Monday, June 15, 2009
First, we had the letter of June 8, wherein
Mr. Gray unleashed a broadside that unloaded every conceivable insult short of
calling me a "chickenhawk," which cheap insult came in a
later cheapshot by
Mr. Merhoff. I have
nothing but respect for those who served honorably, like Mr. Gray, but his
protestations that I criticized President Obama on Memorial Day is simply a
convenience for his outrage that I should take any occasion to speak ill of Obama (I have a
previous letter to editor from Mr. Gray that takes a similar approach--insults
upon brickbats that never, ever disprove a single fact in my columns, never
formulate a single coherent counter-argument to my fact-based, informed
critiques of Obama).
That is why I wrote for today's column that such opponents of my speaking out, in writing, are the real thugs and bullies, writing their diatribes for the sole purpose of intimidation--as evidenced by the above-mentioned failure to disprove a single, principled statement I make showing Obama for the duplicitous hypocrite he has turned out to be.
First, how low is it to throw my (admitted and regretted) involvement in Vietnam War Protests back in my face to attempt to discredit my support for America and her troops now? This comes from the liberal side of the aisle that for 8 years has told us, ad infinitum and ad nauseum, that "dissent is patriotic/highest form of patriotism" and such; I've seen many veterans and currently serving military state that they did or do what they do to secure the freedom for those protesting what they do, to have that freedom. Does Mr. Gray feel that those who protested, whether against Vietnam or Iraq, were exercising their patriotic right to, shall we say, "petition the government for redress of grievances" (in the Constitution somewhere)? Many Americans, protesters included, honestly felt a sense of duty to protest then, as many did against the Iraq war, but folks have the right to be wrong, too.
I never did anything in my youth to insult Vietnam vets, so to try to equate my peaceful protest with the protesters that Mr. Gray encountered that tried to get him and his fellow soldiers to shirk their duty is just, well, an unwarranted cheapshot and low blow. Yes, I have written and believe that the protest movement against the Vietnam war was, intentionally or not, knowingly or not, an expression of "useful idiot-ism" in service to the communist enemies fighting against us. I didn't know that then, though, and I'm sure many on the left would take issue with me if I documented the extent of complicity and manipulation directed by communist, anti-American actors behind the Vietnam protest movement. We could have won that war at several points long before the protest movement had begun to exert political pressure to abandon Vietnam. Gen. Patton said it best when he said that Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser--decisions in Washington, uninfluenced by those of us with long hair and signs, made the decisions that resulted in America's loss in Vietnam.
Particularly contributing to that loss were the Democrats in congress that refused to honor America's obligations to provide air support and supplies to South Vietnam after our military mostly withdrew (acts that were no longer done with mass protests since the draft had ended). Had we simply done that, the south would have been able to defend itself, and America would have "won." I didn't cause us to lose, the brave men and women in uniform didn't, Democrats in congress did.
So, if I'm to be castigated for peaceful protesting, after which I expressed my regret and became a supporter of America and our military, what should be said for someone like (now Senator) John Kerry, who did far more than I ever could have dreamed of, to undermine our military in Vietnam, with his lies told before Congress about atrocities (lies documented to have been fabricated for the charade called "Winter Soldier")? Did Mr. Gray express similar outrage and oppose Kerry for president? Or is his outrage selectively applied, as the saying goes, to those he disagrees with when he chooses to take sides. How about any outrage over, again, John Kerry for saying that we were just "terrorizing" civilians at night in Iraq.
As I wrote, nothing in Mr. Gray's missive disproved what I wrote that is simply on the record factually true about Obama on Memorial Day, May 25: His speeches are "replete with straw men arguments, fallacious reasoning and erroneous, revisionist history." His blatant dishonesty over Gitmo; criticizing, but continuing, military tribunals and other war on terror tools; and saying interrogations methods were illegal without backing it up with Justice Dept prosecutions--all stand as valid critiques of Obama that those, like Mr. Gray, on the left simply want to intimidate into oblivion.
