January 23, Gothamist blogger John Del Signore claimed “rape and torture” are “institutional” in the US military, which “at times condoned and encouraged” “atrocities...genocide" and "butchery.” He said the events aren't isolated, they're “the few war crimes we actually know about” and happen with “increasing frequency during prolonged occupations.”
Del Signore profiled a theater class on military techniques taught by Iraq vet and milblogger (Just Another Soldier) Jason C. Hartley. Del Signore's initial remarks seemed like typical lefty snideness, but in the comment section, they quickly descended into rabid anti-military rhetoric (bold mine throughout):
Then you raid rooms full of insurgents and round up detainees. There’s no raping teenage girls, waterboarding or building naked prisoner pyramids, but during the post-show discussion Full Metal Jacket fans are free to ask, “How can you shoot women and children?” (Answer: “Easy! You just don’t lead ‘em as much!”)
After a reader complained that his humor was "harsh," Del Signore replied, "I wasn't trying to be funny" and followed with insulting—and inaccurate--anti-war propaganda worthy of Jane Fonda and Rosie O'Donnell:
Actually, I wasn't trying to be funny or insinuate that rape is part of U.S. military training, i just think it's important to remember, at every opportunity, that these things actually happen, and with increasing frequency during prolonged occupations.
Though, since war throughout history has consistently resulted in rape and torture, one has to wonder if there is in fact something institutional about these abuses; even if these atrocities aren't directly ordered, they are at times condoned and even encouraged.
The U.S. is hardly alone on this, but just look at the atrocities in the Philippines, or during the Native American genocide, or Vietnam. When one considers statements like General Westmoreland's - "The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. Life is plentiful. Life is cheap in the Orient." - it's easy to see how the attitude of the war planners can filter down to butchery among the infantry. It could be argued this is by design. Hey - "Stuff happens."
Del Signore later said Westmoreland's "racist rationalizations" were a "sickening world view." But, a Strategic Studies Institute paper (pdf) echoed Westmoreland, saying the Communist North Vietnamese "possess a willingness to die" and would fight to the last person. The paper also quoted Prof. Richard K.Betts who assessed, Hanoi “preferred endless war to defeat.”
The Gothamist blogger then added, "while it may never be confirmed that regular army soldiers are trained to waterboard prisoners, someone is doing it, either in the CIA or Special Forces or private contractors."
After several polite reader criticisms, Del Signore lashed out:
I see I'm really starting to draw out the "Support Our Troops" SUV-magnet crowd. I have a feeling I'm just one or two comments away from "America: Love it or leave it."
Hartley, the milblogger known as Just A Soldier, generously responded:
John Del Signore, don't sweat anything you wrote. You weren't trying to denigrate or disparage, only making light of f***** up shit, something we all do when there is nothing left for us to do...
I disagree. Not only did Del Signore say he wasn't joking, his leftist anti-military bias came through loud and clear. He referred to a handful of events, applied them to the entire armed forces, claiming they are “condoned and even encouraged.” He followed the classic anti-war playbook--US troops are in Iraq to “benefit the ruling class," and "war means profits for the military-industrial complex.” What, nothing about Bohemian Grove or Bilderberg Group?
The ironic thing is that if he hadn't disputed commenters' accusations that he was “insulting soldiers,” he wouldn't look like a leftist insulting soldiers.
Lynn contributes to NewsBusters. Email her with tips and complaints at tvisgoodforyou2 (at) yahoo (dot) com














Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Sanctimonious leftys like
January 25, 2008 - 13:33 ET by mattmSanctimonious leftys like this puke never seem to care much about rape, torture, or murder when it's the policy of some dictatorial regime...only when it's alleged to happen within the U.S. Military where they take a few isolated incidents and create an institutional issue out of it.
Applying their methods, we should consider all liberals potential unabombers.
