How to destroy a soldier’s life

posted at 3:12 pm on February 12, 2010 by Cassy Fiano

I came across an article on Salon entitled “How to leave a soldier” that has apparently been making ripples across the blogosphere. It absolutely infuriated me, and I knew I had to write about it.

Before I get into the article, though, let me explain some things in the interest of full disclosure. My significant other is a Marine. We live together in North Carolina while he’s stationed at Camp Lejeune. He’s an 0311 (infantry rifleman) who has been to Iraq twice and is deploying to Afghanistan this year. The first year of our relationship was long distance, with him in North Carolina and me in Florida. We’re together now, but the Corps brings us apart occasionally for training and such, and of course, for deployments. Never, ever would I do something so cowardly as to send him a Dear John letter while he was deployed.

But that’s exactly what this woman did. Meet Courtney Cook, an extraordinarily shallow and callous woman.

I can chart the entire history of my first marriage along the lines of U.S. military engagements. I fell in love with my ex-husband in no small part because he was a soldier. He was a Dartmouth senior on a ROTC scholarship, and his heroes were George Patton and Ulysses S. Grant. He could use words like “valor” and “courage” without irony. I liked the way he carried himself — taller it seemed, and with honor.

So they fell in love, got pregnant, and then got married. Her then-husband was activated due to Operation Desert Shield. Long story short, she ended up not having a clue what she was getting into and wanted to leave her husband because she couldn’t handle the separation.

Now, I know firsthand how difficult a relationship in the military is. I don’t begrudge someone who acknowledges that they can’t handle it. It takes a special kind of person to be able to endure this lifestyle. Camp Lejeune is full of women who make it through with grace, dignity, and class — and women who just couldn’t do it. There’s no shame in admitting that you just can’t handle it. A lot of people, especially 18-year-olds who don’t come from a military background, just don’t fully realize what they’re getting into when they marry someone who is active-duty military. I don’t personally believe it means they should take the easy way out and leave, but I don’t think it makes them a bad person, either.

Now, on to Ms. Cook’s essay. We’re going to take this bit by bit, because the entire article is long and doesn’t need to be excerpted. So with that, away we go…

It helped that the other lieutenants in the Armor Officer Basic Course spent a lot of time with us in our married officer’s quarters. They were great, smart, handsome guys — the Channing Tatums and Jake Gyllenhaals of their day — as committed to winning their squadron intramural football league as they were to the complexities of tank gunnery and platoon leadership. Since they’d left their sweethearts at home, my unborn baby and I were the local version of what they were fighting for. Soon I too was caught up in the romance that comes with men who go off to war, seduced by the heady mix of youth, strength, risk and passion that makes loving a soldier so beautifully intense. It’s the same brew that fuels the drumbeat sexuality in contemporary war movies like “Jarhead” and “Atonement,” last December’s “Brothers,” and, one would presume, the upcoming “Dear John.” It’s a glory we can’t get enough of — until it’s gone.

Here we start to get a hint of just how shallow this woman truly is. Perhaps its just me, but when you’re comparing soldiers and military life to actors and movies, something is wrong. Sure, Jake Gyllenhaal and Channing Tatum have played soldiers on the big screen. It doesn’t make them anything remotely similar to actual soldiers. Nor is military life anything like “Atonement”, “Jarhead”, or “Brothers”. Most people, even civilians, would understand that (wouldn’t you think?). It seemed to me to be the first hint of just how shallow this woman is — and that she was going to doom her marriage with romantic, unrealistic expectations.

Desert Storm ended just 11 days after the birth of our son, but within weeks John and I were facing a wrenching tragedy. My husband’s brother, a U.S. Navy pilot, was killed in a training accident leaving behind my new sister-in-law, and their daughter and baby son. My husband had to drop out of training to be at his own brother’s funeral. I spent most of the memorial service watching my dead brother-in-law’s children play in the nursery. I was still learning how to breast-feed.

Here we get out first hint of another recurring theme throughout the essay. Everything is all about me, me, me.

We decided enough was enough. John would go on reserve status. We would put each other through grad school and get jobs in the private sector. For a while it worked. We were a couple again. We cooked and ate dinner together, took our kids trick-or-treating at Halloween. At night we sat close and watched movies. When our son decided to whistle “Oh My Darlin’” for the school talent show, John was there.

Then came 9/11. My husband, like so many others, saw the attacks as a call to action.

I guess apparently he should have just ignored the worst attack ever on American soil, that killed almost 3,000 innocent people. It makes you wonder: she says that valour and courage are important to her, but the very moment when her husband showed those traits she was angered by it.

I took a job at an independent bookstore and started spending time with the young, funny, book-reading guys I met there. When John came back things were awkward. I couldn’t stop myself from being angry, couldn’t help feeling abandoned.

Could her feelings of anger and abandonment possibly be exacerbated by the fact that she spent his deployment hanging around “young, funny, book-reading guys”. What is her implication here, that her husband is old, boring, and dumb? And while I can’t speak for her ex-husband, I can say without a doubt that the vast majority of Marines I know would be furious if they came home to find out their wife had been spending their deployment with other men, regardless of whether or not she was actually cheating. It looks bad and causes jealousy and suspicion. The soldier or Marine starts worrying that their wife was being kept warm by Jody while they were gone.

