February 1, 2007 at 12:55 PM

This guy is a great example of ego and education gone wild. It thrives in our universities and it gets it’s voice in our major media outlets.

d1carter on February 1, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Interesting. He said he was in the military.

see-dubya on February 1, 2007 at 1:17 PM

So he’s basically making the Ann Coulter argument in Godless that it is inappropriate to use people who can’t be criticized because of their status (eg Jersey Girls), in this case soldiers, to make a point. Kinda ironic.

kmcguire on February 1, 2007 at 1:18 PM

What a putz. What will he write when the enemy is at his door?

Scotsman on February 1, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Probably “I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.”

see-dubya on February 1, 2007 at 1:18 PM

Just yesterday my son came within an inch of losing his life in training for his country… He and his shipmates are brave Americans.
GO NAVY, YEAH!!
I can’t even stand these guys that twist the allegience of our young men and women to their cause.
I WILL NOT CLICK… I will not listen to this man.
My son has every right to express his opinion with the exception of criticism of his CIF.
If this asshat doesn’t like it, let him find another country.
Of course, there is no other country that would let him live in such comfort with such freedom.

Babs on February 1, 2007 at 1:24 PM

What a putz. What will he write when the enemy is at his door?

Scotsman on February 1, 2007 at 12:27 PM

‘I surrender. Please don’t hurt me.’

Limerick on February 1, 2007 at 1:27 PM

Oh look! His book is in the Women’s Fiction section. I knew he had no balls….

Tim Burton on February 1, 2007 at 1:27 PM

This guy is a great example of ego and education gone wild.

Hear, hear.

This guy is a sack of $hit. This is a prime example of flawed logic, misguided hatred and lunacy of the pseudo-intellectuals in America.

x95b10 on February 1, 2007 at 1:29 PM

Well, there is one bright spot in all this. At least he never mentioned Valerie Plame.

BigOrangeAxe on February 1, 2007 at 1:46 PM

What he’s saying, in effect is that Soldiers serving in Iraq should not be able to express their opinion because:

They are just poor uneducated fools who got stuck in Iraq (Copyright (C) John F’kin Kerry)

They have been fed their lines by their commanders.

They aren’t ‘enlightened enough’ (like Arkin, Fonda, Penn, or Combs are) to be able to express an opinion.

CrazyFool on February 1, 2007 at 2:11 PM

So he’s basically making the Ann Coulter argument in Godless that it is inappropriate to use people who can’t be criticized because of their status (eg Jersey Girls), in this case soldiers, to make a point. Kinda ironic.

kmcguire on February 1, 2007 at 1:18 PM

I don’t think his argument is that people claim soldiers have perfect moral authority.

His argument was that they shouldn’t express their opinion at all.

I have no problem with someone debating a soldier’s opinion.

I have a major problem with someone stating that a soldier shouldn’t have an opinion at all (and that, if he does, he should keep it to himself).

I’m not even going to get started on the “mercenary” line. Suffice it to say that Arkin is a jackass.

JadeNYU on February 1, 2007 at 2:25 PM

This goes back to the rule of mob in Rome. These guys are doing everything they can to turn mobs against our institutions. They use the desires of the anti war movement, the socialist movement, and other special interest groups like secularists, environmentalists, and the hardcore leftist gays to basically tear down anyone who disagrees with them

and it’s guys like this who feed the philosophical understanding of the left and how they reason out their efforts to destroy those who protect them.

Canibals and bastards

nothing more.

One Angry Christian on February 1, 2007 at 2:36 PM

This douche needs to be left alone so that he can talk…more and more, louder and louder.

benrand on February 1, 2007 at 3:05 PM

I spent 10 minutes writing this screed and since posting no longer seems to be working at the Washington Post, I am going to post it here. (Postus interuptus is just to painful.)

“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.”

You get paid for spouting such ill-considered drivel? The mind boggles. I could as easily declare “far too many in the main stream media believe that they are the one true nation. The hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew anti-Republican, anti-conservative, anti-military, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen messages that reflects contempt for the American people.” See how easy it is? Anybody can do it.

