Ray Robison, writing at the American Thinker, traces the Jessica Lynch mythology back not to the military, which (the current Waxman-pushed narrative has it) desired a propaganda hero and so propagated a false story, but rather to the Washington Post, which in its rush to report on the story relied on vague reports by unnamed “officials.” Most importantly, though, it turns out the US military corrected the story immediately, if you can believe a roughly contemporaneous piece of reporting from USA Today:
Lynch had been mythicized during the war. An initial report in The Washington Post said Lynch had killed several Iraqis. Later, government officials said she had killed no one.
Notes Robison:
The fact is it wasn’t “later” that the government warned against this fight-to-the-death story line, it was at the time of the initial reporting by the media. And as the USA Today article has correctly identified, The Washington Post did run the story first:
‘She Was Fighting to the Death’
Details Emerging of W. Va. Soldier’s Capture and Rescue
By Susan Schmidt and Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 3, 2003; Page A01Pfc. Jessica Lynch, rescued Tuesday from an Iraqi hospital, fought fiercely and shot several enemy soldiers after Iraqi forces ambushed the Army’s 507th Ordnance Maintenance Company, firing her weapon until she ran out of ammunition, U.S. officials said yesterday.
Lynch, a 19-year-old supply clerk, continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds and watched several other soldiers in her unit die around her in fighting March 23, one official said. The ambush took place after a 507th convoy, supporting the advancing 3rd Infantry Division, took a wrong turn near the southern city of Nasiriyah.
“She was fighting to the death,” the official said. “She did not want to be taken alive.” Lynch was also stabbed when Iraqi forces closed in on her position, the official said, noting that initial intelligence reports indicated that she had been stabbed to death. No official gave any indication yesterday, however, that Lynch’s wounds had been life-threatening
Several officials cautioned that the precise sequence of events is still being determined, and that further information will emerge as Lynch is debriefed. Reports thus far are based on battlefield intelligence, they said, which comes from monitored communications and from Iraqi sources in Nasiriyah whose reliability has yet to be assessed. Pentagon officials said they had heard “rumors” of Lynch’s heroics but had no confirmation. [emphasis added]
So let’s get this straight, The Washington Post single-sourced this story from one official that they couldn’t even identify. Ask yourself why they couldn’t identify a military official praising a soldier. Is that really a secret? This isn’t a whistle blower or Bush Administration insider. It would more than likely be an officer or NCO at the tactical operations center if this person existed.
So why couldn’t The Washington Post name the source? The answer is obvious; because the reporters don’t even know who it was, or if the incident even occurred. It sounds very much like one person’s ruminations in passing, chatting about rumors from unofficial sources. Then The Washington Post ran with the information despite army officials warning them about the veracity of such rumors. And this is the military’s fault? Are you kidding me?
Unfortunately, they aren’t kidding you, Ray.
Orthodox narrative insinuation—the way toward historicizing events—relies heavily on the frequent repetition of particular story-telling nodal points, just as it relies on the editing out of inconvenient “noise”, or story points that don’t service the contours of the larger narrative.
In this case, the “noise” is that early warning by the military that the source for the stories was both monitored battlefield communication and Iraqis, all of it trying to make sense of what was happening in real time, or through second- and third-hand testimony.
The military, for their part, cautioned the media that the story they were running was at best unconfirmed, and at worst unreliable—given that it couldn’t be confirmed. And, being a bureaucarcy, it would take them some time—Lynch was rescued, treated, debriefed—before the official report could and would be released.
Which, too, lends credence to the military account—one backed up by every military commenter I’ve heard from—of the Tillman friendly-fire story: it takes time for the official investigation to reach a conclusion, particularly in such a high-profile death as Tillman’s. But while Kevin Tillman is using his brother as an object lesson in an anti-war crusade, the fact remains that it doesn’t follow that a soldier killed by friendly fire wasn’t acting heroically.