Meanwhile I was just 30 years old, working with teenage students, surfing all of their exuberant, sexy, rowdy energy. I was teaching the great literary love stories in class, and coaching Ultimate Frisbee in the exhilarating spring air. On weekends my book-reading friends from the bookstore stopped by. We made dinners together, spent evenings talking and laughing. I liked it that we had so many things to talk about. I liked it that they were near.

My husband was a world away from me. After 12 years of distance it felt as though he always would be. I was worn out with waiting. So I left him.

Just that simple. She was tired of waiting, and so she just left. And how did she leave? She sent him a Dear John letter, and then made him send a letter to their children explaining, that she then gave to them, rather than at least having the guts to tell her children herself that she was leaving Daddy.

I am married to a lithe, blue-eyed Marxist whose dissertation was on U.S. imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a man who participated in war protests in Santa Cruz, Calif., during the winter I lived at Fort Knox.

Tells you just about all you need to know, doesn’t it? She went from a man who proudly defended his country and answered the call of freedom, to a Marxist who protested war.

But these passages above were just the tip of the iceberg. I now present to you the two worst parts of this entire essay.

Yet I didn’t escape what it feels like to love a soldier.

Last July my son, the baby that was born to television coverage of Operation Desert Storm, said goodbye to his high school friends, shaved his head and enrolled in the United States Naval Academy. I am deeply proud of him, but it was my ex-husband who stood with my son on Induction Day. I could not bear to be there, could not watch the child of my body step away from the safe, civilian world I’d tried to so desperately to create for myself and him.

Yes, Heaven forbid she support her son because he had the audacity to join the military. It really tells you all you need to know, doesn’t it? She leaves her husband and the father of her children via a Dear John letter and then refused to support her son, both because of the military. Yet she gets off on the image of our soldiers. She gets off on Jake Gyllenhaal in “Jarhead”. She wants the uniform, but isn’t interested in the honor and the courage it takes to earn the right to wear it.

Finally, here is the worst passage. Interestingly, they’re also the opening paragraphs.

You’d be surprised how easy it is to leave a soldier on deployment. You can do it with a letter. (He can’t argue with you. He doesn’t have a phone.) If you lay the groundwork early, saying to the soldier before he leaves, “This will be the end of us, we might as well admit it,” it’s that much easier. The letter won’t even come as a shock.

And if you have children with that soldier? You can handle all that with a letter, too. He’ll write it — because he cares about the kids, because he wants to work with you to do what’s best for them even though you’re leaving him — and you’ll give it to them. Here again, you will avoid a nasty confrontation. Who will they cry to? You? You’re just the teary-eyed bearer of the letter. Him? The one who’s sweating it out in the desert?

There will be no moving truck, no boxes, no house torn asunder. The soldier is peeing in a bucket as you pack. He doesn’t care who gets the couch.

It isn’t enough for her to be this callous, shallow, superficial, and selfish. She’s recommending other women do the same thing, too. One of the worst parts about this is that she feels like it was a good thing to tell him while he’s away at war that she’s leaving him. She presumably doesn’t care about the effect this has on soldiers while they’re deployed. They’re over there fighting for their lives, and she thinks it’s a smart move to saddle them with this while they’re in the middle of that? You’ve got to be a pretty damn low person to not care about the extra stress you’re putting on someone that’s fighting a war and risking their life, all because you don’t want to deal with telling them face-to-face that your marriage is over. Soldiers fighting a war don’t need the added stress of knowing that the person who they think is waiting for them has abandoned them. She abandoned him for a Marxist, and then abandoned her son when he didn’t conform to the life she wanted. Her husband sounded consistent in his morals and values throughout the duration of their marriage. She, on the other hand, seemed to grow to hate the military to the point where she couldn’t even support her own son because he decided to join.

It’s sad, because there are many people out there who hold the same contempt for the military in their hearts. These men and women put their lives on the line, and yet they unfortunately are treated so low by so many. And only on a liberal website like Salon would this be featured.

This article is despicable because it’s really a how-to manual of how to ruin a soldier’s life, not just how to leave him. But for someone so self-absorbed, what does it really matter if she leaves a soldier’s heart shattered in her selfish, cowardly wake?

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

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 3 4 5

Grow Fins on February 12, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Pick out the person no one has ever seen here before and who has been taken to task by several people and build your case of “you guys”. You are lazy and lame.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2010 at 9:22 PM

You are lazy and lame.

I was kidding. Relax.

Grow Fins on February 12, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Grow Fins on February 12, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Apology accepted.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2010 at 9:25 PM

I cannot believe how awful and selfish this woman is. Absolutely narcissistic. What a horrible person. Poor man.

This just broke my heart.

nemecizer on February 12, 2010 at 9:27 PM

LordJack on February 12, 2010 at 6:14 PM

The last time my husband deployed and we had to get POA’s they told him that they no longer recommend giving blanket POA’s to the spouse anymore because of this. I told the lady with hubby right there we’ve been married so many years and never have abused it. There have been times where I had to whip the POA out to get answers. They are cracking down on that so the guys don’t get screwed. I know someone it happened to and it’s sickning that this happens while they are deployed and in harms way. I think judges should take that into account when dealing with cases like these.

