O'Reilly: Many Americans 'Paid Agents of Oppression' in Iraq
So today I wandered from a search for stories about New Orleans on Fox to where Bill O’Reilly calls the second largest armed contingent of Americans in Iraq “paid agents of oppression.” Trying to defend the largest such contingent, Billy forgets that ah… America does have mercenaries- oops, private security contractors, in Iraq and that the United States… pays them money to kill people and doesn’t ask them to swear an oath of fealty before doing so. So America does in fact have it’s very own 15,000 some force of “paid agents of oppression,” and if some 300 of them have died in the War on Terror, Billy discounts them because at least they got paid. Who can blame him really, when confusion seems rampant? Still, you heard it from Bill O'Reilly, so America must indeed be the Great Oppressor. Nice, Billy.
Why has the internet devolved into a froth of STFU over the word “mercenary?” Osama bin Laden released a new tape? Ann Coulter released a new book and still sporting a ridiculous skimpy black dress? Nope… it’s all NBC, released a STFU clip of several soldiers of Apache Company speaking on Americans who dissent from any aspect of the War in Iraq. One soldier whines that only soldiers who have served in Iraq really have anything intelligent to say. Another maintains that you can't support the troops and not agree wholeheartedly with the war... so liberals are lying. Another sniffles that if Americans don't put on a brave face and say that our soldiers are winning in Iraq, he can't feel good about himself. Other Apache Company soldiers (who didn't make the clip) possess the ability to understand why some 70% of Americans think sending more troops to Iraq is “beating a dead horse” and would rather “go back and play my PlayStation.” All reported to you by that mythical creature that con-blogs swear does not exist: a Washington Post reporter outside of the Green Zone.
William Arkin choked on his Starbucks latte and fired off a STFU: The Troops Also Need to Support the American People, on his WaPost blog, Early Warning. The gist of it being (and of course so often wildly distorted and misquoted by various con-blogs) that soldiers in uniform ought not to think they can get up and tell the American people to STFU and be quiet and obedient little homefront whores. Okay, his language wasn't that strong. But he did go out of the way to state he didn't think they'd been brainwashed or prompted by their superiors, and that they more than of course enjoyed the freedom of speech of those people these soldiers were telling to STFU. Under the indignint sputtering, Arkin had a point: the freedom of speech does not include the freedom to decide that others should be silent for your own peace, and that their superiors should point that the frak out. Certainly nothing dire will happen to those three soldiers, but I would have been immediately terminated from federal employment for making a political statement in my uniform. Arkin has another stinger for the troops in the NBC vid: the liberal anti-Iraq War movement has been bending over backwards to focus their displeasure at the political side of the Iraq spectrum. Appreciation and gratitude for this decorum are in order, and not these sneers and snipes.
900 responses served the cut off for WaPost on that article, yet an astounding number of people wrote back with wild ideas about what the
article they were responding to actually said and who Arkin actually happened to be. Most denounced Arkin as claiming soldiers didn't have First Ammendment rights and as having spent his life safe inside the confines of Washington DC. Arkin took the time to clairfy that his annoyance had not been directed towards the military as a whole, but those soldiers who suggest that dissent against the war should be suppressed for the greater good. Although his post contained no further insults, many con-blogs went on to twist his words to read so, claiming he had gone on to call soldiers inhuman and murders. Which.. sorry, but none of that's in the note. 1500 responses later, WaPost pulls the plug on the comment section: Arkin's been denounced as a traitor, comments on O'Reilly exposing Arkin as an environmentalist, suggestions he actually visit Iraq, and his being a father called a "shame." Arkin opens up his mailbag and organizes all the ways he has beendemonized, and points out that there's a difference between a debate and a mob. Arkin bows out, for the moment, and who can blame him in the face of threats of violence?
Bill O'Reily reared his head to the fore of the blood thirsty mob, charging that Arkin's blog was an attack on the military in "a very personal way" and constituted a "debacle," despite the fact that no interns were soliticited for sex by a member of Congress while Arkin sat by and typed. Herein O'Reilly defends the military's record in Iraq and Afghanistan:
O'Reilly isn't done with just ambushing Arkin when he's on a snow day in Vermont. He teams with FOX news analyst Kirsten Powers (just for an official flair) and his real guest, con-blog Michelle Malkin. Notice on the transcript page of their segment, the two cons get professional ID photos, and Arkin gets a "wild man" blurred mug shot. Surely FOX could have coughed up a professional headshot of Arkin... unless there's a deliberate message there? Wonder what it could be?