I have nothing to be ashamed of, Mr. Gray, and could prove the amounts of money and other forms of support I give for our local, as well as national military, but I'll not stoop to the level of dignifying your letter in that way.
By the way, I had a student deferment until the lottery gave me too high a number to be drafted. So I didn't enlist; I wish I had, but I wish I had done a lot of things differently. I don't wish I hadn't written a single word exposing the lies, hypocrisy and hyper-leftwing-ism of Obama.
That is why I wrote for today's column that such opponents of my speaking out, in writing, are the real thugs and bullies, writing their diatribes for the sole purpose of intimidation--as evidenced by the above-mentioned failure to disprove a single, principled statement I make showing Obama for the duplicitous hypocrite he has turned out to be.
First, how low is it to throw my (admitted and regretted) involvement in Vietnam War Protests back in my face to attempt to discredit my support for America and her troops now? This comes from the liberal side of the aisle that for 8 years has told us, ad infinitum and ad nauseum, that "dissent is patriotic/highest form of patriotism" and such; I've seen many veterans and currently serving military state that they did or do what they do to secure the freedom for those protesting what they do, to have that freedom. Does Mr. Gray feel that those who protested, whether against Vietnam or Iraq, were exercising their patriotic right to, shall we say, "petition the government for redress of grievances" (in the Constitution somewhere)? Many Americans, protesters included, honestly felt a sense of duty to protest then, as many did against the Iraq war, but folks have the right to be wrong, too.
I never did anything in my youth to insult Vietnam vets, so to try to equate my peaceful protest with the protesters that Mr. Gray encountered that tried to get him and his fellow soldiers to shirk their duty is just, well, an unwarranted cheapshot and low blow. Yes, I have written and believe that the protest movement against the Vietnam war was, intentionally or not, knowingly or not, an expression of "useful idiot-ism" in service to the communist enemies fighting against us. I didn't know that then, though, and I'm sure many on the left would take issue with me if I documented the extent of complicity and manipulation directed by communist, anti-American actors behind the Vietnam protest movement. We could have won that war at several points long before the protest movement had begun to exert political pressure to abandon Vietnam. Gen. Patton said it best when he said that Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser--decisions in Washington, uninfluenced by those of us with long hair and signs, made the decisions that resulted in America's loss in Vietnam.
Particularly contributing to that loss were the Democrats in congress that refused to honor America's obligations to provide air support and supplies to South Vietnam after our military mostly withdrew (acts that were no longer done with mass protests since the draft had ended). Had we simply done that, the south would have been able to defend itself, and America would have "won." I didn't cause us to lose, the brave men and women in uniform didn't, Democrats in congress did.
So, if I'm to be castigated for peaceful protesting, after which I expressed my regret and became a supporter of America and our military, what should be said for someone like (now Senator) John Kerry, who did far more than I ever could have dreamed of, to undermine our military in Vietnam, with his lies told before Congress about atrocities (lies documented to have been fabricated for the charade called "Winter Soldier")? Did Mr. Gray express similar outrage and oppose Kerry for president? Or is his outrage selectively applied, as the saying goes, to those he disagrees with when he chooses to take sides. How about any outrage over, again, John Kerry for saying that we were just "terrorizing" civilians at night in Iraq.
As I wrote, nothing in Mr. Gray's missive disproved what I wrote that is simply on the record factually true about Obama on Memorial Day, May 25: His speeches are "replete with straw men arguments, fallacious reasoning and erroneous, revisionist history." His blatant dishonesty over Gitmo; criticizing, but continuing, military tribunals and other war on terror tools; and saying interrogations methods were illegal without backing it up with Justice Dept prosecutions--all stand as valid critiques of Obama that those, like Mr. Gray, on the left simply want to intimidate into oblivion.
I have nothing to be ashamed of, Mr. Gray, and could prove the amounts of money and other forms of support I give for our local, as well as national military, but I'll not stoop to the level of dignifying your letter in that way.
