This has to be the worst article written by someone claiming to be a journalist I have ever seen. I think Jane Fonda would have wrote a more positive article about US soldiers than what this guy wrote. The propagandist journalist in question is William M. arkin from the Washington Post. You need to read the whole thing to understand the venom spewed and absolute hatred this man has for US soldiers. Here is a sample:
I’ve been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.
I’m sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that’s why it is news - and I’m also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.
I’m all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn’t for them to disapprove of the American people.
The NBC Nightly News report he is referring to you can view here.
Arkin obviously believes troops should have no right to speak their minds; we should just shut up, be IED & sniper targets, and die. Only the liberal intelligentsia like him should be allowed to speak out. It is incredible we in the military serve and die for idiots like this to have the freedom to demean everything that we do.
Arkin was only getting warmed up, it gets much, much more venomous:
These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President’s handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
Sure it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail, but even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We just don’t see very man "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.
This guy actually hints that he believes the crimes committed by a very small minority of soldiers in Iraq is not the product of a few bad apples, but committed in an organized manner. Plus his claims that no one is being spit at and called baby killers is totally false. I know this from personal experience.
Read here about how during the last anti-war protest in Washington, DC the protesters spit on a wounded soldier from Walter Reed participating in a counter protest. Once again another example of the leftists not wanting soldiers to be able to speak. We are supposed to shut up and die. Remembor akording to John Carry, we in the military are stupid, so obviously we are too dumb to make an educated opinion on an issue as complex as Iraq that only the liberal elitist’s mind can possibly understand.
As far as baby killers, I was called a baby killer even before 9/11 ever happened. In November 2000 I was stationed at Ft. Benning, Georgia and the anti-military protesters staged a huge protest of about 8,000 people at Ft. Benning. They were protesting the School of the Americas located at Ft. Benning. You wouldn’t believe the venomous signs these people were carrying. My buddy and I walked right through these protesters and received a number of sneers from these people including being called a baby killer. Most of them didn’t even notice two GIs walking through their protest though because they were too busy smoking dope right out in the open. Later on that day the protesters stormed the front gate of Ft. Benning and were carrying coffins with red paint in them. As the gate guards and MPs tried to stop the protesters with the coffins the red paint fell all over the soldiers. The whole day we had hippies running all over Ft. Benning planting flowers that had to be arrested. You wouldn’t believe who led the attack on Ft. Benning that day. It was Martin Sheen. That is why I have never watched an episode of the West Wing since that day.
These people who hate America and especially hate the US military hated us just as much before 9/11 as they do now. Harkin’s and the other anti-US protesters claims otherwise are an absolute fraud.
I need to wrap this up because I need to go to sleep soon and right now my blood is boiling as I type this, so I will only quote one more paragraph from Arkin, you will need to read the rest on your own, which I recommend so you can fully understand what these people who say they support the troops but not the war really think:
But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.
Well since I’m so unedumecatid I needed to look up the word mercenary:
1. working or acting merely for money or other reward
2. hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization
3. professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army
I have never thought of the US military as a foreign government entity, but I guess Arkin is so removed from reality that is what he considers the US military of today. Just think folks this guy is the national security reporter for one of the nation’s leading newspapers the Washington Post. Is it any wonder why people say there is a liberal bias in the media and the reporting from Iraq by the MSM is so poor?
The bigger question is why does the anti-military types want to shut up those of us in the military? Greyhawk has best answered this question even before Arkin’s rant even came out:
The conclusion is one I draw from more than just these three isolated incidents. I hate to see this, but we’re witnessing the ongoing evolution of a trend I spotted almost a year go
…most low ranking military members currently serving joined after the invasion of Iraq, virtually all people serving at this time have either enlisted or re-enlisted in a military at war. One obvious conclusion from this that I didn’t put in writing is that this eliminates the "anti-war" crowd’s treasured canard that the troops are victims who thought they were signing up for a college financial aid program and were shocked to be handed a weapon and taught how to shoot. The death of this claim necessitates a new attack - a predictable evolution of the old. To put it in simplest and honest terms it goes like this: the folks that are joining now are lowlifes…
Believing that makes it much easier to spit at wounded GIs. The "support the troops - not the war" line can only work for so long. Yes, organized attempts to perpetuate the GI as victim myth (and thus "supportable" for some) are ongoing - but their "success" is nowhere near what was hoped. And yes, deceptive attempts to portray the GIs themselves as admitting they’ve been handed their asses in Iraq are also ongoing. But eventually people will notice that when you’ve got to "fly Iraq veterans to the home states of Republican senators" in order to lend credibility to your protest it mightshortage thereof.
