POST SCRIPTS

Yeah Steve, what do you know about Iraq? I'll be in my SUV waiting for your response.

Where I worked as a detective and as a narcotics officer, crime was unusually high and there was plenty of stress.

It was expected that most of our sworn personnel would not make it more than six to seven years. This was mainly due to injuries, some took transfers and then there were people who just couldn't take this kind of life anymore and had to get out. Maybe just 2 or 3 out of a hundred or more officers would make it all the way to retirement.

Then there were other personnel who were not sworn, who worked in the office and they were often there for 20 years or more with no problems. They were good people too, don't get me wrong! But I can relate to where Steve is coming from, i.e.,you may work out of the same place, but your work is not always the same.

...since it is my generation that is over in Iraq fighting this war...

It is not just your generation..there are a number of vets from prior wars over there too... and it isn't your "generation" fighting this war or you'de be over there. It is people from your generation who signed up knowing that war would be a distinct possibility. There may be some that regret the decision...welcome to adulthood...it comes with the territory.

And no person I have talked to, whom has been in Iraq, wants to go back, not one.

It would be helpful to know how many that is and also whether you ever have a chance to talk with srvice people who like being in the military. i imagine the experience is quite different for people who have chosen the military for a career and for those who consciously choose to serve their country knowing the drawbacks even if they don't intend to stay in the military and make it their career.

...wouldn’t you want them to have resources if something bad happened?

YES. Liberals and the democrat party have for generations cut funding for the military. Defense of the nation is part of the Constitution and yet the legislators who are sworn to uphold it refuse to fund the military and actively speak out against it...that they do it when our soldiers are in harms way id despicable...it began in earnest in my generation so you will pardon me if I take it very personally. Frankly it makes me sick and quite angry.

I went looking for information on the numbers of soldiers choosing to go back to Iraq and couldn't find anything specific right away but I did run across an interesting first person account you might find interesting:

The following quotes are from Sports Byline USA Goes to Iraq found here: http://www.sportsbyline.com/roncomm/roncom64.htm

I went over there with no political agenda or personal political perspective. I did so purposely because it was my desire to see this part of the world, the war, Iraq and the American men and women who are fighting it on a human basis. This is the same way I approach sports and doing Sports Byline. I’m more interested in “why” something happens in sports, the human side of the athlete and the reasons behind the issues in sports than in the scores and the “x’s” and “o’s” of sports. In the war, as well as in sports, the person is the most important denominator.

One of the strong, early senses I got was about the quality of those who are wearing the American military uniform. While I was primarily involved with U.S. Army personnel, I imagine this sense is the same of all the uniformed service personnel in Iraq. I’m sure many people feel those in the Army are those who have no direction, don’t know what they want to do with their lives, are running away from something or have been trouble makers and this is an alternative to jail for them. I base these observations on a very unscientific survey I did of 5 people whom I asked, “What kind of person do you think joins the Army?” What I found universally to be the case was today’s Army, in Iraq, is made up of well focused, well disciplined, well motivated, smart, nice and very committed men and women. This is NOT a losers Army. They are the best and brightest we have.

Motivation and commitment go hand in hand. I often hear on Sports Byline that fans wish athletes played the game for the “love of the game instead of for the money.” I found in Iraq the men and women who did what they're doing, and made a commitment, did so for various personal reasons and motivation, and certainly not for the money. How else can you explain a young soldier, Lisa, lying on a bed of rocks, working under a Humvee in 130 degree heat? It's her second tour of duty in Iraq and she told me she would be back for a third tour. Or a young soldier, Chris, who told me about having to sleep outside, in the winter cold of Mosul, on a tin roof for two weeks. I heard too many stories like this to relate them all. Accept it as fact that stories like these are happening all over Iraq.

.... For me this was a trip about people who ARE the real heroes of life. Their commitment and sacrifice for no other reason than it’s their job and they said they’d do it. I thank each and every one of them for enhancing my life, and I have a deeper appreciation of theirs.
I’m Ron Barr.

I think his observations are reflective of the vast majority of our service men and women who have had to focus to accomplish an incredible task while being maligned, impuned and discredited by a good number of their fellow Americans. members of the legislature, and in the American press. I would expect this from the enemy...it is shameful from a fellow countryman.

If some of us on the conservative side are a little sensitive as to whether these bits of information are truly designed to be helpful or just another means to discredit the effort, the president and ultimately the country it's understandable. The track record for this kind of behavior goes back for many of us to our teens...we hated it then and we hate it now.

I appreciate you taking the time to comment, Steve, and welcome your participation here at Post Scripts.

I'm on my feet Tina! Well Said, and thank you.

I love this blog, it's like intellectual whack a mole. They stick their pointy little heads up and they get whacked into next week. Nice job Tina!!!

John and Toby...thanks for the kind words. jack and I aim to please but it's all made possible throught the willing participation of folks like yourselves so thank you.

And to that end I'd also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Meagan Dixon who authored the posted comment. I grabbed Steve's name from the top (didn't scroll up far enough I guess)not realizing it was Meagan who wrote the piece. So thank you Meagan, we appreciate your participation greatly. Hope you do it again. It gets hot in here at times but we try to keep it reasonable given the inevitable disagreement.

Tina is a red white and blue patriot, make no mistake about it. But the best part is her wisdom matches her patriotism.

Well Megean, fair question.

First of all, I dont see what the congresswoman was doing as supporting my comrades. She was using, what I feel to be bogus statistics, to support an anti-war position. She is exploiting statistics to supplement her anti war agenda, I don't appreciate that.

Where do my figures come from?

Well, for many people its hard to understand that some of us are actually references by virtue of our experience. I don't need to reference someone to support my statements, because I have enough real world experience to cite myself...period.

I served in Iraq as a part of special operations, my comments are based off of my personal experience, and the experience of many within the combat arms community who are very fed up with people using our service to support an agenda that most of us feel runs directly contrary to our mission.

