Questions for the NY Times about the alleged spitting incident during anti-war protest
On January 28, The New York Times reported, in an article by Ian Urbina, that, during the January 27 anti-war protest on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., an unnamed anti-war protester spat at the ground near Joshua Sparling, a wounded Iraq war veteran "who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division." The Times reported that Sparling spat "back" and subsequently said of the protesters: "These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned." The Times gave no further details about the alleged incident, despite the politically charged nature of the allegations, which recall the apocryphal tales of Vietnam War veterans being spit on as they returned to the United States.
The Times reported:
There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration's policies in Iraq.
Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.
Capitol police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters.
''These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned,'' Mr. Sparling said.
Conservatives have been telling stories of anti-war protesters spitting on returning Vietnam veterans for decades, even though, as College of the Holy Cross associate professor of sociology and anthropology Jerry Lembcke wrote in an April 30, 2005, Boston Globe op-ed, "[t]here is an element of urban legend in the stories." Nevertheless, Lembcke wrote, the "image of spat-upon veterans is the icon through which many people remember the loss of the war, the centerpiece of a betrayal narrative that understands the war to have been lost because of treason on the home front." The Times article has already been seized upon by right-wing bloggers such as Michelle Malkin.
In the article, Urbina suggested that he witnessed the purported spitting incident since he did not attribute the report to Sparling or any other purported eyewitness. But the lack of detail in Urbina's report of the alleged incident gives rise to several questions:
- Did Urbina or anyone else from the Times actually see the alleged incident?
- Why does the Times' report fluctuate between ambiguity and certainty?
In reporting that the protester spit "at the ground near Mr. Sparling," Urbina left open the possibility that the protester -- if he or she did, in fact, spit -- may have not intended to spit at Sparling or anyone else. And how near was "near"? Six inches? Six feet? However, the very next phrase -- "he spit back" -- suggests that the protester did, in fact, spit at Sparling, and he was simply retaliating. Which is it?
- Did Sparling actually spit on the protester?
The Times simply noted that he "spit back." Did he hit the protester? Could he have hit the protester? How far from one another were they?
- What did this protester look like?
Male? Female? Old? Young? Tall? Short? Did the Times try to talk with the alleged spitter?
- Can the Capitol Police confirm the incident?
Did the Times contact the Capitol Police? Was the alleged spitter detained or questioned?
"...words were exchanged..."
Who said what to whom, when? If there actually was an incident, MMFA, that's the question you want answered. Did Mr. Sparling instigate the exchange or the protester? What protester in his right mind would taunt an amputee vet at an anti-war rally with the media looking on? Or did Mr. Sparling taunt the protesters? I don't know... but it changes things knowing what was said.
CHANGING THE SUBJECT.
The war is a mistake. Even O'Reilly admits that. Hannity admits mistakes were made. Michelle Malkin even claims that Iraq is not "paradise", as close as this partisan propagandist is likely to come to admitting that Iraq is a mess.
But let's forget all that. Let's not face the reality of a situation that could not get worse, and is likely to go on in perpetuity, thanks to the failed ideas of a leader Bush whose every idea previously has failed -- and at great cost in blood and treasure.
Let's instead focus on allegations of who spit on whom. Were SOME protestors calling our soldiers "baby killers"? Were ALL the protestors saying such things, or just a few? What provoked them? (perhaps, like Fox News and Republicans, were these protestors being accused of being "with the terrorists" and "not Americans"? Would THAT provoke someone to spit?)
It's all a DISTRACTION, folks. The Rightwing, who are simultaneously fighting hard to keep from comparing Iraq to VietNam, are now busily trying to resurrect VietNam in the form of the urban legends of the ill treatment of returning VietNam vets.
WERE VietNam vets spit on upon their return? It stands to reason that it COULD have happened. After all, then, like now, emotions were running high. Many were frustrated and enraged that OUR LEADERS were waging war for no good reason, and killing our soldiers and the people of foreign lands in wholesale fashion. The LEADERS ... like Johnson then and Bush now ... are not accessable to be spat upon. They are, as always in bloody conflicts they start, safely protected from all harm. So frustration and anger may well have led SOME to take out their disgust on the only visible reminder of the war, the returning soldiers.
On the other hand, efforts to pin down the FACTS, rather than just generalized stories akin to Urban Legends, about such spitting has come up far short of convincing evidence. Then, as now, FACTS are short, while the frustration and anger of the WAR SUPPORTERS has led to the creation and propagation of such stories, to show that war protestors are bad people, rude, disrespectful, and thus unworthy of being listened to.
The calculus: One "spitter" nullifies 100,000 protestors. Cancels them out. Makes them irrelevant.
And the rightwing is attempting that same calculus today, hoping to elevate one "alleged" spitter to nullify the importance of tens of thousands of protestors with a point of view contrary to the "establishment".
Of course, such media misinformation ... the spotlighting of an alleged isolated incident to characterize and "frame" an entire movement ... must be addressed. But even addressing it here, as MMFA has done ... even posing questions to be asked ... is playing right into the hands of the rightwing propagandists. The "FRAME" has been accepted and seized, and now good people who have good faith in being AGAINST a war and the policies of a "LEADER" who has been wrong about everything so far ... all that is eclipsed by a heated discussion of who spit and who didn't spit, and what this incident means (if even true) when projected globally.
Let's not play their game, MMFA. FOX NEWS is featuring this soldier with his story (but alas, no FILM), who is at root a Bush Supporter, enjoying his 15 minutes of fame as an Administration proxy. HE does not reflect all soldiers any more than an isolated spitter represents all protestors. This is a distraction, and is meant to obscure REAL discussions of REAL issues with REAL consequences.
Very thoughtful and thought provoking commentary Tex. Too bad you can't reach those who choose to be seduced by ugly accusations that are meaningless to what is the real story.
The spitting story real or imagined is especially vile. It fits the pattern of the dark forces thought that are doing everything in their power to make the questions and resistance to continuing the slaughter In Iraq about the soldiers who have no choice to serve there. Pathetic. The same soldiers that were sent without the body armor, without basic supplies, without a plan for their security.
The same soldiers that can't be shown coming home in their caskets or with their amputated arms and legs.
This is true madness. The use of fear and smear, propaganda, and manipulation of people is beyond reprehensible.
The anti-rally rally which had anywhere between 100,000 and 500,000 protesters of the Iraq war and continued occupation got little to no press. However random editorials including cartoons depicting soldiers demoralized by Congressional resolutions of against continuing to rat ch up the war get lots of press, as do leading questions by the few in the minority in Congress who are clinging to the "stay the course- get in line behind the President." If this isn't an example of how warped the reporting is... no one is paying attention.
The voters spoke in November, every poll taken shows with indisputable majority that the military option in Iraq is no longer an option the majority wants to support.
It has NOTHING to do with NOT supporting the military who are in harms way there. Any one who allows common sense to take hold knows this.
The New York Times article is worthless and sad. There were many many vets protesting the war in Iraq and that too is getting no press.
Wake up America!
AHA, it's them again. Those damn liberal radicals. They are a threat to all of us they are traitors. They disrespect our soldiers. What do you mean, 'Who am I talking about'? I mean them, of course.
I'm sorry but... what are you talking about?
