Hugh Da Man! Or, Who Is Joel Stein?
Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein isn't backing away from his controversial article on Tuesday's opinion page in which he said that he doesn't support U.S. troops fighting in Iraq and called those who do, quote, "wusses." Conservatives were infuriated by the article, in which Stein said the soldiers were, quote, "ignoring their morality," linking to it on many conservative web sites and blogs.
Stein said he's been inundated with hate mail, but that he has no regrets, telling Reuters, "I don't support what [the troops] are doing, and I don't see the point of putting a big yellow magnet on your car if you don't. I don't think they are necessarily bad people. ... But I don't agree with what they're doing, so I don't see the logic of supporting it." Stein said he believes that whenever a politician opposes the war, but supports the troops, quote, "I just think they are covering their ass."
What do you think of Stein saying that he doesn't support the U.S. troops in Iraq because he doesn't support the war?
What do you think of Stein saying the soldiers are, quote, "ignoring their morality"?
HERE is why Joel Stein won't come on my show. He got shut down hard by Hugh Hewitt
posted by Pat Campbell @ 9:37 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
From MSM/blogger Ron Franscell at http://underthenews.blogspot.com ...
I've long believed that you couldn't be both anti-war and pro-soldier. Imagine yourself talking to a young soldier and saying: "I think everything you risk your life to do is ill-advised, inhumane, murderous, sickening and the people who declared this war are liars, cheats, thugs and swindlers who don't care if you die ... but I support you entirely."
Do you think that young soldier FEELS supported?
I served twenty years in the Navy, so I'm always biased in favor of the troops. On the other hand, I understand what he's saying. I don't agree with his final conclusion, that we not support the troops, but I do agree that leftists saying they support the troops is a cop out.
I re-read his original column, and I agree with the following:
" ... being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward."
"Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor ...."
"The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day."
(Of all those folks who have the yellow ribbons, how many have written to their Congressman lately to say they think active-duty troops should be given a larger pay check commensurate with the work and the danger?)
"All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions ...."
(It's curious that folks who love the troops as much as W. does still won't push for adequate veterans' benefits, concurrent receipt of military pensions and disability benefits, etc. I voted for W. in 2000, but I stayed home in 2004.)
I understand what Stein is saying. If one believes that troops, any country's troops, are doing what is obviously wrong and claiming they're only following orders, as did the German troops of ww2, then they should not be supported. I agree with that. My disagreement with Stein lies in my belief that our troops are there for several good reasons and most of them are doing their job in a moral and responsible way. If one could convince me that our war in Iraq were immoral (good luck with that debate, "jeb"), then I'd agree completely with Stein.
Post a Comment
<< Home