This war is being fought by a fraction of this generation, and we are constantly subjected to the uninformed opinions of those who have little knowledge but a very clear and hostile political agenda.

Just the way I, and the vast majority of those whom I serve with see it. And by vast majority, I mean that after 9 years of active duty I can count on one hand the amount of people I know that support the statements of people like congresswoman Woosley.

Take it or leave it, thats reality.

One more point,

Your statement about being "lucky enough to escape your tour without harm."

While I experienced no direct harm to my person, I am friends with several who did, multiple times, and you don't see them hanging around feeling sorry for themselves. And Im not talking about the kind of stress that is derived from pizza hut getting your order wrong, Im talking about guys who have been shot multiple times, and are right back on the truck taking the fight to the enemy. So this notion that those of us who have a problem with the congresswoman's statements are only those of us who haven't experienced harm, is inaccurate to say the least. The whole point of my original article was to demonstrate that those of us who have been exposed to the MOST DANGER, seem to bitch the least.

Try to stay on topic. If a soldier needs help, fine, go and get it, but that majority of troops who serve in Iraq, shouldn't need it, when compared with our military s history. Again my opinion, but given my experience, probably more objective than a congresswoman with an obvious political objective.

You want to determine if this congresswoman is concerned about the troops, its not that hard. take a look at her voting record. Has she supported funding for the military in peace as well as war? Has she supported increased funding for intelligence?

If you think we are somehow fooled by the cliche "we support the troops"; and that we don't actually check to see if the voting record supports the pandering, think again Meagan.

This shouldn't be a conservative or liberal thing, but it is, and its how many of us in the service see it. Conservatives seem to support us through thick and thin, and liberals seem to oppose us at every point. were not the ones responsible for this perception...LIBERAL LEADERSHIP IS.

Wisdom, for Libby and Megan, is not just having knowledge but having the ability to break it down, understand it and speak intelligently about it. I guess we can pretend that you two and the left of this country are really concerned with the funding of the VA, and how soldiers coming back from Iraq are cared for, but the ACTIONS (What you do, not what you say) do not support that, and I don't buy it. No it is quite clear that your inference is on the negative of the proposed statistic. It doesn't matter to you the source, the research done, or the people who promulgate the information. All that matters to you is that it is negative and allows you to pretend YOU care for our military, and are the only ones who do. I guess old dogs do learn new tricks, but all things considered if you ask any combat arms military individual, they would just as soon have you ambiguous. All your so called support has done is prolonged their engagement, emboldened those they are fighting. And probably caused more cases of PTSD. Sorry, at your Coffee shops, parties Poly sci classes etc, your statements may get some mileage, but not with most people who have watched and learned the rhetoric of the left. To see the high regard the left has for our military, one just has to read one of Libby's prior posts, and she will compare them to the hun, or nazis or conquering hordes. Yet she wants us to believe that she is really concerned for the funding the VA is receiving. No it is just another negative for them to harp on. Don't acknowlege anything positive, harp on the negative, say the lies enough, people believe the lies. I believe that if William Calley was looking for a road to redemption, all he would have to do is come out against this president and the war in Iraq. The left of this county would embrace him as their new veteran hero with combat experience. Maybe even run him for President, he was in Viet Nam.

I want to say one more thing, because I think something needs some clarification.

As far as Im concerned, Steve may think differently, its not a question so much about support vs. combat arms. It is a question of what you see as the "operative" word in Post traumatic Stress Syndrome.

Many think its the word "stress". Well if that is the case then PTSD can be applied to just about anything.

The operative word should be "traumatic". As far as Im concerned, I don't care if your a Ranger, or a cook, if you were in a traumatic combat related experience, Im going to give you the benefit of the doubt. If, on the other hand, you are claiming combat "stress", well Im going to ask about the type of "combat" you were in. That is a legitimate question, given Steve's point about the standard of living for many overseas.

I know plenty of combat arms guys, that didn't see any combat, and therefore, in my humble opinion, they shouldn't be claiming PTSD.

But again, the irritating part of this, is liberals parading out PTSD numbers as part of their agenda. Which is "Lose the war, then worry about the troops."

Meagan you really got some great responses to your comments. I hope you will continue to write to us. Don't expect those that may agree with you to write in support, those who disagree are much more motivated. And I really like the name Meagan Dixon, very creative.

Jack and Tina,
Thank you for re-posting my comment, and I do appreciate the comments people have left. I am a liberal, and I am proud to be one, but I don’t think “liberals” have all the answers, just as I don’t think “conservatives” have all the answers. And I love the opportunity for discussion, because that is where you learn (which was pointed out in a comment above “not just having knowledge but having the ability to break it down, understand it and speak intelligently about it”). Unfortunately, I find that sometimes when it comes to politics, it is not about having a discussion, it is about proving who is right, and who is therefore wrong, and using negatively passionate statements to get there (and this is true for both sides of politics). A perfect example of this: I love this blog, it's like intellectual whack a mole. They stick their pointy little heads up and they get whacked into next week. Nice job Tina!!! Last time I checked, I don’t have a pointy little head, and I definitely don’t feel like Tina whacked me into next week, but hey, what a productive and enlightening comment to make!

I have found more than once on this site that the second someone utters words that can be construed as the “evil liberal lurking”, they are completely attacked. It is as if you do not want to hear what people, think, but simply want a regurgitation of what you believe to affirm your own thoughts. The reason I come back is because I think many of the points which are made are valid, and worth considering. And because Jack and Tina are open enough to discussion to post my random comment, and allow people to respond. And that, after all, is what America is supposed to be about.

I do not need to hope for those that may agree with me to support, for I am capable of standing on my own two feet and fighting for what I believe in, and I thank you Jack for the comment on my name, my mother also found it very flattering, being she was the one who gave it to me.

