See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Slapstick Politics
2. A NEWT ONE
3. (U//FOUO) at No Man’s Blog
4. Neocon News » The fate of truthers a glimpse into the future of the anti-war left?
5. Jules Crittenden » Fresh-Faced Honesty
6.   TTLF: Another Lefty Speaks The Truth As They See It About The Troops — Pirate’s Cove
7. Memo to Military Personnel: Stay Vigilant About Anti-War Activity : Gathering of Eagles
8. Hang Right Politics » Military Mistreated
9. Tel-Chai Nation
10. We will be there and “our battle cry” will be, “Never Again!” « HELLO IRAQ
11. An Anti-Iraq War Patriot » Pursuing Holiness

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

101. #101
     On March 13th, 2008 at 3:03 pm, 509th Bob said:

     terrig, I wasn’t accusing you of anything, but most people seem to think that the U.S. can only declare war on a country. Few people remember that we have previously fought jihadists as a tribal group (the Barbary Pirates), under President Thomas Jefferson, if I recall correctly.

     As to the “state of war” magic phrase, there is no such requirement that I can find. Congress must pass a Joint Resolution, which it has, authorizing the President to take military action, which it did. So, notwithstanding the unwashed left-overs from Vietnam, the United States is, indeed, “at war,” which means that the IVAW people could be federally prosecuted if they are making false claims, and the Code Pink supporters who block access to recruiting offices can be prosecuted.

     My point is simply that our political leaders lack the moral courage to enforce the law.

102. #102
     On March 13th, 2008 at 3:07 pm, terrig said:

     Zero, my husband was last in Iraq as a SPTT member. All of them came back but other friends we had made throughout the years from other units did not.
     I can understand your frustration in spending your first year of wedded bliss deployed, my husband was gone for 11 months and 23 days of our first year but was back in time to eat that frozen cake.
     Bob, I agree with you about the leaders lacking courage. I certainly wish they would grow a spine as well. Sometimes it’s good to have a History lesson every now and then!

103. #103
     On March 13th, 2008 at 3:24 pm, Craig said:

     This thread is on political violence. People here can’t understand why someone would be motivated to bomb a military recruiting center. I’m trying to explain - not condone but explain - that they are motivated by deeply held beliefs about human life.

     I strongly believe in many issues…but I don’t GO BOMB someone into submission if I disagree. If the ‘peace-niks’ (in their warped minds) are resorting to what they feel is fighting ‘fire with fire’…why don’t we just have anarchy and be done with it all and not have a civil society.

     I hate anarchists, and sniveling pathetic liberals, but I don’t go to their homes or places of work and attack them.

104. #104
     On March 13th, 2008 at 3:26 pm, rightisright said:

     nyc123me said:…combined with the possibility of a new democratic government being elected on the horizon that will support the military even less, it is not unfeasible that this could lead to a military coup…

     i’m regretful to say the way things are going…the number of Americans that have no concept of the of the basics and fundamental spirit of the founding of this great country, mainly FREEDOM, your prognostication is more than likely to come true.
     Get your powder and keep it dry.

105. #105
     On March 13th, 2008 at 3:29 pm, zeroangel said:

     Terrig:

     My battle buddy was pulled away from our MiTT team near the last few months to be on a PTT team. Argueably, that duty is even more challenging than being a MiTT.

     Stuff like deployments are hard on a marriage. I tend to think they CAN strenghten them though, not always, but they can. I think that is the case with my wife and I. I really feel for the Spec Forces fellas that were working with the Iraqis and our MiTT team. Some of them were on their 4th deployment, and one or two on thier 2nd or 3rd marriage.

106. #106
     On March 13th, 2008 at 3:35 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

     We would get along great.

     Text is sterile and emotions often get confused. The old: godisnowhere. Is it God is now here or God is nowhere?

     I was an atheist. My best friend was an atheist. One of my good friends (who is an attorney) looks at the life my wife and I lead and is beginning to think there must be a GOD. I never hold what a person believes against them - unless they are a hypocrite about it!

     I don’t get my feeling hurts over this junk. How could I when most of know the price Michelle has/does pay to bring us such fun! That is why trolls like lgm get under my/our skin. Not once, given the opportunity to thank Michelle, does he consider the price she pays for his privilege to post (say on Valentines Day – even if you don’t believe in the holiday, would hurt to show respect given the idea she might and wish her well?). Often, he insults her.

     We can get along but if you hook you cart to the pig wagon, expect to get the pig treatment!

     Peace!