But there must be a reason for that, and it must be that these are lowlifes and Nazis! And the spitting begins.
Is this behavior pervasive in America? Of course not. It is becoming more common - for reasons I state above, and will become more so with time. And there are well meaning people out there who have convinced themselves the troops in Iraq simply lack the benefit of deep knowledge the average American has gained of the situation from headlines and soundbites, and that these poor troops need to be brought out of there for their own good. But eventually these folks (perhaps aided by accurate reports like NBC’s above) might realize the absurdity of that position. And while those who really do give a damn about the troops might actually come to support us (beyond the bumper-sticker level) as a result of that epiphany, those whose motives are purely political will find themselves forced to follow the path to the dark side illustrated above.
A path that seems increasingly well traveled.
If you want to read reports about what is going on in Iraq from real journalists and not from the MSM propagandists masquerading as journalists I highly encourage everyone read Michael Yon or Bill Roggio who are both embedded journalists in Iraq. They get real stories from real soldiers and don’t depend on Al Qaida video footage like the MSM does.
Even with all the anti-US goofiness I have seen in Korea before I have always maintained that by far the greatest anti-Americans and anti-US military types I have ever personally experienced are Americans themselves. I have never been treated with such venom and scorn by Korean protesters than I have by Americans like Arkin and the rest of his ilk.
You can read more replies to Arkin at the sites below:
Popularity: 3%
10:59 pm on February 1st, 2007 1
This is great. I am very happy to read such an thing.
I still kick myself (hard) for ever having been duped by the bullshit ideal the media puts out about itself - that it is a public service dedicated to objective reporting of the news - that they work hard to be objective and avoid bias.
I kick myself hard for having bought that at one time - but it was a somewhat honest mistake.
Back when I was a kid, you only had 3 TV stations and just the 3 network news shows. And since group think was already the name of the day, what you got was a uniform message that said, “These are the facts, not opinion, just the facts.”
But, as cable grew, and more and more news-type shows came out, you got something TERRIBLY IMPORTANT:
you got more and more access to the people who make/shape the news.
You got to see more of the reporters and editors on TV “talking about” the news instead of just “reporting” it.
And the more air time they got, the more obvious it became that they had strong personal views on social/political issues, and how those views shape “the news” they present became more and more traceable.
Now —– we have news orgs going for blogs….
GREAT!!!
Happy days!!!
Because —— these pricks are just giving us more access into the workings of their mind and how the media works as a whole.
They are showing just how full of shit the whole industry is.
I remember one from several months ago from a NY Times reporter (or some big org like that) who — among many other vile things —
—-related how her family was moving back into NY after having gone up state, and about how she was glad to do it, because her son was being too affected by the small town culture.
She said it made her want to throw up that her son said his favorite colors were red, white, and blue. Really. She said that….
She said driving toward the NY skyline, her son had said something patriotic, I forget what, and that had made her think of the missing towers, and it prompted her to explain to her young son how the US does this or that and made people want to come over to the US and kill thousands of innocent people.
And this is the type of people bringing us information about the world we live in.
Wonderful…
11:14 pm on February 1st, 2007 2
While I agree fully with your post, I just want to add one funny thing to lighten the mood:
You say “The whole day we had hippies running all over Ft. Benning planting flowers that had to be arrested.”
How does an MP arrest a flower? Practice?
5:49 am on February 2nd, 2007 3
Dram Man LMAO.
