Well -- it seems one of my posts has managed to get under the skin of someone. For the sake of a good rousing debate, that can't be too bad of a thing. I typically let other's commentary stand as is, however, in this case a response is most decidedly in order.
Here's the commentary left by a fellow named "Steve" who's responding on behalf of a group calling itself "GI's against Sheehan," in response to my Feb. 02, 2006 post "Criminalizing T-shirt wearing followup . . ." :
"You can always tell when you get to close to the truth, because people resort to name calling. I am a true vet of this war in Iraq, if you want proof I will send you a copy of my DD214. And I am deeply offended by your ignorance. Our forefathers didn't give us a democracy, they faught to build a republic. A government without a monorcy and having its supreme power in the citizens. But, as you put it, we have elected representitives that took that power away from us resulting in a democracy. If I am not mistaken, the governmental represintatives in office are not all President Bush backers. It is made up of people from both sides of the issue and it was voted unanimus by both sides to send the military into this war. I would rather got to war for the reasons I was sent, than to be used like a play thing and made a mockery of like the last president did with the military in Samolia, Mogadisue and the missle stricks into Iraq.
And you also forgot the most important part of that oath, as far as I'm concerned, "so help me God." Maybe I'm out of the loop but I have never heard of anyone in American trying to set up a state religion, even though it would do this country a lot of good. But that is my opinion and nothing more. I am not forcing you to believe or do anything you don't whant to. Just like every single military member in todays military was never forced to join. Let me guess though, you joined for the Montgomery GI Bill. That's how you learned all those big words that don't mean a thing. I'm sorry to inform you but it is you who are ignorant to many facts. This is not meant as an insult, ignorance can be cured.
I do not wish to suppress Mrs. Sheehan's opinions or the voicing there of. But just to point out a few things. Does she think she is doing here son an honor by ignoring the fact that he joined of his own free will. Noone made him, you or myself raise our hand and repeat the oath of duty. There were ways he could have gotten out of going to war but he chose to accept his responsibilities like a man and go to war for his country, staying true to the oath he swore. Does she think she is going to bring him back by siding with Gonzales, does she think he will care one bit who her son was when he destroys America like he claims? All she is doing is heaping insult upon the memory of her son, her own husband couldn't take it anymore and left her. She is doing such a dishonor to her son's memory. She would get more sympathy if she would leave her son out of it. Appearently it was not her son's choice to protest the war or he would still be alive.
There are to many ways to get out of going to blame this on the government.If you feel so strongly about our government being as evil and destructive as you say it is, do as the fifty-six men did in 1776. It is your "right, duty to throw of such governments, and provide new guards for your future." But keep this in mind, I have sworn an oath to defend my constitution against such domestic enemies as yourself.Service in Iraq: 7 Dec 03 thru 29 Mar 05, Al Taji, IraqI've looked the Iraqi people in the eyes, both friendly and enemy. I've received hugs from the many greatful people in that country. And I've recieved more grattitude for aliens in this country than from "America Lovers" like you. I've seen the whites of the enemies eyes before I pulled the trigger, so don't talk to me about being a war vet. You lost me at Air Force. Don't get me wrong, many of my friends are in the Air Force, but they will be the first to tell you I have it much harder in the Army than they will ever have it. They seldom have to look at the person that is trying to kill them, nor do they have to clean up the bodies after the fact.
Don't you dare try to come off as a hardened vet until you've spent a year and four months in hell along side me. As far as I'm concerned your not worthy enough to lick my blood covered boot until you can prove other wise. But I digress, I am not an "ass-backwards,brain dead, ****up," as you would call me and my brothers in arms. I am still a free thinker and follow orders. I do what I do because too many people in this country don't have the balls to do it and don't want to face the facts that people like me are needed so people like you and Mrs. Sheehan don't get there tounges cut out. If you believe appeasment will solve all the worlds problems than your more ignorant than I thought. I hope you have a great freedom loving day! HOOAH!"
First off, let it be stated that I admire the writer's actual military service to this country. It's nothing but commendable in every way. Having said that, the primary thrust of my earlier blog entry was aimed at the individuals -- not their military service or the uniformed services. Period.
So here's my response to "Steve" of the group calling themselves -- "GI's against Sheehan":
Well Steve... methinks you use the word "truth" a bit cavalierly don't you? Answer this -- is there truth in your group's claims that Cindy Sheehan is a "known communist?" Is there truth in your group's claims that Cindy Sheehan is "an anti-Semite?" Is there truth in your group's claims that Cindy Sheehan "criticized and downplayed" the victims of Hurricane Katrina? Where is your proof and sources for these vicious accusations?? And please don't respond with links to Rush Limbaugh-esque, right-wing loony toon websites. The fact is - these nasty, unfounded "name-calling" statements by you and your group clearly expose the hypocrisy in your faux concern about my name-calling (which I stand by) and effectively weaken your credibility in the very first sentence of your tirade.
Next you attempt to "school" me on the origins of the American form of government. It's a subject way too lengthy and complicated to get into in this response, but the bottom line is America today is a representative Democracy --- notwithstanding the misinformation the ruling elite in this country have implanted in the minds of those like you. [Click this link] for a bit of history on this subject.