Too late now. Even if it never happened, the lie is out there. The Troglodytes will hammer this the same way they hammered "Gore said he invented the internet" or "Vince Foster was murdered" until it becomes part of the Troglodyte Collective Consciousness. Don't be surprised when your Conservative friends tell you that Iraq War veterans have been routinely spit upon when returning home. Limbaugh and Hannity and the other professional liars will repeat this ad nauseum every day until the 2008 election...count on it.
They have to lie to their base...it's the only way they can win elections.
Well,there comes a timein every man's life when he crosses paths with his polor opposite. This is the time, madam.
You secular progressives are infringing on the basic traditions of a dying breed of American- the sort that stand up for their country.
"You secular progressives are infringing on the basic traditions of a dying breed of American- the sort that stand up for their country."
Gimme a break... I'll stand up for my country anytime. Stand up for what our incompetent, greedy, corrupt leadership has done to diminish us as a nation? Nope. You've been watching too many John Wayne movies...
I would say sanctimonious BSers instead. If you really loved this country you would start thinking for yourself.
Participating and supporting in war crimes is "standing up for your country?" No, it's called DISGRACING your country.
GSnatch seems to have bathed in the Koolaid. He apparently believes the nonsense that the Iraq war is "self defense".
<> Here's news for you, douchebag; the war protestors are standing up for their country. They are also exercising the rights that our brave soldiers are supposedly fighting to defend. Unfortunately, they are really fighting to defend Halliburton profits and Puddinhead George's ego. This misuse of military power is nothing short of criminal.PLEASE!
Stop with the "dying breed of American crap" will you?
How many of the instigators of this quagmire have been part of that "dying breed" who actually served their country. It seems like everyone of them and their enablers in the media had "other priorities" when a lot of us secular progressives were slogging through the rice paddies.
I highly doubt the spitting incident happened. It was another Vietnam-type lie. Set-up. Of course.
The movie 'Sir! No, Sir!' has the good on the Vietnam-era lie.
http://www.sirnosir.com/
I checked out the website...
If that movie's thesis is correct, the World's been lied to even worse than Brock ever told us. I wonder though, how reliable is that stuff? Don't get me wrong. I'm quie willing to believe stuff like that, but I'd still be interested to know what those guys' credentials are.
THE NEW YORK TIMES is a pathetic excuse for a newspaper whose rediculous ideology sets it flying into a whirlwind of Secular Progressive views and biases. I would not be surprised if the paper went as far as to describe the Anti-War Progressives as " Freedom Fighters". THE NY TIMES uses its power to imposed Secular biases upon readers. Sparling was right, those are not Americans. If they are so dedicated to their secular progressive Anti-American movemet, they should be like the Monks in Vietnam and set themselves aflame. Sparling supports the war and our nation as a whole. I thank him and all of those serving in The Service for giving me the freedom to right this.
God Bless
- ONESIX
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but being anti war does not mean you're anti American. Far from it. Being anti war is, well, being against a war. And if the NY Times is such a bad bad "secular progressive (been watching too much O'Reilly these days my friend?)" paper, then why did they report this story as if it were a protester spitting at a soldier?
S.P. Mania!
I gotta admit, I was wrong. When BilldO started tossing around "Secular-Progressive" and S.P., the latest in his long line of failed attempts to coin phrases, I posted here that I thought he was underestimating even his fan base.
The S.R. (superstitious- regressive) above ,along with other righty posters here recently, have proven me wrong again.
I'll lower the bar a little more.
Bungle's Boyz will trip over that bar even if you bury it!
Geez. I wonder what would happen if every American took a shot of liquor every time you and Bill O'Reilly said "secular progressive."
Well, this is a liberal website pointing out conservative bias and misinformation in the media. If this newspaper is so "secular progressive," why is being mentioned on this site?
And since when is supporting this war "pro-American"? This war was started on blatant lies and is damaging America in its reputation, money, and time. I think wanting to end this war is "pro-American."
Oh by the way, it's "write." Not "right."
Oh by the way, it's "write." Not "right."
There's no "E" in ridiculous either, but I don't think spelling is its biggest problem.
"I thank him and all of those serving in The Service for giving me the freedom to right this." --ghcatch164064
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually that freedom was recognized and guaranteed in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers.
It is great that people sign up to fight for our country and its ideals. It is my also my hope that people like Sparling don't lose their limbs needlessly because of the decisions of foolish leaders. That is a terrible tragedy.
How is killing Iraqis for Halliburton profits while Bush is running torture chambersand declaring his right to break the Bill of Rights at will "defending our freedoms"?
Here's a little fact that destroys that "fighting for our freedoms" myth. The US has only engaged in two wars in our entire history in which our freedoms were at stake, the War of Independence and WWII. All the others except WWI, including this one, were about stealing land and taking away someone else's freedoms.
Yes RedKing, Saddam Hussein gave so many people freedoms. Especially the Kurds.
i hate this argument. If that's the case why isn't the US at war with every oppressive regime?
BS
You hate the argument because you don't understand it. If every war has been about taking away other people's freedoms, as Redking said, what freedoms did we take away from the Iraqi people by removing a genocidal dictator?
Several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians lost the freedom to live, and more die every day. Your obsession with Saddam being the ultimate boogeyman makes that loss of life rational...so who's next on your list of oppressors and how many of the people that live under those regimes are you willing to sacrifice for their "freedom"? (And if that's what Iraqis have now, I'd say the rest of the world will pass on your offer for help.)
IF that was the reason we invaded Iraq why were we an ally WHILE he was a genocidal dictator? Why did we wait until there WAS no ongoing humanitarian crisis to invade. WHILE he was doing that mass killing we supported him, gave him loans, sold him weaponry stopped the UN investigation on Halabja. Why did we wait until he hadnt so much as sneezed in anyones direction in ten years. Less people were being killed in Iraq when we invaded than a bad month in Columbia. Why didnt Bush sell the war on THAT scenario instead of the WMDs that didnt exist and let the people of the US decide if that were worth one American life? If we are concerned with genocidal dictatorships why did we ally ourselves with Pol Pot AFTER his genocide much worse than anything Saddam did or Suhuarto while he was committing near genocide in East Timor? Because that was an EXCUSE not a reason.
No Fair, Solon-
You can't remeber stuff that happened before last week.
Except for Monica Lewinsky.
Are you implying the Administration gives a damn about Kurdish freedom? If so, then why won't they support the the freedom Kurd's want, i.e., national independence? Get a clue.
There was a really good documentary out a few years back called "Good Kurds, Bad Kurds" about the US double-standard towards the Kurds, whining about Iraqi behaviour while supporting Turkish opression of them. The US was supplying the Turkish Army with arms to suppress an insurgency that was the response to decades of Turkish racism. The Kurds were not allowed to speak their own language or even name their children with Kurdish names in Turkey. One Kurdish woman who was elected to the Turkish legislature was jailed for daring to address the assembly in Kurdish. If it hadn't been for Turkey's desire to join the EU, they would still be brutally repressing their Kurdish minority to this day. And the US supported this racism with guns, money and even intelligence assistance. It was the CIA who helped capture the Kurdish rebel leader Ocalan for Ankara.
So all that crap about the US saving the Kurds from Saddam is meaningless propaganda. We just used them as an excuse to invade Iraqi airspace and take potshots around Mosul. The planes were flying from a country that treated their Kurds just as bad.