Brat4life on February 12, 2010 at 9:30 PM

My son is an Airman, my ex a Marine, and I have good friends who were Soldiers.

I can honestly say that I effing HATE this cowardly woman.

ladyingray on February 12, 2010 at 9:36 PM

This sounds like my ex-wife. I found out that my daughter had been taken by child protective services because she had been left home alone while my soon-to-be-ex-wife was out drinking with twenty-year-old guys while I was in Iraq. This was back in 2004.

After the divorce, I put myself through college and am on track to graduate from a top law school next year. I still see my daughter regularly, and I’m a lot happier than I ever was while married.

JohnJ on February 12, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Would you ban him for suggesting violence too?

Khorum on February 12, 2010 at 6:37 PM

You are an a$$, and just for your statement AND the attack on Cindy, who is one of our most thoughtful and compassionate commentors should get you banned…in fact, I’m sending a note off to Ed right now–you jerk!!!

lovingmyUSA on February 12, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Ignorant slut. You don’t DESERVE a soldier.

HornetSting on February 12, 2010 at 9:41 PM

You guys are on a roll tonight. Must be Valentine’s weekend or something.

Grow Fins on February 12, 2010 at 9:19 PM

I’ll say. First Khorum drops by and demands we start killing people, and now you’re here. It’s like we hit the Loser Troll Jackpot.

RINO in Name Only on February 12, 2010 at 9:45 PM

JohnJ on February 12, 2010 at 9:39 PM

I am both sorry and happy for you at the same time. Thanks for your service and I hope everything good comes your way.

Cindy Munford on February 12, 2010 at 9:46 PM

The worst thing is not how and why she got divorced. No, the self-congratulatory sanctimonious tone she uses to tell her story is far worse.

To better know this alleged human being, check out her blog, it’s nothing but Little Green Footballs quality crappy photos. Except for the last entry, which is a photo of the memorial to USNA’86 grads who died accompanied by a few vapid paragraphs. Surely the choice that particular photo is purely coincidental and has nothing at all to do with her son’s choice to attend USNA.

A Balrog of Morgoth on February 12, 2010 at 9:47 PM

Kidding or not, you’re still lazy and lame. Just making sure that was clear.

- The Cat

MirCat on February 12, 2010 at 9:49 PM

::shrug:: Cindy Sheehan, except a good deal more articulate.

Nasty s*t, but nothing new here.

Regards,
Ric

warlocketx on February 12, 2010 at 10:05 PM

a lithe, blue-eyed Marxist

Sounds like an Eloi.

atheling on February 12, 2010 at 10:14 PM

A selfish child trapped in a 30 year old mother’s body who needs the easy way out in life. Cassy nailed it with her being in love with the uniform and simply getting off on the idea of a soldier, the woman is pathetic. I am happy that the son was not corrupted buy the Marxist coward she is now married to.

Daemonocracy on February 12, 2010 at 10:16 PM

I would love to have Dr. Laura Schlessinger chat with the author of that letter for about 30 minutes. It would be most memorable.

Mutnodjmet on February 12, 2010 at 10:22 PM

He was too good for her.

ZK on February 12, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Getting Dear John Letters suck. I’m a Marine and got one when I was in El Sal in the late 80′s. If you’re in a line unit and getting some trigger time it tends to eff up your focus cuz in 100 plus degree heat, triple canopy jungle on patrol your mind wanders off and before you know it you’re thinking about the witch and not paying attention to the business.

Screw that dirty bitch I hope she get V warts from her hippie boyfriend.

Alden Pyle on February 12, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Disgusting.

And the new guy wrote a dissertation on American imperialism? How original. Marxist arguments are about as difficult to write as taking a dump.

Metro on February 12, 2010 at 10:49 PM

She sucks. I could say worse but I like it here.

Denverslim on February 12, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Most women aren’t in love with a person, they are infatuated with a dream.
-500

Grow Fins on February 12, 2010 at 9:14 PM

OMG Grow Fins is a girl!!!

hawkdriver on February 12, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Most women aren’t in love with a person, they are infatuated with a dream.
-500

Grow Fins on February 12, 2010 at 9:14 PM

OMG Grow Fins is a girl!!!

hawkdriver on February 12, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Which begs the question, why -500? She’s clearly pining for someone, and she’s spending an awful lot of time around here too.

It’s almost as though she’s trying to get someone’s attention.

RINO in Name Only on February 12, 2010 at 11:04 PM

Begging the question:

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of “reasoning” typically has the following form.

1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

furthermore:

Typical examples of circular arguments include rights-claims: e.g., “I have a right to say what I want, therefore you shouldn’t try to silence me”; “Women have a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, therefore abortion should be allowed”; “The unborn has a right to life, therefore abortion is immoral”.

Having a right to X is the same as other people having an obligation to allow you to have X, so each of these arguments begs the question, assuming exactly what it is trying to prove.

daesleeper on February 12, 2010 at 11:12 PM

daesleeper on February 12, 2010 at 11:12 PM

I’m ashamed to admit that I actually knew that, but couldn’t help myself. It’s such a fun phrase to use, even incorrectly.

