.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
Visit Freedom's Zone Donate To Project Valour

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Eternal Springs Of Acid In Their Rice Crispies

Christian Bagge told the President that he wanted to run with him when Bush visited him in the hospital after Bagge lost pieces of both legs:
WALLACE: And always someone who knows just what they are going through. The Brook Army Medical Center in San Antonio is home to one of only two U.S. army amputee care centers in the country.

BAGGE: It's kind of like a brotherhood in there. We're all rooting for each other and pushing each other to do the best that they can.
WALLACE: Also available to amputees like Christian, state-of- the-art technology to create custom-made legs for any activity they choose. Christian's immediate goal, to run with President Bush. When the president visited the center on New Year's Day, Christian asked if they could jog together some time. He says Mr. Bush said yes.

BAGGE: He said that I would be an inspiration to other people and I think he's right, you know, hopefully, and then I can be an inspiration.
Bush did precisely that after Bagge got up and running. DU is revolted. There is a sample of their bile in the first comment if you have a strong stomach. But, as Liberal Larry says, they fully support the troops:
Make no mistake, this is NOT a retreat, but merely a phased "redeployment" of our troops back to the States, where they can be reunited with their loved ones and then tried for possible war crimes. There’s no shame is running away and living to fight another day – preferably while wearing a baby blue helmet.
The thing is, the rabid, blood-throwing pacifists of DU would be quoting Bagge if he were sitting around whining about his injury and blaming Bush for it. They'd adore Bagge if he were running against the Republicans or the war. They are horrified about him getting up and running with the president.

A poster on DU who replied to another anti-military thread is worthy of some attention:
53. All right, I've had enough Why use the term "kidnapped" instead of "POW"?

It's pretty simple. All it takes is a few minutes of rational thought.

A POW is a combatant who is captured by an opposing combatant force. The capturing force must report that the POW has been captured. The capturing force must exercise proper care and protection of the POW. The capturing force must allow periodic inspection of POWs by international bodies such as the Red Cross. Is there anyone on this site who is so divorced from rational thought that they think al Queda will observe any of these criteria? Since the soldiers in question fail to meet the definition of POW, then some other word should be used to describe them. "Kidnapped" seems to fit pretty well.

Regarding "turnabout's fair play": Does anyone here seriously consider al Queda to be a legitimate combatant force, following the Geneva Convention? For the perpetually muddle-headed that would include a distinctive, identifiable uniform, protection of innocent civilians, protection of POWs, etc.

Frankly I'm a little fed up with those who see a moral equivalence between US and UK forces and al Queda Islamo-fascists. Have there been violations of prisoner rights by US troops? I'm sure of it. Have there been similar violations or worse by al Queda? Certainly. The difference is that with the U.S. troops such violations are contrary to policy and will be investigated and prosecuted. With al Queda, beheading seems to BE the policy.

Regardless of how despicable one may think the Bush administration is, it is a disgusting, deranged libel to claim that the privates, corporals, captains, majors, etc. in Iraq are engaging in wholesale torture and wanton killing. Those who spew that sort of slander against our troops have lost all capacity for reasonable thought. I know quite a few military personnel, many of which have seen service in Iraq or Afghanistan. They are without exception quiet, thoughtful, professional people who would be appalled at the thought of torturing or killing innocents. I'm getting sick and tired of having ignorant people characterize US troops as bloodthirsty savages just to advance their political position.

23. There's plenty wrong with this on both sides.

Why would the soldier allow himself to be used this way? It's like a rape victim going on a public date with her attacker - with the attacker gloating all the while.

Just sick.
I wonder...to what extent does this kind of thing represent vitriolic partisanship (ie, if Clinton, Gore, or Dean were running the war, would the DUnces cease their objections) versus, to what extent does it represent such a deep loathing for our society that *anyone* in authority would receive the same kind of treatment?
David - I think the quote above suggests that it is more the deep loathing for some of them. Joschka Fischer of Germany faced a similar reaction when he supported intervention in the Balkans.

However, those who supported the Balkan intervention under Clinton and scream in rage about the Iraqi intervention are being rather political.
However, those who supported the Balkan intervention under Clinton and scream in rage about the Iraqi intervention...

oceania is at peace with eurasia.
oceania has never been at war with eurasia.
oceania is at war with eastasia.
oceania has always been at war with eastasia.

oceania is at peace with eastasia.
oceania has never been at war with eastasia.
oceania is at war with eurasia.
oceania has always been at war with eurasia.

oceania is at peace with eurasia.
oceania has never been at war with eurasia.
oceania is at war with eastasia.
oceania has always been at war with eastasia.

I wonder when self-determination went out of fashion?
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?