Stop letting Billy O'falafel do your thinking for you the man is a moron. The whole Secular Progressive agenda thing is just so inane. You are apparantly the type of brainwashed conservative who cannot distinguish between who we are and what some administrations do. So you think you have to support any conservative administration in order to support the country. No, I will decide what I think is best for MY country. I dont let morons like O'reilly nor the President of the US do my thinking nor to demand I support their policies in order to support my country. The New York Times was one of the papers that pushed for the war in Iraq, with Judith Miller writing up every Chalabi lie as if they were credible. If you think spouting these mindless rightwing talking points are making a point you are sadly mistaken
Someone GAVE you your freedom? My freedom is inalienable.
Hmm the military "fighting" in Iraq has nothing to do with your freedom here in America.
Currently it is a CIVIL war.
The US overthrew the government of a sovereign nation because the men in the White House insisted there were WMD that Hussein was going to use any time- wrong.
Meantime we destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure, while "succeeding" in getting Hussein out of his castles and ridding Iraq of it's governing body.
Chaos ensued.
In a country were there were not terrorists, the US and allies that went (mostly GB) failed to secure the borders, failed to provide security, heck failed to even stop looting.
We captured Hussein, Now dead. Killed by the government "elected" be the people.
Iraq now has a working constitution, no WMD, no Husein or brothers, elected government, and no Osama Bin Laden. (remember him- the one WHO did attack us on 9-11)
I could go on but way bother? The question is what is the US doing with the military in Iraq now in a civil war?
This isn't protecting our freedom. In fact there is much evidence that this whole misadventure orchestrated by men who never served in any war, with heavy ties to the oil industry, have made the Mideast, the world, and our country less safe.
My God doesn't bless killing. This is not defense of our country.
Surely the NYTimes must know that this is the third such *unfortunate* incident to befall this cursed corporal.
From Wikipedia:
Joshua Sparling, (b. 1981- ) is a Private First Class in the U.S. Army from Port Huron, Michigan, who was wounded in the War in Iraq. In December 2005, while recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., Sparling claimed to receive what he thought was a Christmas card, which turned out to be anonymous hate mail expressing the wish that Sparling would die.[citation needed] Sparling underwent multiple surgeries to treat his wounds. Media coverage of the story triggered an outpouring of over 20,000 cards and gifts to wounded soldiers at Walter Reed.
In Spring 2006, his father described how Pfc Sparling claimed that he was insulted at an airport while in a wheelchair.[citation needed]
On 27 January 2007, at an antiwar protest at Washington DC, Sparling claimed that a passing protestor may have spit near him, according to the New York Times.[citation needed]
Well, that's moving into the realm of the rediculous, especially the airport story. 'Three friends from an even more glorious war arrived and gave those traitors hell"...
Wow. That's pretty interesting stuff... This guy is the only one being assaulted by antiwar protesters... what are the odds?!
The previous Saturday, Marine Reservist Craig Breiner carried a flag from the Ocean at Belmar, NJ to Trenton's State House (45 miles in 15.5 hours) to boost troop morale. While in the last miles of that walk, someone in a passing car spit at the group, almost hitting the Marine's sister.
So he's not the only one that's been spit at. Seems like it's two for two when there's been a service member doing something public the left doesn't like.
Yeah well that is what the Freepers are saying at Freerepublic. Frankly I dont believe it
How do you know he was "spit on" by "the left"? Maybe a redneck was just throwing his backwash out the window.
You could be right, Rusty. We have our share of rednecks here in Monmouth County.
It's funny that the local newspaper, which endorsed Bush in 2004, didn't report the spitting incident.
I think someone is getting his info from those "Great Americans" at LGF or FreeRepublic.
Hey Worrier, I read something last night that I thought was interesting, and is somewhat on-topic. It said that many of the people who heckled soldiers returning from Vietnam were actually vets from previous wars who were upset that the soldiers had "lost." Does that sound right to you?
I've heard those rumors, but have never heard it from anyone with first person knowledge.I know that in online discussions, our friends on the right will usually blame our losing the War in Vietnam on the vets. But only if they're debating with someone who served in Vietnam who opposes our present fiasco.
Those right wing debaters are usually not vets, but Hannity listeners. I would guess that listening to people like Sean, Limbaugh and O'Reilly for years is at least as great a hardship as having fought in a real war.
Thank God, that although I've gone to war, I've been spared the all out attack on the senses that comes from Fox and the EIB Network.
[Sparling claimed to receive what he thought was a Christmas card, which turned out to be anonymous hate mail]
It was initailly anomymous, but the guy who sent it admitted to it. Weird dude too. Off hand I'd put him in the Fred Phelps catagory of nobody wants to claim this guy. Their both in their little world of hate.
And don't anybody place Fred as a conservative and I won't provide photos of him with your guys or his FEC records on who he sent money to.
"It was initailly anomymous, but the guy who sent it admitted to it." --raouldeming4719
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am utterly confused by that sentence. Can you please provide a legitimate link, so I can read it and decide for myself what it is you are referring to?
Actually I did some research to see what you were referring to. The guys name was supposedly "Michael Crook". He was an apparent white supremacist that claimed he sent the letter.
Now unless you are a wingnut, it is pretty apparent this guy was off his rocker and looking for attention. I am not convinced the letter in question was ever sent by anyone outside of maybe Spurling himself or someone he knows and Michael Crook just saw another opportunity at publicity by claiming he did it.
Michael Crook was already involved in a hoax regarding a camera lost at a football game. So this guy is apparently not a part of the left at all. He is apparently a white supremacist with some really wacky ideas.
Many of the crucial links have been removed to follow the trail, but a good Google search is ("Michael Crook" hoax). Shame on Raoul for even bringing this up.
On Hannity and Colmes, Sparling just claimed he never spit on any protesters. Of course, Colmes let it slide.
I was with Josh Saturday. I witnessed one of two incidents where the peace marchers told Josh that they were leaving to get a gun so they could come back and shoot him. I had two bottles thrown at me. I saw one girl repeatedly take a swig from a bottle and spray in his direction. As the distance was too far it seemed silly, but she derived great satidfaction from it. The guy who hit Josh was on the sidewalk before the USCP kept the peace marches from coming over.
I guess what you're saying is that there are some pretty radical people who participate in public protest demonstrations. I'll bet people get pretty wild and emotions get pretty high, huh? Lot's of yelling, too, no doubt... Now let me make sure I understand this correctly... you and Josh were participating in a counter-protest demonstration, right? Okay... BTW, were you one of those guys I saw on FOX taunting the demonstrators?
It's ironic that you talk about civility at a peace march....
As the father of a naval officer, should I consider it a taunt when in the peace march there's a large banner that reads, "We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers"?
Google that phrase and checkout the photo before you question whether that happened. And it had imitators.
You're all bent out of shape by that ONE banner raised by that anarchist guy? You sure have thin skin.
Rusty, there have been a lot of posters on this site from the beginning that have gotten upset at less (thin skinned or?). Could go back and get examples, but I work for a living and plain don't have the time.
True enough, Oscar, but Raoul Deming is a professional pro-war demonstrator so I held him to a higher standard.
"professional pro-war demonstrator" --Rusty
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Psst. I think you have made a little faux-pas there. They prefer to be called "professional war-mongers" -- PWM's for short. It is a little more apt.
[BTW, were you one of those guys I saw on FOX taunting the demonstrators?]
Actually, my sign and street theater was absolutely loved by the younger peace protesters. They laughed their asses off at my "Hippies Smell" sign and gas mask. They were all smiling as they took photos.
These peace marches are all run by old hippies. See http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/16561133.htm which is an interview with three old hippie leaders in Philly and their moanng about the young people not attending.