A fundamental basis of
January 25, 2008 - 13:43 ET by JasonCA fundamental basis of liberalism includes the notion that our domestic deficiencies are more pressing and worthy of critique than those of dictatorial regimes and such. The reason being, of course, that only military force or crushing economic embargo can effectively ameliorate such atrocities in non-allied societies. Why, after all, should a dictatorial third-world strongman care about the appearance of a disapproving assessment of his policies in U.S. media? Non-military social action in the States, on the other hand, can have a direct impact. Furthermore, because most liberals are, in fact, patriotic, they feel that their political activism ought to be prioritized toward their own nation. America should be held to a higher standard, one might argue, because we present ourselves on a global level as embracing higher standards.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I neglected to add my final
January 25, 2008 - 13:50 ET by JasonCI neglected to add my final statement, what was supposed to be the raison d'etre of the previous post: that the aforementioned socio-political stance is commonly misconstrued as "Blame America First" by Coulter, Hannity, et al.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Hi Jason
January 25, 2008 - 14:03 ET by MassConservI understand your point that a 3rd world dictator doesn't give a hoot what we think in the first place so why should we harp on them. And yet, without any concrete evidence that the US and military are, as institutions, actually engaging in the activity, "Blame America First" is exactly what the behavior looks like, if it is misconstrued.
...except that it's
January 25, 2008 - 14:13 ET by mattm...except that it's logically out of step. The question isn't about why a dictator schould care about this or that, but why people like Del Signore find it so easy let their atrocities go unnoticed...
MassCon, absolutely. I
January 25, 2008 - 14:42 ET by JasonCMassCon, absolutely. I don't have a strong opinion on this particular incident one way or another. My remarks were strictly a defense of liberal methodology against the claim that we ought to worry more about dictatorial states which condone such atrocities as a matter of policy. On that note, I think the reason that Abu Ghraib and incidents like Matthew Shepard's death provoke more outrage and critique of our culture than would a hundred such incidents of prisoner abuse or homophobic murder in a different country, is the natural will to want one's own society to face up to the standards by which it purports to exist. So I see it not as blaming America for social ills that are actually much worse in other parts of the world, but giving one's full attention to the culture in which one lives and in which one can actually expect to make a difference. This, some might say, falls under the definition of Patriotism.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I agreed
January 25, 2008 - 15:01 ET by MassConservI agreed with your point that a dictator wouldn't care what we thought, that's about it.
Though it is obvious I didn't make myself clear from the way mattm posted to my comment.
I do believe leftists have a blame America first attitude, especially the guy from the blog this article is about. The fact that a few isolated incidents are misconstrued, as you put it with regards to liberals, as endemic behavior in any institution is proof that the person making those claims is seeing what they want to see.
I don't see that attitude as Patriotic, I see it as a willingness to denigrate their home country as a means to an unwelcome end.
Bull
January 25, 2008 - 14:09 ET by mattmThe writer isn't the least bit interested in maintaining high standards of ethics and morals (which our military does as well as, or better than any in history). He's merely continuing the Lefty methodology of making broad generalizations using isolated incidents in order to disparage the U.S.
Couch it in all the flowery language you want, it's nothing more than Anti-U.S. Military.
Flowery? Moi? You may or
January 25, 2008 - 14:46 ET by JasonCFlowery? Moi?
You may or may not be right about this particular incident. In general, though, I don't think it's a matter of disparagement. In the press, perhaps. But not in the attitude of much of the US citizenry.
To recycle an example: should I be less concerned about the implications of Matthew Shephard's murder in Wyoming because countries like Iran are 1,000% more homophobic? The question is: which countries attitudes impact me more? And, in which country can discourse and activism, as opposed to global-scale political maneuvering, make a difference?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Talk about recycling
January 25, 2008 - 15:36 ET by bobby-van-DYour bringing Matthew Shephard into this discussion is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure his murder was not state sponsered. Unlike Iran's murders of gays . Why did you not just blame Dick Cheney himself for the murder since he is from Wyoming. I wonder if Iran has hate crimes on the books? Doubtful, unless Mohammad is involved.
I'm not implying that his
January 25, 2008 - 15:51 ET by JasonCI'm not implying that his murder was state-sponsored. It was, clearly, the action of two ragingly homophobic rednecks who for some reason (whistles mock-casually) felt personally threatened by an effeminate, 120-lb man. Your assertion that I might as well blame Cheney is disingenuous and beside the point.
The only point here is that his murder was emblematic of a lingering sense of hatred toward gay people in America. Rather than being state-sponsored, it is a hatred maintained by hegemony; that is, it is not an attitude mandated by law, but one that is consensually accepted.
My point to MattM was, simply: Should I be more concerned about what Shephard's murder represented here or about a regime in Iran which actively persecutes homosexuality as a matter of policy, along with a plethora of other fascistic social policies, in spite of the fact that my opinion on Iran's thuggish political behavior will have precisely no bearing on its reform or lack thereof?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
It's not a question of how
January 25, 2008 - 15:37 ET by mattmIt's not a question of how concerned you should be, it's a question of the motives of this particular writer.