10:54 am on February 2nd, 2007 4
FOr the record: My own opinion is that the professional military should not be allowed to vote. And in 27 1/2 years of service, I only voted in one election (1968). (A position that I believe was similar to that of GEN of the Army George C. Marshall.)
Naysayers have been with us since the founding of the Republic. You can bet that there were those who wanted to pull out of Valley Forge. (What the hell are we doing there anyway. The troops are freezing to death for nothing.) Lincoln had his problems with those who wanted a negotiated end to the civil war that would have left the Confederacy intact. The Spanish-American war engendered a lot of opposition similar to today’s. (As it was openly neo-imperialist except as regarded Cuba) World War I and II were the exceptions (though there was still some small opposition) because public mobilization for the war engendered hostile attitudes towards those perceived to be supporting the enemy, and anti-espionage and subversion laws made voicing such opinions publicly hazardous to one’s health and security. The sad truth is that the mobilization necessary for total war creates an atmosphere which is not healthly for democratic ideals. It is to our credit that normalcy was restored in the wake of those wars. (Though some would cite the McArthy hearings as evidence to the contrary)
It is interesting to see the liberal side demanding that the state (via action through the military chain of command) muzzle the troops for expressing their support for the war. Especially since it is the liberals who seek to present themselves as the protectors of these same troops. (Too many are dying! The troops want out!) I’d be willing to bet that every statement by anyone in uniform expressing opposition to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan will get full coverage in the press, as evidence of “what the troops really feel.”
Understand that you can support the troops and oppose the war. Every American has a right to do so. But you cannot claim to support those troops unless you respect their right to have an opinion that is contrary to the sound bite you want to present. And that’s a sword that cuts two ways.
As a ps: Troops should not be out taking part in counterdemonstations that have any reasonable chance of drawing physical assaults (of which being spit upon is one). In such a case, your duty as a member of the armed forces (strict political neutrality, disciplined obedience to proper orders from constituted authority) is to stay away, ready for instant response to your military chain of command should the need for an alert arise.
Yes, as a former instructor with the School of the Americas (1978), I’d have loved to called in a Spectre gunship on those demonstrations, but being an idiot is not a capital crime. It is, for better or worse, the right of every American, and one which we serve (or served) to protect.
Hope this wasn’t too obtuse.
3:55 pm on February 2nd, 2007 5
lirelou, I agree with the majority of what you have to say but I think soldiers need to speak up now because the anti-military types are acting like they speak for us in the military. Thus that is why they need to shut us up and then use people they plant in the military to use for their “grass roots” soldiers against the war mantra. Don’t believe me they are planting anti-military types than you need to read this:
http://rokdrop.com/2006/10/31/astroturfing-in-america-and-south-korea/
That is why they are so pissed off at the NBC news reporter because he is reporting what the vast majority of us in the military think but the anti-military types want the people they planted in the military to be the ones shaping the message in the media what the troops think.
I have never read anything from Harkin condemning the soldiers speaking out against the war who were planted by anti-military groups.
8:26 pm on February 2nd, 2007 6
I’ll second Lirelou and go one further…no public servant on the taxpayer’s dime should be allowed to vote. Politics runs contrary to loyalty, duty, and selfless service.
How’s that overused saying go? “Theirs is not to wonder why, but to do or die?”
Well, it’s true.
1:34 am on February 3rd, 2007 7
… the logical implications to the premise ‘and if everyone were a public servant’ would be just what?
The current laws on the books regarding participation in partisan campaigning are, I believe, sufficient.
Regarding Mr. Arkin … ok … he’s a flamin’ idiot. Everybody seems to be aware of that, with the possible exception of Mr. Arkin.
The guy’s a troll and he writes for WaPo. Does anything else need to be said here?
2:00 am on February 3rd, 2007 8
First off I don’t agree with William M. Harkin, I think his Op Ed piece with completely wrong. I could go on a tirade about him; his opinion is not shared by all.
I also do not agree Lirelou. The professional military should be allowed to vote. If they are US Citizens they should have a voice and vote. I believe Lirelou should go out and vote. You have earned that right more than most. Treasure it, as many in the world do not have such a privilege.