As we move on, you then state -- "I would rather got to war for the reasons I was sent, than to be used like a play thing and made a mockery of like the last president did with the military in Samolia, Mogadisue and the missle stricks into Iraq." The blame Clinton syndrome -- pathetic. First off -- Mogadishu is the capital of Somalia -- it's one and the same issue. Secondly -- you obviously do not know the history of America's intervention in Somalia do you? Bush41 was the President who first committed U.S. troops in that strife-torn country. Clinton inherited Bush41's mess and unfortunately (and I criticize Clinton for this) he initially balked at advisement to not escalate that commitment. But for you to place blame squarely and solely in Clinton's lap for that mistake simply demonstrates your overtly partisan desire to revise history (a hallmark trait of Bush-lovers) and blame others. Here's a link to the Somalia timeline of events - read it and learn something :
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html.
And as far as your preferring Bush 43's plethora of lies for sending you to war in Iraq - well, what can be said for someone like you who feels that dying and killing for lies is a worthwhile endeavor? In the interest of brevity for this post, I won't document and source those Bush lies here. However, if you insist on seeing that information, please feel free to e-mail me -- it would be a pleasure to oblige such a request.
We then have your comment stating your belief that a state-sponsored religion (Theocracy) would "do this country a lot of good," -- Wow!! -- all I have to say about that is you are either insane, stupid or a combination thereof. Thankfully (so far) the "so help me God" words tacked on to the end of our military enlistment oath do not negate the the core pledge to "defend the Constitution," -- much to your disappointment I'm sure. I must also point out the absolute absurdity and irreconcilability of your oath to "defend the Constitution," on one hand and your pining for it's destruction on the other by seeing representative Democracy replaced with a repressive, totalitarian biblical Theocracy! Imao! Isn't that one of the many " justifications" for Bush's war on terror?? -- to rid the world of "evil-doers" who would violently force their tyrannical religious beliefs on those who think and believe differently? Geez Steve, you're really beginning to scare me. And you still question why I show disrespect to you and your group of "small-minded" GI buddies??
Following that, you meander off into more ad-hominem attacks on Cindy Sheehan for daring to ask George W. Bush to explain exactly what was the "noble cause" her son and thousands others have perished for. You than drag out the sad fact that Sheehan's husband (Patrick) filed for divorce from her. Of course you left out small details like the fact that the divorce filing was done before Sheehan started her crusade to get the coward Bush to meet with her. Also, you have not mentioned the fact that there does not exist a single public statement from Patrick Sheehan condemning Cindy Sheehan for her valiant efforts to make sense of the tragic death of their soldier son. But it does say something about you personally Steve that you would have to ballyhoo Cindy Sheehan's private life hardships in order to support your deeply flawed and wrong views -- quite manly of you to do so. And of course like all Sheehan haters you lamely make pretend to know what a deceased Casey Sheehan would think of his mother's current mission and actions. You know Steve, where I come from, we have a standard response to people who claim to know what motivates and exists in the minds of dead people -- "you're full of shit."
Consequently, as we read more of your drivel -- I've already addressed the issue of my respect for those who voluntarily put on the military uniform to serve this country. Therefore I'll disregard your immature attempt to use your own combat experiences to belittle my non-wartime Air Force duty. By the way, NOT ONCE did I state or imply in my original post that I personally was "a hardened Vet." Your over-wrought emotions obviously overran your ability to comprehend what I wrote and resulted in that unfair mischaracterization.
Subsequently those immature emotions show themselves once again with this statement: "As far as I'm concerned your not worthy enough to lick my blood covered boot until you can prove other wise." The old blood-covered boot insult!! Noooo -- not that!! Once more, it must be pointed out that by all reasonable evidence up to this moment in time, the reason your boot is covered in blood in Iraq is because George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the military-industrial complex that they slavishly serve lied to you, lied to me and lied to the world about the reasons for invading that country. Where is your Godly morality when it comes to lies that have resulted in the needless and horrific deaths of our brave soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians. Where?? And yet, that's the type of "ass-backward, brain-dead" (I stand by that charge too) morality you wish to impose upon me with your state-sponsored religion?? Over my dead body pal (I say that with a tinge of fear, knowing full-well that there are many in this country who believe as you do).
Lastly Steve, I never stated or implied "appeasement" toward terrorism as you snidely suggest in your closing harangue. It's a typical right-wing, ReThuglican asshole tactic to smear the patriotism of anyone that disagrees with dear leader Bush on his horrendous decision to invade Iraq and his subsequently inept handling of the Global War On Terror. It must be noted however, that my opinion in that matter is bolstered (unfortunately for all of us) by the latest Bush administration scandal of selling out the operations and security of America's most critical shipping ports to the United Arab Emirates (a country who's government has been infiltrated by Al-Qaeda and who has a history of cozying up to terrorist scum like Bin-Laden and his minions.) Who's appeasing who in that deal Steve??
Well -- I've said my piece, feel free to respond, although I really have nothing more to add to the discussion.
----krazee