It's also significant to note that these marches are not on campus as they were in the 60s (think UofW Madison, Berkeley, Kent State). They are organized in NYC, DC or perhaps LA.
As so consider this, more people enlist, which is more than a one day committment and is almost as dangerous as DC. At least the Army lets you defend yourself, where you can't have a gun in DC, only criminals. More people enlist than protest.
I think young people aren't as involved in the demonstrations today because there is no draft. There is no urgency for them to end the war.
If a draft is ever reinstated, the numbers and unrest would increase dramatically.
WTOP reporter Veronica Robinson included in her evening broadcast the comment that the peace marchers got quite mad at seeing a counter protest and that some of it went too far. To the best of my recall, the guy said to Josh, "...your a cracker, nothing but a red...cracker." She had the sound bite of the guy saying that.
WTOP is in the phonebook. Call her if you need to.
He was participating in a demonstration in favour of a war crime and only got called a "cracker"? Wow. I would have called him far worse.
That's because you are a fascist. And a moron.
I cannot answer for RedKing's intellect, although he has often seemed of better-than-normal capacity;
BUT I can certainly assure all that he is not a facist, based solely upon the very text for which you indict him. Please read the definition of fascism: RedKing's comment is the very antithesis of "for the good of the State."
Or did you mean your comment in a more "truthy" way, having learned by listening to your betters, that "facist" is an insult?
"To the best of my recall, the guy said to Josh, "...your a cracker, nothing but a red...cracker." She had the sound bite of the guy saying that." --raouldeming4719
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, that was quite vicious. Has Josh been able to recover from that stunning taunt? I haven't heard such terrible language since I was called a "poopy-pants" in the 2nd grade.
goto google images and type in Joshua Sparling
third row and three down, is that him?In the post above, where I said "the guy" it's not the spitter. I'm talking about "the guy" who called Josh a cracker.
SOCALMD, put quotes around the name and that whole first page is him or his father.
why would I need to do that?
Seemed you had a problem. Without qoutes around it, your get photos of anyone named Josh. Or Sparling.
why was my comment took off??? somebody doesnt want the truth out?
Remember: there's nothing worse than spitting on or near a veteran. Not even slavery.
By the way, I wonder if anyone spit on the German soldiers after they returned from WW2. Were they referred to as "un-German"? Was it treacherous to show so much disrespect for their army? I mean shucks, after all, Germans were just following orders.. right? Heaven forbid anyone ever use their own head and have a conscience.
I should note that in no ways am I condoning the actions of either of the people involved. I like to imagine we left the whole fecal/bodily fluid flinging stages a long time ago. Just thought I'd ask a few questions. Like, is every action we do worthy of praise and following simply because it's good for us politically or economically?
I also wonder if New York Times will start reporting about gays or Muslims that face taunting and spitting. My Muslim friend got spit on twice in a single day in her first week of college. New York Times should have reported on that!
I've got to take raouldeming's posts with a grain of salt because there is too long a tradition of the right wing lying about these spitting incidents to smear the peace movement as soldier hating. If it was filmed with a cellphone I might believe it. If a member of the anti-war protest was a witness I would give it crediblity. When someone goes there with a pro war ax to grind, their credibility and their objectivity have to be questioned.
If people were spitting on and screaming at each other, what was the context? Was all the ugly behavior only on one side? If there are nuts in the crowd on either side, then throw them in jail. However when I see Michelle Malkin on Fox referring to demonstraters as "people who spit on soldiers and hate America", I've got to be skeptical. If people in wheelchairs are being spit on left and right, then get it on film and prove it and throw the offenders in jail. I've never met a single anti-war person that would behave that way.
I am sure once Sean Hannity gets through with this thing the story will be that an angry mob of protestors with torches in their hands descended upon the VA Hospital and dragged poor Joshua from his hospital bed by his one good leg, then hauled him outside and took turns spitting on him.
Don't mmock the story, Irony.
I was at this demonstration, but left early because I heard reports that a one handed homicidal maniac had escaped from the local asylum.,
When I got home, I noticed something on my car door handle.
It was... A HOOK!
A hook from a veteran, so I spit on it. How's that for a credible story?
LOL...!
Good one, HBL...
Dude, call Veronica Robinson at WTOP in DC and ask how the peace protesters reacted to someone with the opposite opinion exercising their right to free speech. Funy thing was while using violence to suppress the other side's fre speech, some chanted, Show me me what democracy looks like, this is what democracy looks like."
Like I said, call Robinson. Worst that can happen is says piss off or doesn't return your call.
Videotapes would be best. Let us decide for ourself.
[If people in wheelchairs are being spit on left and right, then get it on film and prove it and throw the offenders in jail. I've never met a single anti-war person that would behave that way.]
I've met plenty. The only people who have hit me or challengd me to a fistfight have been "peace protesters".
My experience is just the opposite.I've been threatened at anti-war demonstrations by the pro-war counter demonstrators. I've been called every name imaginable by these "patriots".And I've never heard about any spitting incidents from an actual Vietnam Vet.The only time that I've been spit on and had things thrown at me was in the city of Hue in 1969 by the citizens of South Vietnam. I'm also curious about the incident of the Iraq War vet who you said was spit upon. I live in Monmouth County and I haven't heard anything about this. In fact the local parer, The Asbury Park Press didn't mention the alleged incident. I'm sure, being that they endorsed GWB in 2004, they would have had plenty to say about this incident if it had happened.
Yes and most of the time that I try have a civil conversation with people in the military about the war, I've had my life threatened. (my brother is an ex-marine as are many of his friends)
Should I jump to conclusions and state that all military personnel are mindless thugs? Does the actions of Lindy England mean that the entire military is depraved? Or should I take the situation for what it's worth and realize individual PEOPLE are capable of doing very stupid things, but it should not reflect on a movement as a whole?
If these people spit on a man in a wheel chair that is uncalled for and they should be condemned. To make the stretch that this applies to the entire or a large portion of the peace movement is preposterous.
Wasn't it the lack of will on the public's part that lost us Vietnam? We smoked the VC during the Tet Offensive, but that was what made the public demand (in an unignorable manner) that we admit defeat. That is what is happening today. Our forces crush theirs tactically, yet people like you do your best to make us lose. Traitors.
To see what active-duty military make of all this, http://www.militarycity.com/polls/ Click on the specific poll you wish to read, on the right of the body of text.
Remember to "adjust" the readings for 1. Passage of time since the poll; 2. Some paranoia about the release of individual identities to Command in certain previous polls.
Or, check out the roster of vets from this Iraq invasion, recently elected to Congress: there were [at least] six elected as Democrats, of 11 who ran as Dems; I believe there was only one Iraq-vet CANDIDATE (Van Taylor) from the other side of the spectrum, who lost.
So, now the vets are the enemies of America?
That's a poll of Gannett subscribers to the Gannet run series of papers aimed at the military member.
Do you even know what percentage of that sample reponded back?
Gannet made a grandstand play having the editorial boards put out some antiwar statement a while back. First of all, it wasn't the military, or even four military papers, it's one Gannett operation. It's like calling a paper with four different suburban editions four papers.
I've been going to Walter Reed for about two years now. And I've only heard one guy say he's had enough and is getting out. Hosiptalized for over a year, a difficult recovery and a new baby on the way was his reason, not the war.