107. #107
     On March 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pm, rightisright said:

     While the military is the topic of this thread, let me offer my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation to all the men, women and families of the military that frequent this site. Thank you all for your service protecting us and allowing us the freedoms we enjoy.

108. #108
     On March 13th, 2008 at 3:49 pm, zeroangel said:

     How could I when most of know the price Michelle has/does pay to bring us such fun!

     Hmm… yes ’tis fun. I really should not have so much fun on this thing and get back to work. *sigh*.

     In any case. I believe we are all capable of being civil :).

     I really should get back to work. I was swamped today and around lunch a mild anxiety attack diverted my attention and I found myself here. eeshh…

109. #109
     On March 13th, 2008 at 5:38 pm, Regulus said:

     On March 13th, 2008 at 2:38 pm, 509th Bob said:

     …

     So, is 18 USC 2388 applicable today? I’d say so, and I’d be willing to prosecute that case (I’m a federal prosecutor). The problem is, the senior officials in Government are terrified of actually enforcing the law. I don’t know why. Write your Senator and Congressman and have them ask the Attorney General of the United States why he (and the U.S. Department of Justice) is not enforcing the law.

     I’d venture an educated guess that the reason why the administration via the Justice Department is playing laissez-faire with seditionists is because they suspect (probably correctly) that the news media focus would fall entirely on the “heavy-handed” and “disproportionate” law enforcement response while saying nothing about the behavior of the newly cast “political prisoners” that triggered it.

     Consider, for example, what happened at Kent State: everyone remembers how the Ohio National Guard killed four people, but few seem to recall that in the riots “peaceful protests” that preceded that incident a considerable amount of property damage (including the burning of the Army ROTC building and assaults on firefighters who tried unsuccessfully to extinguish the blaze) and some injury to persons on and off campus were committed by those whose stated purpose was to “Bring the war home.”

     The people who are planning the upcoming round of seditious activity may well have something similar in mind. Behave provocatively, even violently, in hopes of triggering any kind of “disproportionate” response from either law enforcement or individual servicemembers.

     Even though a small majority of American public opinion now believes that we’re winning/will win in Iraq, the donkey party and its front organizations - including IVAW and most of the media - are still obsessed with snatching defeat from victory, and will do just about anything to discredit the entire war effort and to resurrect the pre-surge atmosphere of doom, gloom and defeat.

     Given the rather one-sided scenario they could face if they “engage” the seditionists and their donkey and media supporters, then if one will excuse the pun it’s understandable that the military and law enforcement are reluctant to give them any ammunition for the pursuit of that ignoble objective.

110. #110
     On March 13th, 2008 at 8:17 pm, 509th Bob said:

     I fear that you are absolutely right, Regulus.

     If I, and several others, went and chained ourselves in front of the entrance to some sacred-cow liberal establishment, then I would be arrested and prosecuted to within the inch of my life. The seditionists are NOT prosecuted because the political backers (i.e. Democrats in Congress) for this behavior will challenge the U.S. Government for actually ENFORCING existing law. But they WILL demand enforcement of existing laws if a “Republican” engages in exactly the same sort of illegal behavior against “their” supporters.

     If I were a defense attorney, I would counsel EVERY so-called “conservative” criminal charged with a similar offense to file an “Equal Protection of the Law” challenge against the Government, along with a Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law civil suit against the Government because they (Congress and our gutless Executive Branch “masters”) have apparently decided that “Liberals” are more equal than the rest of us, in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

111. #111
     On March 14th, 2008 at 10:50 am, FirstSkirt said:

     ZeroAngel: You, sir, have my apology for a very wrongful assumption. You also have my sincere thanks for the sacrifices you have made in the service of our great nation. I regret that I wrongfully connected you to “lgm” and can see by your postings made later that we are pretty much on the same page regarding our values. I salute your service as one vet to another; although, I wish you’d reconsider your position on abortion (I will work on you, ha! ha!) I welcome a good debate regarding this issue. Best to ya!

112. #112
     On March 14th, 2008 at 11:07 am, zeroangel said:

     FirstSkirt:

     Don’t sweat it man. It’s kewl. Thank you for your service as well.

     Re: Abortion. You can try :), but I don’t want to get into it here though because I said I wouldn’t. So till next time!

     Oh and Regulus #109: once again, very insightful.

113. #113
     On March 14th, 2008 at 12:56 pm, sfcmac said:

     Do not engage belligerents

     Like hell. Those Army recruiters have a right to defend themselves.

Comment pages: « 1 [2]