So this latest concocted scandal by Democrats is simply a cynical ploy meant to play in the headlines and in soundbites, and—regardless of whether or not there is any truth to the allegations—add to the master narrative about a secret, corrupt Administration given to “cover-ups,” be it about pre-war intelligence, the firings of attorneys, email correspondence, energy committee meetings, hunting accidents, and on and on and on and on.
What makes it so loathsome is that this carefully-crafted, error-ridden Democratic narrative exploits people like Lynch and Patrick Tillman—both heroes—in an effort to run down its political opponents and, in essence, intentionally mislead the American electorate.
And to what end?
Power.
Which they hope to gain by servicing and policing the narrative—and by keeping an electorate increasingly informed solely by a soundbite culture from learning the truth.
And so it goes.
When will Republicans finally realize that they cannot trust contemporary liberals to treat the opposition with honesty and dignity? Dems these days are playing with a Stalinist rulebook that denies all quarter. It has been that way since the first day of Bill Clinton’s reign. Dems plead for civility and sucker puch their opponent every time.
It would not matter, but the Dems now care nothing for the national security.
Disgusting.
Slightly o/t, but: Am I the only one who sees Waxman and thinks he should be lurking under a bridge or something?…
Sounds like someone just plain made something up –
A very cursory search (I used Dogpile) shows that Susan Schmidt may have had her eye on the “women in combat” issue for a while before all this broke.
Actually, when I see Waxman I think that a Paiute family is going to walk out of his nostrils and build a fire on his upper lip.
The alternate example of media manipulation (yes I know there are so many examples it’s difficult to keep track) was the Abu Ghraib story.
Back in early January 2004 I remember watching CENTCOM’s press conference from Iraq discuss the fact that the military had been investigating the prison’s misconduct.
As I recall, the media did not report on Abu Ghraib until late March or early April when they had pictures. Of course, I don’t recall the media mentioning that the military had already been investigating the prison for several months.
OK fess up, is there anyone out ther who hasn’t been supeoned by Waxman?
SOB got me for the third time the other day when I was in the bathroon at TJ Maxx. I swear I was just trying to cover up some graffiti with my coat so my four year old wouldn’t spend the rest of kindergarten drawing a cock and balls all over every piece of paper the teacher gives him. But NOOOOOO! He got right in my face and yelled, “LIAR”! and the next thing I knew, I’m served.
I still can’t figure out what he was doing looking through that glory hole anyway, I told him in the fitting room that I wasn’t alone or carrying cash that day. He doesn’t look worth $17.50 to me anyway. The moustache might be fun, I suppose.
Democrats are building a false narrative to intentionally mislead the American people? That’s your point?
The facts about Tillman’s death are still not fully known. Friendly fire perhaps but here was the best known soldier in the military who was arguing loud and long against his country’s invasion of Iraq.
As for Ms. Lynch, the military may have struggled to glean the facts but the corporate media wanted a hero to emerge from a widening debacle and quickly tabbed her. Was that the doing of democrats in congress?
It seems to me is that the so-called conservative /neo-conservative movement is collapsing and good riddance. As for this site, I get the blogger’s righteous indignation at being marginalized but it’s stunning to still read about the need to quell dissent.
d.
New Orleans, LA
Distoring history to suit one’s political needs in the present = dissent.
Thanks, Don. That’s a good clarification to have.
No, Don. But not pointing out that the media jumped the gun and ran the story without confirmation is the doing of the democrats in Congress. Not backing up the military and placing the blame on them is the doing of the democrats in Congress.
Nice little piece of innuendo there Don. Let me try:
The facts of the levee breaches in New Orleans will never be fully known, but the whereabouts of Don, a resident of New Orleans have yet to be confirmed for that time.
Now that was fun!
I’ve already heard Waxman (and others) attempt to weave this into some kind of Grand Unified Theory of Official Dishonesty to attempt to deny the Bush people any traction in his upcoming series of show trials. Well, you know, they lied about so-and-so, you can’t believe them now…
Hell, I called Hugh Hewitt’s show with the same observation, back when the story “broke”.