RAOULDEMING:
This nation has needed, and will always need, brave individuals who are willing to serve their nation. They do so with determination and honor, following orders given. If a hole is to be dug, they dig it. They don't ask WHY the hole must be dug, or if it's being dug in the right place, or what the possible consequences of the hole might be. That's not their job. They are told to dig, and they dig. That's the only way a military will work, with a chain of command, and no questioning or second-guessing down the ranks.
This is why it is cowardly for the Republicans and the Rightwing to claim the "support" of the military. The military, BY LAW, are prohibited from publicly questioning the wisdom of their leaders.
We citizens, on the other hand, have the obligation and DUTY to constantly question our leaders, who make mistakes which cost lives and cause suffering. We Americans MUST question the holes our Leaders order dug, because our Leaders work for US, and we are morally obligated to provide our soldiers with proper CIVILIAN leadership. We owe it to those who are prepared to sacrifice EVERYTHING a diligence in holding our elected official's feet to the fire.
For example, we were told we HAD to invade Iraq, it couldn't wait another minute, because Saddam Hussein was amassing great quantities of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that these weapons posed a direct threat to the security of the United States.
For THAT reason, America stood behind its Commander in Chief, and approved the sending of troops into harm's way to be killed and maimed -- IN OUR NAME -- because the THREAT called for no less.
Alas, the THREAT was FALSE. Our LEADERS misled us into approving the sacrifice of our soldiers. We let our soldiers down. WE are obligated to assure that when they are told to dig a hole, it is the proper hole in the proper place. ONLY THAT justifies the nation asking for their sacrifice. When we ... or our elected leaders ... get that WRONG, it is up to WE, THE PEOPLE to intervene and correct the situation. We need to hold our leadership accountable, FOR THE SAKE of our committment to our troops. We owe it to them to make sure that their civilian leadership is GETTING IT RIGHT.
By all accounts, Bush is getting nearly everything WRONG. In this, the nation has let down its protectors. The soldiers can only follow orders. ONLY we Americans can work to make sure those orders are legitimate, justified, and proper.
In short, anyone arguing for continued reliance in Bush's "judgment" is doing so in the face of abundant evidence that Bush's judgment is never to be relied upon. As a "Leader", Bush has destroyed any confidence we citizens hold for our leaders. It is FOR OUR TROOPS that we must seize the responsibility of making sure the civilian leadership is worthy of giving orders to our brave soldiers. If we do less, then we are failing our soldiers, and do not deserve their loyalty and sacrifice.
OK, you don't like the results of THAT poll, so here's another:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Zogby is not exactly a liberal pollster (neither, actually, is Gannett) but the results tell the same story: the grunts, the mid-level officers, the senior officers - all agree with the sentiments of the retired/fired generals to whom Bungle claims to give ear.
The "surge" stinks. The WAR stinks! But, most of all, the CIC stinks!
Sestak was the only one elected that you might have a chance for making a case for having the experience that could make a difference. He was a three star, but he was also a three star relieaved of command for por command climate. Think Captain Queeg.
The others were all junior officers. Up through LCDR it's still JO territory. I give them their props for doing their job and won't go into relative danger in different MOS, but they don't have the training or experience to claim that their service gives them a big edge. They were schooled in tactics not strategy. Even as an LCDR, they worked FOR somebody, they were supervised pretty closely. They little chance at independent action.
And before you spout, "Bush didn't serve" look up what the TANG mission in the F-102 was during those years. And what percentage of the F-102 survived to retirement. And how many USAF and Reserve pilots died in the F-102. That plane had a nasty habit of engine compressor stalls during takeoff where it rolled inverted and the pilots had no chance.
I'll give you a hint to the number of fatalities, 70. And I don't believe any were in combat in Vietnam when it served there. Military aviation is very unforgiving. If you want to belittle the fatlities in the F-102, just take a short cut to Arlington and spit on a grave of one of those 70. It's the same thing but you can save time over a long winding discussion.
'That might be pertinent IF Bush had actually DONE his duty instead of getting his flying status suspended for failing to take his required physical or if he hadnt skipped out on his service. Which even he tacitly admits by saying he made up the time he missed in 73. The Nat Guard requires time to be made up within two weeks not months later which shows he was AWOL. Bush made it clear he beleived that obligations are for working people not spoiled rich frat boys.
[The Nat Guard requires time to be made up within two weeks not months later which shows he was AWOL.]
If he was AWOL, where's the notice to law enforcement? Before there was the 911 Truth conspiracy, there was the Downing Street Memo there was was Bev Harris and Dan Rather with bogus documents or intepretations.
If Bush was AWOL, so is my kid now. And my kid's going to a "punishment unit" like harris said about Bush.....
"If he was AWOL, where's the notice to law enforcement?" --raouldeming
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course. Why didn't I think of that? I mean it's not like George W. Bush comes from an influential family or anything like that. It's not like he could have gotten preferential treatment or anything. Nope. Couldn't be that at all.
If Bush WASNT AWOL what was the time he was making up?
Ha! Caught you lying again.
I've asked you at least a dozen times now. Show us the FEB and you win the point.
Been waiting over a year...you still stick to this lie with absolutely NO PROOF.
I challenge you again with the bakers dozen. Find the FEB. If you find that young Charlie, you've got the golden ticket to Wonka World.
I'll give you a clue. If you find it, you'll be the HERO of the left for decades to come! Sadly, you will not.
So you are trying to claim that Bush was NOT suspended from flying for failing to take his MANDATORY physical? Since we cant come up with the missing Flight evaluation Board? The Boston Globe claims he DID lose his flying status
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/12/bushs_loss_of_flying_status_should_have_spurred_probe/
By Walter V. Robinson and Francie Latour, Globe Staff | February 12, 2004
President Bush's August 1972 suspension from flight status in the Texas Air National Guard -- triggered by his failure to take a required annual flight physical -- should have prompted an investigation by his commander, a written acknowledgement by Bush, and perhaps a written report to senior Air Force officials, according to Air Force regulations in effect at the time.
A Sept. 29, 1972, order sent to Bush by the National Guard Bureau, the defense department agency which oversees the Guard, noted that Bush had been verbally suspended from flying on Aug. 1. The written order made it official: "Reason for suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination."
The order required Bush to acknowledge the suspension in writing and also said: "The local commander who has authority to convene a Flying Evaluation Board will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination." After that, the commander had two options -- to convene the Evaluation Board to review Bush's suspension or forward a detailed report on his case up the chain of command.
Did Bush DENY his flying status was suspended? NO an aid in his campaign Dan Bartlett gave this excuse
Dan Bartlett, a Bush campaign aide who is now White House communications director, said then that Bush didn't take the physical because his family physician was in Houston and he was in Alabama. But the examination is supposed to be done by a flight surgeon, and could have been done at the base in Montgomery.
Where is that FEB assuming one was convened instead of just sending it up the chain of command as was the other option?
A spokesman for the National Guard Bureau said if there are records about any inquiry into Bush's flight status, they would most likely be in Bush's personnel file, stored in a military records facility in Colorado. It isnt US who is lying. Bush DID fail to take that physical. HE doesnt CLAIM he took that physical nor that his flight status was NOT suspended
Solon, I’ve tried to explain this to you several times. You don’t seem to get the message. Read the first paragraph of your Globe article again carefully.
It says, “should have prompted an investigation by his commander, a written acknowledgement by Bush, and perhaps a written report to senior Air Force officials,”.
