I do. No, they were not in Iraq. There were several callers who said they were active duty military, and they all supported the President. Although, if you think there aren't a lot of people just like them in Iraq, I would say you are dreaming. Honestly, most of the people who are upset by this are on the Left. And I really don't think this effects the war one way or another. It's just another issue people are trying to beat Bush with.
Not a pal. It was on KSTP. I don't know his rank, but I doubt he was brass.
Translation: We have a strong military. Our enemies will get their asses kicked. He has confidence in us.
These are not my words, but the words of a man who currently serves in the Army commenting on what Bush said.
I agree with you Raven. I would point out as an example, however, that Z. Moussaoui has really turned his case into a circus. Should we treat all terrorist suspects as criminals? Should we treat 9/11 as a crime, and not combat?
"...their job is to get killed for their country and it's okay because their country has lots more of them to replace them."
When did Bush ever say this?
CHip, you make good points. I simply disagree. I believe W's remarks were neither stupid, nor heroic.
Patrick writes: "As for Churchill, his brave words were spoken while sharing the dangers of air attack and imminent invasion with the rest of his countrymen. The fact that Anthony VanWagner doesn't perceive a difference between that and Bush's comments from a safe 6000 miles away pretty much says everything you need to know about modern right-wingers."
Bush and Roosevelt were far away from the fighting, but neither, in my opinion, were cowards. I don't want Presidents in the middle of combat really.
edub, you are joking. Right? I do not believe that Roosevelt, Churchill, or Bush are cowards. I believe they engaged in wartime rhetoric. If you believe that "Bring them on" (not to mention the whole context in which it was said), really means Bush wants our soldiers to be killed, I don't know what to say to you at this point.
Do you really think that if W. had said, we can take it, or do your worst, that you wouldn't be badmouthing him?
The quotes (and really they only scratch the surface with those particular leaders) should tell us that sentiments such as "Bring them on." are hardly new to warfare. In fact, some of the greatest leaders during WWII used this attitude. When Roosevelt (thousands of miles from the actual fighting) speaks of hundreds of marines sacrificing their lives in a particular battle, saying, we can take it and also that we should be prepared for further sacrifices, it simply reminds me of wartime rhetoric. Similar things have been said by W. This is nothing new.
"We know that we may have to pay a heavy price for freedom. We will pay this price with a will. Whatever the price, it is a thousand times worth it. No matter what our enemies, in their desperation, may attempt to do to us- we will say, as the people of London have said, We can take it." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
And this sounds familiar:
"Our enemies are guided by brutal cynicism, by unholy contempt for the human race. We are inspired by a faith that goes back through all the years to the first chapter of the Book of Genesis: 'God created man in His own image.'
We on our side are striving to be true to that divine heritage. We are fighting, as our fathers have fought, to uphold the doctrine that all men are equal in the sight of God. Those on the other side are striving to destroy this deep belief and to create a world in their own image97a world of tyranny and cruelty and serfdom.
That is the conflict that day and night now pervades our lives.
No compromise can end that conflict. There never has been97there never can be97successful compromise between good and evil." - Both from Roosevelt's 9th State of the Union Message.
A more recent quote: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word." - Robert Byrd.
Funny, I don't remember all this forgiveness going around when Trent Lott was in trouble. I wonder why.
"If the lull is to end, if the storm is to renew itself, we will be ready, will will not flinch, we can take it again.
We ask no favours of the enemy. We seek from them no compunction. 85We will have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst85" - Winston Churchill
"We had the unmeasured menace of the enemy and their air attack still beating upon us, and you yourselves had had experience of this attack; and I expect you are beginning to feel impatient that there has been this long lull with nothing particular turning up!" 96 Winston Churchill to the Youth.
I have also noticed a great deal of worship for Robert Byrd from the Left lately. On war, wrote the Senator, he would never fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
Needless to say, I'm upset with the way Patrick treated some of his readers. Don't sweat it. I'll be going now.
You are going to have to explain what ?a bottom looking to be topped? means, Carlos. I do not know.
?Though you are being *very* brave about sharing your desires with us.? Again, what are you thinking? Sounds like you are the one expressing something pent up. Classy.
Patrick writes to Derek: ?But you are, in fact, obviously smart. You know this; you've made a conscious moral decision to talk shit anyway. Presumably you're comfortable with this. I'm comfortable with my opinion of you for doing it.?
Nah, nothing abusive, belittling or dismissive about that. Not to mention harsh and arrogant. I may have confronted Patrick with those qualities, but Derek certainly wasn?t doing anything of the sort.
And S+M talk?see what you get when you play with liberals. Just what could you have been thinking Carlos?
That was a very interesting interview with Card, Jon. Thanks for posting it. I'm wondering what Card might have said after seeing it in print.
Lenny, that may have been one point, but the example which was used and that made the undercurrent was blatently pro-BBC, anti-U.S. media. Derek certainly picked up on this. Hell, another blogger who enjoys Patrick's views picked up on this.
Also, who is to say that Card isn't an environmentalist simply because he is not presently happy with the Democrats. Your fantasy might be true after all.
Um Jon, again my apologies. As with the Year's Best Fantasy and Horror, when one reprints for an anthology, there is some work that should be done by those who are named editors. And in the case of Years Best, I assure you there is PLENTY of work. Ask anyone involved in the reprinting of that anthology. Sometimes there are glaring errors when anthologies get reprinted. One would hope that the person with the editorial credits actually does some editorial work. In Patrick's case, I guess I was wrong.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 1 |
| 2003 | 26 |
Total: 27 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Anthony VanWagner:
Show all comments by Anthony VanWagner.