View Story | 113 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Even once?
(0+ / 0-), (0+ / 0-), it's off to kos I go...
by doorguy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:34:29 AM PDT
obama was clearly implying that it was a major problem, and that is certainly not true.
Politics is not arithmetic. It's chemistry.
by tamandua on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:36:44 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
I don't see why people are trying to sweep this under the rug. Why not just do the obvious and point out that the actions of a few do not reflect anti-war sentiment in general? Why this compulsive need to uphold the myth of the benevolent protester?
by Stroszek on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:46:19 AM PDT
of the Dolchstoss? Are you a closet Republican?
(See how easily this sort of rhetoric can be turned around? Grow up and stop being a con tool.)
"Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)
by bellatrys on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:47:58 AM PDT
I'm not accusing someone of putting forward claims that they didn't put forward.
Obama did not make a universal claim about all participants of the anti-war movement, and no one is making any claim about the outcome of the war in general.
This demand for rhetorical purity, even if it conflicts with historical fact, is just bizarre.
by Stroszek on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:55:30 AM PDT
so you can't say it never happened, ever.
Fortunately there has been ZERO incidents like this with the Iraq war.
Also since you decided to not post Obama's actual words, it makes it harder to make your case. He didn't suggest for a second that it was a widespread, just that it happened and it was wrong. You might think it a straw man that he is knocking down but to some people, hearing him denounce that is rhetorical gold.
Jabberwonk! Reality Based Liberal Link Dump
by Jimmy Crackcorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:01:22 AM PDT
How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.
by hannah on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:15:28 AM PDT
There has been a study and even a book written I believe that found absolutely no evidence anywhere of someone spitting on a returning Vietnam Vet. No newspaper reports, no news reel, nothing.
Part of what makes the legend live is it is impossible to state beyond a shadow of a doubt it has never occurred. But your memory may not be serving you well.
"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"
by newfie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:21:46 AM PDT
I remember when this came up early in the Iraq War - the vets being spit on meme - and this very study was put up as evidence that it never happened. My response then, as it would be today, is that newspaper reporting is a very shaky reed upon which to reject something. Notoriously, some southern newspapers did not report upon racial protests in the late 1960s. Rep. James Clyburn tells about protests he participated in that never happened according to local news reports.
"Spitting" incidents, if they happened, were likely not huge news events, just as a random driver on a freeway rolling down the window and shouting the N word wouldn't make the newspaper today.
Personally, I think it's a huge non-issue, but it's likely that some soldier, somewhere, was disrespected by a person with long hair during the 1960s.
Now let's move on.
by mediaprof on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:29:21 AM PDT
And I also feel that it is a huge "non-issue"... for me. But as is evidenced here it is a big issue to some. Take Jimmy for instance. He absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt remembers seeing film footage of vets being spit on. I know he absolutely believes that. But it didn't happen. No film footage exists of such an incident.
So could it have happened - absolutely. And given the behavior of some people I see today - I accept it that the possibility is high that several such incidents happened. But not to the scale of our current legend.
As to moving on - I concur but I'm afraid many do not.
by newfie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:43:57 AM PDT
doesn't mean that there were no negative attitudes towards returning vets. That's an overgeneralization.
by elmo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:52:13 AM PDT
And some negative attitudes do not mean that the majority of the attitudes werte negative. That's an overgeneralization.
Truth (as usual) lies somewhere in between.
by newfie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:58:45 AM PDT
a troop being spit on.
by Philoguy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:33:28 AM PDT
Nobody's spitting on the vets returning from Iraq, either, but they simply aren't getting what they deserve from the civilians who sent them. Neither did the Vietnam vets.
And stop screwing up Dolchstoss, while your at it. Mistreating returning vets is not the "stab in the back", it's causing the nation to lose the war. At least get that right.
"For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician--erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure"-Newsweek.
by Inland on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:48:05 AM PDT
essentially semantics-- valuable as they may be-- Rethugs back in the days of 'Nam and post Nam and moreso today SCREW our vets with poor benefits while in the military and upon return-- a much, much more important issue. And we know Obama gets it on that point.
This really is a gotcha issue, because if Obama didn't say something about the vets not being honored back then, he'd be pilloried for not saying it like some dirty hippy.
Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty International
by doinaheckuvanutjob on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:17:44 AM PDT
It's more of an HRC thing and Bush thing than Obama thing. That's basically the same fight that's been dividing us for thirty years.
by Inland on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:19:34 AM PDT
there. There's a fellow featured in the documentary, "Sir. No, Sir." who went to the trouble of trying to document protester insults to returning Vietnam vets and could find none. His conclusion is that the disrespect was a bit of disinformation concocted by the powers that be. The most detailed report was about troops arriving at a base near San Francisco and being insulted on the tarmac as they got off the planes. The problem with this report is that there was no such base where protesters could have gotten anywhere near the planes.
Why would the military do that? It would be my guess that there was some dissatisfaction with the troops that had taken evasive action, provided false co-ordinates to planes and otherwise sabotaged the military effort from the inside--behavior that prompted the move to an all-volunteer, professional military that wouldn't flake out on them. Besides, distraction is a well-worn tool. The U.S. military had lots of other matters it didn't want discussed. The treatment of returning veterans filled a media hole.
by hannah on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:14:37 AM PDT
alarming regularity. But what is even sadder, is then like now the Vets real needs were never met.
ROAD2DC ... IGTNT
by snackdoodle on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:49:53 AM PDT
I remember those times. Obama is correct. The vets took the brunt of the anger about the war.
by Kitty on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:05:20 AM PDT
Troups in uniform were never called fascist baby killers and never spat at.
by bugscuffle on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:37:48 AM PDT
so you and your damaged goods supporters can take your fucking lie and shove it so far up your ass it pops out your snout.
by Iranaqamuk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:08:38 AM PDT
snarky and sarcastic. Of course it happened. I wasn't born until '66, but you don't have to read too many New Left screeds to get a flavor of their contempt for soldiers. Bill Clinton himself said at the time he "loathed" the military, and he was pretty mainstream for the times.
by bugscuffle on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:25:36 AM PDT
It happened to a dear friend of my father's too. He was called a "baby killer" when he came home.
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Ghandi
by Triscula on Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:22:04 AM PDT
friends. I worked as a volunteer at Walter Reed with Nam Vets, and organized Nam Vets and active duty black GI's
What are you talking about?
Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by Deoliver47 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 05:53:51 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 113 comments