I believe that members of the US Military should say what they feel without retribution. But as well all know, they cannot. Active Duty members cannot say negative things about the war or the president without possible retribution. While the UCMJ is pretty much about elected officials, military cannot speak out against the war and you all know that, this is why many have to wait until they are discharged.
As for liberals muzzling the military, there has been many on the conservative side that look to muzzle troops against the war. I have seen many conservatives who were critical of the ex generals who later came out against the war, stating they did their job, they retired and should just shut up.
In fact this administration has let go of people in the military who have questioned the president, we have lost some good people due to that.
Conservatives are trying to make the argument that if you don’t support the war, you don’t support the troops and that you in fact “hate the troops”
See people who support the war never think that people may hate the war because they do not see any benefit in the war and thus do not want to see American lives lost for it.
Afghanistan was one thing. There we were going after the terrorists. Iraq was not.
If fact pro-ware people give almost any excuse now.
Saddam ignored UN Resolutions
Saddam had WMDs and was going to go nuclear.
Saddam was tied to 9/11
We are liberating and democratizing Iraq
Sorry, we were led to believe that Iraq was a clear and present danger and now we know it is not. It’s amazing that we were led to believe that we were “liberating” these people. Well before Iraq was one country. It was separate and forced together by England and now they want to break apart again. If we really wanted to “liberate” them, we would allow them to separate themselves into the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis.
The US created a vacuum and now different factions want their freedom. It’s not what we want, it’s what they want.
Sorry to go off on a tangent
With that in mind, those who want out of Iraq do not “hate†the troops, but they want them to come home. Back to their families, back to the US.
We know US troops are given a job and they do not have to like it, they just have to do it. And Americans understand this, thus they do not hate the troops, they just do not want them to fight this war. I’m sorry but if US troops cannot understand that, then there is nothing else to day. I agree with Harkin that US troops shouldn’t take this personally.
The troops are saying, we are here suffering, sweating and dying and the Americans are saying, yes we know, we want you to come home.
5:22 am on February 3rd, 2007 9
Alvin you really need to read about the Astroturfing campaign being run by Navy seaman Jonathan Hutto. He is active duty and a liberal plant in the military:
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/2006/10/27/#006854
LT Wantada the one refusing to deploy is another liberal plant in the military. Just look at his dad’s liberal activist background. There are other liberal plants in the military as well but none of them are being prosecuted by the military for speaking their minds. Nothing has happened to Hutto in fact he won a sailor of the year award and the LT is being prosecuted for not deploying, not for bad mouthing the war.
This is a common fallacy that soldiers can’t speak their mind. Soldiers have plenty of latitude to speak their minds especially politically if they do it not in uniform and do not use their rank and military affiliation.
It is actually the liberals who want the ex-generals to shut up now because they are the ones who advocated for more troops and the removal of Rumsfeld. Now that there is a “surge” the liberals are now against more troops and need the ex-generals to shut up. Has anyone seen General Batiste on the news now? General Batiste was a great general that was run out of the military by Rumsfeld. Now that the President has done what he advocated you won’t see another microphone in front of him again. They will keep putting microphones in front of Wesley Clark though.
Also I have never seen a conservative movement to say liberals hate the troops because they don’t have too. Just watch what they do. I have personally seen what these anti-war protesters have done to solders and when I see what they did in DC recently I’m not surprised. The anti-war types like Harkin and his ilk hate the troops and we all know it.
Also you need to decide if you advocate ethnic cleansing if you believe you can just divide Iraq into three countries. So who is going to move the shia’s that live in Sammarra, Mosul, Tal Afar, etc.? Who gets Kirkuk and Mosul? The Kurds who originally made up the majority of the population before Saddam ethnic cleansed the place to where they became majority Arab? So who is going to kick the Arabs out to give it to the Kurds? Baghdad would be an even bigger nightmare to carve up. Plus are we willing to go to war with Turkey in order to stop them from invading Kurdistan if it becomes and independent state? Than when the ethnic cleansing does turn into real civil war after the US leaves then who is going to stop Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc from deploying troops to protect the sunnis followed by the Iranians deploying troops to protect the Shias?