What exactly is your point here? Are you saying that he was murdered for “arguing loud and long against his country’s invasion of Iraq?” That’s kind of how I read that. Or is it just a red herring, as it bears no relation to Jeff’s essay in the slightest?
And no, the creation of the Jessica Lynch myth was not the doing of the Democrats in Congress. However, with these hearings Waxman is cynically and dishonestly exploiting said myth. At least that is what I gather to be Jeff’s point.
Really? I seem to have missed that one. Care to give us a little backup on that, or are we going have to wait for one sentence from an SI article that came out years after he was KIA?
Oh, wait, now I remember, SPC Tillman was always looking for reporters and sounding off – darn it, the 75th couldn’t keep him away from the press…
Oy.
Wow.
Is there a depth people won’t sink to in their paranoia?
They’re trying to arrive at a definite value for infinity.
Well, he is from New Orleans. You can’t expect much from him.
Any81 could see that.
Don, when you start seeing conspiracies in every notable event in the news, its time to start looking for professional help.
Let me guess, you saw a video at DU of some guy using three hamsters, a slingshot and a pogo stick proving that it couldn’t have been accidental.
C’mon, B Moe. Pogo sticks don’t lie.
Hamsters do sometimes, but not about genuine research.
“MAJ” John,
I’m former enlisted soldier who once held the rank of SPC and CPL, and I find your flippant disregard for refering to Pat Tillman by his proper military rank repugnant if you are doing it on purpose, or a horrible diservice to Pat Tillman’s service to his country if you are simply mistaken.
With all due respect–and if your “claim” you are an army officer is true–I would like to point out that Pat Tillman was posthumously promoted to Corporal (CPL), so he should not be referred to as “SPC.” As a commissioned officer you should respect this distinction. It might be a minor distinction to you–it is a lateral promotion within the same pay grade, E-4; a SPC is not a NCO and a CPL is–but to a lower-enlisted soldier it’s not a minor distinction. Are you being an elitist prick? Or do you think CPL Tillman didn’t deserve the promotion? Or are you just mistaken and don’t know?
By placing your rank in your comments you are obviously portraying yourself as a military member, and as a supposed officer “in the know” you should respect the proper rank of soldier, dead or alive, and address them properly by rank or not at all. Or does your sense of honor as an officer not apply to all “troops” you claim to support? If you are simply mistaken then please correct yourself and refer to Pat Tillman by his proper military rank, which is Corporal (CPL).
Or should we start referring to you as Buck Private E-1 John and call you a lousy and half-assed officer with no respect for the rank of enlisted soldiers who died for their country while in battle?
Please clarify this.
PS–please excuse the typos in my previous post. I typed it quickly.
Framkly I find your typos a horrible disservice to CPL Tillman, Major John, God, Country, and the bunion on my left big toe. How anyone could be so flippant as to not proofread such a ridiculously important manifesto is beyond me.
Now fuck off.
Sure. You’re a pedant, Gen. mat! And Major John is a gentleman who was either unaware of or had forgotten Tillman’s posthumous promotion.
There. I think that does it.
I have no idea who you are, “Pablo,” nor do I care what your opinion is on this subject. My question is directed at a specific individual and that individual is not you. Whether “MAJ John” is a gentleman or not, his continual misrepresentation of Tillman’s rank (I have seen him refer to Tillman’s rank is a couple of Jeff’s comments threads) is wrong and disrespectful to a brother soldier. Maybe you don’t understand what that means, but most real soldiers do.
Wow. First someone implies Tillman was killed for his opinions, now someone’s implying Major John’s a liar or a cad.
Tell me, mat, who is Matt Maupin and what rank does he currently hold? No doubt as someone so well informed as you will be able to answer this without resorting to Google or Wikipedia.
Might it also be that the Major was making reference to Tillman while Tillman was still alive, and thus not at that moment posthumously promoted from SPC to Corporal?
Just a possibility.
Hey, mat, what’s your rank and MOS?
At Ease (former) soldier.
