Soldier attacked by Troop-bashers
by Grand Moff TexanWed Dec 22nd, 2004 at 17:30:39 CDT
Or at least that would be the entry if this was coming from the left. Oh, wait, they already did make that claim.
Meanwhile, back in the mind of a 'patriot:
UPDATE: you can contact that cartoonist
You'd think that onceSpc. Thomas Wilson spoke up and set the record straight about his workwith Pitts before hisconfrontaton with Rumsfeld would lead some people back to the issueat hand.
But you'd have to be awfully naiive, wouldn't you?
Reporter mentions they'd worked on the questions together. Rightwing media uses this as excuse to dodge issue (more on that later). Soldier says, yeah, he suggested I tone it down a bit, but I saidno. Right wing media continues to ignore issue.
Need proof that the truth doesn't matter? (who said irony was dead?)
Thisis the truth.
The reporter, far from being the protagonist, suggested that hefind"a less brash way of asking the question," but Wilson "told him no,that I wanted to make my point very clear."
Wilson says he also came up with three alternate questions on hisown.
Thisis someone who can't handle the truth.
A bump in the road? What, like this one?
Wilson is just "playing a game," he says. He is "the enemy,"who has"many masks." He is motivated by "madness and meanness." Itis alljust "hate speech."
You can reach this 'patriot' here.
And hereone can find men so totally manly that they need a special publicationto help from the real world. Now THAT's manly!
The New York Times' role in this is the most obvious: They havealways hated Rumsfeld, because 1. He is an aggressive, Republicanadvocate for the President's policies, and: 2. See 1.
See? It's not about these guys,
It's about this guy:
See? Now that's manly! You can reach these tough guys
Now, all these days later, NewsMax (don't laugh) has found someonewho's told Pitt's paper's competitor that he's pretty sure Wilson'sunit was going to get the armor anyway. Assuming, for the moment,thatthat's true, why didn't anyone tell them? Instead, they figuredtheywere just as screwed as all the other units without armor, and they'dresorted to hillbilly armor.
So this new version of events, if true, may be great news. Buttheproblem stands. How many more are sent off without what it takesto dothe job?
You see, this is why the war's opponents are told that they don'tsupport the troops by those who support the war. It's called"projection."
Look, nothing's going to burst the bubble of those who don't want itburst. When the US Army, and even suits up at the Pentagon, aretalking about Halliburton's war-profiteering, we'll still have freeperstelling us we're 'fullof hate' (or some such evasive bullshit that keeps them from having to deal with the real world),just for talking about it at all.
And so it doesn't matter one whit that the greyeminence at Rand Corp. (they of the 'kernel of evil' theory)says the Iraqi invasion has been buggered, or even if ol' Luttwakhimself (Reagan's pet jingoölogist) is saying what John Kerry was supposedly saying but wasn't.
It doesn't matter. People are ready to be ruled. Facts are for traitors. No analysis is useful except that which confirms ThePlan.
(Would you invest money in a country that was run this way?)
The war can still be won--but only by moderate Iraqis
and only if they concentrate their efforts on gaining the
cooperation of neighboring states, securing the support of
the broader international community, and quickly reducing
their dependence on the United States.
You could give Jesus H. Christ himself the byline on that, and"patriots" would still wipe their asses on it. It just doesn'tmatter.
Given all that has happened in Iraq to date, the best
strategy for the United States is disengagement.
What're you looking at me for? You know the score.
So, Iraq. Just peachy. Social Security? Inmeltdown. Hey, who're you going to believe? Me or
Ready. To. Be. Ruled.Daily Kos :: Soldier attacked by Troop-bashers