Here are my comments on some of the things said above:

and it isn't your "generation" fighting this war or you'de be over there. It is people from your generation who signed up knowing that war would be a distinct possibility

That is a wonderful argument Tina, but it begs the question, did you ever serve in the armed forces, and how do you know I haven’t? To answer the part of the question I can, I have not served in the armed forces, not because I didn’t want to, but because I have a heart defect which made it impossible for me to join. But it is my generation over there fighting, with less than 1% of the American population in the armed forces, people in my age group (20-29) make up right around 50% of the enlisted personnel, and right around 10% of the civilian labor force. And it is people from my generation who signed up because they knew their country was at war, and they wanted to do their part – not because there was a possibility of it. This comment was made because I wanted to emphasize that I have spoken to many, not one or two or ten, but many people who have served in Iraq, to give myself some creditability for my opinion. But, as Steve said, “Well, for many people its hard to understand that some of us are actually references by virtue of our experience. I don't need to reference someone to support my statements, because I have enough real world experience to cite myself...period.” So next time, I will not back up my opinion with fact, I will just say I have real world experience, you should believe me! I wonder how well that is going to work.

Defense of the nation is part of the Constitution and yet the legislators who are sworn to uphold it refuse to fund the military and actively speak out against it...that they do it when our soldiers are in harms way id despicable

I agree with you, cutting military funding has caused some detrimental problems in the country today, as well as cutting of funding in schools, transportation, roadway, public safety (i.e. fireman, policeman, etc.) and the million other institutions which have lost money in these times of deficit spending. I wish there was more money to go around too, I’m even one of those wacko’s who would be willing to pay more in taxes, to be able to better use the services taxes pay for. But I think there is a point which gets confused often: by saying I do not support the war, I am NOT saying I do not support the troops. In fact, I feel the opposite is true. I do not want my friends and family fighting for something that, as an American, I don’t agree with. And I simply don’t agree with the reasons the public has been given for our occupation of Iraq. The protests of the war today is often compared to the protests that went on during the Vietnam War, the difference is, today when the troops come home, people like me are not spitting at them, we are asking if there is anything we can do to help. We are sitting at packing parties, to ship supplies over to the troops, who are denied basic necessities like tooth paste and toilet paper by the government who only has their best interests at heart, and to give them a little something extra like a candy bar or a bar of soap – not because we hate the troops, but because we don’t think they should have to endure what they are going through.

It is not just our American right to voice our dissent of the government if we do not feel it is serving us, it is our American duty. And yet there are so many who call this dissent “unpatriotic”. Why? Because there are people saying things you don’t agree with? I don’t call you unpatriotic when you disagree with me.

In the movie the American President, Andrew Shepherd says,

America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve got to want it bad, because it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, ‘You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the ‘land of the free’? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the ‘land of the free’.

That quote always hits home for me. It shows that patriotism, a love or devotion to one’s country, means standing up for the rights of its citizens, if you agree with them or not, simply because they are Americans.

Steve, all I can say is you seem to oppose anything that seems “liberal” to you. It isn’t a “conservative or liberal thing”, it’s a “anyone who doesn’t agree with you thing”. I would like to remind you that there are many a Republican in office who voted for military budget cuts as well before we started this war, I guess they are just liberal Republican’s, but they are there. And I truly can not understand a veteran not supporting someone who wants to bring the troops home, and make sure they are taking care of when they get here – which is Congresswoman Woolsey’s goal. So accuse me of being a liberal, and of being unpatriotic, and not understanding what’s really going on. I find myself in good company! Heck, some of the greatest leaders of our nation were liberals! Just check out all the signatures on the Declaration of Independence to get a sampling.

“I am also very proud to be a liberal. Why is that so terrible these days? The liberals were liberators – they fought slavery, fought for women to have the right to vote, fought against Hitler, Stalin, fought to end segregation, fought to end apartheid. Liberals put an end to child labor and they gave us the five day work week! What’s to be ashamed of?”
~Barbara Streisand

I do look forward to dropping here from time to time and leaving my liberal droppings on your site, please feel free to check out my blog http://www.norcalblogs.com/iconoclastic if you find the time.

~meagan

Meagan, Thanks for posting again...you obviously have some strong opinions. I will drop by and check out your blog. My response:

Unfortunately, I find that sometimes when it comes to politics, it is not about having a discussion, it is about proving who is right, and who is therefore wrong...

It's true that people (being people) are sometimes argumentative, rude, flippant, and a whole host of other things in the world of debate and politics. But one thing I have learned is that debate has a purpose and ultimately that purpose is to discover who is right and who is wrong. Most liberals don't like the concept of right or wrong preferring instead the "there is no right and wrong" catch-all that disallows real debate because it shuns disagreement.

...did you ever serve in the armed forces, and how do you know I haven’t? To answer the part of the question I can, I have not served in the armed forces...

I wasn't assuming anything about your having served or not having served. I did not ask. My point was that your generation was not subject to the draft. Legislation has not been written that compels all people aged 18 to serve. Those who have did indeed sign up knowing that war was a distinct possibility. I said "possibility" because I was generalizing. I have no idea how many who sign up go to Iraq or Afghanistan and how many go to other less dangerous places.

No I have not served in the military. Good for you for volunteering your time and energy to support the troops. I'd still like to know how many returning service men or women you have spoken with, that enjoy their work, think the mission is important and/or would go back again.

I agree with you, cutting military funding has caused some detrimental problems in the country today...

"Causing "detrimental problems" wasn't the point. The point is that the Constitution specifically calls for the defense of the nation. It does not call for education, transportation, safety, and a million other institutions. The congress is obligated to spend money on our defense. That they refuse to adequately fund the military, particularly in a time of war, is dispicable. In times of relative peace it is still important to fund a military so that it is prepared to defend the nation...by Constitutional directive.

I’m even one of those wacko’s who would be willing to pay more in taxes...