A relatively minor oversight like that isn’t an excuse to go off on that tirade. On the spot correction etiquette: Point out the mistake, respectfully, and move on.
You did a disservice to yourself in your original post.
I am a fellow former E-4, Capt. mat. And while we’re on the subject of respect, you might have tried showing some by simply noting the error instead of trying to impute nefarious intent into it.
Then, you wouldn’t look like such an asshole, and people wouldn’t mock you.
no way
I don’t think he can help it, Pablo.
I don’t often see much “respect” thrown around in Jeff’s comments threads, so unless I am mistaken it’s certainly not the norm around here, as can plainly be seen by the reaction to my original comment.
“B Moe” – I am sure you fancy yourself a tough guy in your role as an internet troll, but if you spoke to me in that manner in person I am sure you’d find your pale little physique in a bloody heap licket-split.
If my original comments seemed harsh, it’s only because I consider a dead soldier’s rank, a dead soldier who died for his country, as something that we, as brother and sister soldiers, should respect and not treat flippantly. And since “MAJ John” refers to himself by military rank, he should honor CPL Tillman properly.
Sorry to get all your little panties in a bunch over this.
I don’t think you’re really sorry.
I don’t think you’re really sorry.
Correct. I’ve always been a Jeff Goldstein fan, but I find most of his commenters to be mealy-mouthed little creeps.
My criticism stands. There’s no doubt piles upon piles of b.s. surrounding Pat Tillman, but he earned his rank and should be honored correctly in that respect.
Those aren’t my panties. i’ve never seen them before. You sure you didn’t bring them in with you, Adm. mat?
but if I just say Johnny Bravo with a unibrow you’ll still know who I mean
Well, you’re one of us now, so…
From mat’s myspace bio:
So he isn’t just an asshole, he is a lying asshole.
Uh, B Moe, don’t you realize that self-describe pacifists are the most likely people to go postal at the slightest insult?
No doubt the fellow who threatened a Republican party official the other day considers himself a pacifist, too.
US magazine pinup boy who’s corpse has just been arduously buggered by Henry Waxman
Mat – if you’re going to persist in placing Major John’s rank in quotes, don’t you think it might be wise to do a bit of verification-via-Google on the off-chance that you might be slighting an honorable man?
Especially given your respect for rank?
He has “always” been a Goldstein fan, but he has no idea who Major John is. What a piece of work this one is.
For some reason Sen. Waxman reminds me of Star Trek. I don’t know why.
As for Mat I think his rank is from Star Trek as well.
moby
Careful Moe, he’s got his eye on your split and I think he wants to lick it.
meal·y-mouthed
Wow, you are good, Jeff. No disrespect to the many excellent fill in posters, but you are a special talent.
But, isn’t this just a tactical equivalance? Don’t we get the same message management from both sides?
If we judge by this scale, don’t Leni Riefenstahl, D.W. Griffith, Frank Capra, and Oliver Stone all deserve equal suspicion? All master story tellers, but their narrative leads you to wildly different destinations.
Seems to me you need something like first principles to help you judge the path and you must close your eyes and ears. Makes no sense, I know.
mat,
Down there fellah! Tillman (CPL) was a SPC when he was working the area south of where I was. I remeber him as one of the “OCF” that were doing great things sown couintry from my location. If you think I mean any disrespect to him, then you are way, way beyond wrong. I suggest you read my remarks regarding what I believe was his quite admirable sacrifice.
I was the XO of TF Dragon (CJTF 180) then I was S-5 of TF Eagle (CJTF 76). I started out enlisted, so “private” would not be so much an insult as a reminder of whence I came.
If you think I was being flippant, you are so beyond wrong it hurts.
Mat number ten thousand short time fucky-fuck sissy boy, no soljah…
There – you have my own batch of typos, which is entirely in character…
It’s pretty obvious from Major John’s post that he was referencing Tillman in the past progressive tense…
“Oh, wait, now I remember, SPC Tillman was always looking for reporters and sounding off – darn it, the 75th couldn’t keep him away from the press…”
Probably internet tough guy Mat also knew this, but wouldn’t let a little thing like honesty stand in the way of his trollish spaz attack.