I’m sure you attended a much better college than I, so perhaps my thinking on the subject is outdated. However, my understanding of free speech is that you had your say, others, who disagree with you, voiced their opinion. While it may comfort you to think of opposing viewpoints as being “spewed” (in contrast to your well reasoned and artfully constructed arguments) as well as anti-citizen, anti-dissent, and pretty much anti everything you hold dear, but I’m afraid that not only do they have the right to believe your opinions are contemptible, but (despite the newest efforts of congress to limit free speech to approved sources such as major newspapers and television networks) to express those beliefs as well.

As for the level of civil discourse; haven’t spent much time perusing the comments on the DailyKos, huffpost, or the Democratic Underground have you? In any event, it seems disingenuous to call the people who are serving in the U.S. military “mercenaries” and imply that they are all potential murders and rapists (as well as willing to help overthrow the democratically elected government they swore to protect) and then declare that “there is such contempt for civil society in these words” in response to what your critics write. In fact, I would venture to say that it reflects a certain arrogance and intolerance.

Finally, I find your declaration “I spent so much of my time in this column every week railing about Washington myself“ used to deflect charges that you are “elitist, arrogant, exclusive, a Washington a@$*hole or worse, above-it-all, and superior” to be bemusing, to say the least. Is it your contention that being anti-establishment automatically means that you cannot be a jerk? Perhaps you still believe yourself to be an outsider, fighting against “the man.”

Here’s a quarter, buy a clue. To the vast majority of Americans, someone who is employed by the Washington Post to provide their opinions, presumably for the edification of those not so employed, is a part of the establishment. I know you will find this shocking, but to many you are “the man.”

hygate on February 1, 2007 at 3:12 PM

One final question for the folks here. Which esteemed member of Congress will be the first to repeat this intellectuals comments and put them on record? my money is on either Murtha or Webb.

LakeRuins on February 1, 2007 at 3:16 PM

Good screed, hygate. I wrote a comment over there too that didn’t get published. I would have posted it over here but I made a New Year’s resolution to quit posting comments *that could get me in trouble* on Hot Air.

RushBaby on February 1, 2007 at 3:20 PM

One final question for the folks here. Which esteemed member of Congress will be the first to repeat this intellectuals comments and put them on record? my money is on either Murtha or Webb.

LakeRuins on February 1, 2007 at 3:16 PM

Ooh, excellent question, and those are both good guesses. I’ll take Blinker Pelousi and Russ “I wipe my *ss with the 1st Amendment” Feingold.

ReubenJCogburn on February 1, 2007 at 3:27 PM

Veteran. Captain, USAF 1988-1995. Viper driver and participated in the First Gulf War as well as operation Northern Watch. Had the “pleasure and privilege” of dodging a few Iraqi SAMs and AAA fire in my day.

This nimrod’s collosal ignorance of the military displayed in his article is so astounding to the point I have to wonder about his basic intelligence. Can he tie his own shoes? The dripping elitist condescension is so palpable I’m surprised his doesn’t sprain his back each morning kissing his own ass. The fact is he is someone who has accomplished exactly nothing in his of life of any consequence and has to lash out at normal, everyday people who of their own initiative decide to put their lives on the line so others don’t have too–and accomplish more in one day’s work than he will in his entire life.

No, it doesn’t make your volunteer Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine elite and above everybody else–they are just doing their jobs. It just points out just how pathetic he and beneath contempt he is.

Faith1 on February 1, 2007 at 3:31 PM

How the hell does one ‘hide behind the Constitution’?

Does he think it’s just a symbol, like the flag? I mean, did he mean to admit that that’s what he thinks?

kate q on February 1, 2007 at 3:37 PM

This guy still deserves a *serious* bitchslapping.

georgej on February 1, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Sorry Mr. Arkin, I shan’t order any soldier under me to stiffle – only if it is obscene, violates OPSEC, violates DoD or DA directives and policies, or defames…then I will counsel silence.
You, sir, are a moral coward to try and silence those who think you wrong.

Oh, and everyone – it is counterproductive to talk about anyone doing anything violent. Don’t feed the beast of their biases…

major john on February 1, 2007 at 4:01 PM

I posted thas a little while ago over at NB, but I thought my friends here at HA would enjoy this as well.