This may sound like an "attack" but I assure you it's not meant to be. Most people who feel this way are either in a very low bracket and paying very little in taxes or they are very wealthy and paying little or no taxes because they live off their wealth and donate all the income they might make in a year...or the work they do is "foundation" work so all expenses are paid by the "foundation". Taxes only become an issue when you begin to realize the American dream and the government keeps asking for more and more and more of what you earn...and it's never enough. On top of that you can see the incredible government waste and fraud and you just begin to get that government is a huge beast that sucks the life out of the system and creates a permenant class of underachieving sucklings...wards of the state. One politician on the right described it as a wagon being pulled uphill by the few while more and more people climb into the wagon.

...by saying I do not support the war, I am NOT saying I do not support the troops. In fact, I feel the opposite is true. I do not want my friends and family fighting for something that, as an American, I don’t agree with.

I appreciate your feelings but the reality is you live in a republic and the republic voted to go to war...whether you agree or not does not matter. I know that sounds upside down but its the only thing that works unless you'd prefer to live in the chaos of anarchy or dictatorship. In a republic we have a responsibility to the republic as citizens which sometimes requires that we set aside our dislikes or disagreement.

My generation made a very big deal out of "free speech" and paid very little attention to civic responsibility (or personal responsibility for that matter.

We are sitting at packing parties...we don’t think they should have to endure what they are going through.

I'm sure you have no idea how condescending that might sound to a soldier that loves what he does regardless of hardship. Is your own "sympathy" more important to you than their decision to go into the military? I ask this because the decision to become a soldier is not one that is done without thought. It takes a special kind of person to do this job. From my perspective appreciation for the job they do would be more appropriate than is sympathy.

It is not just our American right to voice our dissent of the government if we do not feel it is serving us, it is our American duty. And yet there are so many who call this dissent “unpatriotic”. Why?

Yes it is our duty. When our chosen leaders have taken us to war with a foreign enemy we can dissent all we want to at the dinner table and in the press it isn't unusual to ask questions or offer opinions. When that dissent takes the form of actively attempting to undermine the official policy of the elected government (Nancy Palosi acting as Ambassador or Secretary of State) it is not only unpatriotic but even worse might be treason. We don't get to vote after the fact when we don't agree...we must wait until the next election. All participated...those on the left, the right and those who failed to fill out a ballot. You aren't being called unpatriotic because you disagree on certain points. You are called unpatriotic when you fail to act responsibly toward your elected government and instead give aid and comfort to the enemy. That so many of you fail to notice this is pretty alarming. It demonstrates a certain level of ignorance about world afairs.

You want to claim this land as the ‘land of the free’? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the ‘land of the free’.

Interesting speech...it's incredibly cynical though don't you think? It doesn't really say anything because it's a set up. We have taught about free speech and the right of to dissent in our schools from the beginning. The sixties radicals that behaved like hooliguns blocking off hallways and roads, preventing others from going to class or from driving into a workplace...and all the while screaming "its free speech man," were spoiled brats. They were full of themselves and looking to take out the democratic republic that had given them so much freedom to replace it with a more socialist/marxist government. This "revolution" was a 10 year binge for most of them. They loved to take an obscure event...burning a flag...and act as if someone had tried to prevent it. It made it look like others were intolerant and oppressing them. It was nothing more than theater in the streets. Now they're putting it on film...they're older and they have more money.

This wasn't directed at me but...some of the greatest leaders of our nation were liberals! Just check out all the signatures on the Declaration of Independence to get a sampling.

I doubt if there is a single signature on that document that represents a man that would agree with much of anything that liberals do or try to do today. Not what they say...they use lots of pretty words to show how much they care about people...but what they do and what the effects of what they do are.

“I am also very proud to be a liberal. Why is that so terrible these days? The liberals were liberators – they fought slavery, fought for women to have the right to vote, fought against Hitler, Stalin, fought to end segregation, fought to end apartheid. Liberals put an end to child labor and they gave us the five day work week! What’s to be ashamed of?”
~Barbara Streisand

Barbra's a great singer...she knows very little about history.

And that for me anyway is the biggest bone of contention I have with liberals as it pertains to discussion. Liberals started this business of demonizing their opponents...in modern times anyway. I got the biggest kick out of the Clintons whining about the politics of personal destruction. The bodies lying in the path of nasty liberal politics is both long and wide. Conservatives didn't start fighting back until the late nineteen eighties.

If you are being hit with sludge you don't feel you deserve in this political war, you might be right. This is a battle of my generation...I really hope yours can get beyond it somehow. Before you decide for sure and finally that it is conservatives that are so unreasonable and attacking you might want to look at the long history of attacks and dirty politics by liberals. They aren't as nice as they pretend to be.

Meagan you have to realize, that teh other two prominent liberals who used to post her regularly did not have you're passion for discussion.

Libby and Tasker converse via insult, and many here have adjusted their conversation appropriately. I started out very cordial to Tasker and Libby, it was not until they got rude that I turned it on. Maybe two wrongs dont make a right, but after a while you get tired of the misrepresentation and the condescension.

As far as Steves comments about personal experience, I have to say that to a large degree I agree with him. Your statement insinuates that you used facts while he just insisted that you accept his opinion. But Meagan the facts you stated were second hand anecdotal. His were first hand. Forst hand anecdotal evidence is the best kind if it is true, so essentially the question is whether or not Steve is telling the truth, from my experience he is.

You have to understand that the "facts" you refer to are subjective, unless you have actually experienced them. To take it to an extreme, we all work under the understanding that if we didn't personally involve our selves in an event, than we are excepting someone else's rendition. The problem that I have, is that it seems that many liberals seem to prefer the opinions of people with far less experience.

I also have to take some issue with your definition of a "liberal" there is marked difference between "classical liberals" and the modern definition. I can just as easily say that it was republicans that freed the slaves while Democrats opposed, it was republicans that pushed the womens right to vote, Republicans that passed the first comprehensive conservation laws etc. etc.

As far as your packing parties ensuring that soldiers have what their government wont provide, i can only say that I appreciate the effort, but your reasoning is wrong. I feel certain enough about my experience to say that no soldier is going with out socks and toothpaste. Our soldiers are the best equipped, best clothed, best provided for soldiers in the world, and to suggest otherwise is a bit naive. Im not trying to be mean here, but such a statement is pretty radical, and doesn't have much support in reality.

