NBC: Thanking Troops Is Controversial?
December 8th, 2007 at 08:38pm Matt Margolis
So, allegedly, the reason for NBC’s refusal to air an ad thanking our troops because the ad features the website of the organization that created the ad, and NBC doesn’t, as a matter of policy, allow for such links to be shown when the issue is controversial.
Thanking our troops is controversial?
UPDATE: NBC reverses decision.
UPDATE: NBC Lawyer who nixed troop ad gives generously to Congressional Democrats
Entry Filed under: Media
51 Comments
1. Kahn | December 8th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
In the last few weeks we’ve seen stories about:
The California legislature refusing to give education benefits to the Guard. They are the only state to not give these benefits. One liberal in the coalition stopping them said the “Nation” had decided to go to war so let the “Nation” pay for the benefits. I woner if the “Nation” decides where and when to have wildfires and earthquakes?
The city government in Cambridge Massachusetts making the Boy Scouts remove collection bozed near polling stations. These boxes were for collecting toiletries for our troops overseas. This “Support the Troops” effort was deemed political - and banned. So, I thought supporting the troops was OK? Actually that the lefts line was support the troops but not the war?
A lie?
And now - this. I removed the local NBC station from my channels (it’s not like they had anything worth watching anyways) and from my home page favorites. It’s not like when I grew up and there were three and later four networks and channels.
2. What? | December 8th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Of course thanking the troops is controversial. Thanking them implies you agree with their mission. Those who oppose the war don’t want to thank the people fighting it just as we don’t want to thank Bush for starting it.
As far as the troops go, the war’s opponents want to see them return home safely.
This post is another instance of the troops being used to cloud the purpose and objectives of the war.
This war is about Iraq and its citizen and whether our choice to go there was right or wrong.
It isn’t about making the troops feel good by agreeing to their mission.
3. Ricorun | December 8th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
NBC: Thanking Troops Is Controversial?
Obviously, that’s not the controversial aspect. It’s the advertising. I mean come on, how hard is that to see? You know Matt, rightly or wrongly I consider you to be the most intelligent of your crew here at B4V. But at the same time you seem to be the one most willing to suspend facts and logic in pursuit of your ideological goal. But in so doing, don’t you think that to the extent such a suspension is required to pursue those goals, in the end the contents of that ideology becomes more vapid?
There is a real substance to conservatism, and I know you know it. But if you constantly attempt to preach to the lowest common denominator, isn’t that likely to be all that’s left?
4. Ricorun | December 8th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Wouldn’t you know that What? would trump the vapid card. No What? — thanking the troops DOES NOT mean you agree with their mission. Good God.
5. Kahn | December 8th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
First off, my spell check thought “bozed” was an acceptable alternative to “boxes”.
But as to “what?’s” post above? Education benefits? Soap and shampoo? And Christmas cards? Thats what you are opposed to? And that is supporting the troops but not the mission?
You know, they’re winning now. The increased viloence in Afghanistan is us killing Taliban by the score. And Iraq has passed the tipping point. Neither is as safe as DC or Detroit (well, maybe).
The left is showing its true colors. Thing is, the election - the actual election is 11 months away. Keep it up left! We really can’t expose you as dicks any better than you are doing already.
6. Casper | December 8th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
What?,
“Of course thanking the troops is controversial.”
No it’s not. I’ve had two daughters, a nephew, and one of my daughter’s boyfriend serve a combined nine tours in war zones. Six in Iraq. None of them are Bush supporters. My family has sent dozens of packages and letters to them and others in the war zones, yet we pretty much disagree with the mission. I don’t thank them for supporting Bush, I thank them for putting their lives on the line for all Americans.
7. Leo Pusateri | December 8th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
This goes hand in hand with what I wrote here.
8. Ricorun | December 8th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Leo: This goes hand in hand with what I wrote here.
No it doesn’t. There’s no critical analysis there. All you’re doing is trying to feed on people’s emotions in an effort to build more snow drifts.
9. Gozer the Carpathian | December 8th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Figures they’d cave. I’ve seen the ad and I don’t see anything controversial. Heck I have more issues with the “Go Green” comercials and such I’ve been seeing. Though you don’t hear me trying to keep those comercials off the air do ya?
10. Kahn | December 8th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Rico - conservatism defeated the Soviet Union AND just recently removed the nuclear threat from three of our enemies.
All without a shot being fired.