Dear Mr. Arkin;

Normally, this is the point where I would tell you to go and do something to yourself that for most of us is an anatomical impossibility. In your case it is even more so as the instrument required for said exercise is currently protruding from your shirt collar. It appears you were born with that unfortunate condition.

People who feel as you do not deserve to live in this country. Furthermore, I have a feeling that if there is another massive terrorist attack on this country, people such as yourself, along with the other America-hating terrorist enabling types are probably going to encounter some, shall we say, serious hostility on the part of true freedom-loving Americans, as you and your ilk have gone far beyond just hatred for a president. I’m guessing many of you are going to be invited to leave. I’m further guessing many of those invitations are going to be something less than polite. I say good.

You and your kind are now putting all of our lives, as well as those of our loved ones, in serious jeopardy.

Speaking purely for myself, I do not give a flying fornication what happens to you.

Dave R. on February 1, 2007 at 4:30 PM

Oh, and everyone – it is counterproductive to talk about anyone doing anything violent. Don’t feed the beast of their biases…

major john on February 1, 2007 at 4:01 PM

But Major John…I’m a 5’2″, 105lbs white chick that grew up in a middle class family with a father who’s a staunch Democrat (and a Union man to boot). Both of my parents were hippies. Heck, I even went to a liberal new england college (NYU) and majored in Drama.

If I preach non-violence, I’ll be feeding their biases.

It’s only by being one violent sonofagun that I can buck the stereotypes about my kind. :)

JadeNYU on February 1, 2007 at 4:31 PM

Un-freaking-believable. He tries to backtrack some on his previous comments, yet manages to become even more offensive in the process.

If you read his bio, he was military, an intel analyst in the 70′s, which is neither here nor there as far as that goes. It doesn’t give him absolute moral authority, and to put out the blanket generalizations that he has, stating that the military (and at one point, implying it was at the individual soldier level) could have fixed Iraq, totally ignores the fact that we still have civilian authority to answer to. Every time a soldier dies, the commanders find some other piece of armor or pile of equipment or rule to further restrict risk. This is in direct response to the pressure from home (as if a war can be won without a single casualty). People in the media, like him, make it seem like we only need to stay in our FOB’s and drive around in our armored vehicles and we’d be able to go home after a few weeks.

The reality on the ground is, we can’t win it without casualties. We have to get out and do patrols on foot, exposing ourselves to enemy fire. We have to meet the public and interact with them. We can’t surrender the initiative and expect to get anywhere.

Support from home is key to this as well. If we appear to be committed to this, and united behind our troops, then we’re a formidable opponent. With the MSM beaming their propaganda around the world, without even a semblance of balance, this looks just like one man’s war, and he’s only seconds away from being removed from office.

I won’t even go into the “Soldiers=Mercenaries” analogy, other than to say that I volunteered to serve. After 18 years of service, I was paid $53k for a year in Iraq. For being EOD, and volunteering to disarm IEDs, I make an additional $150 per month.

- It ain’t the money Mr. Arkin!
- It wasn’t brainwashing
- It’s because I could do nothing less!

RustMouse on February 1, 2007 at 4:38 PM

Lake Ruins, out here in the People’s Republic of Hawaii we hear ad nauseum about the plight of the “poor Lt. Ehren Watada”. He was home for the holidays and spoke at some anti-war meeting in late December although he wore a suit. However, he’s had his DA picture in the Pravdatiser (Honolulu Advertiser) multiple times while writing op-eds on his views and “encouraging others to joing him”. I’m sure Arkin and Colmes see no conundrum about that at all. However, they don’t want anyone else speaking who doesn’t feel the way Whiner watada feels. I still read the Savannah Morning News online and saw where General Lynch said a few days before the Third ID went back to Iraq that he wished the American public would quit complaining. There was a letter to the editor from some fool who said the General was out of line “but wished them a safe return”. I thought I would lose my dinner.
RustMouse is exactly right. My husband was home on R & R during the elections and one evening when he had too much to drink told me that he was upset about the election and the direction the country is going, wondering why the American people (those who voted for the “new” direction) don’t get it, why the few bad apples are the only ones who get pressed and why people like Arkin, et. al. are allowed to breathe. I know, it wasn’t nice but . . .
To Mr. Arkin, again an F-bomb to you.

