What the hell is the idiot talking about now?
Our right-wing, War Hawk Barack is talking about Vietnam, or rather repeating lies about Vietnam.
And because they are lies, you know they were immediately called out by Panhandle Media the following day, correct?
Amy Goodman devoted the full hour of Wednesday's Democracy Now! to refuting this right-wing lie, right? Wrong. She didn't even note it in the headlines.
Well surely Free Speech Radio News was all over it at least. No, they made a point to ignore it as well.
Okay, well KPFA's The Morning Show, no doubt, devoted a segment to the statements, right?
F**king wrong.
Real media didn't ignore it. For example, Michael D. Shear and Michael E. Ruane (Washington Post) covered the remarks.
Now you can be damn sure that if George W. Bush had made the exact same remarks, we would have seen a huge pushback against those lies. Barack says them and our brave beggar media sticks their collective heads into the sand. Must not ever call out the Christ-child.
Now they can waste our time by doing nothing but pimping Barack's talking points, by teasing that bulls**t out into lengthy segments -- and toss Bill Moyers onto that list as well. What the f**k is that? Day after damn day of what the White House wants told and they want to call themselves 'independent media'? And some say stand up is dead.
It's amazing that The Idiot Barack tried to get out of his long association with Bill Ayers by claiming he couldn't be expected to know about things that happened when he was "eight-years-old." Well, Weather Underground doesn't even start then. It's active for many, many years and, in fact, outlast the war on Vietnam. But Barry makes an ass out of himself last week and, apparently, we're all supposed to look away and cluck, "He was only eight-years-old."
Barack Obama has proven to be the biggest distraction and waste of time for the left. And as if all the other damage he's done isn't enough, he's now going to start reinventing reality and get away with that too?
In February 2007, Jack Shafer (Slate) noted a column by Chaim F. Shatan on his work with Vietnam veterans:
You don't have to believe in post-Vietnam syndrome or its successor, post-traumatic stress disorder, to appreciate Shatan's sympathy for vets. As he catalogs the "basic themes" of post-Vietnam syndrome, he mentions the vets' sense of guilt—for having killed and for having survived. He discusses their feelings about being victimized by "inadequate V.A. treatment and paltry G.I. benefits," and made scapegoats for atrocities their superiors were responsible for. His vets felt "duped and manipulated" by their government and brutalized by combat and combat training.
If Barack wants to take responsibility for the government's appalling treatment of veterans, please do so. But don't confuse that with the public. Vietnam split the American public. So right there the idea that there was this universal condemnation of veterans is questionable -- and really requires that you believe everyone against that illegal war was also against service members. That's a leap that only the foolish would make.
Equally true is that the assault on Vietnam was not a one-year thing. It started with JFK, it ended in the mid-seventies. Are we to believe that all those years were consistent in the response to veterans?
Are we supposed to forget the many veterans used by LBJ and Dick Nixon as props for photo ops at the White House?
Here's a reality (and it applies to Iraq today as well) on parades. After WWII was won, there were parades. They were called "Victory Parades." Grasp that?
The war was over (though it would take some time to 'wrap up') and there were parades. That wasn't the case with Vietnam. It went on far too many years and you had waves of returnees throughout. A paraded when it was finally over? There was no victory. You can't have a victory parade without a victory. Iraq today, the war drags on year after damn year, just as with Vietnam. Now more are expected to do repeated tours of duty than were back then but even so, there are waves who have returned from what will be their last trip to Iraq.
There are a number of laments on the part of veterans from that era. Some are more valid than others. The use of Agent Orange -- the use of American service members as test animals -- is appalling as was Congress' very slow response to Agent Orange exposure. But some of it really requires some knowledge not only of that time but of what happened before.
We do support the rights of veterans to receive the medical treatment they need, the educational benefits and much more. But, unlike Barack last week, we don't confuse them with heroes or issue a blanket statement calling all of them heroes. Heroes are individuals who stand out by doing something heroic. There are certainly some within the military now and in the past who would qualify as heroes. But the idea that any profession has nothing but heroes is not only illogical, it insults the ones who actually demonstrate heroic behavior by insisting we hand out a trophy to all who showed up.
And it insults and degrades the left when Barack's constant attacks on the left are ignored. They need to be called out. Whenever he wants to bolster his persona, he goes on attack and there's no one who's received more black eyes and broken bones from Barack than the left.