Along the way, “liberal” fought us tooth and nail. You attacked everything Reagan did. The Pershing’s, the expansion of the Navy, SDI. Everything.
Recently you’ve attacked EVERYTHING Bush has done. Everything (yes, some of you even attack him for Afghanistan - Farenheit 911 does, for example). He was talking with too many people. He wasn’t talking to enough people. Too soft, too hard. And yet, Iran folded, and Libya, and North Korea. Is removing atomic weapons from our enemies OK? I mean - is it?
11. Kahn | December 8th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Just think what our troops are thinking this weekend as they read about this LATEST slam on the Internet. Thats the difference you know? They KNOW you are not supporting them.
12. Ricorun | December 8th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Kahn: Recently you’ve attacked EVERYTHING Bush has done.
Are you addressing me specifically? Or “me” as a member of some convenient basket you’ve constructed for yourself in your own mind? If it’s the former I can destruct that pretty easily. If it’s the latter well… that’s your problem, not mine.
13. Casper | December 8th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Ricorun,
Congratulations on becoming head of the liberal movement. Your family must be so proud. LOL
14. Kahn | December 8th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
gibbity goberty what? I mean liberals as a species.
Liberalism is like a daytime soap opera. At every critical decision point, expect them to choose the obviously WRONG choice.
15. Casper | December 8th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
BTW, did anyone notice that NBC changed their policy?
16. Ricorun | December 8th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Kahn: gibbity goberty what? I mean liberals as a species.
Okay, then it’s your problem.
17. Kahn | December 9th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Casper, yes. Heard they did today. My sister-in-law is in Afghanistan. We’re including cards for some of her co-workers in our next care package.
Rico, I don’t understand your point.
What DO liberals stand for?
Is the Democrat Party “liberals”?
During the election cycle, we had bog arguments about “progressives”. Is that over with now? Back to being “liberals”?
And, well - are you OK with supporting our troops or not? Is denying them education (California), or soap and shampoo (Massachusetts), or Christmas cards and thanks yous (NBC, until today) supporting them?
18. What? | December 9th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Ricorun writes:
Wouldn’t you know that What? would trump the vapid card. No What? — thanking the troops DOES NOT mean you agree with their mission. Good God.
What am I thanking them for? Fighting an unnecessary war? I am sure there are many great people fighting and I want to see them home safe, but thanking them? Why? For protecting our country? I don’t feel they are. For defeating terrorism? You don’t even believe they are accomplishing that? I don’t see how I am being vapid, either. I see it as being honest.
Casper writes
I don’t thank them for supporting Bush, I thank them for putting their lives on the line for all Americans.
So no matter what the war, we should thank the troops for “putting their lives on the line.” Is there anything you wouldn’t thnak the troops for? This is mindless. You are saying:
“I don’t think we should be fighting this war but thanks for fighting it.” I am fine with you sending support packages and I am fine with sending them Xmas cards and everything else but I am not okay with thanking them for doing something I feel is wrong.
Ultimately my message for them would be I am sorry you had to fight this war. It could have and should have been avoided.
This is not nearly as easy as you both make it out to be. You both oppose the war and you both know there are going to be many people coming home from Iraq questioning what they did. These people may very well not want or believe they deserve your thank yous.
19. Kahn | December 9th, 2007 at 12:27 am
“What?” - so, deny them education like California legislators using your logic? Deny them soap and shampoo like Cambridge Mass city officials applying your logic?
Oh- and we do face less of a threat because of our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines (better look it up) and elsewhere. For one thing, Libya, North Korea, AND Iraq have all abandoned their atomic bomb programs. Our military had a lot to do with that.
But - well I’m sure your tepid admission above that care packages are OK is probably a stretch for you isn’t it? You haven’t actually done ANYTHING to support them, have you?
I wish more liberals were as honest and vocal as you “What?”.
Really - shout your message from the roof tops.
20. Kahn | December 9th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Oh, and “what?” - about those vast majority of the troops that do feel strongly about what they’re doing. You know, the ones who support the war, and see the difference they’re making, and who believe in the war on terror… spit on them like your daddy did?
I mean - that is the legacy of the “far left” isn’t it? Spitting on soldiers and calling them baby killers? I’ve seen some “liberals” doing it already. You know YOU want to “what?” - don’t you?
http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/314/
21. What? | December 9th, 2007 at 2:48 am
Oh yeah Kahn,
Take it to the extreme. I never said we deny soldiers anything. I would also never spit on them. I have good freinds in the military and my Dad was in the Army during Vietnam. Don’t make me into a monster to suit your ends.