RINO in Name Only on February 12, 2010 at 11:16 PM

Because they like to stir sh*t up and throw spitballs over the aisle to drive you guys crazy. It’s obnoxious, but it works. Just look at all of you wetting your pants with outrage. Over a person who lacks the emotional maturity or intelligence or strength to make a marriage work – just like every other person in a marriage that fails. Salon thinks the story is juicy or interesting or something, when it’s not. it’s just the story of a fu*king loser.

Dave Rywall on February 12, 2010 at 3:56 PM

In other news.. Molly the Moose announced her pending divorce from the Honorable Dave Drywall, MP, Dildo, Newfoundland

katy the mean old lady on February 12, 2010 at 11:20 PM

It’s almost as though she’s trying to get someone’s attention.

RINO in Name Only on February 12, 2010 at 11:04 PM

She ignores me these days because I tease her about fabricating a comment someone else make. I’ll be on better manners now. Plus, she had a sort of nice exchange with Cindy above.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2010 at 11:22 PM

“made”

hawkdriver on February 12, 2010 at 11:23 PM

My son and grandson got dear John letters while they were depoyed. It must be contagious.

Johan Klaus on February 12, 2010 at 11:27 PM

I’m ashamed to admit that I actually knew that, but couldn’t help myself. It’s such a fun phrase to use, even incorrectly.

RINO in Name Only on February 12, 2010 at 11:16 PM

Me too RINO! Misuse of this is my new pet peeve. I posted the definition more for myself than anything else.

Next? Maybe the paradox of the ravens…:P

daesleeper on February 12, 2010 at 11:29 PM

OMG Grow Fins is a girl!!!

hawkdriver on February 12, 2010 at 10:57 PM

Dang! Thought you knew that. Think of the ugliest broad you know with computer access. How thee be? I have a rosary bead dedicated to you. Stay safe!

katy the mean old lady on February 12, 2010 at 11:31 PM

Which begs the question, why -500? She’s clearly pining for someone, and she’s spending an awful lot of time around here too.

It’s almost as though she’s trying to get someone’s attention.

RINO in Name Only on February 12, 2010 at 11:04 PM

Snort. Reminds me of an old NYC expression “couldn’t get laid in a whorehouse with a fist full of fifties”

katy the mean old lady on February 12, 2010 at 11:41 PM

Makes me happy to be single. I’d rather never marry at all than find out my wife decided she wanted to opt out of the “for better or for worse” section of the marriage when I’M IN A WAR ZONE!! I mean marriages break down, fine. Don’t do it when hubby is dodging bullets and bad guys, o.k.?

Rightwingguy on February 12, 2010 at 11:41 PM

Alden Pyle on February 12, 2010 at 10:38 PM

You’re not a quiet American…..
Anyways, thanks for your service, Devildog.

Rightwingguy on February 12, 2010 at 11:42 PM

katy the mean old lady on February 12, 2010 at 11:31 PM

I be fine. Gettin short here.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2010 at 11:43 PM

What a disgusting piece of sh*t! Unfortunately most of these Dear John/Dear Jane stories don’t end quite as neatly as this one’s did much to her soldier ex-husband’s credit, certainly not hers.
I hold this woman in greater contempt than I do a strung-out woman I know who was divorcing her husband when he was diagnosed with a brain tumor and he begged her to hold off until he could receive treatment (he was covered under her insurance). She refused, told him she’d put in her 10 years. Now he’s dying and she attempts to garner sympathy because her ex is dying of cancer and she’s “so sad”, but what she’s really concerned about is how she’s going to make the house pymt without money from him. (House on market,still unsold,she lives there, he pays half the payment.) ugh.
Didn’t think it possible to disdain someone more than her but Ms. Cook wins the prize.
Sick.

redslippers on February 12, 2010 at 11:47 PM

The really sad part is that this worthless piece of crap will be entitled to part of his ‘military retirement pay’.
I take special exception with her comment ‘the safe world that she created’ There would be no safety in this world without our military. She created nothing. She is nothing more than a basket case without the common sense to survive on her own. The ultimate in liberal stupidity.

sirknob on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 PM

She ignores me these days because I tease her about fabricating a comment someone else make. I’ll be on better manners now. Plus, she had a sort of nice exchange with Cindy above.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2010 at 11:22 PM

She’s kind of sensitive about that, like she’s embarrassed that she got busted.

BadgerHawk on February 12, 2010 at 11:54 PM

Makes me happy to be single. I’d rather never marry at all than find out my wife decided she wanted to opt out of the “for better or for worse” section of the marriage when I’M IN A WAR ZONE!! I mean marriages break down, fine. Don’t do it when hubby is dodging bullets and bad guys, o.k.?

Rightwingguy on February 12, 2010 at 11:41 PM

Amen bro. I will add you ro my prayers. My Mom and Dad got engaged the day Dad signed up for the Navy. Dec. 8 1941. She didn’t see him for the next 4 years.
They would have been married 60 years before he died.

katy the mean old lady on February 13, 2010 at 12:00 AM

Jdripper on February 12, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Wow. My blood was boiling a bit just from reading that.

