I've noticed that what I consider to be a really bad habit has been spreading lately.
It seems that quite a few folks have gotten into the habit of using the word "apologist" as a derogotary term. This started out back in the early spring with the moonbats who kept pushing the "Bush AWOL" and/or "Halliburton runs everything" sort of foolishness. They insisted on calling anyone who defended Bush an apologist, as opposed to "supporter" or "defender."
Here's the thing: now Bush supporters are calling Kerry supporters the same damned thing in reverse! So we have "Kerry apologists," whose chief offense seems to be defending their chosen candidate. Certainly it's their right, as American citizens, to do so, no?
Now don't get me wrong; I intend to vote for Bush this fall, and I certainly believe that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have at least some legitimate claims.
My question is this: just what is your overall objective? If you want to preach to the choir, bash the other side as a bunch of clueless idiots, and pile on the latest "gotcha," knock yourself out, it's your dime, amigo.
But. if you are in the slightest bit interested in actually threshing out some of the issues, and maybe even opening up someone on the opposing side to a new interpretation (even if you don't change their mind), then I humbly suggest that you may want to consider not using the word "apologist."
Not too long ago, my friend Dean Esmay asked conservatives to take a pledge that they would faithfull support Kerry should the Senator from Massachusetts win the presidency this fall. My goal is more modest.
Right now I'm asking Bush supporters to refrain from using condescending, hot-button/buzzwords such as "apologist," even if their opponents won't.
After all, it won't hurt us to show them respect, which any adult citizen is reasonably entitled to expect; and if they refuse to return the favor, the onus is theirs, not ours.
So, what do you say?
After 3 years of being called a traitor and a terrorist lover, being called an apologist would be a relief.
Posted by: Jim Ausman at August 29, 2004 3:34 AMJim,
From personal experience (and personal point of view), your posts (on Dean's World) can be pretty... well I guess I'll call them "feisty" from where I stand. :)
I don't think I've heard you say anything that I would call "moonbat," though. Does that help? (another {grin})
I do have some thoughts which have been percolating in the back of my mind about the abuse of the word "traitor," as well, if I can keep myself from becoming permanently depressed about certain personal issues, such as the recently posted event wherein I lost the past four years of work through pure stupidity. Blast it.
But I digress. In this case: would you be willing to admit, purely for the purposes of argument, that perhaps some of the SBVT claims are not completely worthless? (another possible future column: failiability of memory after combat)
Not that Kerry lied about his medals, but (perhaps) that he -at least- unconciously exaggerated his role in certain events?
Or that nearly the entire system of medals and awards became truly abused during the Vietnam War to maintain morale, especially after 1968?
That this may explain why Kerry gained three Purple Hearts in only four and half months for wounds that required no real medical attention?
That Kerry applied for, and recieved, an early release from his Vietnam tour obligation; and that said application is a significant deviation from the typical "combat soldier" attitude towards personal obligation to the unit?
Posted by: Casey Tompkins at August 29, 2004 4:42 AMKerry as I understand did not have to ask for an early release from Vietnam, it was AUTOMATIC, unless the "soldier" in question requested otherwise. As for the medals issue, yeah they were given out like candy, and were used in an "incentive" way. I only know this: I was 10 years old in 1968 and I was already savvy enough to question the morality of that war. I do think that had I been of draft age and went (military service being a family tradition) I too would have taken the early out if wounded three times.
Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at August 29, 2004 12:54 PMAutomatic? Beg pardon, Bubba Bo, but y'all are mistaken. At least in the USArmy, there was no such deal THAT I'D HEARD OF. Was in combat along side of troops that had >4 PH. But what do I know - wasn't 10 y.o. at the time and only did 23+ months in Pleiku, Cam Ranh and Dong Ba Thin.... approximately 14 months more than AlGore and sKerry did combined. But maybe the rules were different for enlistees from Ohio. BTW - how many troops left under that reg? Dunno - butI'd bet it was less than 100 unless they were physically unable to continue or sent out of country for treatment.
"Incentive"? Spare me, Jody. Y'all out of your depth here. Or maybe you should visit a VA hospital.....
But then again I wasn't an officer or personally guarded photographer. I did my tour(s) the old-fashioned way - rifle in hand. BTW - never saw any war crimes either, despite the lies spread by a certain egotist. My rationale for taking another tour was I had no dependants - and statistics showed the first month and last month in the RVN were the most dangerous. So I'd like to think I kept a guy with a wife/kids from replacing me and learning the hard (fatal) way.
But thanks for being savvy (snicker). Got friends on the Wall that would appreciate it - if they knew.... Or were around to be libeled and slandered by Lt. (jg) Kerry like I was. But they didn't have that choice. Only the young and the dreamers can declaim about what they "would have done".
Or be so freakin' sure of rightness.......
Posted by: Larry at August 29, 2004 5:20 PMLarry, thanks for the backup. :)
I was surprised by Bubba's claim that the "3 and you're out' policy was automatic, since every source I've ever seen agrees that Kerry put in for the transfer. Even his supporters agree on this point; they point out that Kerry fulfilled the requirement, ergo he deserved an early out if he so desired.
You raise an interesting question which has been bothering me as well: how many did take advantage of that rule? And was that Navy-only, or anyone in the armed forces? I just have to figure out who would know something like that. I suspect it's someone in the historical/archives section in DC.
BTW, Larry: thanks. I thank you and all of your comrades, especially the guys who didn't make it back. The eleven-bushes bore the major burden of that war, as they always have.