The majority of the sunni, shia, and kurds get along in Iraq and it is ex-baathists and Iran sponsored shia extremists most notably Sadr that are causing the most problems. National reconciliation is definitely possible and the US military has made slow and steady progress to make it happen. It would be quicker if outside actors weren’t causing so many problems. So if we pull out now like you want that means you are committed to ethnic cleansing and a major regional war.
7:34 am on February 3rd, 2007 10
I only had time to scan the comments pretty fast.
Just a brief note on the liberal plants, I remember back in Iraq War I that most of the GIs who refused to go, or so it seemed on the media, were reservists and guard members. I know here in Georgia, our local guard unit made it a point to fail their performance tests out in the desert out West so they would not be shipped over. It was a pathetic embarrassment —- a lot of people who thought it would be cool to play soldier once a month and even more cool to get student loan reductions and a little extra cash in their pockets…….but not cool when they actually had to fight…
Anyway, on the soldiers not having the right to vote —- hell no! And I’m not a soldier and was discharged for a blood circulation problem shortly after basic training years and years ago…..
I can see some sense in not allowing soldiers to participate in political campaigns or take part in political gatherings. I know those same restrictions are placed on police officers here in Georgia.
But not having the right to vote??? Gee wiz………
9:41 am on February 3rd, 2007 11
RE: voting rights for the military and other public servants.
I’m with Alvin. Public servants can put aside political views and carry out tasks professionally. I despise bush and have opposed the war from the beginning, but I’d never make any critical remarks about him or the war to my impressionable young students. If President Bush were to visit my classroom, I’d shake his hand warmly and tell him how deeply honored we were to receive him as a guest. I condemn very strongly teachers and professors who abuse their captive audience of students with their own personal political views.
I trust members of the US military to carry out their jobs professionally without regard to political views.
3:16 pm on February 3rd, 2007 12
The German Army following World War II was so apolitical due to professional reforms institutionalized by Hans von Seeckt that the Nazis were forced to create private armies (SA and then the SS) to further their political goals because the Wehrmacht remained apathetic.
If I were to vote, I’d feel as if I were slipping on a blue or red armband of some sort on my uniform.
I don’t give a rat’s ass how much Americans like Mr. Harkin hate me, because for every one of him, there are probably five Koreans and ten Muslims who hate me twice as much, and they can all have a nice cup of STFU for all I’m concerned.
8:27 am on February 5th, 2007 13
[...] The anti-war people who go around priding themselves on supporting the troops and not the war, have hated the US military even before 9/11 even happened. As I mentioned before, hating the troops is nothing new as I personally witnessed these mass anti-military protests happen before 9/11 even occurred. The only difference now is that they are getting increased media attention due to the Iraq War. However, what the media won’t show is what these people actually stand for. Well courtesy of Semper Gratus here is a video of wounded US military veterans conducting a counter protest last week against the anti-military types holding a rally at the US Capitol. As you watch remember these words from the Washington Post journalist and NBC News military analyst William Arkin: [...]
8:29 am on February 5th, 2007 14
[...] William Arkin is back and this time on the John Gibson radio show. Milblogger Blackfive was on Fox News responding to Arkin’s attacks. This guy is totally revolting and I find it amazing that the Washington Post and NBC still want this guy to work for them. [...]
11:35 am on February 5th, 2007 15
I’m a “lefty” and while I regret what happened at Ft. Benning, you have to remember that “The School of the Americas” is a magnet and lightning rod for a lot of anger not just in the US, but around the world. Without getting into the specifics of its role in whatever whenever, the point is that it’s quite a symbol that attracts a lot of the most angry and radical people.
Which isn’t the majority of the people who attended anti-war protests around the recent Iraq war.
As I write in a couple recent posts, the majority of those people are not anything like those who made the special effort to go to Ft. Benning, which they consider the pit of hell itself. So I’m not surprised to hear about the reception you got, given the kind of people it is easy to imagine making the pilgrimage out there.