By the way, I had a student deferment until the lottery gave me too high a number to be drafted. So I didn't enlist; I wish I had, but I wish I had done a lot of things differently. I don't wish I hadn't written a single word exposing the lies, hypocrisy and hyper-leftwing-ism of Obama.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Gray: "I expressed no intimidation towards
Mr. Polson, I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of Mr. Polson."
Me: Disproved, already.
Gray: "My letter addressed Mr. Polson's hypocrisy, not his "factual statements" in portraying himself "as a great supporter and admirer of veterans and their foreign campaigns. A position that was 180 degrees different than his position and ideas when protesting the Vietnam War"
Me: Any intellectually honest person would find nothing wrong with my changing my "position and ideas" but intellectual honesty is not what we are dealing with here, unfortunately
Gray: "He continues, "Many Americans, protesters included, honestly felt a sense of duty to protest then" and "to try and equate my peaceful protest with protesters that Mr. Gray encountered, was an unwarranted cheap shot and low blow." He makes it sound like his protest activities were as patriotic and good as someone enlisting in the military to support the war against the North Vietnamese. So I suppose that means that there were two types of protesters, good protesters like Mr. Polson and bad protesters like the ones I encountered.
Me: I did no such thing as equating protesting with military service and to suggest that is sheer dishonest manipulation of my words. Yes, there are different kinds of protest, peaceful excercise of the Constitutional right, and that done to subvert. We saw both kinds then, and both kinds over Iraq. I did engage in the former, not the latter. I can't begin to fathom the hate and vituperation that resides in Mr. Gray for anything I have written or done, but there it is on display.
Gray: "Mr. Poson continues,"Yes, I have written and believe that the protest movement against the Vietnam War was, intentionally or not, knowingly or not, an expression of useful idiot-ism in service to the communist enemies fighting us. I didn't know that then." It strains the bounds of credibility that Mr. Polson was so naive and innocent that he didn't know what the ramifications of his protest actions were.
Me: Who the hell are you to pass judgement on whether I'm lying about what I knew. Save it for someone who is a provable liar, like, oh, Barack Obama, but only when his lips are moving.
Gray:"But here is the real kicker. Mr. Polson then states, "So if I'm castigated for peaceful protestings after which I expressed my regret and became a supporter of America and our military." By these very words he proves that he knew that by his actions he was NOT suppoting America or the military. He says this again when he criticizes Sen. John Kerry "who did far more than I ever could have dreamed of, to undermine our military in Vietnam." This about a man who served in Vietnam and was awarded three Purple Hearts and the Silver Star.
Me: Again, I "proved" no...such...thing. Man, can't you read simple grammar? Swift boat vets disproved a lot of what Kerry's record was but I wouldn't have a bad thing to say if he hadn't encouraged our enemies by making false statements to Congress (a felony) about made-up atrocities by American soldiers. He associated with VVAW when they were plotting to kill a senator or something, AND HE DESCRIBED WHAT OUR TROOPS WERE DOING AS "TERRORIZING IRAQIS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT". Dispicable.
Gray: Mr. Polson then finishes with the absurd observation that "I have nothing to be ashamed of, Mr. gray, and could prove the amounts of money and other forms of support I give for our local, as well as national military." I would love for Mr. Polson to explain his personal monetary support for our local and national military. Taxes? Gift Cards?
Me: I don't owe you a freakin' thing in the way of accounting for what I've done. Talk about arrogance to think I have to prove such a thing to someone who would end up doing nothing but insult whatever I provided, as he has twisted everything else. All to draw attention away from the pathetic, apologetic, enemy-sympathizing, weak and Carter-esque performance on the international stage by his apparent hero, Obama. Enough of you. Go whine somewhere else, and look like the vindictative complainer that you are, Mr. Gray.
Me: Disproved, already.