BadgerHawk on February 13, 2010 at 12:08 AM

There will be no moving truck, no boxes, no house torn asunder. The soldier is peeing in a bucket as you pack. He doesn’t care who gets the couch.

You know, I wouldn’t even go to the trouble of characterizing this woman as “shallow,” or “selfish,” or “self-absorbed.” She is simply a disgusting piece of crap.

Let’s not try and pretty her up.

seanrobins on February 13, 2010 at 12:08 AM

First, I have a feeling that this Marine knew about his wife’s proclivity for “young, cute students.” And secondly, I would not be so sure that the guy didn’t let out the biggets sign of relief when he got his dear john letter. That woman was so shallow, it’s like he grew up and became a man, and she remained a little girl wanting to play with her dolls and the little boys down the street.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, where are my kids, would have been my first thought.

TimothyJ on February 13, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Allow me to recap my position for you, since you are a dumba$$:
1 Salon are losers for posting this useless article
2 The writer of the article is a loser
3 people who discuss #2 instead of #1 do not have their eyes on the ball

Bye bye now

Dave Rywall on February 12, 2010 at 4:52 PM

#1 and #2 are worthy subjects of discussion.

#3 is for people who do not have their eyes on the ball.

Oops….

unclesmrgol on February 13, 2010 at 12:11 AM

I be fine. Gettin short here.

hawkdriver on February 12, 2010 at 11:43 PM

Glad to hear that! Are you on FB? Get in touch. You would always have a place to crash in South Florida. I’m 110 and harmless nut you would be not far from the beach and the most awesome women. I hate them!

katy the mean old lady on February 13, 2010 at 12:12 AM

Gee I hope she’s not Catholic, since God says divorce is a no no.

Dave Rywall on February 12, 2010 at 3:34 PM

It doesn’t matter whether she’s Catholic or not. God didn’t say divorce is a no no just for Catholics.

unclesmrgol on February 13, 2010 at 12:15 AM

doesn’t matter whether she’s Catholic or not. God didn’t say divorce is a no no just for Catholics.

unclesmrgol on February 13, 2010 at 12:15 AM

Umm, you can divorce. You just can’t re- marry. No fair bumping your ex off. For some odd reasom law enforcement gets all huffy.

katy the mean old lady on February 13, 2010 at 12:26 AM

I usually don’t post things like this but,…..what a bitch!!!

sweet92169 on February 13, 2010 at 12:30 AM

What a b****….

sweet92169 on February 13, 2010 at 12:33 AM

I’ve finally figured out the motive for this woman’s screed. It’s because her son requested and was chosen for a slot in the Naval Academy. The article is nothing more than a Cindy Sheehan style scream at her husband and son for daring to do this to her. It’s a dig at her husband for perverting her son into another serviceman. It’s an attempt to place doubt into her son’s mind with respect to his girlfriend/wife, and therefore perhaps give him second thoughts about continuing down the path he has started.

When you look at things that way, everything clicks into place as to why she wrote it.

On her blog, comments are closed, with four supportive comments displayed. I wonder why?

unclesmrgol on February 13, 2010 at 12:43 AM

Umm, you can divorce. You just can’t re- marry. No fair bumping your ex off. For some odd reasom law enforcement gets all huffy.

katy the mean old lady on February 13, 2010 at 12:26 AM

I think you are confusing human behavior with what God wants.

unclesmrgol on February 13, 2010 at 12:44 AM

I think you are confusing human behavior with what God wants.

unclesmrgol on February 13, 2010 at 12:44 AM

God speaks direcrly to to you?

katy the mean old lady on February 13, 2010 at 1:07 AM

Its funny, I just read the comment that she had a blog and went to check it out. She obviously left four positive comments, deleted the rest (obviously all the negative ones) and the closed the comments so no one else could post. Could you because someone so vapid and self-absorbed could do such a thing?

I can.

Kaisersoze on February 13, 2010 at 1:07 AM

The good news about this drivel is that most of the Salon readers told her to take her garbage elsewhere, pray her kids don’t grow to be as self-absorbed as she is, make better life decisions than she did, have more courage in the face of adversity than she did, etc…
Hope springs eternal for humanity, and therefore I hope his two kids learn there is another lifestyle awaiting them besides Marxism. Coward.

Yellowdog12 on February 13, 2010 at 1:13 AM

Umm, you can divorce. You just can’t re- marry. No fair bumping your ex off. For some odd reasom law enforcement gets all huffy.

katy the mean old lady on February 13, 2010 at 12:26 AM

Are we still Catholicism here? Cause 13 years of Catholic school taught me something very different (about the no divorce rule – I’m pretty sure you’re right about not bumping people off).

RINO in Name Only on February 13, 2010 at 1:50 AM

Are we still talking Catholicism here? Cause 13 years of Catholic school taught me something very different (about the no divorce rule – I’m pretty sure you’re right about not bumping people off).