Are examples such as Abu Grahib, or the recent tragedy with the murder of a female soldier, indicative of a systemic problem with the military or are they merely examples of flaws in human nature - not specific to the military or to any political philosophy?
The "Blame America First" crowd would assert the former, and they'd be wrong to do so...that's all this thread is about.
BTW the term "blame America first" does not imply that America is blameless all the time. It refers to the default Anti-American mindset of the Left.
with liberals it is all about FEAR
January 25, 2008 - 15:43 ET by LionKingWhy is it that because someone does not condone the homosexual lifestyle that they are homophobes?
Some other phobias for liberals:
[Please feel free to add to the list.]
LK, despite the popular
January 25, 2008 - 15:58 ET by JasonCLK, despite the popular belief that the Greek suffix -phobia always signifies fear, the term homophobia technically refers to "fear, aversion, or discrimination against homosexuality." Therefore, despite the fact that those who are opposed to homosexuality tend to bristle every time the term is invoked, it is a perfectly accurate description. Even if such a person is not particularly "afraid", they are clearly averse to it. Discrimination, of course, opens up another whole can of worms. I personally think that saying gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry is an act of discrimination, though I certainly accept that that position is up for debate.
So, don't take such umbrage. If you are openly opposed to homosexuality, why should you be offended when a word that, by definition, means "One who is opposed to homosexuality" is applied to you?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
jason...
January 25, 2008 - 16:06 ET by LionKingreally?
When did phobia become aversion? Isn't it true that the misuse of the word "homophobia" is now why it is considered an aversion to homosexuals?
The truth is, the meaning of the word never really changed...misuse of the word has garnered an additional definiton.
I'm giving you an
January 25, 2008 - 16:12 ET by JasonCI'm giving you an unadulterated dictionary definition. And I know that when I use the term, I'm expressing more than anaccusation of fear.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
"fear, aversion, or discrimination against..."
January 25, 2008 - 17:11 ET by RJOh, like the Christophobia so rampant in this country.
I certainly wouldn't deny
January 25, 2008 - 17:26 ET by JasonCI certainly wouldn't deny the existence of a strain of anti-Christian sentiment in this country. Though I would not put it on par with Islamophobia, that's for sure. What is more likely to draw negative attention, taking your family to church on Sunday or praying to Mecca in a public area?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Or a Christmas Tree
January 25, 2008 - 17:41 ET by RJ...or a creche, or a cross....it's more than a "strain", Jason. Christophobia is full blown.
I'm just gonna have to go
January 25, 2008 - 17:56 ET by JasonCI'm just gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there RJ. I live in the Northeast, in a city that is often referred to as a hotbed of liberalism, and I just don't see that going on. The occasional ACLU reactionarianism to a creche or prayer in school surely doesn't indict a large segment of the population as anti-Christian.
Look, I'll completely agree that there are vocal groups out there that want to publicly mock Christianity. But coming from a Christian family myself, I have never felt affected or threatened by it one iota, and I think we both know that those groups haven't a prayer (pun intended) of gaining enough of a mainstream foothold to pose a real threat to you, me, or our families.
Islamophobia, however, has been openly nurtured since 9/11. See, for instance, recent conversations on NB which claim that it's ontologically impossible to be "Muslim-American", and others which routinely mock the religion and its tenets. So my original comparison stands.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
And I'll have to disagree with YOU, Jason
January 25, 2008 - 18:20 ET by RJIn the first place, the the opinion of a few posters on a site dedicated to arguing isn't evidence of a broader, angry anti-Muslim attitude in America. And several media outlets have tried, unsuccessfully, to prove that one exists. In one infamous incident, they sent "Muslim-appearing" stooges to a NASCAR race, looking for a negative reaction...and got none.
Although I didn't see the argument you speak of, on the surface it seems like a legitimate one, since Islam teaches that it must be placed before secular government.
But in addition to your example argument, there have been MANY posts and arguments here that mock and denigrate Christianity.