Catie96706 on February 1, 2007 at 5:03 PM

Bill Arkin. What a colossal POS.

I’m personally inured to these pseudo intellectuals from my time in Vietnam.

Actually, I giggle when they make their idiotic pronouncements.

However, I do admit that if, perchance, I run into Bill or any of his ideological cronies down here in Florida(Matthews comes to mind), I might just kick their ass.

there it is on February 1, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Attila has it dead on.

Mortis on February 1, 2007 at 5:51 PM

The crux of Mr. Arkin’s screed appears to be that soldiers who agree with him that the war is a wasteful catastrophe are patriots who show the proper deference to civil society; while soldiers who have the audacity to disagree with him openly, and challenge the experiential basis of his opinions, are intolerant and arrogant cretins.

In other words, this entire episode is just a minor variation on the “You are stifling my dissent!” trope deployed by room-temperature IQ lefties whenever they encounter criticism of their views, layered with ill-mannered contempt for the military.

I would say that Mr. Arkin is an embarassment to both the journalistic profession and the Washington Post, but that’s not true: he’s an exemplar of both.

Centerfire on February 1, 2007 at 6:11 PM

What a schmuck. This is a freaking war we’re talking about. Mistakes have been made, and will be made. Lives are lost. It’s WAR. We haven’t lost a single battle or skirmish, but do you hear anything about that? No, whenever a soldier tragically loses his/her life, it’s treated as total incompetence of the entire US Government.

The survival of western civilization is at stake here, but it’s not worth dying for, according to leftists. Of course, the right to have anonymous anal sex with deranged same-sex strangers while taking powerful drugs, now THAT’s worth dying for!

stonemeister on February 1, 2007 at 6:41 PM

Hey, isn’t he saying pretty much what Ann Coulter said about the Jersey Girls?:

“I said I was bothered by the notion that …(they)… were somehow becoming hallowed beings above society, that they had an attitude that only they had the means – or the right – to judge…”

So now he agrees with her and he disagrees with the “chicken hawk” argument – wtf is up with that?
DKK

LifeTrek on February 1, 2007 at 6:49 PM

boy I’d like to meet this guy in a back alley in Iraq…

BadBrad on February 1, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Funny how he complains about others who “hide behind the constitution”, seeing as how he’s one of the left-wing traitors who is doing just that.

packsoldier on February 1, 2007 at 9:29 PM

What a tool. I can’t help but notice that the main thing that makes soldiers’ commentary fascist is that it is anti-democrat.

Presumably then if troops’ tended to agree with Arkin they’d simply be exercising thier free speech, but since they choose to disagree with him, they’re nascent fascists who need to have thier CO’s “take them aside” and explain to them that they’re allowed to have any opinion they like, but they can’t express it.

nauticalbear on February 1, 2007 at 9:57 PM

At which point will A. Colmes be so insufferable that he won’t be able to suffer himself any more?

The connn-unnn-drummm for this guy is that the majority in the military are probably conservative. He makes them out to be marionettes, who can be indoctrinated at the government’s will. The Kerry theory, er joke…

Entelechy on February 1, 2007 at 10:27 PM

If what he spewed on the 30th got under your skin, read today’s effort at ‘excusing,’ apologizing,’ or whatever it is.
A Note to My Readers on Supporting the Troops

Of particular note: “I intentionally chose to criticize the military and used the word [mercenary] to incite and call into question their presumption that the public had a duty to support them. The public has duties, but not to the American military.”

Anything said by him after that just went in one ear and out the other (eyes, in this case).

LewWaters on February 2, 2007 at 1:15 AM

This douche needs to be left alone so that he can talk…more and more, louder and louder.

benrand on February 1, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Exactly: this a++hole is a tonic. The Left has been very careful and very clever in their “We support the troops” mantra. For the most part, they have avoided the mistake of their Vietnam days, when they let their comtempt and hatred show.

We need more Obvious Turds like this guy to show everyone just what all the Lefties believe. I want him on the FRONT PAGE of the WaPo and NYT–I want him on the broadcast news, wanking away with Wolf, and letting everyone know what he and his pals really think…..and what they would do if they had the executive branch in their grasp

Janos Hunyadi on February 2, 2007 at 4:08 AM

Comment pages: 1 2