On with the show: Michelle's scared silly of course, that Arkin's going to track her down and mug her. "He's an intellectual coward. He's a thug. And he's a radical left wing loon." Michelle goes on to harp about Arkin working for Greenpeace and Human Right's Watch, implying that he worked as a primary activist. (Michelle conceals that Arkin worked for them as a military analyst, especially for Greenpeace's impact study of the Gulf War on the environment of the Middle East.) Michelle conceals (and this is important) any indication Arkin might have a background in the military, making him reputable as a "military affairs analyst and an intelligence specialist." Arkin was in the military you say? Oh yes, dear readers.
Fox passes on a threat of physical assult to Arkin. How... Stalinist. In the only other time FOX acknowledged Arkin's existence and thought to keep a record, was to quote him on possible Iraqi casualties in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Arkin is only then a "a private analyst and expert on the Iraqi military," quoted as noting that Iraqi deaths during the invasion would be a factor in a possible future Iraqi insurgency. No need to mention Greenpeace? Why not? Gee, I wonder. I just can't figure it out...
When Evil Prospers picks up the Michelle's spin nice and clean with: "You see Arkin, like most other anti-war folks, never served in the military, so they don't really understand the idea behind a "cause"." Apparently, google is a really complicated search engine to learn to use, eh? That little white lie picks up steam. We are treated to a great deal of profanity and alliteration over at BlackFive, and also "[soldiers] also happen to be the American people to a degree you and the rest of the hater clowns with your Grinch-sized hearts will never understand" and references soldiers as Arkins "betters." Blackfive then goes on to say that anyone who serves as an army soldier in the feild of intelligence is an "intel weasel." So, who would rather be a paid agent of oppression over roadkill? I would. Blackfive then descends into public confessions of a possible inability to control his bladder, and that Arkin must be a Soviet Commie spy. Don't you just love original insults? Oh wait.. didn't the USSR go away? Don't we just call it Russia now? Anyway, so amusing to find a con-blog who insults soldiers because soldiers were insulted. Clowns.
Novelty emerges in the charge that Arkin isn't a traitor because there can be no traitors to America... anyone who expresses dissent about American soldiers must be an illegal alien, so call ICE. Some intelligent people are speaking up, and should be heard. However, the avoidance of Arkin's military service bears noting for lib-logs and liberal activists, who might think that liberal soldiers opinions will be an effective counter for the con-blogs. Who are becoming less bashful in calling us all traitors, out to get the soldiers by speaking against the Iraqi Occupation: "...for the government and the population to deny them our support is a civil betrayal of the first order and a gross moral failing." Con-blogs who address his military service feel of course free to use it to attack him, claiming there must be an inner demon that makes Arkin unfit to be a soldier. Rare civility may be found, but still the underlying sentiments of evil liberals out to get the troops shines through. Yes, because that's what I think about when I see a hot young enlistee out of bootcamp. Well yes, I do think about getting them, but just.. in another way. Hehehehe.... Go to the comment section here for another American who first called a volunteer army "mercenaries."
Surely some of all this vitrile arises from how much the cons used to love Arkin.. for say... passing on praise of a human rights worker in Iraq of the US military. Or blogging that Ted Kennedy is full of s**t. Or being a leading voice against the real fruitcakes of the left and the 9-11 Truth Movement, by stating that the most diabolical conspiracy theory about 9-11 is that "the U.S. government somehow was complicit and even responsible for the events." Or smiling warmingly when Arkin hates on Hugo Chavez. But wait, what has your favorite moonbat found here??
The depth of this manufactured outrage over being called mercenaries is highlighted when it takes a moonbat to point out that being called a "wholly ineffective force" is worse. At least mercenaries get to kick @$$ and keep their pride in their boots and not their hurt little feelings.
Sticks and stones will break your bones, but names will never hurt you. And oh yeah... STFU!!