RINO in Name Only on February 13, 2010 at 1:50 AM

RINO in Name Only on February 13, 2010 at 1:52 AM

This is a prefect example of why you don’t marry whorish women. You can never, ever trust them and are a fool to pretend otherwise.

ray on February 13, 2010 at 3:48 AM

whore

Fishy.Gov on February 13, 2010 at 8:58 AM

Never fear, everyone.

This bitch will get her just rewards. They always do. You’re just lucky if you actually get to see what those rewards are.

Life has a way of equalizing things.

13Girl on February 13, 2010 at 9:32 AM

There are many more fine, patriotic women that support our men at war and love this country. Take heart, this waste of protoplasm will only sour over the rest of her miserable life where the true heroes of this story will thrive and keep the American dream for us, and the world.

moyeti on February 13, 2010 at 9:46 AM

I suspect that the new Marxist partner of this woman, who is enamored with the vision of a tough military man, is the polar opposite of that vision.
(She probably picked that polar opposite in a subconscious attempt to punish her ex for her perceived neglect.)

So, she is really going to be happy with her greasy-haired, scrawny, wire-rim wearing, effeminate little Marxist.

Hahahahaha!
Life has a way of wreaking ironic havoc on narcissitic nitwits who have little core and no self awareness.

justltl on February 13, 2010 at 10:11 AM

Don’t feel too bad for her, however.

Her lithe little Marxist is probably unemployed and has plenty of time to spend with her.

Or maybe even a barista at the Barnes and Noble and thus pulling in the big tips.

Hehehe.

justltl on February 13, 2010 at 10:16 AM

And her little Marxist will one day realize that she is fantasizing about her ex when they are making “love”, thus rendering him to the equivalent of her battery-operated-boyfriend, if you get my drift.

All in all, pretty fair punishment for immature, self-absorbed selfishness.

justltl on February 13, 2010 at 10:23 AM

LordJack on February 12, 2010 at 6:14 PM

The last time my husband deployed and we had to get POA’s they told him that they no longer recommend giving blanket POA’s to the spouse anymore because of this. I told the lady with hubby right there we’ve been married so many years and never have abused it. There have been times where I had to whip the POA out to get answers. They are cracking down on that so the guys don’t get screwed. I know someone it happened to and it’s sickning that this happens while they are deployed and in harms way. I think judges should take that into account when dealing with cases like these.

Brat4life on February 12, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Well from what I understand you don’t need a Power of Attorney if it’s a shared bank account. Many of my friends came back from combat zones to find in the last month their wives took every single penny out of the account. Of course the smartest thing for the women to do is drag her husband along that everything is fine until the last month when you can get the maximum amount of his hard earned money into your pocket.

Just from my experience in the military if I ever get married, their are going to be 3 accounts. Hers, mine, a shared one. (and the secret bank account overseas…)

Most women aren’t in love with a person, they are infatuated with a dream.

-500

Grow Fins on February 12, 2010 at 9:14 PM

I’m sorry I hurt your feelings that as a women you actually pick a smart intelligent choice for a male partner. To elaborate… In my opinion women are infatuated with a dream guy. Until their like 27 they want that Soldier, Rich Guy with Ferrari, Football Player. Everything is fine until the dream wears off and they realize that the dude is a human being and not some Movie character.

Now matured women (I use that loosely) are ones who look for men that will fulfill THEIR dream. Which is to be taken care off, live a easy life (money, cars, a certain life style), sex (as long as they have the power), and to have an emotional teddy bear.

In the story that our heroine whore described, she met him while she was in the dream of a soldier phase, then when she grew up she realized she wanted him to be around to hug and tell how her day was sooooo awful.

9/11 – Well she’s not having sex with him anymore, no teddy bear to hold, they’ve been married for a long time so if she divorces him she can take his money and his car.

I have to admit their are some women who make valid mate choices. Women who aren’t looking for the bad-ass. A guy who is kind, generous, smart, and honorable.

However, I’m pretty sure your going to say I’m full of it; which I might. But! If you do I’m just going to say your in denial.

LordJack on February 13, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Sounds to me like her first husband got the better end of this deal. I can’t imagine how freeing it must be to no longer be attached to this narcissistic ball and chain.

ramrants on February 13, 2010 at 11:16 AM

You’re not a quiet American…..
Anyways, thanks for your service, Devildog.

Rightwingguy on February 12, 2010 at 11:42 PM

Hah! An obscure movie connoisseur! Thanks.

Alden Pyle on February 13, 2010 at 11:27 AM

I don’t even know where to begin with this POS’s life story except this….

Good riddance to bad trash and
God doesn’t like ugly…….

Spiff1669
MSG (RET), USA

SPIFF1669 on February 13, 2010 at 11:44 AM

God speaks direcrly to to you?

katy the mean old lady on February 13, 2010 at 1:07 AM

God speaks to all of us. Hearing Him is a choice.