If we judge by this scale, don’t Leni Riefenstahl, D.W. Griffith, Frank Capra, and Oliver Stone all deserve equal suspicion? All master story tellers, but their narrative leads you to wildly different destinations.
No, honey, they aren’t. The directors you mention all created works of fiction and advertised and sold them as such. Fiction.
Jeff is talking about people who deliberately repeat false “facts” as if they were true, thus to create the illusion that “everybody knows X” until it becomes “common knowledge.”
Check Snopes.com for heaps upon heaps of memes that have drifted into our store of “common knowledge” of things that just ain’t so. Such as the “fact” that you shouldn’t swim after eating or you’ll get cramps and die.
The difference between “fiction” and “lies” is that with a work of fiction, everybody knows that it’s just a story. No one who watches “It’s a Wonderful Life” thinks that Clarence the Angel really exists, or that he took George Bailey into an alternate timeline, and Capra never intended his story to be taken as Truth.
However, when you tell a lie, you are trying to deceive someone, either overtly or by omission. Deception is a type of malicious manipulation of other people, a tool of tyranny and evildoing.
What kills me is that I have to explain this difference at all. I have young nieces who can’t tie their shoes but who know the difference between “pretend” and “lying.”
But of course, when the PoMos unmoored signifiers from real-world signifieds, they were left with two things only:
(1) Narratives
(2) Power struggles between narratives
No allegiance to Truth, truth, facts, or reality.
“I don’t have to be accurate, I just have to be interesting.”—Stanley Fish (paraphrased)
Yeah, that’s just what we need. More fake-ass 12-year-old dick-wavers shouting irrelevant and cowardly threats of physical violence from behind their spittle-resistant keyboards.
Isn’t it lovely how Jeff’s visitors leave little “gifts” on the carpet all the time?
One of my favorite NCOs always calls me (loudly) “Battle Captain!” It’s an old thing going back to an exercise in 2000 when we first met. I don’t remonstrate him about my “proper rank” – I am rather happy to be remembered as such…
Easiest way is to go to Instapundit and do an archive search on “John Tammes”. Heh. Indeed.
Which is why I screamed bloody murder back when the University of Illinois-Chicago decided Stan the PoMo Man would be hired for a very large (taxpayer funded) salary… Thank God he’s gone now.
Thank God he’s gone now.
Gone? As in Dead Fishie? ‘Cuz his Wiki says he’s still expiring CO2.
Oh. Gone from UIC. Now he’s teaching at the Florida International University school of law.
Without a law degree.
dicentra – that says rather alot about FIU, doesn’t it now? Nothing good, but something anyways…
I think this might be where some of our trolls come from.
MJ,
Thank you for your service. Godspeed the sons and daughters of Liberty.
mat,
If you had posted this 69 word comment:
instead of your 292 word “original comment,” you would have saved 223 words, thus reducing your carbon footprint by 147 !!!
Not to mention the entirely deserved hard feelings.
Or do you want us to all die in a global ball of fire?
Please clarify this.
dicentra:
How much does it pay? Because I don’t have a law degree either.
Benefits?
Thank you, Major John, for your clarification; I appreciate your candor. Sorry if I sounded so confrontational. You know how sensitive some soldiers are about rank and the proper respect due to every pay grade or rank.
I do consider it a sensitive subject and if I mistook the reasoning behind your incorrect reference to CPL Tillman’s true rank, I apologize. Still, wouldn’t you agree that the least we brother and sister soldiers owe him is to call him by his correct rank, even if it seems trivial to some? It’s not trivial and is in fact insulting to his service and his rank. I am sure you meant no malice. To those who wish to question my service: why would I give two shits about the difference between calling a soldier “Specialist” or “Corporal” and wishing to clarify this difference if I were not a soldier or former soldier?
To all the others in here…wow, what a bunch of assholes. Really.