Also, let Vietnam go. You are fighting a war that ended 30 years ago.
You have been trumpeting your belief that we are somehow safer but this is unsupported.
North Korea can restart their nucler weapons program at any moment just like they did after Clinton reached an agreement with them.
Iraq has become a hot bed for terrorism. They abandon their nuclear program long before 2003. Also wanting nuclear weapons is not the same thing as making them.
As for Afghanistan, we have hardly won there. Instead of finishing the job we moved on to Iraq. Your proclamations of victory are not as black and white as you think. Use some analysis.
But what is the threat? September 11 was pulled off by 18 guys who lived all over the world. They did it for no nation. They did it out of religious belief and a belief the United States was evil. The more we go down this road the more people like those 18 men we create.
I read a story this past week about how men in Morocco are going to Iraq with the hope they murder our soldiers. Whatever the outcome in Iraq, these men will still exist and multiply.
Iraq will either become a symbol of victory for them or a symbol of America oppressing Arabs.
They want a war and they will continue fighting.
At some point you will have to look at the threat and realize what it is and that the war on terror is less about defeating people and more about changing minds. You are using an old mind set to deal with a new problem.
And how do you speak for the troops. Last I checked there was not a vast majority that agreed with the war.
My friend came home from Iraq. He was in the invasion of Baghdad operating a missle battery. He said he wasn’t sure how many people he killed. He had a real hard time coming to terms with what he did, whether it was good or bad. I realize he is not going to be the only one who deals with this. You choose to ignore his conflict.
22. TiredofLibBullShit | December 9th, 2007 at 9:33 am
What? - (good name since you have no clue).
“Of course thanking the troops is controversial. Thanking them implies you agree with their mission. Those who oppose the war don’t want to thank the people fighting it just as we don’t want to thank Bush for starting it.”
But what happened to the talking point - “support the troops but not the war” or “support the troops but not the President”???
Hmmm?
Just goes to show you, the left not concerned with the troops unless they can take political advantage of them.
Losers.
23. Hates Cows--Male | December 9th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Also, let Vietnam go. You are fighting a war that ended 30 years ago.
Tell that to ol’ Spitball; he used his “hero” status in his ‘04 presidential bid, and it backfired big time…
24. Kahn | December 9th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
That link I posted is not of left wing jerks trashing the troops during Viet Nam. Thats current.
You “say” you aren’t against the troops. But California Democrats blocked education benefits in just the last few weeks - using the logic you use. And Cambridge Mass city officials made the Boy Scouts (another group the left hates) pull toiletries collection boxes last month - using the logic you use.
And those left wingers with the F#$k the troops signs, well how many of them read and post at KOS and the other hate sites? How many are card carrying Democrats?
But whatever, no amount of denial will get you any respect in my eyes “What?” What a stupid moniker by the way. “Idiot” would have been way better for you.
25. What? | December 9th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Kahn,
Am I the California legislature? No, so I cannot answer for what they do. I am also not out sptting on troops so I can’t answer for those people either. Please, address what I say instead of trying to link me with others beliefs or don’t respond.
Here is what I think:
“Why should I thank people for doing something I don’t agree with?”
This doesn’t mean I think they shouldn’t recieve Xmas cards and care packages. It doesn’t mean I hate them. I don’t think they are baby-killers. Please, answer the question I posed or don’t respond. I don’t want to hear you complain about people I have no control over.
But I would like to address this comment because it is interesting:
But what happened to the talking point - “support the troops but not the war” or “support the troops but not the President”???
You are right. Those statements are talking points, weak ones and I have never been one to follow those talking points.
The two commenters and many Congressional Democrats are avoiding answering the question above: “Why should we thank the people for carrying out the mission we disagree with?”
The oppenents of the war don’t support the mission and thus do not support what the troops are doing. Yet, they still thank the troops for carrying out this mission. They say it out of fear of being called politically incorrect or unpatriotic.
This fear is largely driven by the right who have successfully used the idea of support the troops to silence the opposition to the war.
The script is something like this
“If you attack the war you are attacking the troops. If you are attacking the troops you are a horrible unpatriotic person.”