And just because you're not personally aware of it, it doesn't mean that Christophobia is limited to "occasional" reactionarianism. Maybe because I look for it, I've seen a gradual but steady racheting up of aggressive anti-Christian behavior. Here in CT last Christmas, for just one example, an anti-Christian group put up a very large sign on a town green that had a photo of the twin towers and said "Imagine no religion." It remained there throughout the Christmas Season, having no purpose other than being crudely confrontational during a Holy time.
I'm curious Jason...
January 25, 2008 - 20:35 ET by Army BratAre you aware that there have been over 10,000 attacks worldwide since 9/11 carried out by radical Muslims? Buddhists, Taoists, Coptics, Hindus...all killed in the name of Allah as directed by the Koran. Am I "Islam averted?" Yep.
You might care to visit Jihadwatch. You will find people from all over the world discussing Islam and the radicals that pollute it. Muslims will also show up there to defend beating women or killing homosexuals etc.. It gets quite interesting.
You won't find people calling for beheadings or death to all Muslims or any such crap. We all know that the vast majority of Mulims don't care to cut peoples heads off. It's the ones that do that I'm concerned with. Visit Jihadwatch and see for yourself. No rednecks, well maybe some, but you'd never know it from the dialouge there. Debate is on an intellectual level and usually free of name calling...unless..well...go see for yourself which folks revert to name calling and obsenities first. You may find it quite enlightening.
Here are the most recent attacks.
http://www.thereligi...
1/25/2008 (Pattani, Thailand) - A 36-year-old man is
murdered by Islamic extremists.
1/25/2008 (Beirut, Lebanon) - Islamic terrorists bomb
a vehicle, killing a two officials and two civilian
bystanders.
1/25/2008 (Mogadishu, Somalia) - Three Ethiopians are
killed when Islamists fire rockets into a group of
soldiers at point-blank range.
1/25/2008 (Jerusalem, Israel) - Palestinian gunmen
fire into an Israeli checkpoint, killing one policeman
and wounding six civilians.
1/24/2008 (Gaziantep, Turkey) - al-Qaeda militants
open fire on a group of police officers, killing
one.
1/24/2008 (Baidoa, Somalia) - Two Somalis, including
a cafe owner are killed in an ambush by Islamic militia
members.
Happy Trails...
So...
January 25, 2008 - 13:54 ET by candanceWe'll be expecting Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton to immediately reprimand this website and demand an apology.
Candance, Why would
January 25, 2008 - 14:10 ET by LeonCandance,
Why would they? That makes no sense.
What's with all this demanding of people to apologize for others?
What did they have to do with that post?
The Gothamist blogger then
January 25, 2008 - 13:56 ET by BDThe Gothamist blogger then added, "while it may never be confirmed that regular army soldiers are trained to waterboard prisoners, someone is doing it, either in the CIA or Special Forces or private contractors."
"Since we do not have proof, that means someone must be doing it. "
Huh?
Worthless T*rd
January 25, 2008 - 14:14 ET by ThisnThatThis blogger has no credentials, no class, no manners, no intelligence. He utters meaningless words, stupid remarks, inflammatory positions. He doesn't back up his assertions with data, and he hates Americans with a passion.
Simply a worthless tu*d IMO.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
ThisnThat, I agree with
January 25, 2008 - 14:15 ET by LeonThisnThat,
I agree with you.
Which is why it's amazing that anyone cares what he says.
I.e. Newsbusters.
Lynn, Lynn, Lynn... When
January 25, 2008 - 14:00 ET by Roger the ShrubberLynn, Lynn, Lynn... When John Del Signore claimed “rape and torture” are “institutional” in the US military, which “at times condoned and encouraged” “atrocities...genocide" and "butchery.” He said the events aren't isolated, they're “the few war crimes we actually know about” and happen with “increasing frequency during prolonged occupations.”, he was obviously meant those guys in the blue helmets, UN Peacekeepers!
Of course! How could I have
January 25, 2008 - 14:15 ET by Lynn DavidsonOf course! How could I have missed that? It all makes sense now.