That should tell you something right there. The Globe is showing you what COULD have happened, not exactly what happened. I can tell you commanders have a lot of leeway in these matters, especially at this stage of the game.
I tried to post the applicable AF Regs, but could not download them for some reason. I got you the next best thing, Army and Navy FEB guidelines:
http://www.hqda.army.mil/library/mildoc/AR%20600-107,%208%20August%201966.pdf
http://www.brooksidepress.org/Products/OperationalMedicine/DATA/operationalmed/Manuals/FlightSurgeonHandbook/5evalboards.html
Peruse them and you will find that you can lose flight status for many reasons. One of which is not getting your annual flight physical done. This would not have prompted an automatic FEB. If you read a little farther it goes on to say he was given a “verbal” suspension. This would have been the first step.
The Globe makes it sound like a nice tidy little exercise, but remember this was the ANG. Standards were probably a bit more relaxed, especially in the early 70’s. Now look at a later sentence, “"The local commander who has authority to convene a Flying Evaluation Board”. He had the authority, but did he do it?
That is the $10,000 question. Did he start the FEB? If you find it, you win the prize and get a little respect from your friends in cyberspace!
Oh, I forgot. Sorry about the lying crack. I've never thought that you'd out and out tell a whopper, but I think you're just misinformed on this issue or don't know how the system works.
Again apologies. I try to keep it civil.
I am on active duty with 24 years of service. I am enlisted and have a Masters degree. I think this war is an atrocity and that Bush misused his powers. Actually, this is not a war because we never declared war. However, if I were called to go over I would. I enlisted and will follow the orders given to me. However, it doesn't mean I don't have a brain and can't see what's going on.
This is well-done by MMFA. The Times did a poor job reporting this incident.
As has been pointed out,the story lacks details and context.This is a typical example of what passes for serious journalism these days.Its completely irresponsible.
As a veteran ('74-'80) I am offended by the idea that veterans would be spat upon. As a pacifist, I'm concerned that protestors would sabotage the demonstrations by doing something so stupid - even if baited. As a citizen, I want to see the proof of the event, cause I don't believe a word of what is passed off as journalism these days. It isn't that I think the corporate media has a self serving agenda, but rather that our citizenry is hooked on the sensational. And where there is a market . . . .
So if this spitting did occur, then the paper that reported it has the obligation to convince us that it was true. By leaving it as an allegation, with little detail, they only fuel the fires of the division of our citizenry. If it did occur, the demonstrating community needs to act responsibly and police it's own ranks. (I know, protests can become barely controlled chaos) If it isn't true, well then shame on them, they should be boycotted.
I agree with this. As far as I'm concerned, to do something like spit on a veteran is completely out of character for the peace movement, and certainly not indicative of the general character of the left or of the antiwar group. It's fun for FOX News and other right-wing outlets, though, to place more emphasis upon stories like these than they are due.
"completely out of character for the peace movement"
Not when you add a bunch of teens or earaly 20's kids in it. I dont care if they are liberal or conservative, most are to stupid to know what they even protest over.
"most are to stupid to know what they even protest over"
Now there is a mouthful.
You do these youth a disservice. It's probably more true that most could care less about what's going on. Those that are willing to attend a demonstration are out there because they're paying attention. They care enough to have developed an opinion on the issue, regardless of the side they come up on.
I think evil was just projecting.
Denying Facts and Embracing Myths: Vietnam War Crimes and Tales about "Vietnam Vets Getting Spit On"
Jack Shafer of Slate points out that Lembcke did find published accounts of antiwar protesters on the receiving end of a spit
Watch the video of the Hannity and Colmes interview with Joshua Sparling on FOX...
According to Sparling it was another fellow veteran who spit at him. Sparling said he was wearing a sweater bearing the patch of his unit and the protestor was wearing the same patch. The protestor told Sparling he was a disgrace or some such thing and they exchanged words during withch the protestor spit in his direction. Sparling never said he was spit on.
With all due repsect Sparling who lost a leg as a result of wounds suffered in the Iraq war, Sparling is another tool of FOX... and apparently Sparling loves the media attention. Hannity pointed out that he and Oliver North have previously featured Sparling on FOX long before this incident. Sparling has been involved in other incidents, as someone else here has pointed out, in which he contends he was villified by people against the war. It makes me very suspicious that Sparling, who was already a FOX darling, continues to be involved in incidents in which he the "victim" and which are reported on FOX.
I feel badly for Sparling... that he lost a leg in a senseless war... and also because he continues to be used by FOX to advance its right wing, pro-administration, pro-war agenda.
I don't buy this incident at all. In the da of blogs and Youtube, I say prove it.
Awww, now you are pimping the sales of video-cellphones and hippie wigs and "seriously used" clothing!
FoxLies will buy up all that can be found, in order to stage "proof" of the intolerable lack of character of protesters in general. Sparling may even get a(nother) role in this one, although I doubt that with amortization of the price for his soul, the additional income will be even minimum wage.
Has Keith Hernandez been ruled out as a suspect?
Has Keith Hernandez been ruled out as a suspect?...by Slade
=====
Actually the spitter turned out to be Roger McDowell rather than Hernandez.
So perhaps the question should be:
Has Roger McDowell been ruled out as a suspect?...
;-)
You got me.
I need to get my references straight.
Sorry. :)
Hey Slade,
I'm one of those Seinfeld junkies who has probably seen each episode 1000 times [ok slight exaggeration]....I think every script is imprinted in my brain. Not bragging about that...I think it's a tad twisted actually ;-)
I laughed out loud when I read your post cause I thought of that same Seinfeld episode when I read the title of this thread. I was happy to see I wasn't alone...
Great minds think alike :-)
I would not put it past a liberal, Democrat, Conservative, Republican, a human being to spit on someone. It happens. And ya know, I could care less. This story is meaningless.
Professional victim Joshua Sparling is upset because someone spit on the ground near him? What a weenie.
He has far more courage than you ever will Rusty. Sorry to say, but you have to hear the truth at some point.
Yeah, it takes a lot of courage to be a professional pro-war "counter-demonstrator" and victim. "Wahhh - somebody spit near me! Call the New York Times!"
It's funny to hear a liberal call someone a "professional victim".
Thanks. Lots of conservatives besides this kid Sparling fit that description - O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Weiner, Coulter, etc. They whine constantly about how they're beset on all sides by mean ole liberals. They make a pretty profit off their victimhood.
Rusty,
I am shocked at your sheer trivializing about how Ann Coulter was nearly assasinated by a cocoanut creme pie (at least to hear her tell it). Liberals are all just a bunch of pie throwing goons!
Also Rush Limbaugh was setup at the airport after his "guys night out" in the Dominican Republic by a bunch of hippie cops! So what if he had prescription drugs in somebody else's name. He's "El Rushbo", dammit! You can't question him!
Actually I was referring to the fact that he was a war veteran who lost a limb in combat. Also, exposing the hypocrisy of the anti-war protestors does require a degree of courage, given the mob, mafia-like mentality that they have displayed at this rally and others.
Yeah, those little old ladies and hippies and anarchists and Quakers are sooo scary. Corporal Sparling is a Real Man to brave their fearsome wrath.
"little old ladies and hippies "
Funny story. Q while back ma and the neighbores where hanging in the street next to her car. There was 12 feet to the left of me. Well, here come this Liberal couple going to my other neighbores house. About 20 yards away i noticed they where heading right for us. I said something to my buddy, and she said, "I aint moving". At the last second they swearved away flipping us off. My first thought was, "Lucky for you my kid was not riding his bike in the street".... My second," Arent these the same people who block major steets in the city to protest?"..... They where old mean hippies.