Ultimately, the unwillingness to oppose the troops’ mission leads to half-hearted opposition. It leads to a Democratic Congress losing every time it tries to pull funding. It leads to the two commenters above voicing their opinion of the war just enough so as to only offend the die-hards on this site.
The left desparately wants to believe Bush is to blame for this war. The truth is this war belongs to everyone in this country who doesn’t say “I don’t believe or support the mission and I won’t thank people for carrying it out.”
You are right to ask the left to be honest about what they believe.
Again, attacking me for hating the troops is just dumb so please refrain. I don’t hate them. I want to see them home safe. Also, saying that I am “just like some shrieking anti-war lunatic” is also dumb. Argue me, not the person you want to argue. Lastly, refrain from the childish insults as I have.
26. Kahn | December 9th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
“What” - you use the same logic. You are a hair away from these others. Rationalize it however you want. I only see a hairs difference and that’s not much.
Oh, and which war don’t you support? Iraq? Afghanistan? Special Forces in the Philippines? Disaster relief in Bangladesh? Firefighting in the west?
Your ignorance is overpowering.
27. What? | December 9th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
How is disaster relief in Bangladesh a war?
I would be happy to thank troops for doing things I agree with and I agree with disaster relief. So thank you.
By the way, stay on point. This conversation is about our country’s invovlement in Iraq. I thought that was clear.
Again answer my question. Why should I thank the troops for Iraq when I don’t agree with it?
Stop dodging the question and please stop trying to say I agree with other when I have clearly stated over and over again I don’t.
This is about being gracious, not about sending troops stuff for the holidays. Why can’t you see the difference?
28. Kahn | December 9th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
What - exactly. Yet there were the Marines and Navy delivering supplies and treating injured. Is it OK to support THOSE troops?
You are part of a nation, a republic. These men and women swear, actually swear to defend that republic no matter what. This republic has elected officials who decide policy. A vast majority of the these elected officials sent them into Iraq. They went, and they go.
But you don’t have to thank them WHAT? I don’t expect you to.
Rationalize - hater.
29. Casper | December 9th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
What,
“The left desparately wants to believe Bush is to blame for this war. The truth is this war belongs to everyone in this country who doesn’t say “I don’t believe or support the mission and I won’t thank people for carrying it out.”
So when my daughters and my exson-in-law were deployed to Iraq right after the invasion I was just suppose to forget about them for a year and a half because I disagreed with the war? That might be easy to say if you don’t have anyone over there. The thing is, there are American soldiers over there whether we like it or not. They need our support.
One other point, if the conservatives really supported our troops, they would be a lot more concerned about making sure the troops get at least as much time off between deployments as they spend in war zones.
30. Kahn | December 9th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Casper - that arbitrary amount of time would be great. But the military is stretched thin. Do you think that the Army and marine Corps should be bigger? I do.
I wonder how the left feels about it though. Lefties? Expand the Marine Corps and Army? You on board with that?
31. Casper | December 9th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Kahn,
Yes we need to expand both the army and the marines. We should have done it five years ago.
32. What? | December 9th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Casper and Kahn,
You ignore the distinction I make. Kahn, I think you do it to make yourself feel good. Casper, I did not say forget about them and I didn’t say not to support them. I asked why would you thank them?
Kahn,
I will flip the situation so you understand.
Clinton becomes president and sends out troops to a war you are politically and morally opposed to.
You send them cards and you hope they are safe and get the protection they need. Do you thank the them for carrying out a war you don’t agree with? If so, why?
If your answer is because our government told them to, fine. To me, the discussion doesn’t end once our government makes up its mind. That is not part of America. Supporting the troops means hoping they can return safetly and seeing them protected, it does not mean agreeing with their mission or thanking them or the government for carrying it out.
33. Kahn | December 9th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Which war was that “What?” We did send cards to the Balkans.
Your attitude undercuts the troops. And well, leads to liberals denying education benefits because they don’t want to thank the troops and to stopping toiletries collections because they don’t want to thank the troops.
Look into the reasoning behind the California and Cambridge decisions and you tell me if they don’t sound a lot like you. Ignorance of the damage you do doesn’t mean you get a pass from me.
34. Kahn | December 10th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Look “What?”, it’s not that I don’t understand your position. I just think you’re wrong.
35. Faceplant | December 10th, 2007 at 12:47 am
“That link I posted is not of left wing jerks trashing the troops during Viet Nam. Thats current.