To Gothamist blogger John Del Signore:
January 25, 2008 - 17:06 ET by drillanwrhttp://patdollard.com/2008/01/the-scrolls-of-americas-hallowed-dead/
This is a transcript of the eulogy given by Lt. Col Rod Coffey, Commander 3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment (Wolfpack), Diyala Province, Iraq, at the January 22, 2008 memorial ceremony for his six soldiers and one Iraqi interpreter killed in a booby-trapped house in Sinsil, Iraq on January 9, 2008 during Operation Raider Harvest. Col. Coffey spoke to honor the soldiers that died in the operation:
Specialist Todd E. Davis, 22, of Raymore, Mo.;
Staff Sgt. Jonathan K. Dozier, 30, of Rutherford, Tenn.;
Staff Sgt. Sean M. Gaul, 29, of Reno, Nev.;
Sgt. Zachary W. McBride, 20, of Bend, Ore.;
First Sgt. Matthew I. Pionk, 30, of Superior, Wis.; and
Sgt. Christopher A. Sanders, 22, of Roswell, N.M.
Col. Coffey spoke as follows:
Gen Petraus, LTG Odierno, Major General Hertling, BG Boozer, BG Thomas, COL Riscassi, fellow squadron and battalion commanders and command sergeants major;
On behalf of all the soldiers of 3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment we thank you for coming to pay tribute to our fallen brothers in arms.
We are here to honor the memory and service of seven men, seven of our brothers in arms.
There is a story about loss in war where one character comments to another, “We are ready for the occasional empty chair, the fond farewell for comrades lost. But we are never, never ready for so many.”
I cannot, as your commander, in anything I say today diminish the impact of losing these men all at once. In fact because we lost them so quickly, it all seems like a bad dream — that we will wake up tomorrow and they will all be back again.
Each of us, whether present at the scene that day or not, will remember when we first found out. We will remember our inner anguish when we got up the nerve to ask, “Who was it?”
Others will recall the steeled strength it took to calmly and professionally report and verify the battle roster numbers, knowing full well we owed them this calmness and professionalism, so their families would be taken care of.
Others of us will never forget rescuing the four wounded that day and getting them to a helicopter as fast as we could. All these things are true. All these things will be seared in our memories. It was a terrible day and we cannot change that.
We are not alone in mere personal grief, or our desire to honor the fallen. The presence of the general officers here is their effort to acknowledge the sacrifice of this unit and the bravery of these men. Although I have not been able to access every news report, the ones I have read indicate the nation supports us, mourns with us and honors the men we have lost in the recon platoon.
The governors of the states of Virginia and Nevada and Wisconsin and Oregon and New Mexico have ordered the flag of the United States of America and the flags of their respective state flags be flown at half-mast on the day of our men’s funerals. We are not alone in honoring them. Again, I don’t have news stories for all of our men yet but those I have read indicate hundreds have attended their funerals.
And why this reaction? Why hundreds of people at funerals? Why governors issuing decrees for flags to be flown at half mast?
Because we are all in awe of their great sacrifice, courage and devotion to duty and each other. These men, our men, are fallen on the field of battle. Forever more that is their legacy. Their names are now enshrined on the scroll of America’s hallowed dead. And where they died, where they shed their blood, is sacred ground to us.
We still cannot help think why. Why do we have to lose such good men?
Part of the answer is only good men like these volunteer to serve and defend their country. Here’s two brief examples of their motivations:
SPC Davis had his car packed and had been admitted to the University of Oklahoma when he changed his mind and decided to enlist in the army. His family believes he did so out of pride for his father who had served in the military and had passed away in 2003. There he was — the excitement and opportunities of college life and getting a degree ahead of him — and he heard that call, the call to defend and serve his country. At the last moment he could not go through with the easy choice. He chose the harder life of a soldier in a time of war.
Of SSG Gaul his stepmother noted, “Being a soldier was his life. It was what he truly wanted to do.”
I could mention every one of them and tell a similar story. I wish I knew more about Roy’s story, for the courage and guts displayed by our interpreters on a daily basis is an inspiration for us all.
It is still a natural human instinct to ask….But what did they die for? Wasn’t it a waste?
There are several answers to that question but the most basic and simple is they died for us. They entered that house so you and I wouldn’t have to. At that moment they saw it as their duty to clear that house and they acted with discipline courage and bravery. The character of our fallen heroes in the recon platoon is revealed by the actions of the living that day.
As many of you know they were essentially lured to the house by someone that we later discovered had ties to Al Qaida. One of the members of the platoon, on the roof when the blast occurred and the building collapsed — and wounded himself — ran down the local who had had lured them to the house ……And then when he found him, did nothing more than detain him.
That professionalism, that discipline, that honor and self-sacrifice speaks of extraordinary nobility of character in the entire platoon. Another soldier, the senior squad leader at the scene with calmness and strength took over the role of platoon sergeant as if he had been doing the job for months.