Due in part to your grammar, I'm not certain what happened. Am I to understand you were in the street? that you remained in the street with the intent to annoy? I guess for some, old - elementary school - habits die hard.
You telling me you do not hang out near a car in the street when chatting with friends about to leave?
Sometimes I hang out in the street, but I have the sense to move in deference to thousands of pounds of glass and steel coming my way.
What exactly were you trying to prove? That you are rude, stupid, tough? What exactly?
This seems very childish.
What was the point of standing in the middle of the street? How do you know the were "Liberal"? Cheney would of ran your a$$ over. What was your point again. I would of flipped you off too.
I was minding my own business. I was infront of my neighbores house talking to them about to leave in thier car. I know they where liberal because they stopped at my nextdoor neighbores house. They are very liberal. They are great friends. My point I guess. Everyone is capable of stupid things. Who the hell where they? They could not turn the steering wheel 1 inch to go AROUND us?
You could just step aside for a moment? You make it seem like your friend stood in the way simply to antagonize.
Damn hippies, always driving on roads!
There was 12 feet on the side of you? Yeah, that's the other lane where oncoming traffic drives, not a "spare" lane.
Get the F**k outta the street, dummy!
I thought they did swerve around you.
Hey Evil, don't assume that because your friends are liberals that their friends are too. I have conservative friends and you don't get much more liberal than me.
I try not to bring up politics with them. I wish they would give me the same courtesy.
Let's just put it this way Rusty...losing a limb in battle requires more courage than sitting behind a computer screen and taking pot shots at someone who lost a limb in battle. And your characterization of the anti-war protestors as old ladies, hypies, anarchists and Quakers is refreshingly honest.
I meant "hippies"--sorry they didn't teach me how to spell those sorts of words in Wingnut School.
According to you righties the respectful thing to do to a veteran who lost his limb(s) is to compare them to Osama bin Laden. Would it make you happier if I did that?
Funny Rusty I was pointing out how YOU demonstrate intense disrespect for the sacrifices of a war veteran who lost a limb in combat, and you change the subject to Saxby Chambliss. That sounds like a familiar tactic doesn't it?
I wasn't showing disrespect for his sacrifices in Iraq. I'm sorry he lost his leg in a war that, if I had my way, he never would have been in at all.
I was showing disrespect for his behavior as a professional victim and "counter-demonstrator" in America who gets all emotionally distraught when somebody spits on the ground near him in response to his taunts. You'd think such a courageous warrior would be able to withstand such contumely with grace, but apparently that's not the case.
Sorry Rusty but you wrote: "According to you righties the respectful thing to do to a veteran who lost his limb(s) is to compare them to Osama bin Laden. Would it make you happier if I did that?"
So are you saying that it's ok to defame combat veterans who lost their limbs in battle, so long as Saxby Chambliss did it first?
No, I'm saying that's what you righties think.
All I did was call Sparling a weenie because of his spittlephobia. To me that seems considerably less harsh than comparing him to the world's most notorious terrorist.
He went to the media with the incident to expose the hypocrisy and bestaility of some in the anti-war demonstration. It was not a question of his being brave, but rather a question of exposing the violence and lack of respect towards injured combat veterans demonstrated by some protestors. It was not brave of him to go to the media, but it was necessary.
It was necessary to draw attention to his unpopular message, I suppose. In that way doesn't he sound to you like Cindy Sheehan, back when the war was popular? The leading intellectual lights of the right called her a "prostitute" and a "tragedy pimp" and a lot worse than that. Is Sparling also a prostitute and a tragedy pimp? Are those the correct terms to describe him?
Don't count Rust Bucket giving respect to a war veteran. You'll be waiting a long, long time.
I gave the youngster the respect he is due.
When did I condone the actions of Saxby Chambliss? If I did, then you would have a point. But since I didn't, you are just showing that you are intellectually incapable of defending your defamation of a war veteran who lost a limb in combat.
Actually I defended my "defamation" of him quite well. It drives him to distraction to have spittle hit the ground near him after he taunts people who dare disagree with him. Thus: he is a weenie. In my opinion. Spittle on the ground can't hurt you.
I'm sorry Corp. Sparling can't get the public on board his pro-endless war bandwagon, and has to resort to playing the victim card to get attention, but that's really his problem, isn't it?
IO, how does losing a limb require courage? Was this something he volunteered for, or did he get stuck under a rock and hack it off like that guy in the desert a few years ago?
I'm not diminishing anyone's service to their country, but getting wounded in battle isn't any more courageous that getting in a traffic accident. Just a combination of bad luck, timing, statistical odds and/or human error.
I can't figure out where conservatives get all weepy over wounded vets, considering their Socio-economic Darwinist foundations. I'd think to the average Republican, a wounded Vet is somebody who was not "successful" enough to avoid the military in the first place, and not motivated enough to avoid a bullet or mine after that.
Soooo . . . I'll see your Sparling (something of a tool of FoxLies) and raise you one Tammy Duckworth.
As to hypocricy, let's look at Bungle for the apex of example.
It also takes no wit nor brain power to smear an entire group based on the actions of a single or few dispicable actions taken by some of them. With that logic I could assume all conservatives are morons based on the ignorant statements demeaning say war protesters or liberals in general they make.
Google is our friend.
I thought the guys name seemed familiar
Just Google the guys name. Me thinks the young man may have more serious problems than a bunged up leg.
Seems Joshua Sparling has made a new career of being persecuted by all kinds of people and has gained quite a bit of fame. Bush even invited him to the SOTU a couple of years back.
This has just become a big story, as far as I am concerned, as of right now.
The days are gone when we can simply let something like this slide Since there is no name associated with the alleged spitter, not even a description, the accusation, so far baseless, is directed at the entire peace movement.
I have already written to the Times.
Next email goes to Keith Olbermann.
Wing nuts must be exposed!
IF this story is in fact true neither the NYTimes or the victim are doing a good job of convincing us. It's all very vague.
I wonder why these radical leftists spend so much energy protesting against America and so little time condemning radical islamists who routinely stone gays, circumcise little girls, and slice the heads off of "infidels". I guess the old saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies here.
The war is not America.
Answer the question: Where are the radical leftists when it comes to speaking out against radical Islam? Too gutless I guess. Either that or they're sympathizers.
Why don't you ask the "radical leftists" what they think about radical Islam, if you're curious. Or if you prefer, just keep making stuff up.
He DID answer the question by the way when did you stop molesting small furry animals? A question with just as much validity.
Solon, there seems to be a strange thread running through most of your comments. Why does everything have to include comments about NAMBLA, pedophelia and sex with "small, furry animals"? Seriously, you might want to check yourself in for an evaluation. They won't take you away for very long....I promise they won't....
gettindooped, do you understand that criticizing ones own government is a very American principle,as we have a representative gov., and so don't want to be represented by people resembling the conservative religious fanatics responsible for most terrorism.
Until we get our own crazy leaders(our employees, BTW) under control, we don't have a lot of room to be protesting unofficial, unelected reps. of other groups (national or religious).
In case you're wondering, that's why we crazy "America-haters" came down harder on Abu Ghraib than on the guys slicing off heads in those videos.Not because we support the beheaders, but because they're not our guys.We have a much higher standard, as the USA, than a fundamentalist right wing conservative group like Al Qaeda.If you think the way to deal with them is to emulate them, keep voting GOP.