Hard feelings? Like I care what you dorks who hide behind anonymity and fling shit at people in here think. How brave of you to hide behind a fake name and no reference to your real self. And such phony bravado! Your anonymity and knee-jerk hubris only further proves your doughy pantload status.
HAT TRICK !!!
You know, mat–before you go on such a ridiculous poo-flinging escapade yourself–perhaps you need to read much more of the comments on this blog. I believe such a review would reveal an ENORMOUS amount of expertise on almost any subject you would care to name.
And since I am off to Baghdad next week myself, I’d appreciate it if you’d take your tired chickenhawk arguments and peddle them somewhere else. I’m really tired of them.
I don’t like you.
Where the fuck do you get off chastising people for flinging shit? Have you bothered to go back and read your original post, you rude little pinheaded dishonest excuse for a troll? Major John is possible the most beloved person on this board, I know personally you attacking him pissed me off worse than if you had attacked anyone else, including Goldstein. I appreciate your apology to him, but fuck you and your dishonest, santimonious ass for all the rest of your drivel.
And anytime you are feeling less than pasifistic down around Georgia way, drop me an email. We will see how bad ass you are to little anemic trolls living in their Mother’s basement.
No hard feelings though, right mat?
Mat—Numbah ten thousand and ONE!
You are, wishbone? Godspeed.
The hell?
Every piece of information in my identification is 100% accurate and, with some digging, leads to precise identification of me.
Now:
Based on the tone of your first comment? Because you’re a prick trying to score points in some “bash the wingnuts” contest some leftard website’s running.
No offense Major John, but I thought MayBee was voted “Most Beloved” last year. Don’t get me wrong, you’re definitely in the top 5 for belovedness, but in the interest of accuracy…..
…….oh, and Harry Reid is an empty scrotum. I’m not sure I’ve mentioned that today.
Major John,
First off, thanks for your service over the years. Those who have taken a different route know little of the sacrifices and rewards you’ve experienced. My hat’s off to all of those other commenters (and there are a bunch here) who provided honorable service to their country whill wearing the uniform.
Good to know you were enlisted as well. I started out as an E-1 in the Second Armored Division in 1974 and got out as an E-5 in 1977, got 4 degrees on the GI Bill and joined the Navy (liked the dress uniforms better)and retired as an O-5 in 2000.
I certainly didn’t view your use of “SPC” in lieu of “CPL” to in any way insult the memory of a fine and valient soldier. As a mustang myself, I view the umbrage Mat took at your rank designations to be over the top for an enlisted truly concerned with a concept of honor.
Wishbone, Godspeed to you in Baghdad. If you get to Al Taqqadam, look up my son, LCPL Brian Conlon and tell him his family loves him.
Yeow – miss a little, miss alot!
Uh, I thought Maybee was “most beloved” too. But thanks for the kind words B Moe, guinsPen and nnivea.
The difference between Specialist and Corporal is somewhat significant – Corporal is not so common, and an acknowledgement that the holder of that rank is a leader in the making, maybe with the potential to really be something special. It can be touchy, but I believe that I have explained why I used “SPC” when speaking of the time that I did.
mat, I’m cool with the appology, but please, if I may request something, lay off the bunch here. You came in breathing fire, rather than trying to establish who, what where and when. The commentariat here is full of very good people, with some very interesting backgrounds. If you have read the site for a while you will have seen some of this come out.
There are plenty of military (in fact, RTO Trainer is currently in the midst of his second OEF tour), former military, and defense related people here. Some of the non-military have done things that make you shake your head in wonder as well (hint: ask BRD what he did for Christmas).
Best thing to do on this site – Jeff sets the tone so well in this regard – is to engage in open and honest discussion, and to check fire on the invective.
Aw, come on! Next thing you’ll say is that that Mikey kid from the “Life cereal” commericals didn’t eat a bunch of Pop-Rocks, drink some soda and died when his stomach exploded…
…or if it didn’t it probably addresses a greater truth, man! /moonbat.