Extrafishy on February 13, 2010 at 12:04 PM

I can honestly say I am sorry I read this.
I am glad Cassy wrote the post but really sorry to know how cr@@ppy people can be.
just shameful

right wing chicky on February 13, 2010 at 12:35 PM

My first wife left me while I was in Desert Storm. She hooked up with a man that was in the military but not going to be deployed. We had a child, a boy, that I have never seen. (We were divorced before he was born, and yes, he is mine. I was only deployed for 6 months so the math works out.) My ex took off with her new man, they have been married for years now, and moved all over the country. I have tried to make contact with my son but was rebuffed my ex. My son recently turned 18. I have tried to get into contact but still no luck. It is hard at first, but I got over it. I now have 3 wonderful kids with the smartest, prettiest woman (yes, I am biased) in the world. God works in weird ways, I would not trade my life now for anything in this world. I am who I am because of the experiences in my life. It made me a stronger person. I do miss my son, and God willing, I will meet him some day.

clawjockey on February 13, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Suzy Rottencrotch, taking up with Jody the Marxist, while you’re deployed.

It’s been a long time since Basic and I’d forgotten about Suzy Rottencrotch. I think after this article that Jody has a new partner and her name is Courtney.

motionview on February 13, 2010 at 1:47 PM

I can honestly say I am sorry I read this.

right wing chicky

My feelings exactly. I have been hacked off at this for hours now, can’t stop talking about it. I wish I didn’t know it existed.

And this nitwit claims on her blog that her opening was meant to be “quite obviously ironic”. Reaallly…so not only does she lack a heart, she also lacks talent, because irony wasn’t what I got.

WaltzingMtilda on February 13, 2010 at 1:50 PM

A selfish child trapped in a 30 year old mother’s body who needs the easy way out in life. Cassy nailed it with her being in love with the uniform and simply getting off on the idea of a soldier, the woman is pathetic. I am happy that the son was not corrupted by the Marxist coward she is now married to.

Daemonocracy on February 12, 2010 at 10:16 PM

I would take that a step further and declare that the son’s seeking entry to Annapolis is an in-your-face repudiation of everything his Mom & her Marxist second husband stand for. I refuse to describe the Marxist second husband a stepfather. He hasn’t earned that privilege.

I’d also say that the son was ecstatic that his mom didn’t attend his induction ceremony. Since she’s a progressive, liberal, left-wing Marxist it also means she’s a liar. The reality is that the son told Mom to stay away. Let her drown her crocodile tears at McGarveys, only steps away from Ego Alley.

CatchAll on February 13, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Well, I’d say this hero is far better off without this wench.

Hawkins1701 on February 13, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Many have asked why Salon would run this article.

Maybe it was a bit too much for Cosmopolitan, or Ms (if that one is still around).

When I was in the navy, I saw plenty of husbands who were cheating. But the wives were worse. I’m not exactly actor-handsome (unless you like the Dan Haggerty looks), but even I had plenty of wives coming on to me, even when the husband was out for a TWO WEEK SCHOOL.

friendlygrizzly on February 13, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Hey Marine, the best thing you can do with an infantile narcissist is to get rid of her. Trust me on that. There is better out there.

Courtney Cook; drop dead.

Boxy_Brown on February 13, 2010 at 2:42 PM

If I were a soldier and I knew of a woman screwing around on her deployed spouse, I think I’d gather some buddies, corner the guy involved, and beat him senseless.

What about the woman? The dear sweet young innocent thing is the victim here? No. She’s the one who brought the new man into her bed. She needs talking to far more than the man does.

friendlygrizzly on February 13, 2010 at 2:49 PM

clawjockey on February 13, 2010 at 1:33 PM

My heart goes out to you. You WILL see your son someday. I’m sure God hears you, and it will happen. Be assured of that.

newton on February 13, 2010 at 3:07 PM

I attempted to post soemthing yesterday that included a profanity. I know that use of profanity is not cool. But the woman here is really very, very bad and deserves far worse than the profanity that I used to describe her.

Phil Byler on February 13, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Clearly a Cindy Sheehan-in-training. Great comments, too many to name here!

unclesmrgol on February 13, 2010 at 12:43 AM

+100

CatchAll on February 13, 2010 at 1:59 PM

+1

This wh-re has to know she drove away two men in her life due to her own failings. What is the self-esteem of someone who’s done that?

RD on February 13, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Contrary to what Drywall says, this isn’t just the story of a forking loser. What this woman is doing is laying out a blueprint for treasonous subversion of the military, by preying on the conflicted emotions of spouses in high-stress situations.

Now the blueprint is out there in the public domain, for all to use.

Is it some organized, practically oriented movement? No, probably not; but it is a formula for chaos. Ultimately it is aspirational, like so many aspects of the unhinged left. But that doesn’t mean its publication ought to be so casually brushed aside either.

Also, the fact that Salon published criticisms by commenters does not absolve them of responsibility; in fact displaying those criticisms is a way of deflecting blame, letting them keep the article in circulation while allowing them to claim they have no agenda per se in doing so. Maybe they’re telling the truth, maybe not, but in the meantime the article remains in the public domain.