You “say” you aren’t against the troops. But California Democrats blocked education benefits in just the last few weeks - using the logic you use. And Cambridge Mass city officials made the Boy Scouts (another group the left hates) pull toiletries collection boxes last month - using the logic you use.”
Democrats consistently get higher marks from the IAVA than their republican counterparts. This Democrats don’t support the troops thing is literally nothing more than a GOP invented talking point.
Oh, and just in cased you missed it, the White House threatened to Veto a defense bill, and specifically stated their opposition to Military pay raises for active duty Troops, opposed a $40 a month increase in pay given to the widow’s of dead Soldiers, opposed additional benefits for surviving family members of civilian employees killed while providing support to US military operations, and opposed price controls for prescription drugs under TRICARE.
I’ll be waiting with bated breath for your post condemning Bush for not supporting the troops.
“And those left wingers with the F#$k the troops signs, well how many of them read and post at KOS and the other hate sites? How many are card carrying Democrats?”
And how many card carrying Republican readers of Powerline have raped people, or murdered people, or assaulted someone, or stole candy from a baby?
The answer of course is probably not very many. But by your logic if a small group of Republicans were arrested for a crime, then that must mean all Republicans are criminals.
Republicans have been doing this for years. They find some obscure figure who said or did some bad things, and then demand that Democrats ritualistically march in front of the TV camera’s to denounce what horrible things that person said. Then they use it anyway, as evidence of how the Democratic party is just aweful, and vile. “Did you hear what that Demcorat said? Those Democrats are horrible. They say they support the troops but they clearly don’t. I mean did you hear what this guy said?”
Ward Churchill? Seriously does anyone actually think that 99% of Democrats even knew who the hell Ward Churchill was? Yet Republicans used it as proof that the Democrats are pandering to the left, and demanded, DEMANDED, that Democrats march in front of the camera’s and answer for this Democrats actions.
36. What? | December 10th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Kahn,
I will ask again. Were you thankful to the troops who fought in the Balkans? If so, why? You giving them cards does mot mean you were necessarily thankful.
To put it anotehr way, if you saw a soldier who just returned from the Balkans, would you walk up to him and say thank you for what he did there? Why would you do that?
Kahn, this is the last time I am going to ask. I don’t know how much clearer I can make my question.
Or have you already answered it in a roundabout way by talking about the California Legislature? You would thank the soldier out of fear if you don’t others might treat the soldier unfairly?
Here is a translation of what you are saying about my views:
I shouldn’t think the way I do because other people might think like me and do things I don’t agree with.
Does this sound right to you? So if I vehemently believed abortion was wrong but don’t believe in shouting at and pushing women entering planned parenthood, should I change my views when someone accosts a woman at an abortion clinic?
You imply I would be partially responsible for this person’s actions.
37. Kahn | December 10th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Yes What?, I was. I am, by the way - as they are still there.
Faceplant. Too random to reply to.
remove the insane mandates and pork and Bush will sign it. Can’t your congressmen just do their job once without putting poison pills in the laws?
38. What? | December 10th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Why were you thankful to them for doing something you morally and politcally disagreed with?
Were you worried that if you weren’t other people would not respect the troops? That’s why you are saying I should be thankful, right?
More interestingly, would there ever be a point where you disagreed so much with a war that you could not thank those who were fighting it?
Realize I am not attacking you; and
I am not trying to win any arguement. I am just interested in your views.
These are hard questions. Notice how Ricorun abandoned the post when I asked him to answer them. I respect you for at least talking about it.
I am surprised Mark has not jumped in on this meditation on patriotism. It seems up his alley.
39. Kahn | December 10th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
What? I think your questions show signs of insanity.
Your fundamental premise is flawed, and so the questions are off kilter. Troops do what they’re told.
Since January, the House has had a veto proof ability yo bring them home. That is, to not pass a funding bill. No bill, and it can’t be vetoed. No bill, and it can’t be filibustered.
But putting force in the region which has led directly to Iran and Libya stopping nuclear programs is something you oppose? Why?
I’ve always seen the strategic advantage of troops in Iraq - look at a map and see where it sits and who its neighbors are. I’ve always equated it to walking into the middle of the prison yard and kicking the biggest baddest convict in the nuts and taking his seat. Get it? Ever read me saying that?
40. Ricorun | December 10th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Sorry What, I didn’t realize you addressed me.