Technorati Tags:
Iraq, America, William Arkin, Early Warning, liberal, conservative, moonbat, peace
Why has the internet devolved into a froth of STFU over the word “mercenary?” Osama bin Laden released a new tape? Ann Coulter released a new book and still sporting a ridiculous skimpy black dress? Nope… it’s all NBC, released a STFU clip of several soldiers of Apache Company speaking on Americans who dissent from any aspect of the War in Iraq. One soldier whines that only soldiers who have served in Iraq really have anything intelligent to say. Another maintains that you can't support the troops and not agree wholeheartedly with the war... so liberals are lying. Another sniffles that if Americans don't put on a brave face and say that our soldiers are winning in Iraq, he can't feel good about himself. Other Apache Company soldiers (who didn't make the clip) possess the ability to understand why some 70% of Americans think sending more troops to Iraq is “beating a dead horse” and would rather “go back and play my PlayStation.” All reported to you by that mythical creature that con-blogs swear does not exist: a Washington Post reporter outside of the Green Zone.
William Arkin choked on his Starbucks latte and fired off a STFU: The Troops Also Need to Support the American People, on his WaPost blog, Early Warning. The gist of it being (and of course so often wildly distorted and misquoted by various con-blogs) that soldiers in uniform ought not to think they can get up and tell the American people to STFU and be quiet and obedient little homefront whores. Okay, his language wasn't that strong. But he did go out of the way to state he didn't think they'd been brainwashed or prompted by their superiors, and that they more than of course enjoyed the freedom of speech of those people these soldiers were telling to STFU. Under the indignint sputtering, Arkin had a point: the freedom of speech does not include the freedom to decide that others should be silent for your own peace, and that their superiors should point that the frak out. Certainly nothing dire will happen to those three soldiers, but I would have been immediately terminated from federal employment for making a political statement in my uniform. Arkin has another stinger for the troops in the NBC vid: the liberal anti-Iraq War movement has been bending over backwards to focus their displeasure at the political side of the Iraq spectrum. Appreciation and gratitude for this decorum are in order, and not these sneers and snipes.
900 responses served the cut off for WaPost on that article, yet an astounding number of people wrote back with wild ideas about what the
article they were responding to actually said and who Arkin actually happened to be. Most denounced Arkin as claiming soldiers didn't have First Ammendment rights and as having spent his life safe inside the confines of Washington DC. Arkin took the time to clairfy that his annoyance had not been directed towards the military as a whole, but those soldiers who suggest that dissent against the war should be suppressed for the greater good. Although his post contained no further insults, many con-blogs went on to twist his words to read so, claiming he had gone on to call soldiers inhuman and murders. Which.. sorry, but none of that's in the note. 1500 responses later, WaPost pulls the plug on the comment section: Arkin's been denounced as a traitor, comments on O'Reilly exposing Arkin as an environmentalist, suggestions he actually visit Iraq, and his being a father called a "shame." Arkin opens up his mailbag and organizes all the ways he has beendemonized, and points out that there's a difference between a debate and a mob. Arkin bows out, for the moment, and who can blame him in the face of threats of violence?
Bill O'Reily reared his head to the fore of the blood thirsty mob, charging that Arkin's blog was an attack on the military in "a very personal way" and constituted a "debacle," despite the fact that no interns were soliticited for sex by a member of Congress while Arkin sat by and typed. Herein O'Reilly defends the military's record in Iraq and Afghanistan:
"The United States military has performed heroically in Iraq and Afghanistan in brutal environments. For any American, any American to accuse them of being paid agents of oppression is disgraceful and far over the line of rational thought."
O'Reilly isn't done with just ambushing Arkin when he's on a snow day in Vermont. He teams with FOX news analyst Kirsten Powers (just for an official flair) and his real guest, con-blog Michelle Malkin. Notice on the transcript page of their segment, the two cons get professional ID photos, and Arkin gets a "wild man" blurred mug shot. Surely FOX could have coughed up a professional headshot of Arkin... unless there's a deliberate message there? Wonder what it could be?
On with the show: Michelle's scared silly of course, that Arkin's going to track her down and mug her. "He's an intellectual coward. He's a thug. And he's a radical left wing loon." Michelle goes on to harp about Arkin working for Greenpeace and Human Right's Watch, implying that he worked as a primary activist. (Michelle conceals that Arkin worked for them as a military analyst, especially for Greenpeace's impact study of the Gulf War on the environment of the Middle East.) Michelle conceals (and this is important) any indication Arkin might have a background in the military, making him reputable as a "military affairs analyst and an intelligence specialist." Arkin was in the military you say? Oh yes, dear readers.
