Let's think about this for a moment: If the military has a problem with the war, wouldn't they be cheering more loudly for the guy who thinks he's gonna end it? If the military had a problem with Bush, wouldn't they cheer more loudly for the guy who replaced him? I got it! Maybe the soldiers to whom Bush was talking were those stupid ones of which John Kerry spoke!
Hat tip: Thomas Lifson at AmericanThinker.com
31 comments:
LOL!!!!!!
The venues are waaaaay different. Not exactly comparing apples to apples.
Oh and one more thing...the military never has a problem with war.
Marty,
I knew someone would try to spin it. What's so different about the venues that would preclude those at Obama's gathering to applaud more like they were at a golf tournament than for a CIC they truly admire and respect? Sorry, the venue spin ain't gonna make it.
As to your second comment, I would strongly disagree. I don't think the military is necessarily happy to go to war. I would even wager most military people would prefer it not be necessary. What's more, I said, "If the military has a problem with the war...", meaning, the one in Iraq. You're the one who continues to insist that the service people you meet have a big problem with our forces being there. That's not reflected in either video.
"I don't think the military is necessarily happy to go to war."
I didn't say they were happy to go to war. I said they didn't have a problem with going to war. It's what they train for. Duh.
"You're the one who continues to insist that the service people you meet have a big problem with our forces being there."
Yeah, after they've had two or more tours, been extended, and stop-lossed and see the futility of it.
Troops in Iraq cry, cheer for inauguration
Military Cheers Obama Being Sworn in As Commander
And also here.
Your video is the spin Marshall.
Even the CNN tool noted the tepid response for Obama.
You guys think as you wish, but there are certain courtesies and protocol military personnel must follow in certain situations - formal or informal.
Marshall your video clip was Bush paying a surprise visit to troops at Al Asad airbase in Anbar province, Iraq on Labor Day 2007. Probably an informal setting.
On the other hand the clip of Obama was a formal setting.
Apples and oranges.
Marty,
Are you suggesting that military personnel are instructed as to the volume of their applause for a given event? I find this very difficult to believe. Secondly, I find it more difficult to believe that a crowd of soldiers would restrain themselves if they felt compelled to cheer loudly for anyone.
And as far as apples and oranges, your links, particularly the first two, refer to cheers for the first black CIC. This was indeed an emotional time for some, but that shows that the focus of their applause was on something unrelated to the duties of a CIC, but rather to his color. Your video shows far more black soldiers in front of the camera (could be staged, but I'll call it coincidence), but also an informal setting (by appearances). Could it be smaller numbers that accounted for the softer ovation? Sure, that's possible. But I didn't hear the type of whoops and hollers that erupted at the Bush event.
No, Marty. It appears you're spin,spin,spin,spinnin' like a spininn' top.
Almost forgot.
"I didn't say they were happy to go to war. I said they didn't have a problem with going to war. It's what they train for. Duh."
I still disagree with this sentiment. To "not have a problem" with going to war is every bit as flip as being happy about going. I believe the average soldier DOES have a problem with going, insofar as despite what why he's trained, he'd much prefer to train for nothing. I insist the average soldier goes to war reluctantly, not willingly, eagerly or as if he "has no problem" with going. I certainly would hope so. Perhaps those who haven't been and are simply filled with the type of false courage that comes with only training and no experience. Those soldiers I do not count. They are fools.
Well... I can see with everything else here, you mean one thing with words and I mean something else.
Just because a soldier might be reluctant to go to war doesn't mean he has a problem with it. A good soldier is willing even to the point of death.
However, he better not stay reluctant long if he wants to stay alive.
Furthermore, there's way too many who aren't opposed to war who refuse to join causing the burden to be on the few.
I hope Obama, in the future, surprises our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan by showing up at their base unannounced so we can see how they react. If he receives a "tepid response", then I'll know it wasn't protocol.
"I find it more difficult to believe that a crowd of soldiers would restrain themselves if they felt compelled to cheer loudly for anyone"
They better restrain themselves if protocol demands it.
Marty,
"I hope Obama, in the future, surprises our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan by showing up at their base unannounced so we can see how they react. If he receives a "tepid response", then I'll know it wasn't protocol."