As for the opinions of service members in Iraq I can only say that Im willing to bet that for every 1 you know or have met I know and have worked with 50. So we can both claim anecdotal evidence, but mine will naturally be stronger by virtue of experience in this area. I hope you will not argue this point.

Much of the concern that Steve mentioned with liberals is universally felt through out the military. I don't know what to tell you, the perception is that liberals don't support us. And while you may not be spitting on soldiers there are some active members of your political persuasion who don't see anything wrong with burning soldiers in effigy, or defecating on the American Flag.(see Portland anti-war rally)

Knowing a little something about counter insurgency, i have to tell you that what is needed in Iraq is allot less packages with toothpaste and allot more active support from the American people.

As far as our position in Iraq, I would be happy to discuss this with you both civilly and in great detail if you would be interested. I would be very happy to hear your positions, because I do believe that you have a genuine concern for what is right.

Modern conservatives are nothing more than classical liberals in many cases. Barbra Streisand with her emphasis on government control would not get along with to many of those "liberals" who signed the Decleration of Independence.

Thanks again Meagan.

Look Meagan, you seem to be pretty civil around here, so no offense intended. I just wrote in here for the first time, but I have followed it for a few months, and Libby is going to continue to get the same treatment.

Look our generation may be fighting this war, but that doesn't mean everyone in that generation gets to take credit for the fighting.

And yeah experience counts, that stuff you learn in books was all put there because someone with some experience told a story. It never ceases to amaze me how many people, well educated people, seem to think that the text book came before the average people doing the things that resulted in the event.

Yeah I have a problem with liberals. But if it makes you feel any better I don't really care for politicians in general. the republicans have screwed some stuff up to high heaven, but as bad as some of their suggestions are, the ones from the dems are even worse!

And who the hell do you know that is going without tooth paste and socks? Come on Meagan, its like you completely disregarded my very first post where I described one of the bases over there! That wasn't a lie, that wasn't liberal bashing, that was a demonstration of how well soldiers have been taken care of in this war!

Look, Im not the best writer, and Im not exactly PC when I write, sorry, but I just don't think you know what your talking about when it comes to troop care in Iraq.

Again, sorry, not trying to be a punk, but unlike the politicians I dont care for i tend to speak my mind, which can result in some pretty raw statements from time to time.

And thanks for your response Tina more articulate than I could have pulled off.

Anyway, I think Ive had my say, so ill let you guys fight the rest of it out.

Thanks again, Jack, Tina and Meagan.

Meagan, you are young, and yes, I am a conservative, and I am proud of that. I am also very passionate about our military. I have not served, but people who are extremely important to me have and are. I can tell you though, don't wade into a life and death struggle and not expect to be bloodied. (And while it is not us on this blog doing the dying, it is a matter of life and death) It is hard for me to feel sorry for someone who jumps into a heated debate and feels bad because he or she was not "treated right." As far liberals being Liberators, I'll concede that there may have been the odd liberal who liberated, but if you look at our history as a country, as a group, the liberals have been on the wrong side of most conflicts, including the conflict to abolish slavery. I know Barbara Streisand et al would love to change history, but its just not the case. If I said something to offend you, I apologize, but this argument should not be a Liberal/Conservative argument, not while our military, your generation, my son's generation Tina's generation, and even my generation,(I was just reading about a 60 year old Sergeant Major serving in Iraq) are engaged with this enemy. Wars conducted by committee do nothing but cause more soldiers to die. We should as one nation stand to support our military in this mission. It is for our benefit. And as far as the current liberal party, look at John F. Kennedy's position on most domestic issues, he wouldn't even recognize today’s Democratic Party, let alone thinking that one of the framers of the constitution would! Don’t confuse the Party Affiliation of the signers of the constitution with the present day beliefs of liberals. If that simple fact were true, they (todays liberals) wouldn’t have a problem with a Constitutional Originalist having a Supreme Court Judgeship. I understand you are passionate, but be investigative as well.

Meagan, do you want to debate Iraq?

Well hello everybody,
I disappeared from the internet world for a while due to some “real world” commitments, and I see this discussion has been rather active while I was away. I am so excited!

So allow me to rejoinder.

I think the first, and possibly most important thing, I would like to comment on is definition. I was an English Major in college for a while (I was the typical college student and changed my major three times, finally resting with Multi-Cultural and Gender Studies – yes, please paint your liberal labels now). Anywho, having a background in English, I find myself a rather technical person when it comes to the English language, and constantly revert back to definition. I would like to share some definitions with you:

Liberal: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

Conservative: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change

Democracy: a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

With a Democrat being a person whom believes in this political idea

Republic: 1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

With a Republican being a person whom believes in this political idea

These definitions were taken from Merriam Webster online, so if you disagree with them, please argue with them, not with me, but seeing they are a universally accepted source for the English language, I tend to find them reliable.

Here are a couple of other things I would like to point out:

The opposite of a liberal is a conservative. The opposite of a republican is a democrat. It is COMPLETELY possible to be a liberal republican, or a conservative democrat.

Now, just for the heck of it, I am going to throw out one more definition:

Extreme: going to great or exaggerated lengths

With an Extremist being a person whom believes in this political idea.

It is again COMPLETELY possible to be an Extreme Conservative (I think the KKK are a great example of this) or an Extreme Liberal (and I don’t think I need to list them on this site).