I could go on and on about the enormous character demonstrated by that entire platoon and entire company that day – a strength and determination that continues to today.
And then there is the unfeigned determination of the recon platoon. It’s not put–on. It’s not fake. They are not trying to be something they are not and failing to express their emotions about this. But the speed with which they have rebounded and insisted to me that they go out on missions again is awe-inspiring.
I do not know where such men come from, except to say they are the kind of men who have made America great and will continue to preserve it.
The act of going in first, the act of willingly doing your duty in a dangerous environment, is by its very nature an act of heroic self-sacrifice for the sake of others. These men we honor today had that spirit of self-sacrifice and devotion to duty to an awe-inspiring degree.
And so I need to speak of what else they died for, and what I believe our honored dead would now expect of us.
I’ll begin by saying what they would not want. They would not wish to be seen as victims of a misguided war, victims of stop loss – or victims of anything else for that matter.
We know we are fighting extremism here in a thousand ways. And as the hometown news articles are getting written several of these fallen heroes are on record stating they believed the war in Iraq is a noble cause.
For those who want to support us by getting us out of Iraq as soon as possible, without a victory, I have but one comment. You’re too late. We have sacrificed too much and all we ask of you is the necessary time to finish the job.
Our children and yours, our grandchildren and yours will be safer for it.
This squadron and the formations on its left and right have in the balance sheet of history, already achieved far more than extremist reckless hatred will ever accomplish.
SSG Dozier once asked his father Carl, “Is it weird to really want to do this?”
His father Carl, filled with pride at what his son had become said “No,” “This is what you’re trained to do.”
On another occasion this brave man, SSG Jonathan Dozier told his father he was prepared to die, “But,” he said, “I don’t want to die for nothing.”
So I ask you Wolfpack to make this promise with me: SSG Dozier, will not have died for nothing. We owe him a victory. We owe him a win. We owe him our own lives if necessary.
If the enemy comes out to fight he will be met with a disciplined lethal ferocity he has never before endured. If he plays the sly game of intimidating, beheading and torturing the innocent people of Iraq when he thinks we’re not looking he will be met with a cunning, a sophistication and a relentlessness that will lead to his utter defeat.
This is my promise to you as your commander and from all of us to our honored dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words ... Screw You, you simpleton.
For those who want to
January 25, 2008 - 17:26 ET by BDFor those who want to support us by getting us out of Iraq as soon as possible, without a victory, I have but one comment. You’re too late. We have sacrificed too much and all we ask of you is the necessary time to finish the job.
Our children and yours, our grandchildren and yours will be safer for it....
Can't wait to see someone ask the Tuck tail and run Democrats about that comment in a debate. ooops, I forgot, the MSM will NEVER ask that one.
To our traitorous MSM and Dim Congresmen....
January 26, 2008 - 20:02 ET by ThisnThat"several of these fallen heroes are on record stating they believed the war in Iraq is a noble cause".
The sad part is, why do our soldiers feel compelled to say things like this? Answer: Because of the traitors within America. The Reids; Clintons; Pelosies; and Murthas. MSNBC; the NYTimes; CNN. Moveon.org; DailyKos. Berkley University; University of Colorado; the NEA. All these people are traitors and are pounding the airways, our classrooms, newsprint, and halls of Congress every day with their defeatest, anti-American, "Hate the Military", "Bush is a liar" talk.
Our soldiers hear this; they disagree wholeheartedly; and think they have no voice that represents them and the truth. So, their only recourse is to leave messages that they hope will be read to prevent these traitors from using their deaths as anti-war propaganda.
I am disgusted, and mad as hell.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
I meet these types of cowards occasionally
January 25, 2008 - 21:41 ET by c5thenThey sneer and denigrate those who willingly choose to do jobs and tasks that they temselves are afraid to do. It makes them feel bigger and better about themselves to demean others who are keeping them safe.
They make me sick and I sometimes have to watch my anger. I walk away and refuse to have anything to do with them whenever possible.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Is Gothamist part of the MSM?
January 26, 2008 - 10:33 ET by pilsenerI had never heard of the Gothamist before this post. Is the Gothamist Blog or its author part of the MSM?
If not, why is this post on Newsbusters? There are hundreds of lefty blogs putting out this kind of excrement everyday, but posting about them doesn't fit with the theme of Newsbusters.