That would be the best test.
"They better restrain themselves if protocol demands it."
I wonder how they'd punish scores of cheering soldiers in a war zone. Do you think it would be so severe that any of them would regret their cheering? I doubt it, just as I doubt they'd get into any serious trouble for it.
"I wonder how they'd punish scores of cheering soldiers in a war zone."
They wouldn't. Duh...
The marines who supposedly, by your misleading video, gave Obama a "tepid response" were NOT in a war zone.
3,000 GIs Mob Obama in Baghdad
Well if they wouldn't, then how could you know if they were following protocols or following their own hearts?
I never said the soldiers in the "tepid response" video were in a war zone. Sorry if I gave that impression. However, I don't see what difference it makes.
Finally, I'll look at a lot of left wing links. Daily Koz is not one of them. For future reference, don't bother. Spin THAT anyway you like, but consider it kind of a rule.
"Well if they wouldn't, then how could you know if they were following protocols or following their own hearts?"
Those in the military KNOW when it is proper to follow protocol. And they WILL do it regardless of their "own hearts".
Marshall, can we put our sparring aside for a moment and come together to support some South Texas veterans who are bringing awareness to the need of a VA hospital?
This has just come to my attention.
Please watch this video and then sign the petition to support these vets.
"As of today if a Veteran in South Texas, Young or Old, needs a surgery or needs to see a specialist they must travel 5 hours North to San Antonio, Tx at their own expense. Only so much can be done at the VA outpatient clinic in McAllen Tx, where Veterans from WWII to the present must compete for treatment. Not only is this wrong but it is unjust and cruel."
I'm sure there must be a difference between soldiers in a war zone and soldiers on a Marine Base, but I don't see why the response to the two Presidents would make a difference in the way they react.
The plain fact is, the soldiers revere Bush more than Obama. They know Obama doesn't respect them as much as Bush does. And so does everyone else, regardless of their ideology.
Regardless of how we feel about this, it's the troops that are important here, no matter who the CIC is. Can we agree?
How about you Mark? Will you stand with me in supporting the veterans in South Texas by signing the petition for a VA Hospital?
Marty,
I signed the petition. My comments added are as follows:
There's no doubt that our veterans deserve special attention and extra-special medical care. It's the dues we owe for their sacrifices made on our behalf.
With all the money being put forth in stimulus and bail-out packages, I have even less doubt that there's easily billions of dollars ear-marked for crap that can be put to far better use in the construction of another VA Hospital, as well as improving the level of care at existing VA facilities nationwide.
I almost missed removing the checkmarks for the goofy petitions also on the site. But I was more than happy to sign on for this worthy cause.
Marshall I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Please pass this on.
Marshall, war not good.
On to what I wanted to note. You had a post below asking about liberals not coming to debate. So many posts! I thought you might not see mine there.
I have said it before. The authoritarian nature and absolute certainty of your ideas even in such ethereal areas as truth and reality make the debate useless. I told you on my blog that we don't inhabit the same reality. I didn't say that as snark. I said that as a point of fact. At the very least our worlds and lives have far different priorities and we make different decisions on what is important and what is not. That means we are both right, according to our needs and priorities.
Also I have to agree with les when he says...I just see no point in arguing in circles with you any longer. We simply have different ideas of what America is supposed to be......
I would rather discuss issues in pursuit of a solution rather than as a crusade of right and wrong. Come to a decision. Something neither of us may love but both can live with. I still have core principals but one of them is that none of us can have it all and both sides giving a little and getting a little is a virtue. stubbornness is a vice. I like give and take,as much as possible, you don't. You see it as wishy washy and not worth pursuit..again different reality.
I also have changed my thinking on many things over the years. As a matter of fact, quite recently my thinking has modified or advanced quite dramatically. Hopefully we all grow as we go through life.
Don't feel bad. Nobody comments on my blog. I often get emails from friends and know there are plenty of lurkers but most don't have much to say.
Houston Rockets will kick bulls and bucks to observer status!(no basketball team in Iowa, or New Mexico) Go Rockets!
And Kurt Bush!(liberal Nascar fan...SAY WHAT!)
Online petitions are useless. Congressmen and Senators don't read them or place any importance on them. The only petitions that they pay attention to are the ones personally signed by registered voters.