And as for things getting heated in protests/counterprotests – let’s be fair and not take the actions of a very few, or the embarrassing results of people losing their self-control and doing regrettable things. In the context of protesters meeting counter-protesters, I’ve seen a lot of things get heated, including verbal insults, ripping and signs, and the occasional scuffle.
I don’t know what happened with the disabled vet vs. antiwar protester, but I think it’s a big stretch to say that spitting on GI’s is typical anymore, not by a long shot.
I know you’re angry at that – hell, I am, too – but please don’t generalize from asshole action of a single or few people to it being typical of all people who marched in line with him. I’m sure there were thousands upon thousands of people that day who didn’t spit on anyone, and would find the thought of doing so against the grain of what they were protesting for. Given that it was protest vs. counterprotest, and having seen that flare up before, my hunch is that it was a personal confrontation that got way out of hand. That doesn’t excuse it, but I do think one can’t generalize from it.
Nor from the 8,000 who made a point to make a house call at Fr. Benning, as opposed to the average Joe College, soccer mom, or voting democrat like me, who voted for Kerry not because he was Kerry but because he wasn’t Bush.
Had Colin Powell run, even as a Republican, I likely would have voted for him, as many middle-of-the-road, nominal Dems would have. One of the reasons being that he’s a calm and rational person, who is distinguished by his military service. And anyone who has studied American history from WWII on would know that many of top brass are far less hawkish than the civilian politicians in charge.
I am positive that had Colin Powell, in another universe, been president in 2001, we wouldn’t be in Iraq right now, but after 9/11, there would have been stricter monitoring and pressure to make sure Saddam didn’t develop WMD, and that the proper effort to catch Osama would have been made in Afghanistan.
As it is, we’re in Iraq right now expending huge portions of our nation’s military manpower and economic resources to keep our heads above water, while Osama bin Laden continues to sit pretty somewhere safe, watching CNN and laughing his ass off.
If we really wanted a more justified regime change, we’d have concentrated our power on Afghanistan, made a real, large-scale effort to find Bin Laden, made a very public show of overturning the illegitimae Taliban and KEEPING their influence out. We wouldn’t have given radical Islam a cause celebré, since the Taliban wasn’t really anyone’s close friend, and out actions would have been more in line with the our ideology of “liberation.”
Now, America is occupying a nation in the Middle East, without a long and deep intelligence capability there, newbies in old, bloody ethnic conflicts that large, occupying armies – even Saddam’s own brutal one – was not effective at combating. On someone else’s soil. In a nearly alien cultural environment to the ones our mostly Judeo-Christian policymakers are familiar with. While heavily and obviously tied to Israel even as we try to gain the trust of the Arabic and Islamic world. And then when something like Abu Graib happens, or the inevitable war crime (it’s gonna happen, no matter how much anyone tries to prevent it, although the Bush administration certainly wasn’t sending that signal in regards to interrogation protocols and torture) get committed, the shit just gets deeper.
This is exactly what I feared from BEFORE day 1. And now, it’s all come true, in spades. Usually, I am one of those people who LOVE to say, “I told you so,” but in this case, I really, really would rather not have been right.
For a lot of people like me, this was EXACTLY the reason and basis for our antiwar protesting. Not diffuse notions of “bad baby killers” or “we hate the US military” but more about not spilling American blood or pouring out the coffers of our treasury all over Iraq, since it wasn’t a clear and present (or even remote) danger to the country, in the administration’s own words before 9/11.
“The left” is not full of people so single-mindedly stupid that we’re just waiting for the chance to spit on American soldiers. In fact, my point-of-view is that the President and Congress has no business sending troops over there unless it is clear there are no other options.
And the Bush administration’s case for that was poor and desperately unconvincing, at best.
4:48 am on February 6th, 2007 16
[...] My recent postings here and here concerning the anti-war movement in America has drawn some heated comments. It has also drawn the attention of Korea blogger the Metropolitician who has a couple of posts here and here about this topic that I encourage everyone to read. [...]
6:43 pm on October 26th, 2007 17
[...] of these groups including their media allies waging this misinformation campaign support troops and they never did; they are just damn good at hiding it. Share This Popularity: 2% Watch the latest videos on [...]