Gray: "My letter addressed Mr. Polson's hypocrisy, not his "factual statements" in portraying himself "as a great supporter and admirer of veterans and their foreign campaigns. A position that was 180 degrees different than his position and ideas when protesting the Vietnam War"
Me: Any intellectually honest person would find nothing wrong with my changing my "position and ideas" but intellectual honesty is not what we are dealing with here, unfortunately
Gray: "He continues, "Many Americans, protesters included, honestly felt a sense of duty to protest then" and "to try and equate my peaceful protest with protesters that Mr. Gray encountered, was an unwarranted cheap shot and low blow." He makes it sound like his protest activities were as patriotic and good as someone enlisting in the military to support the war against the North Vietnamese. So I suppose that means that there were two types of protesters, good protesters like Mr. Polson and bad protesters like the ones I encountered.
Me: I did no such thing as equating protesting with military service and to suggest that is sheer dishonest manipulation of my words. Yes, there are different kinds of protest, peaceful excercise of the Constitutional right, and that done to subvert. We saw both kinds then, and both kinds over Iraq. I did engage in the former, not the latter. I can't begin to fathom the hate and vituperation that resides in Mr. Gray for anything I have written or done, but there it is on display.
Gray: "Mr. Poson continues,"Yes, I have written and believe that the protest movement against the Vietnam War was, intentionally or not, knowingly or not, an expression of useful idiot-ism in service to the communist enemies fighting us. I didn't know that then." It strains the bounds of credibility that Mr. Polson was so naive and innocent that he didn't know what the ramifications of his protest actions were.
Me: Who the hell are you to pass judgement on whether I'm lying about what I knew. Save it for someone who is a provable liar, like, oh, Barack Obama, but only when his lips are moving.
Gray:"But here is the real kicker. Mr. Polson then states, "So if I'm castigated for peaceful protestings after which I expressed my regret and became a supporter of America and our military." By these very words he proves that he knew that by his actions he was NOT suppoting America or the military. He says this again when he criticizes Sen. John Kerry "who did far more than I ever could have dreamed of, to undermine our military in Vietnam." This about a man who served in Vietnam and was awarded three Purple Hearts and the Silver Star.
Me: Again, I "proved" no...such...thing. Man, can't you read simple grammar? Swift boat vets disproved a lot of what Kerry's record was but I wouldn't have a bad thing to say if he hadn't encouraged our enemies by making false statements to Congress (a felony) about made-up atrocities by American soldiers. He associated with VVAW when they were plotting to kill a senator or something, AND HE DESCRIBED WHAT OUR TROOPS WERE DOING AS "TERRORIZING IRAQIS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT". Dispicable.
Gray: Mr. Polson then finishes with the absurd observation that "I have nothing to be ashamed of, Mr. gray, and could prove the amounts of money and other forms of support I give for our local, as well as national military." I would love for Mr. Polson to explain his personal monetary support for our local and national military. Taxes? Gift Cards?
Me: I don't owe you a freakin' thing in the way of accounting for what I've done. Talk about arrogance to think I have to prove such a thing to someone who would end up doing nothing but insult whatever I provided, as he has twisted everything else. All to draw attention away from the pathetic, apologetic, enemy-sympathizing, weak and Carter-esque performance on the international stage by his apparent hero, Obama. Enough of you. Go whine somewhere else, and look like the vindictative complainer that you are, Mr. Gray.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Comment from a clearly obsessed, vituperative
Mr. Larry Gray:
"Again, I quote you, Mr. Polson. "I have nothing to be ashamed of, Mr. Gray, and could PROVE (emphasis mine) the amounts of money and other forms of support I give for our local and national military." So, Mr. "Intellectual honesty," put your money where your mouth is. You said you could prove it, so please do so."
Me: I've contributed literally hundreds and hundreds of dollars, as well as other in-kind materials, to Soldiers Angels, USO, Adopt-a-Platoon and our local Military Family Support Group, which I hesitate to provide the names of the people because they have better things to do than confirm what I say, to some raving fanatic, but Supervisor Bob Williams is a public figure who would no doubt be willing to confirm my support for that group.
As to your other comment, Mr. Gray, it was deleted due to the insulting nature that made it beneath contempt for me to dignify with space.
