[QUOTE=lokij]
Well, my guess is that our brave IRS agents collecting taxes, the vast majority of our teachers educating our youth and the social service people who administer our various federal aid programs have very rarely been called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice for their particular government program. The soldiers, sailors and airmen in our armed forces however have died by the thousands throughout our nation’s history and though you may be allowed to question the reasons for which they are sent to fight, equating their service to any other federal job is a bit much. They swear a duty to preserve and defend our nation’s most important principles as laid out in the constitution and do so with their blood and toil, if you can’t see how hating them equates to hating that which they defend with their lives then we might as well be speaking different languages.
[/QUOTE]
Some people see that sacrifice as exactly why it’s MORE important to scrutinize military policy. And, of course, that scrutiny is not hatred for the troops. That’s nothing but jingoism.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Michelle Obama has been a very effective campaigner with women, the working class and blacks but she has stuck her foot in ther mouth more than once…How much damage has she caused the campaign?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=cricetus]
Some people see that sacrifice as exactly why it’s MORE important to scrutinize military policy. And, of course, that scrutiny is not hatred for the troops. That’s nothing but jingoism.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree, and not just because I’m a soldier. I could rattle off a pretty good list of things I don’t like about military policy or the Army in general, but it has nothing to do with “hating America”.
I know what Michelle Obama was saying and I understand it. When people were pouring french wine down the drain because France disagreed with the US about invading Iraq was I proud of america? Hell, no, I was ahsamed. In the last 5 years I’ve even been less proud. I work in a multinatational joint environment right now, and my 2 closest coworkers are french and german. When they ask how I feel about Bush or Iraq I’ve told them the truth…i think iraq was a mistake and Bush is a lying asshole of a moron. (though technically, i’m not allowed to say those kinds of things on duty…but we were in our office where no one else could overhear us) It drives me crazy that people will put this spin on calling us on our own mistakes and screwups into “You hate america”. Call a spade a spade, for christsakes. We fucked up! I’m not proud of it. Why feign pride just for the sake of appearance? Its not a frickin’ secret that the US has made a huge mess of things in the last few years. I feel no pride in the countless unneeded deaths and our spin on it. (Geez, it was first to get WMDs, then it it was to we aren’t into nation building, then its Operation: Iraqi freedom…as if changing titles will change history)
We’re on our way to being the fattest, dumbest country on the planet and its our own fault unless we change things. Can Obama change things? I certainly hope so. Because I don’t think I’d be able to feel pride if we keep doing business as usual.
(sorry, I started rambling, and now my boss just walked in, so I gots to go.)
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Crtiticizing some of the actions of the military is not “hating the troops.” I’ve served in the military and I didn’t much like Abu Ghraib (although I blame the civilian leadership for most of the problems in Iraq, not the poor saps in the uniforms).
Now if we can stipulate that it’s not nice to “hate the troops” (which nobody really does), can you explain why it IS ok to bash teachers, IRS agents, ATF agents, social workers, etc. Cricetus’ point still stands that the right wing does nothing but bash America and Americans all day long, but then pretends to be more patriotic than thou when it suits them.
[/QUOTE]
Did you see the portion of my post where I said “though you may be allowed to question the reasons for which they are sent to fight, equating their service to any other federal job is a bit much.” In other words, simply questioning what the military does doesn’t equate to the level of ‘hate’ or ‘bashing’ the soldiers. Wanting to reform the military or discuss the scope it should have, isn’t bashing or ‘hating’. What I attempted to describe is why the institution that is the US military is treated somewhat differently from any other government program and why people value the scope of the mission of the military a bit differently than service with the Department of Agriculture, for example. This is why we have a Veteran’s Day and a Memorial Day and not a ‘Dept. of the Treasury Day’ and why a certain amount of respect for the military and it’s role equates to respect for America and it’s ideals.
Maybe this particular statement did little damage, but if this is her mindset maybe the next quote will be worse and will cause harm, so I also say she needs to STFU, and she should realize no one cares what she thinks, anyway.
[QUOTE=lokij]
Did you see the portion of my post where I said “though you may be allowed to question the reasons for which they are sent to fight, equating their service to any other federal job is a bit much.” In other words, simply questioning what the military does doesn’t equate to the level of ‘hate’ or ‘bashing’ the soldiers. Wanting to reform the military or discuss the scope it should have, isn’t bashing or ‘hating’. What I attempted to describe is why the institution that is the US military is treated somewhat differently from any other government program and why people value the scope of the mission of the military a bit differently than service with the Department of Agriculture, for example. This is why we have a Veteran’s Day and a Memorial Day and not a ‘Dept. of the Treasury Day’ and why a certain amount of respect for the military and it’s role equates to respect for America and it’s ideals.
[/QUOTE]
People who work for the Department of the Treasury get killed in the line of duty too…and they get demonized by the right wing for it.
Yeah, Hillary had a lot of accomplishments too and look what the Republicans did to her. Hell, even the Dems are borrowing the old Republican lines to attack her now, or is she really so shrill and devisive? I’m just saying, maybe Michelle should ease back, for a little while, not forever.
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Maybe this particular statement did little damage, but if this is her mindset maybe the next quote will be worse and will cause harm, so I also say she needs to STFU, and she should realize no one cares what she thinks, anyway.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not “her mindset” and I’ve found her to be a fairly sharp and engaging advocate for her husband.
[QUOTE=casieispretty]
Hell, even the Dems are borrowing the old Republican lines to attack her now, or is she really so shrill and devisive?.
[/QUOTE]
She’s run a lousy campaign and threatened to take extraordinary measures to win the nomination over the popular choice. I don’t know if that makes her shrill, but it does make her divisive… and those are specific criticisms of specific actions and statements that have nothing to do with her previous battles with Republicans.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Chappaquiddick was 40 years ago,
[/quote]
And Laura Bush’s traffic accident was when she was in high school, and yet you seem to bring it up at every opportunity.
Also incorrect, as witnessed by the attention the New York Times pays even to allegations about McCain. (cite).
The instant it looks like McCain has the nomination, the smears begin.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
People who work for the Department of the Treasury get killed in the line of duty too…and they get demonized by the right wing for it.
[/QUOTE]
While the first part is surely true, I’d like a cite for the latter.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
And Laura Bush’s traffic accident was when she was in high school, and yet you seem to bring it up at every opportunity.
[/quote]
I’m not the media. The media never never mentions it, which only proves my point.
It’s one newspaper and most of the rest of the media (including the left wing blogs) have ben critical of the NYT for running with the story without more evidence, but the main point of the NYT story isn’t that John McCain might have cheated on his wife (McCain was already well-known to be a serial adulterer and the media didn’t care), but that one of his tricks might have been a lobbyist. It’s not the sex that matters it’s the potential public corruption that’s at issue (if the insinuations in the story are true and we haven’t yet seen evidence that it is).
IUncidentally, if the NYT really wanted to hurt McCain, they picked the least damaging timing to do it. He’s already got the nomination so it can’t hurt him there and it’s long before the General Election so it can’t hurt him there. If they wanted to hurt him, they would have either dropped the story before Super Tuesday or held it until the fall. This is the friendliest timing they could have found.
Oh…and they NYT has endorsed McCain for President. Just FYI.
The point is no matter how intelligent, no one cares what the wife of a candidate has to say- they can only hurt, not help. It can be debated whether being married to Frau Heinz instead of Miss America 1965 hurt John Kerrry, and Mrs. Obama making statements that can viewed negatively is not going to help him, sorry. HRC was equally bright but she got knocked when she made any kind of statement, no difference here- at the very least, wait till he’s safely in office before you show us what a brilliant mind you have.