My point in bringing up these definitions is because of the multiple responses to my comment:

So accuse me of being a liberal, and of being unpatriotic, and not understanding what’s really going on. I find myself in good company! Heck, some of the greatest leaders of our nation were liberals! Just check out all the signatures on the Declaration of Independence to get a sampling.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence were accused of being liberal, essentially for believing in autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. And that is not any different from what I believe in.

they fought slavery, fought for women to have the right to vote, fought against Hitler, Stalin, fought to end segregation, fought to end apartheid. Liberals put an end to child labor and they gave us the five day work week

When Barbara Stiresand said this, she was commenting on the definition of being a liberal as well. It was not a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change that fought for women to vote, for the abolition of Hitler and Stalin, who still strive to end segregation, and fought to end apartheid. It was liberals who forged these battles. And I hope that all educated people would agree these are positive changes to our world. And this has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. It was actually Republican women who started the women’s suffrage movement. But they were still liberals. In an article I read on this site earlier about 9-11 Tina says we can not talk about how things would have been if we had acted differently, the same holds true when discussing what people from history would believe in today’s political climate. And while I don’t know if Susan B. Anthony and I would agree on everything, I am sure we would find some resolve in both wanting the best for our fellow human, and working towards protecting civil liberties.

Now that I have focused on that tangent for entirely too long, I’m going to move on, but I hope that I explained myself.

Most liberals don't like the concept of right or wrong preferring instead the "there is no right and wrong" catch-all that disallows real debate because it shuns disagreement.

I disagree. I think most liberals try to consider the viewpoints of different people and understand where they are coming from. For instance, I could just come to this site and post on every article I read, “You’re Wrong!” or “You’re Right!” But where would that get any of us? Instead I try to understand where you are coming from, because maybe you know something I don’t. I think most conservatives see things in black and white; you are friend or enemy, right or wrong, patriotic or traitor. There is no room for a grey area in the conservative mindset, and I’m sorry, but people are chock-full of grey areas. I think liberals just try to remember that.

The point is that the Constitution specifically calls for the defense of the nation. It does not call for education, transportation, safety, and a million other institutions.

You are right, it dose, and that is a very good point. My counter to that – which I’m sure will evoke liberal-bashing comments – is at which point in time was our nation in need of defense? Iraq did not pose any threat to our nation. Even if they had weapons of mass destruction – and there are not many who believe they did – our treatment of the entire situation served as more of a catalyst to insight an attack, as opposed to stopping one. And our continued occupation is doing nothing but causing unrest in countries all over the world.

The teacher in me would also argue that institutions as important as education and safety would do more to defend our nation then this war ever could have hoped of doing!

Quite frankly, we are luck our Constitution is not funding the defense of our nation against multiple countries – as our acts have violated our membership in the UN – and like it or not, we are a member. Moreover, we have not hesitated in threatening war on countries whom have violated a UN treaty, so we should count our blessings that our foreign counterparts have been more lenient with us.

I appreciate your feelings but the reality is you live in a republic and the republic voted to go to war...whether you agree or not does not matter. I know that sounds upside down but its the only thing that works unless you'd prefer to live in the chaos of anarchy or dictatorship. In a republic we have a responsibility to the republic as citizens which sometimes requires that we set aside our dislikes or disagreement.

I would not prefer to live in anarchy or dictatorship – a simple democracy would work for me. And if whether I agree or not dose not matter then what are we doing here? Why do we pay attention to politics or politicians? It’s because what I think dose matter, and by voicing my opinion I let the officials that I elected know what my opinion is, so they can vote on my behalf. Because I think we can all agree that leaving it up to the politicians would be a terrible mistake.

You aren't being called unpatriotic because you disagree on certain points. You are called unpatriotic when you fail to act responsibly toward your elected government and instead give aid and comfort to the enemy. That so many of you fail to notice this is pretty alarming. It demonstrates a certain level of ignorance about world afairs.

I would love some specific examples of irresponsible behavior towards elected government, because quite frankly I think what you said was horse puck! The idea that because I do not agree with our President I am therefore giving aid and comfort to the enemy is asinine! And although I know I am pretty knowledgeable in the state of world affairs, having been to 17 countries, and being interested in different cultures and their political states, I wonder how you can lecture me on my ignorance since this site dose little to discuss political issues on a global level.

I doubt if there is a single signature on that document that represents a man that would agree with much of anything that liberals do or try to do today. Not what they say...they use lots of pretty words to show how much they care about people...but what they do and what the effects of what they do are.
Tina, I am so glad you get it! That fundamentally liberals are liberals. And although I am sure there are some things that liberals have done which have not gone wonderfully, there are also things conservatives have done which have had negative effects. And there are many liberal politicians who use pretty words to show how much they care about people, just as there are many conservative politicians who use pretty words to explain why their idea is right – they’re politicians. Cause and effect is a demon we are all accountable to – political party has nothing to do with this one!

Barbra's a great singer...she knows very little about history.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this one!

And that for me anyway is the biggest bone of contention I have with liberals as it pertains to discussion. Liberals started this business of demonizing their opponents...in modern times anyway. I got the biggest kick out of the Clintons whining about the politics of personal destruction. The bodies lying in the path of nasty liberal politics is both long and wide. Conservatives didn't start fighting back until the late nineteen eighties.

Two wrongs have never made a right. And I am sure we have no idea who “started” demonizing their opponents – liberal or conservative – but don’t you think it’s time we stop it? And the comment “Conservatives didn’t start fighting back until the late nineteen eighties”? Where did you get that fact?

If you are being hit with sludge you don't feel you deserve in this political war, you might be right. This is a battle of my generation...I really hope yours can get beyond it somehow. Before you decide for sure and finally that it is conservatives that are so unreasonable and attacking you might want to look at the long history of attacks and dirty politics by liberals. They aren't as nice as they pretend to be.

I never claimed that liberals were innocent when it comes to throwing out insults, in fact I would be willing to admit that I am guilty of it at some points in time. My point, like I said above, is that two wrongs don’t make a right, so instead of attacking just because you see a liberal, you may want to stop and listen to the person, they just may surprise you.

As far as Steves comments about personal experience, I have to say that to a large degree I agree with him. Your statement insinuates that you used facts while he just insisted that you accept his opinion. But Meagan the facts you stated were second hand anecdotal. His were first hand. Forst hand anecdotal evidence is the best kind if it is true, so essentially the question is whether or not Steve is telling the truth, from my experience he is.