RD on February 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM

RD, usually unhappy people, like most liberals, just want to make everyone else unhappy like them. That’s all she is doing, trying her best to emulate the Obama’s of the world who want to make the make the world bad for everyone else.

ray on February 13, 2010 at 7:20 PM

I checked, just to see if anyone else was as terribly shallow, and there were a few but, thankfully, most of the people that commented on that horrid article are as much opposed to it as we are.

g8trman307 on February 13, 2010 at 7:26 PM

One of my uncles came back from war to find that all his money, furniture, everything he had was gone with the wind. His little lady left behind a Dear John. After all the hell he went through overseas, he couldn’t take it. If he’d had a choice, he would probably have preferred getting a DJ while deployed. He could have taken his anger, disillusionment and hatred out on the enemy rather than himself. He didn’t survive the betrayal.

Mae on February 13, 2010 at 8:45 PM

This article reads like a how-to guide from Tokyo Cassie.

di butler on February 13, 2010 at 8:48 PM

I have been mad about this since I read this the other day. My husband and I have spent a lot of our marriage apart, thanks to military service on both our ends (but mostly his). When my husband is gone, I miss him terribly – even if he’s just across state lines. I know how much his morale affects his job performance, and I always figured it was my job to keep his morale as high as I could – I would send love letters, pictures the kids drew, bags of Utz potato chips while he was in the Gulf. Once I even flew out to meet his ship when it docked in Hawaii for a few days (and I’m terrified of flying, especially over open water!). It’s my job to keep the house running while he’s gone, and to make sure he has a home to come back to.

My husband and I have had some rough patches. We’ve even had a doozy of a fight or two. But while the thought of taking a break has fleeted across my mind during the darkest of hours after those fights, I cannot imagine actually leaving my husband, especially if he were deployed. It’s cowardly, uncivilized, and quite simply wrong. I don’t care if there are legitimate issues (and there are, there always are), you do it when your spouse is home, and you hash it out then. Your family deserves better.

In the Navy, I heard (and was witness to) some Dear John letters/videos that were real doozies, but this one takes the cake. I guess it’s because it’s from the self-absorbed point-of-view of the callous creature herself. I hope both the man and his son are happier now than they were during the events of that betrayal. Horrible.

Anna on February 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM

I could not bear to be there, could not watch the child of my body step away from the safe, civilian world I’d tried to so desperately to create for myself and him.

Oh well isn’t it all about me me me me me me me me me me.
Who the f**k says “child of my body“…she can’t even think of her kid without putting it into the context of “me.”

Oh, and by the way, you despicable, selfish,pitiful excuse for a woman, wife, mother….it’s our military that creates a safe civilan world for you, your child and all Americans.

CarolynM on February 13, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Say what we will about the French but at the end of WWII they had a great way of dealing with collaborators. Every woman who’d bedded down with a Kraut soldier got her hair shaved off, to be publicly humiliated.

This Commie liberal bitch ought to get a SuperCut From Hell with dog clippers salvaged from a dog pound dumpster.

CatchAll on February 13, 2010 at 10:38 PM

God speaks direcrly [sic] to to you?

katy the mean old lady on February 13, 2010 at 1:07 AM

We used to go on double-dates together. He has spoken to all of us via Scripture, and with respect to Catholic interpretation of the Scripture, via the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2382 The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.173 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.174

Between the baptized, “a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death.”

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.

173 Cf. Mt 5:31-32; 19:3-9; Mk 10 9; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-ll.
174 Cf. Mt 19:7-9.

Note that the Church does support the concept of annulment, which is used when there was a reason existing before the ceremony which renders it invalid. In annulment, the Church finds that the marriage never occurred. The reasons can range from the fact that one participant is married to another, that participants are related by blood within a certain degree (e.g., brother and sister), that one participant falsely stated their agreement to the joining, …

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2010 at 12:08 AM

CatchAll on February 13, 2010 at 10:38 PM

How long they figure out which ones had? The ones who said “Francoise, why are you so small?”

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2010 at 12:21 AM

Contrary to what Drywall says, this isn’t just the story of a forking loser.

RD on February 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM

I think Mr. Rywall is in complete agreement with you on this. He’s indicated same several times.

What he seems not to understand is why Salon’s act in publishing the article is also being attacked. He views that as being almost insignificant when compared with the woman’s own statements.

I frequently dispute with Mr. Rywall, but I understand his position, partially, this time — because I think Salon’s decision to publish is significant.

unclesmrgol on February 14, 2010 at 12:25 AM

Likely I missed something up thread, but has anybody commented that the time lines of unknown female fool don’t work?

2010 – 18 = 1992 yet she was pregnant while he was deployed in combat?

The bit about degrees then 2001 is leisure college?

Then a Marxist new hubby while son goes to Annapolis?

There are waaaayyyy too damn many cliches here for fact. I say fabrication and manure. It reads like a B movie pitch that even in CA could not get produced..

Cassy, I appreciate and admire your post and outrage. Would that you and, well it didn’t happen. This is disinformation of a classic sort and Salon is socialist wannabe important blog. Please, love, a little less passion and a little more critical cognition for the next one. But only a tee, tiny bit less passion. You rule for emphasis on this one.

Caststeel on February 14, 2010 at 4:01 AM

Most women aren’t in love with a person, they are infatuated with a dream.

-500

Grow Fins on February 12, 2010 at 9:14 PM

I don’t know about “most women”, but I’m sure the above is true far more often than anyone would like.

Count to 10 on February 14, 2010 at 7:32 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5