Let me ask you… do you see any role at all for a military? If not, then you have a point. But you also have to accept the consequences. If so, then troops are necessary. And you can’t blame the troops for decisions that are not, and should not be, within their control. The troops don’t get to make the choice as to whether or not the war is necessary, or whether it is the best way to protect their country or fight terrorism. Those things aren’t their call. What IS within their province to decide is whether they perform the duty they have accepted in your place with dedication, integrity, and professionalism despite very extenuating circumstances and the very real risk of death.
Now, it may be the case that you don’t think the troops have performed with dedication, integrity, and professionalism. If not, say so. But if you do, then just maybe you might consider thanking them. THAT’s the level on which they should be judged. But you’re not. Rather, you’re trying to blame them for policy decisions over which they have no control. And that’s a vapid argument.
41. Faceplant | December 10th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
“Faceplant. Too random to reply to.”
No it isn’t. Democrats aren’t responsible for a small group of people who do terrible things, any more than Republicans are responsible for a small group of people who do terrible things.
“remove the insane mandates and pork and Bush will sign it.”
You may have at least somewhat of a point, if it weren’t for the fact that the whitehouse SPECIFICALLY stated it’s opposition to these portions of the bill.
Examples…
“Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.”
“Military Pay: The Administration strongly opposes sections 601 and 606. The additional 0.5 percent increase above the President’s proposed 3.0 percent across-the-board pay increase is unnecessary.”
And this…
“Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance: The Administration opposes section 644, which would pay a monthly special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the DoD Military Retirement Fund. The current benefit programs for survivors, DoD’s Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and Department of Veterans Affairs’ Dependency Indemnity Compensation (DIC), provide sufficient benefits…”
And this…
“The Administration strongly opposes section 703, which would impose price controls on prescription drugs when they are dispensed to enrollees in TRICARE through community pharmacies. The Administration believes market competition is the most effective way to promote discounts in the community setting.”
Poison pills? To the administration, the Veterans benefits WERE the poison pills.
Why does Bush hate the troops? I guess I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting for your answer to that question should I?
And I love how you completely ignore the fact that the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of American consistently rate most Democrats higher than most Republicans when it comes to pushing actual legislation that benefits troops and Veterans.
Just for fun, here’s some ratings of the Republican Congressional leadership, compared to the Democratic congressional leadership.
Members of the Republican leadership.
John Boehner C
Roy Blunt C
Mitch Mcconnel D
Trent Lott D
Jon Kyl D-
Members of the Democratic leadership.
Nancy Pelosi B+
Steny Hoyer A
James Clyburn A-
Harry Reid A-
Dick Durbin A-
Chuck Schumer B+
And just for fun here’s the Democratic presidential candidates that are currently in congress.
Hillary Clinton A-
Barack Obama B+
Dennis Kucinish C-
Chris Dodd A-
But I’m sure Veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are just a bunch of leftwing American haters as well?
42. Kahn | December 10th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Faceplant, the NRA is non-partisan also.
Looking over the credentials of IAVA, they do overwhelmingly come from extremely liberal northeastern colleges. They seem to speak exclusively to liberal (very liberal) news outlets. And, well - here is something from Blackfive:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/03/the_iava_not_pa.html
They look about as non-partisan as VVAW was.
43. Kahn | December 10th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
But Faceplant, so you agree NBC should have just run this ad in the first place?
And that California should give education benefits to the Guard like the rest of the states?
And that Cambridge was wrong to stop the Boy Scouts fro collecting toiletries for the troops?
And yes, I think they should get more money, better medical, and better education benefits as a whole.
Semper Fi
44. What? | December 10th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Ricorun,
I think you need to look up the definition of vapid.
So I need to thank the troops for doing something I disagree with because they do it with integrity?
If I disagree with policy I blame those who put it into place and I don’t thank the ones who carry it out. I am willing to thank the military for doing things I agree with. I am also willing to accept that they must do things that I don’t agree with and I don’t hold that against them. But I will not thank people for doing an act “on my behalf” I feel is immoral whether it is their duty to perform that act or not. I don’t feel they as individuals are immoral but the acts they do are. Thanking them is, whether you like it or not, showing approval or, at the very least, no dissapproval of their acts on some level.
So Rico, at what point wouldn’t you thank the troops? At what point would their sanctioned acts cross the line into something you can’t show gratitude for? For example, what if this whole torture issue was resolved in favor of waterboarding. Would you thank the soldier who performed the waterboarding on prisoners? At some point a soldier has to say he won’t do what he is asked, right? So at somepoint, don’t you need to let that soldier know you disapprove of what he does? Or do you thank him because he is waterboarding people with integrity?