And if your kid gets caught smoking weed at school, get madder at the kid on the news who stabbed a classmate.Don't be a hypocrite.
Thanks for the civics lesson Limpy, er..I mean Lefty, oh... same thing. I criticize my government on a daily basis but I'm not a stoned, spiral-eyed robotron wandering around with arms outstretched holding signs saying, "War bad", "Bush=Hitler" and screaming, "1-2-3-4, we don't want you're stinking war."
Abu Ghraib??? I suppose you would have preferred daily facials and foot-rubs to extract information from people bent on KILLING OUR SOLDIERS.
And according to you, "Conservative religious fanatics are responsible for most terrorism." Your world view mirrors that of Rosie O'Donnell. Congratulations you little genius, you.
While wrong and very offensive, those deplorable acts you cite are not costing American lives, not costing America billions of dollars (when the money could be well spent here); and not resulting in the recruitment of many, many more AlQaeda fighters that want to do harm to us.
I can almost hear you shaking in your boots. Whether you like it or not, America is trying to stamp out radical Islam. You go back to sleep, Irony. The adults will take care of things for you. By the way, to all of the homosexuals on this site, don't you realize that these bastards would slit your throats in a heartbeat if they had the chance??? Wake the F!@# up!
Iraq is NOT a war against Islam nor terrorists. It is YOU hiding under the bed and shaking in your boots. Back away from the koolaid, its brainwashing effects are evident but you have no brain cells to spare.
Re-read your post, NAMBLA, and tell me who it is that has a shortage of brain cells. Jeez...
This is a stupid question with a simple answer, Toob. What effect will people in Washington protesting radical Islam have on radical Islam? None. None whatsoever.
On the other hand, organizing peaceably to petition the government for a redress of grievances (a right guaranteed in the Constitution) might actually have an effect on the government. Might. Longshot, but worth it.
The war in Iraq has nothing to do with stamping out radical Islam, and your name calling and insults won't change that. Saddam Hussein had no working links to Al Quaida, exactly as we anti-war protestors pointed out before the war.
If Bush and the rest of America had listented to us, over 3,000 American soldiers would still be alives, as would be at least 30,000 Iraqis.
Another soft underbelly. You freaking lefties are amazing.
You are obviously a troll. You are just posting inflamatory commentss, name-calling, and ranting. Why don't you answer the factual arguments, or are you just trying to bait other posters?
gettindooped, you seem like a real tough guy, what with all the "soft underbelly" and "quaking in your boots" talk.
How many terrorists have you killed? Don't be modest, I asked.
Or is your tough guy act confined to sending other people off to get the scary people?
I support our military. And please don't trot out the leftist line "We support the military. Bring them home." They'll come home as soon as their job is done, in spite of all the damage you are doing to their efforts.
The difference between you and me, Limpy, is that I'd gladly pull the trigger and scatter the brains of a terrorist while you'd crap your drawers, cower in fear and beg to sing kumbaya with the animal. Get it now, Limpy?
But not many of them show up in your mommy's basement, do they?
Two more points...
1. Eevn assuming there is an element of truth in the story (which is debatable), what I find to be the most illuminating aspect of the story is that the alleged spitter, according to the alleged victim, was another Iraq war vet. "Vet Spits At Vet At Anti-War Demonstration" should be the story (if there is one). The story is that even Iraq war veterans are incensed about the war;
2. Secondly, Sean Hannity was astounded at, and repeatedly commented upon, the anger of the anti-war protestors, as though there is something hypocritical about this. Well, of course they're angry... the protestors are furious at what their government has done in prosecuting this senseless war in Iraq. It takes anger to get out in the street to strongly pronounce, in a collectively voice, this anger towards our government. But Hannity doesn't get it. Hannity and his kind have constantly painted "liberals" (defined as anyone not a right wing lunatic like himself) as somehow insincere, phony and manipulative in every thing they do... as though everything liberals do is only an act designed to gain acquire and use power. If Hannity cannot fathom theanger of the anti-war protestors maybe it suggests that Hannity is actually starting to believe his own BS.
At any rate, FOX News never ceases to disappoint in its superfical and manipulative way of reporting any issue or event.
I don't know what happen, but I wouldn't doubt it. The people who preach "tolerance" and "diversity" are usually the most intolerant to other points of view. Look at the number of times conservative speakers have been attacked directly and indirectly whenever they are invited to speak at an university.
Joshua Sparling and his father were on the Fox Nothing Channel this morning with Steve Doocy and Leslis Hochswendersen. They showed video of Sparling at least 15 to 20 feet from the protestors!!! Sparling proposed to his Girlfriend and everyone clapped. Weird!
I would support the troops if the protected and defended the US Constitution from the tyranny of 1,000+ POTUS signing statments.
There is something terribly wrong with this country, right and left!
Here is a video of Sparling at the protest. He is standing next to someone with a poster that says "If Osama was a piece of a$$, Clinton would have nailed him." Sparling has a megaphone and is clearly taunting the peace protestors. Whether he was spit at or not is up for debate, but he clearly was stirring the pot, and if he can't take it, then he should not be dishing it out. Being a veteran, even with an amputated leg, does not give you the right to be an arse without consequence. Sparling and Raoul Deming are professional instigators. Like the kid in the playground that pulls your hair when the teacher isn't looking then tattles on you when you hit back in response. Raoul, get a life. If you google "Raoul Deming" you get dozens of hits, and all of them are his antics as a counter protestor, and many of them are his claims of little old peacenik ladies (such as Codepink) beating him up with their purses. If you are not really demin, just posting using RaoulDeming as your nickname, that is just as bad because you are idolizing a professional instigator. You are lying. Sparling may or may not have been spit on (i say he wasn't), but the video above clearly shows him instigating. Something tells me Hannity won't be showing the Youtube video on his show. Idiot.
Here is a better shot of Sparling, showing his half-amputated leg. At the 10 second mark, he speaks into his megaphone (I can't tell what he is saying.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw1MQZZTtMM&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b
I have no problem whatsoever with the counter protest. Sparling has every right to speak his mind. But don't act like you were just walking around minding your own business when out of the blue somebody hurts your feelings for no apparent reason. You know that when you strap on a megaphone and start trying to tick off a crowd of people, you may get some kind of adverse response. Raoul, if you are out there, say so. Also, which guy are you in this video? What jacket are you wearing? I find dozens of youtube videos from the protest. Surely you are easy to spot since you were so close to Sparling. Lastly, I am pretty sure this is a video shot by Sparling himself. Note the empty wheelchair at the beginning, with his dad standing behind it. Then at the end of it, he sits down into the chair. Yes, he is being peaceful in this video, but "his tribe" as he calls it has an effigy of Jane Fonda hanging, and the signs tell the protestors to "Got to Hell', etc. The Sparling crowd was not there in a peaceful anti-protest. They are trying to stir it up, and Sparling (three supposed "incidents" now). He wants to be on Hannity every week. That's all this is about. Also, I notice that he recounts the events of the day, but DOES NOT MENTION being spit on? He says at the beginning that he is about to head out. In the interview on Hannity he says that it happened during the protest...NOT walking back to the car. HE IS LYING!!!!!
Here is the link again to the first video, in case what I put the first time didn't work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw1MQZZTtMM&mode=related&search=
Where is everybody? Bueller?