"Again, I quote you, Mr. Polson. "I have nothing to be ashamed of, Mr. Gray, and could PROVE (emphasis mine) the amounts of money and other forms of support I give for our local and national military." So, Mr. "Intellectual honesty," put your money where your mouth is. You said you could prove it, so please do so."
Me: I've contributed literally hundreds and hundreds of dollars, as well as other in-kind materials, to Soldiers Angels, USO, Adopt-a-Platoon and our local Military Family Support Group, which I hesitate to provide the names of the people because they have better things to do than confirm what I say, to some raving fanatic, but Supervisor Bob Williams is a public figure who would no doubt be willing to confirm my support for that group.
As to your other comment, Mr. Gray, it was deleted due to the insulting nature that made it beneath contempt for me to dignify with space.
Monday, June 15, 2009
To briefly respond to the tired tactic of
calling someone a "chickenhawk," as Mr. Merhoff so disgustingly did on June 10
in agreeing with Mr. Gray's broadside, which I deal with below:
Anyone throwing the insult, "chickenhawk," at me or anyone on the right side of the political divide, is doing nothing more or less than childish name calling that is substituting for adult, thoughtful, reasoning and polite, respectful debate. Such individuals are apparently incapable of forming such reasoned arguments and hence resort to childish name calling. The slanderous term became popular on the anti-Iraq war left when they thought they came upon yet another little bit of shorthand logic (or illogic, as it were) over the fact that decisions to send American military to war, and then to support their continued involvement in said war, were made by many who had never served in uniform.
Proving the hypocrisy is simple: Lincoln--no Army service (local militia with no combat); Roosevelt--no service; Reagan--no service; Clinton--no service. HINT: America's military is set up by the Constitution with civilian control and decision making. You can't have it both ways and ignore the non-military record of president's you like when they act as commander-in-chief, but then throw non-service in the faces of those supporting military actions you disagree with. Either deploying men and women to combat or into harm's way is authorized or it isn't; if it is legitimately authorized by Congress, AS THE IRAQ WAR WAS, you can either support it, or not, hope America prevails, or not, but make the argument, don't just insult and call names, Mr. Merhoff. And unless you're going to rehash the totally discredited liberal arguments of Bush's Texas Air National Guard service (facts: he started too late, and flew aircraft too old, to use in Vietnam; some pilots did die flying Air National Guard planes; and compared to Clinton, Bush was a hero) just stop with the transparent hypocrisy over epithets like "chickenhawk".
Anyone throwing the insult, "chickenhawk," at me or anyone on the right side of the political divide, is doing nothing more or less than childish name calling that is substituting for adult, thoughtful, reasoning and polite, respectful debate. Such individuals are apparently incapable of forming such reasoned arguments and hence resort to childish name calling. The slanderous term became popular on the anti-Iraq war left when they thought they came upon yet another little bit of shorthand logic (or illogic, as it were) over the fact that decisions to send American military to war, and then to support their continued involvement in said war, were made by many who had never served in uniform.
Proving the hypocrisy is simple: Lincoln--no Army service (local militia with no combat); Roosevelt--no service; Reagan--no service; Clinton--no service. HINT: America's military is set up by the Constitution with civilian control and decision making. You can't have it both ways and ignore the non-military record of president's you like when they act as commander-in-chief, but then throw non-service in the faces of those supporting military actions you disagree with. Either deploying men and women to combat or into harm's way is authorized or it isn't; if it is legitimately authorized by Congress, AS THE IRAQ WAR WAS, you can either support it, or not, hope America prevails, or not, but make the argument, don't just insult and call names, Mr. Merhoff. And unless you're going to rehash the totally discredited liberal arguments of Bush's Texas Air National Guard service (facts: he started too late, and flew aircraft too old, to use in Vietnam; some pilots did die flying Air National Guard planes; and compared to Clinton, Bush was a hero) just stop with the transparent hypocrisy over epithets like "chickenhawk".
No comments:
Post a Comment