"William M. Arkin is an independent writer, investigator, and consultant specializing in national security affairs. He is the "Dot.Mil" columnist for the Washington Post's online service and has written the "Last Word" column in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists since 1985. He is also a regular contributor to Defense Daily. He is an adjunct professor at the U.S. Air Force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies...
Mr. Arkin served in the U.S. Army from 1974-1978, and was an assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence of the US Commander Berlin. He was engaged in a number of covert intelligence collection projects and was the primary intelligence analyst for the West Berlin command."
Fox passes on a threat of physical assult to Arkin. How... Stalinist. In the only other time FOX acknowledged Arkin's existence and thought to keep a record, was to quote him on possible Iraqi casualties in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Arkin is only then a "a private analyst and expert on the Iraqi military," quoted as noting that Iraqi deaths during the invasion would be a factor in a possible future Iraqi insurgency. No need to mention Greenpeace? Why not? Gee, I wonder. I just can't figure it out...
When Evil Prospers picks up the Michelle's spin nice and clean with: "You see Arkin, like most other anti-war folks, never served in the military, so they don't really understand the idea behind a "cause"." Apparently, google is a really complicated search engine to learn to use, eh? That little white lie picks up steam. We are treated to a great deal of profanity and alliteration over at BlackFive, and also "[soldiers] also happen to be the American people to a degree you and the rest of the hater clowns with your Grinch-sized hearts will never understand" and references soldiers as Arkins "betters." Blackfive then goes on to say that anyone who serves as an army soldier in the feild of intelligence is an "intel weasel." So, who would rather be a paid agent of oppression over roadkill? I would. Blackfive then descends into public confessions of a possible inability to control his bladder, and that Arkin must be a Soviet Commie spy. Don't you just love original insults? Oh wait.. didn't the USSR go away? Don't we just call it Russia now? Anyway, so amusing to find a con-blog who insults soldiers because soldiers were insulted. Clowns.
Novelty emerges in the charge that Arkin isn't a traitor because there can be no traitors to America... anyone who expresses dissent about American soldiers must be an illegal alien, so call ICE. Some intelligent people are speaking up, and should be heard. However, the avoidance of Arkin's military service bears noting for lib-logs and liberal activists, who might think that liberal soldiers opinions will be an effective counter for the con-blogs. Who are becoming less bashful in calling us all traitors, out to get the soldiers by speaking against the Iraqi Occupation: "...for the government and the population to deny them our support is a civil betrayal of the first order and a gross moral failing." Con-blogs who address his military service feel of course free to use it to attack him, claiming there must be an inner demon that makes Arkin unfit to be a soldier. Rare civility may be found, but still the underlying sentiments of evil liberals out to get the troops shines through. Yes, because that's what I think about when I see a hot young enlistee out of bootcamp. Well yes, I do think about getting them, but just.. in another way. Hehehehe.... Go to the comment section here for another American who first called a volunteer army "mercenaries."
Surely some of all this vitrile arises from how much the cons used to love Arkin.. for say... passing on praise of a human rights worker in Iraq of the US military. Or blogging that Ted Kennedy is full of s**t. Or being a leading voice against the real fruitcakes of the left and the 9-11 Truth Movement, by stating that the most diabolical conspiracy theory about 9-11 is that "the U.S. government somehow was complicit and even responsible for the events." Or smiling warmingly when Arkin hates on Hugo Chavez. But wait, what has your favorite moonbat found here??
"Nothing in the description includes the United States, not just as occupier and the most prized target but also as a wholly ineffective force. The U.S. military battles here and there, headhunting for al-Qaeda, engaged in a never-ending game of “whack-a-mole” with insurgents, cat and mouse moving around to avoid faceless IED attacks on the roads and highways, barricaded in its “green” zone.
What the United States is not doing, and what its Iraqi government partner is not doing, and what neither has ever been done since day one, is provide security and safety for the citizens of the country."
The depth of this manufactured outrage over being called mercenaries is highlighted when it takes a moonbat to point out that being called a "wholly ineffective force" is worse. At least mercenaries get to kick @$$ and keep their pride in their boots and not their hurt little feelings.
Sticks and stones will break your bones, but names will never hurt you. And oh yeah... STFU!!
Technorati Tags:
Iraq, America, William Arkin, Early Warning, liberal, conservative, moonbat, peace
Labels: Arkin, con-web, Greenpeace, Iraq, liberal, moonbat, O'Reilly
posted by omelas at 1:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home