That is a matter of procedure.
Ron,
Debating is so much easier when there is a specific topic. Your rants on subjects such as truth have been less than specific. Perhaps you might want to offer a topic where you believe your criticisms of on-line debate might have manifested themselves, and we could go from there.
Regarding Les, and now your discomfort with "arguing in circles", it is difficult not to when one's opponent continues to bring the discussion back to previously debated points.
I say again, it has been my intention to state, with support where possible, a specific belief or contention from which any opponent could counter or rebut, hopefully with support of their own, but at least with some kind of logical argument. That's when the volley continues until one side or other cannot respond to a point from the other side. I maintain, that with rare exception, and I mean totally uncooked-still "mooing" RARE, has any of my opponents PROVEN my opinions are baseless or without merit. It has always been a matter of subjective opinion, which is fine to a point, but nothing that persuades for lack of evidence.
Anyone who cares to refute that statement is free to bring up an example. I will then open up a new thread to rehash it.
The fact is that my opponents have left due to an inability to support their arguments. I say it in this manner to leave open the possibility that their opinion has real merit, but that for whatever reason, they simply have thus far been incapable of "winning" the argument. Stating that one isn't concerned with "winning" the argument is crap. There are ways of maintaining one's own position without proofs, but none of them have been used properly that I can remember. No, I'm not going to offer them.
As for Houston, the Bulls and Bucks are too busy eliminating themselves. But likely, Houston will be watching the Finals with us.
Mark,
The degree to which a given petition has any effect is irrelevant. We, the people, can't know with certainty what manner of contact will be the one that finally sways a politician. In this day and age, we need to take advantage of every means available to make our voices heard. A simple petition that takes mere moments of our time is worth that negligible sacrifice for the mere chance that it will do some good. Likely, it will do good in combination with other appeals for the same or similar requests or demands. Go sign it. (It was only at 222 signers when I did. Let me know the total when you sign.)
Mark,
BTW, I meant to say also that I sign quite a few on-line petitions, and I often get responses from politicians for doing so. I don't keep track of which ones result in a response, but it does let me know that someone from their offices is seeing them. ALWAYS sign petitions that reflect your position.
Thanks again for your support of these vets Marshall.
Mark, whether the politicians read petitions or not is really not the point here. This particular petition will receive some media attention when the march to San Antonio begins. The point is to support these vets. Let them know you care about it even if it turns out to be only "symbolically".
The veterans in South Texas NEED a VA Hospital and shame on you Mark for making an excuse not to sign it.
"...it is difficult not to when one's opponent continues to bring the discussion back to previously debated points."
It's these points, however, that require resolution before there can be mutual progress. As both sides are firm in their positions, this resolution will never happen. Hence the futility of continuing the discussion.
Les,
It only seems futile because one side threw in the towel, but not through concession, but simply to disengage from the debate. That we might disagree is not the issue. What is the issue must be resolved toward one side or the other. Even though the issues we find most contentious seem to lend themselves to arguing in circles, I believe there is indeed an answer. The problem is the answer doesn't please both sides equally.
Marshall, why must the debate center on disagreement? Why can't the search be for common ground? Why is that not pursued with the same fervor as those looking to prove themselves correct? I gave an example on my blog of logical problem solving and you poo pooed it as "giving in"..or something to that effect. The questions on truth and reality are really quite important. Like I said, It is likely we may both be right for our specific situations and beliefs. I know that is a broad concept that narrow thinkers have trouble with but that is the different realities rearing their ugly heads again.
I'm sorry. I didn't make my point clear. Members of the Legislature don't accept petitions not written and signed on paper. Your point is a good one, but it doesn't change the fact that the Legislature doesn't accept it.
March to San Antonio 2009.
Those of you who read Marshall's blog and want a tangible way to support veterans here is your chance. This is NOT a partisan issue. This is a veterans issue.
If you don't think signing the petition will help bring awareness, then make a donation to help South Texas newest vets bring awareness to this important issue.
Only 249 signatures on the petition so far.
Not much of a show of support for the vets in South Texas.
Where are all the people who supposedly support the troops??
They sure don't read this blog.
Post a Comment