I understand the distinction you make between policy makers and the people who carry out those policies. I simply don’t believe it is absolute. It starts disappearing when one’s politcal oppostion to the policy tuns to a moral oppostion.
At some point thanking the people who just follow orders becomes wrong.
45. Kahn | December 10th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
What, remember that when there’s a helicopter pulling you off your roof, or off a mountain, or out of a river.
46. Faceplant | December 10th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
“Faceplant, the NRA is non-partisan also.”
Of course they are. What’s your point? They support Republicans, because more Republicans support their cause than Democrats. The NRA supports those that help their cause, just like the IAVA supports those who help their cause.
I guess I’m just not seeing the point you are making. Non-Partisan does NOT mean that you are not allowed to support certain candidates. They are a political action commitee, not a think tank.
“But Faceplant, so you agree NBC should have just run this ad in the first place?”
Not necessarily. NBC refused to air an add from a liberal church simply because it’s policy of allowing gays is controversial. The freedomswatch.com add was clearly an ad that was designed to give freedoms watch exposuring, while wrapping in a “thank’s to the troops” security blanket. The ad isn’t controversial. Freedomswatch.com CLEARLY is. NBC needs to be consistent. Either you allow contoversial ads, or you don’t.
“And that California should give education benefits to the Guard like the rest of the states?”
Absolutely. Without a doubt.
“And that Cambridge was wrong to stop the Boy Scouts fro collecting toiletries for the troops?”
I think they were absolutely wrong. Supporting the troops is non-partisan. Both of my Grandfathers were WWII veterans, two of my fathers cousins fought in Korea (one is MIA to this day), and one of my best friends in the world was wounded, not once, but twice in Iraq. They deserve all the support in the world. I just think supporting the troops consists of more than puting a yellow ribbon on your car, and a flag in your front yard. And for the life of me I can’t see how most these neocons EVER got a reputation for supporting the troops.
47. Faceplant | December 10th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Did I actually type the word “exposuring”? Wow.
48. Faceplant | December 10th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
“The freedomswatch.com add was clearly an ad that was designed to give freedoms watch exposuring, while wrapping in a “thank’s to the troops” security blanket.”
Let me rewrite this, considering that even I read back over it and it didn’t make a lot of sense.
The freedomswatch.com ad was clearly designed to promote a controversial group, by wrapping it in an uncontroversial message.
49. What? | December 11th, 2007 at 3:06 am
Kahn writes,
What, remember that when there’s a helicopter pulling you off your roof, or off a mountain, or out of a river.
Huh? You have to give me more than this.
50. What? | December 11th, 2007 at 3:54 am
Kahn writes
What? I think your questions show signs of insanity.
“Your fundamental premise is flawed, and so the questions are off kilter. Troops do what they’re told.”
Should you thank troops for doing what they are told when you think what they are doing is immoral?
Kahn, you need to answer the question. Yes or no?
Another hypothetical:
The national guard is ordered to collect all firearms from citizens. Do you thank the guards for doing this?
No, you wouldn’t because you believe it is wrong, right? By not thanking them you aren’t blaming them for the policy. You understand they are performing a duty. You are simply not going to show gratitude for what they are doing.
Iraq is obviously not as clear cut as this scenario. Here, no one would say it was controversial to not say thank you.
Saying thank you for the mission in Iraq is controversial because some Americans feel they are saying thank you for an unnecessary war that has ended thousands of lives while other, like you, feel they are saying thank you for fighting a war that was necessary for our protection.
The waterboarding example is the best example I can give of why saying thank you has become controversial. It forces you to question what you are thanking people for.
I know you will never accept what I am saying. You believe that the thank you you give the troops is, as Ricoruns say, for doing what they are told. I believe when that duty involves doing something I beleive is wrong, like waterboarding, that a thank you is not in order.
51. What? | December 11th, 2007 at 4:03 am
Ricorun writes,
Rather, you’re trying to blame them for policy decisions over which they have no control.
No, I don’t blame them for the policy decisions I morally oppose. I merely don’t thank them for carrying them out. There is a difference.
To give an example:
A city passes an ordinance saying all black people have a ten o’clock curfew. If the police enforce this duty on my behalf should I thank them for it?