(Okay, some of the commentariat are sometimes serious, but have attacks of whimsy… Not that I know any specific individuals or anything. Nope. Not at all.)
I had an attack of whimsy just the other day, thought I’d never get the bathroom clean.
Geez, thanks alot, fella’s. You set a timetable for my withdrawal from the thread yet?
Major John,
I appreciate your accepting my apology.
However I framed my original comments, the fact remains your were, repeatedly, misrepresenting the rank of a fallen brother soldier.
My piss and vinegar in calling you out on this doesn’t absolve you of breaching this very simple but VITAL military courtesy. You represent yourself here with a tagline that indicates you are a field-grade officer, so maybe one would AT THE LEAST expect you to get someone’s rank–especially a magnanimous, humble, and oustanding soldier like CPL Pat Tillman–correct.
I didn’t frame my comments in any kind of knee-jerk, polemical, “liberal” vs. “convservative” manner, nor did I spew out any “chickenhawk” invectives as one commenter accused.
I framed it as one old soldier calling on a field-grade officer to show proper military respect towards a fallen brother. If I sounded like an asshole in calling you out on this, maybe it’s because, if you are a field-grade officer (which I am sure you are), you should be more cognizant of the proper respect of rank towards another soldier. Whether you breached this simple but vital military courtesy intentionally or unintentionally, the fact remains you showed disrespect, repeatedly, for CPL Tillman’s rank and service to his country by referring to him by the wrong rank.
And what’s ironic, I might add, is that I originally came into this comments thread to compliment Jeff for expressing so brilliantly (as he’s known to do) exactly how I felt watching Rep. Waxman’s (what an unctuous and disingenuous CREEP!) silly witch hunt.
Sorry for the disruption, Jeff. UGH.
You’re still my favorite rightie.
I demand a recount! It’s widely known that Maybee, uh, no I can’t do it, she’s so beloved. it’s the laundry carrying isn’t it?
Wrong. But I shan’t argue the point anymore. No use appologizing then demolishing the appology in the next breath.
Or any point to my spelling of apology…
I think my point wasn’t that your intent was to show disrespect, but that your actions did whether you think so or not. Or at least could be perceived that way. Does that make sense?
Well that went screaming off the rails, didn’t it?
Commodore mat, has anyone ever told you that you’re an insufferable blowhard with an extremely tenuous grasp on reality? Because, you know, somebody ought to.
Pablo,
I don’t think I am being disrespectful to Major John at this point. I consider this a healthy discussion bewteen two old soldiers. I already apologized for using salty and disrespectful language towards John, so now your pejoratives and disrespectful tone towards me makes you the jerk much more than anything I have done in this thread.
Your continual acrimony and puerile name calling, and hiding behind an anonymous moniker, certainly won’t give you the high moral ground or any reasonable credibility here. So what’s your point in heaving out your imaginary chest and flinging more abuseive language at me like this? That you’re the better man? Grow up.
My apology to Major John was quite sincere in the sense I was genuinely sorry for framing my inquiry with salty language and a acrimony when I should have, as was pointed out, used a more gracious and friendly manner. I would agree heartily that my original approach was out of line, but not the substance of my inquiry. I consider Jeff Goldstein a good friend and I do apologize for breaching his unwritten rules of conduct in his blog comments.
Major John seems like a reasonable man who can fight his own battles, and so far he’s been gracious and classy and I have respected that. It does not mean I’m supposed to cower and avoid asking him to clarify his words, does it? It seems to me John has handled this entire affair like a gentleman. And I am trying to return that in kind. But I am not going to stop asking him hard questions. If he refuses to answer, that’s cool, and I would respect that.
So your piling on the abuse and name calling, Paolo, isn’t exactly what I would consider admirable behavior by what Major John called a “commentariat here…full of very good people, with some very interesting backgrounds.” I checked my name calling and salty language, so could you please do the same?
I still don’t like you.