In no time or place has one person’s experience of the world been taken down as fact. Never! And although your experience of the world may be similar to Steve’s, it still doesn’t make it right. I don’t mean to be disrespectful of you, or your experience, because I believe it is valid. You will just have to excuse me if I don’t take it as fact.

My opinion dose come from my own experience. And although I have gotten some of my information from people who have first hand experience, as opposed to having been there myself, I don’t feel it makes my opinion any less valid or correct.
Tina referred earlier to liberal’s inability to disagree, or proclaim a right and a wrong, and when it comes to experience she is correct. The way humans experience the world is one of those magical grey areas I mentioned above – it has been documented time and time again that people who experience the same event remember it in different ways. That’s the fact, documented evidence. Opinions and experiences are subjective, and therefore open to interpretation.

The problem that I have, is that it seems that many liberals seem to prefer the opinions of people with far less experience.

My question to that is, at what point in time does experience equal enough to be deemed more than “far less”? Do you have to have a year of experience? Two years? Why are the experiences of the people I know far less than yours and Steve’s? I don’t mean this as an attack, you could have a legitimate answer to my question, I’m just wondering what it is!

Much of the concern that Steve mentioned with liberals is universally felt through out the military. I don't know what to tell you, the perception is that liberals don't support us. And while you may not be spitting on soldiers there are some active members of your political persuasion who don't see anything wrong with burning soldiers in effigy, or defecating on the American Flag.(see Portland anti-war rally)

It makes me very sad that the perception is that liberals don’t support the troops, because I know there are many of us who have worked very hard to make it evident that it is because we support our troops that we do not want them fighting in an unnecessary war. And while there may be some members of my political persuasion whom are acting in extremist ways, I would hope you would not judge all of us by their actions. Just like I would not judge all conservatives from my experience with extremists who have told me I have no right being educated and opinionated because my job in the world is to make babies and take care of my husband.

As far as our position in Iraq, I would be happy to discuss this with you both civilly and in great detail if you would be interested. I would be very happy to hear your positions, because I do believe that you have a genuine concern for what is right.

I very much look forward to that opportunity with you!

Again, sorry, not trying to be a punk, but unlike the politicians I dont care for i tend to speak my mind, which can result in some pretty raw statements from time to time.

Steve, I don’t think you are a punk, and I actually appreciate that you were willing to take the time to read my opinion and respond in a civil fashion. I don’t mind raw statements, it’s the unnecessary and unproductive ones that tend to raise my blood pressure. So thank you for your opinion, and I hope we can debate with one another in the future!

Thanks to everyone who commented and to Jack and Tina for allowing me to rant! I look forward to continuing this discussion in the future!

~ meagan

Not with you, she don't, Nick, et al. I mean, re-read these posts. Such smarmy condescension. It's only old war (war?) horses like me keep coming back.

Thanks, Meagan, for taking the time again to post here at Post Scripts. You offer a great opportunity to communicate and reach understanding. Like you, I appreciate conversation that leads to greater knowledge and clarity and to that end definitions work but they don’t tell the whole story. The dictionary definition of liberal, for instance, bears little resemblance to what has been commonly accepted as political liberalism in practice today. This may be one source of misunderstanding in our political discourse. My references to liberals or liberalism are reflective of the actions of modern day liberals and not the dictionary definition. I believe in being liberal in many things…charity, love, kindness, acceptance, forgiveness, etc. But now, let’s get specific:

The signers of the Declaration of Independence were accused of being liberal, essentially for believing in autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties. And that is not any different from what I believe in.

These are not concepts that belong to liberals, however, and modern day activist liberals have successfully put forth the notion that conservatives don’t value individual autonomy or the protection of political and civil liberties…and that is absurd. The signers were called “liberal” for desiring to be free from the authority of a king...all Americans value this break with feudalism.

…they fought slavery, fought for women to have the right to vote, fought against Hitler, Stalin, fought to end segregation, fought to end apartheid. Liberals put an end to child labor and they gave us the five day work week…

Liberals did not do these things, Americans did. These do not “belong” to liberals, yet you claim them as if only liberals fought for these things. As you pointed out in one instance, republicans played an important roll in bringing these things about and in actuality, it was democrats in the south that fought against civil rights battles. It would be great if we could just talk about overcoming these things in terms of what Americans have accomplished together by wrestling with ideas. Unfortunately, since the sixties, liberal activist democrats have continued to lie, distort and the rewrite history concerning the intentions and actions of republicans, conservatives and incredibly, Christians. They have done it in the news, in our institutions of learning and in books and movies. We have only begun to try to correct the record in the last twenty years.

When Barbara Stiresand said this, she was commenting on the definition of being a liberal as well. It was not a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change that fought for women to vote, for the abolition of Hitler and Stalin, who still strive to end segregation, and fought to end apartheid. It was liberals who forged these battles.

It was indeed American traditional ideals and institutions that gave the very space for these changes to occur. We Americans agreed to a political structure of government and rights that became a basis to forge these corrections to the human condition. Not only have liberals claimed this as their exclusive property they have evolved to a place where they no longer fight for “individual equality”…instead they fight for special rights or group rights pitting one group against another. Americans are “defined” and “defended” by race, sex, creed, social and economic status by liberals not conservatives.

The idea that because I do not agree with our President I am therefore giving aid and comfort to the enemy is asinine! And although I know I am pretty knowledgeable in the state of world affairs, having been to 17 countries, and being interested in different cultures and their political states, I wonder how you can lecture me on my ignorance since this site dose little to discuss political issues on a global level…. I would love some specific examples of irresponsible behavior towards elected government…

First of all it wasn’t a personal observation, I don’t know you. I didn’t say “disagreement with the president” constituted giving aid and comfort. I was referring to those who make political speeches against our president and our country on foreign soil especially when we are engaged in war and I was speaking about Nancy Pelosi, for instance, taking it upon herself to meet with the head of Syria as if she had the authority to speak for our country (and Israel) when she does not.