No, mat, you’ve been flailing and everyone and everything since your initial post. Your one fleeting foray into respectful behavior was short lived and inconsequential.
Which we can tell by the way you abused everyone who pointed that out to you.
By which you mean stomping up and down and demanding that he admit that you’re right about what he meant. Uh huh.
Gee “mat”, I’m “Pablo”. Did your parents give you the lower case m? Mine sprung for the capital letter, for which I am eternally grateful. ‘Cuz it looks sorta like a big puffed out chest. Hooah! Eh, former soldier? You get my drift, big fella.
I just like flogging trolls, mat. Sort of like you like to impute disrespect into other people comments and then defend the object of your imagined disrespect in impassioned terms. Which is sort of odd for a pacifist, the whole looking for a fight thing.
You might want to count up the people who have indicated that you’re an asshole, and then consider spending more time making more bad art and less time making an ass of yourself, as that seems to leave you upset when you do it in public.
Mr. Chubbles wouldn’t want you angry, would he?
Sort of like you like to impute disrespect into other people comments and then defend the object of your imagined disrespect in impassioned terms.
<b>IMAGINED?</b? Here’s a recap of what I “imagined”:
Now fuck off.
…you wouldn’t look like such an asshole,
So he isn’t just an asshole, he is a lying asshole.
Mat number ten thousand short time fucky-fuck sissy boy, no soljah…
US magazine pinup boy who’s corpse has just been arduously buggered by Henry Waxman
More fake-ass 12-year-old dick-wavers shouting irrelevant and cowardly threats.
…but fuck you and your dishonest, santimonious ass for all the rest of your drivel.
I’d appreciate it if you’d take your tired chickenhawk arguments and peddle them somewhere else. [Eh?]
Because you’re a prick trying to score points in some “bash the wingnuts†contest some leftard website’s running.
…you’re an insufferable blowhard with an extremely tenuous grasp on reality…
Just my imagination indeed.
The commentariat here is full of very good people, with some very interesting backgrounds.
Sure. Nice bunch.
that should have been “whose corpse”
The object of your imagined disrespect is CPL Tillman, Einstein. Pablo is saying you imagined that Major John was disrespecting him when no such thing occured. You are correct that you did not imagine the disrespect for you, you have to earn respect around here, it isn’t given freely.
You are now up to illiterate, lying asshole; do you want to keep playing?
So much for “brains and brawn”.
I thought it was English when I wrote it B Moe, but thanks for dumbing it down a few notches.
</i>Had you done this in the first place.
I should have, as was pointed out, used a more gracious and friendly manner.
And all this;Now fuck off.
…you wouldn’t look like such an asshole,
So he isn’t just an asshole, he is a lying asshole.
Mat number ten thousand short time fucky-fuck sissy boy, no soljah…
US magazine pinup boy who’s corpse has just been arduously buggered by Henry Waxman
More fake-ass 12-year-old dick-wavers shouting irrelevant and cowardly threats.
…but fuck you and your dishonest, santimonious ass for all the rest of your drivel.
I’d appreciate it if you’d take your tired chickenhawk arguments and peddle them somewhere else. [Eh?]
Because you’re a prick trying to score points in some “bash the wingnuts†contest some leftard website’s running.
…you’re an insufferable blowhard with an extremely tenuous grasp on reality..
Could have been avoided<i>
It’s your own damn fault.
that should have been “whose corpseâ€Â
I truly enjoy the actions of you little attack poodles who start yipping and yapping at the slightest provocation. Obviously you yapping doggies run in a little pack and it’s soooooo cute how you snarl and growl and bark so loudly. Some day soon you’ll get up the courage to bite, which would be a major step forward to manhood for most of you.
It has tremendous entertainment value watching your little theater of the absurd. Many thanks.
I’m glad I was able to fuel your hissy fit.
mat,
Every time you comment, a penguin drowns.
No no no, I was voted most befuddled.
I think that guy just questioned my manhood.
A so-called “major” step forward ?
You’re welcome.
Don’t forget to hit the tip jar on the way out.