…they’re politicians. Cause and effect is a demon we are all accountable to – political party has nothing to do with this one!

The point is that certain activist political liberals have trouble looking at anything they do with a discerning eye. No black and white…no right or wrong, remember? And they believe that because they have shown they care, whatever they have done is to be celebrated, regardless of consequences. They will not consider the negative unintended consequence, they do not evaluate outcomes, they therefore cannot make corrections and anyone who attempts to point out another way is labeled…bigoted, homophobic, sexist…you know the drill.

Two wrongs have never made a right. And I am sure we have no idea who “started” demonizing their opponents – liberal or conservative – but don’t you think it’s time we stop it? And the comment “Conservatives didn’t start fighting back until the late nineteen eighties”? Where did you get that fact?

If we get lost in generalities we can never face that which is right in front of our faces. I didn’t get this “fact” from a particular source…I lived it, I observed it. I cannot speak with any authority prior to the sixties, I was too young, but I lived through the radical movement that started in the sixties and seventies. I witnessed the lies and distortions made by the left about conservatism and republicanism and I witnessed the farce that was passed off as balance in our media. I have been privy to the propagandizing that has taken the place of a good liberal arts education in our schools. I have witnessed the propagandizing of leftist ideology and the demonizing of the Christian and Jewish religions, strong men and traditional marriage in media and movies. Civil objections and questions about these things were initially met with derision and name calling. This indifference and arrogance spawned a movement that began in the early eighties and has grown to a sizable force since then.

I think most conservatives see things in black and white; you are friend or enemy, right or wrong, patriotic or traitor. There is no room for a grey area in the conservative mindset, and I’m sorry, but people are chock-full of grey areas. I think liberals just try to remember that.

You’re making a very black and white case against conservatives. As I discovered when recovering from the grey disease myself, black and white is not restrictive, rather it is freeing. It isn’t that people are labeled as friend or foe indiscriminately…it is that after careful consideration and observation a conservative is willing to admit or acknowledge that someone is friend or foe based on that persons actions and words observed over time. I think it is very valuable, especially in today’s world, to have the capacity to determine an enemy by his actions and behaviors. We put our children at risk when we limit and restrict their ability to evaluate, and yes judge others, based on their actions, associations and words. We lie to them when we pretend that people are all the same, all basically good. We do them disservice when we teach them that self expression and choices are all relative and all actions are OK as long as the person feels valuable or happy. Conservatives welcome and embrace disagreement and differences just as you have described…what we don’t appreciate is the absence of appropriate discernment or the ability to call a criminal or vile act wrong. Liberalism is inconsistent...a liberal has no problem condemning one group for a perceived “offense” while excusing, forgiving and uplifting another for the same perceived “offense”. Conservatism seeks to treat all people the same. (Acknowledging there are always a few exceptions)

The way humans experience the world is one of those magical grey areas I mentioned above – it has been documented time and time again that people who experience the same event remember it in different ways.

No one has suggested that all people see things or experience things in the same exact way…it’s interesting that you assume that this ‘magical grey area’ would be a new concept for conservatives. This speaks to the mistaken perceptions that liberals have about conservatives. The argument isn’t whether or not there are times when things are grey, the argument is that there are times when things are definitely yes, or no. Many liberals will not make this distinction. Whether just to sidestep uncomfortable confrontations to ideology or from lack of education or experience it is indicative of someone who will not take a stand and cannot be counted on, particularly in important or dangerous matters and times.

Iraq did not pose any threat to our nation. Even if they had weapons of mass destruction – and there are not many who believe they did – our treatment of the entire situation served as more of a catalyst to insight an attack, as opposed to stopping one. And our continued occupation is doing nothing but causing unrest in countries all over the world.

I don’t know Meagan, this sounds like a pretty black and white opinion to me. Is there no room in your reality for the notion that this pattern of hatred and destructive murderous behavior by radical factions in the Islamic world has been building since the seventies? Is there no room in the “grey world” that had we not engaged these factions, attacks of a more severe nature would come have to our shores? These are among the questions our president had to consider and based on the past pattern of behavior he determined that we had to begin to fight back before they were successful with nuclear or biological attacks. I’m not sure I could have done any differently given I had that awesome responsibility following 911. I recently posted a link to a video in which Al Gore in 2002 made the case for the danger that Saddam posed to our nation. Liberal democrats like Al Gore change their opinions based entirely on who is holding the reins of power and how the political tea leaves read, and not on the facts or severity of the situation. We are still in Kosovo…how many Americans even are aware of that…and how many protests have there been? And how many cries of “occupation” did you, or have you heard?

For the record, we are not “occupying” Iraq. We were asked to stay by the newly elected leaders of the new nation of Iraq. They have continued to ask for our assistance in fighting the fanatical elements in their society. It’s a “cause” that would be right up the liberal alley were it not deemed “Bush’s war.” The proof? When Bill Clinton unilaterally went into Kosovo, peaceniks said little or nothing and Bill Clinton was held up as a hero. The inconsistency to principle is telling. The liberal activists care about political power and personal legacy...period.

In no time or place has one person’s experience of the world been taken down as fact. Never!

Pardon me for butting in to comments directed toward Steve. I use this statement only as an opportunity to move toward clarity. I don’t think anyone believes that an experience can be “taken down as fact”. The point is that a first person account can contain compelling facts that are more illuminating than an attitudinal or philosophically motivated perception. The radical left is making claims about what is happening in Iraq without benefit of personal eye witness or knowledge of classified information or operations. They are doing it attitudinally as a political statement meant to harm or defeat our efforts. It’s clear from your writing you don’t fall into this category but that doesn’t mean the category doesn’t exist.

Well, Meagan, we have covered a lot of ground. I won’t follow through on this thread again…it’s too far back in time and I think that would be too hard on both of us! It would probably be wise in future if we could keep these exchanges to specific points. I do hope you will participate with us again.