NBC's Brown: "It's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops"
During a discussion of Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) comment that "[w]e have now ... seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted" in Iraq, co-host Campbell Brown said on the February 13 edition of NBC's Today: "It's tough for Democrats especially on this issue because -- especially Obama, who's not only opposed to the war, but has set a timeline for bringing troops home. It's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops."
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted (here, here, here, and here) several media outlets have equated support for the Iraq war and opposition to withdrawal with supporting the military and the troops. This suggests that those who oppose the war or support withdrawal do not support the troops. Brown took it a step further, making explicit what others for the most part have merely implied -- that a position against the war and for the troops is inherently contradictory.
Obama subsequently apologized for the comment.
From the February 13 edition of NBC's Today:
MATT LAUER (co-host): Barack Obama made a comment recently. He's taken some criticism for it, saying that 3,000 lives in Iraq may have been wasted. He clarified that and said instead they were not honored because he realized he had offended some military families. How big a fallout will there be over this?
BROWN: It's tough. It's tough for Democrats especially on this issue because -- especially Obama, who's not only opposed to the war, but has set a timeline for bringing troops home. It's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops. And they're trying on the campaign trail right now to find that balance.
This type of dialogue is ridiculous. Our Iraqi war policy cannot be based on whether or not something will hurt the feelings of the troops or their families. They're all grown-ups; they'll deal.
Wow, Rusty, did you nail it. The media has this strange attitude as if all the troops are small children, ready to pout and cry at the mere mention that they may be fighting a wrongheaded war. And wouldn't it be nice if it were pointed out where the wrongheadedness lies.
Both of you are sick people.
It does matter what the troops and their families think. When you are in a warzone, you need to know that the people back home support what you are doing. I keeps you going. I makes it less of a burden on your families.
Moreover, if you died in Iraq, it would add salt to the wound to have a Presidential Candidate tell those families that their son died in vain.
There is a difference b/w supporting the troops and not wanting the troops to die. While you don't want the troops to die, you don't support them.
It IS difficult to take Obama's position and convince the American public you are behind the troops. Period.
But, nevertheless, I am sick to my stomach at your comments that the troops and their families need to grow up.
I'm sick to death of your comments where you claim to know how those troops we sent to Iraq feel about being there.
Where do you get your insight?
I've gone to war. Most of the guys I served with were glad that there were people at home who wanted to end the war and bring them home.
But by the time I was sent to war, more than 40,000 Americans were dead.
Should we wait for another 37,000 to die in iraq until we say, enough?
" Should we wait for another 37,000 to die in iraq until we say, enough? "
Should all wars be determinant on how many have currently died? If we'd left vietnam after 3k dead, then Kennedy would have still been alive to see the end of the war. If we stopped fighting wwII after 3k dead, you'd be speaking german. If we stop this war too early the terrorists will gain a foothold in an area the world cannot afford to have them get control of. What have you got against stopping terrorists at their point of origin?
You really have no idea what you are talking about Proud.
The terrorists were in the middle east before we got there and they didn't come to Iraq until after we started losing the war.
You need to get your facts straight before you make a stupid argument.
As for your other comments about other wars, why is having Kennedy alive a bad thing and if you knew anything about WWII you would know that the Germans wouldn't invade the US we'd be speaking Japanese if we lost WWII.
We wouldn't be speaking German OR Japanese, people. It's impossible to invade this country. It's 3500 miles E to W and 2500 miles N to S. and we have an armed citizenry as well as an army, air force, navy, marines, national guard, border patrol agents, cops, should i go on? Let's stop with that weak hyperbole. BO uses it all the time on his show: "If this anti-war crowd had their way in 1942, we'd be speaking German."
Incidentally, I'm actually trying to learn German in school right now. It's not that bad.
You are exactly right. It's funny how the same people who say the U.S. is the greatest country in the world and we have the greatest military in earth, are the ones who are so scared of other countries coming over here and invading us. It's funny how they are so worried about Iran having a nuclear weapon when we have thousands, and so does Israel. They are not worried about India or Pakistan having nukes but heaven forbid Iran might get one in about ten years. These people are idiots.
And it is funny how those who say you can't be against the war and still support the troops, are the same ones who don't care about whether the troops have all the equipment and armor they need. And don't care about the fact that Halliburton is selling the same equipment to Iran.
My grandfather was in the Wehrmacht. What should my grandmother have done?
During the invasion of Poland, would the Nazis not have claimed that defeat would shame the men that died there?
Using iraq logic, they could not pull out because that would leave a power void that the bolshevics could fill, signal the bolshevics you are weak and invite them to attack your country, loss of german life would have been in vain and created a safe haven for the terrorists (aka resistance).
Note the official line was that the invasion of poland was in rebuttal to a (terrorist) attack against germans.
The official line in the invasion of russia was that they posed a threat to germany.
Now imagine you were a german family in 1939 and someone in your family was drafted. Are you going to tell me you would call for support just like you do now?
Would you support anything Hitler does just because you do not want to come over as hating the troops or your country? You do not want the troops to fail because that means the bolshevics win and they then would come to destroy your homes?
The goons running this war (and every war before) know darn well that the people will blindly follow because they are personally linked to the war.
Germany was nearly completely destroyed because no one wanted to lose the war (which the government made sure to connect to bolshevics raping the family and destroying their homes).
Look to history and see that it has all happend before.
'you' is not directed at the poster but to the reader in general.
Sorry. You've already posted here that you consider every soldier who's ever gone to war guilty of sin. Let me refresh your memory:
I'm refering to this thread on Tuesday, January 23.
CNN Disproves Obama Smear, But Exempts Beck From Criticism"
Here is my comment:
"But, the good news is that he became a Christian and is forgiven of his sins of the past" (Your quote from previous post)"Which sins are you talking about? Do you mean that it's sinful to be something other than a Christian? "
- worrierking / Wednesday January 24, 2007 08:11:18 AM EST
Here is your response:
"That's good, worrierking. Take a knock at Christianity every chance you get. All sins. So, if he did any sinning when he was younger, he is forgiven. You've been in war (right?), even you can have your sins forgiven if you become a Christian. Unless you don't have any sins, then you don't need to be forgiven."- Proud-Christian / Wednesday January 24, 2007 08:39:59 AM EST
Because I, and 3,500,000 others sinned for serving in Vietnam, by your logic, every one of our people serving in Iraq today are sinning. And you want to continue this war.
What does that say about you?
You're good at twisting words. I never said ALL soldiers are guilty of sin for participating in a war. YOU say I said that, but if you actually read (you must have just copy/pasted and didn't actually read) what I said then you could not come to that conclusion unless you're very anti-Christian and are searching for any reason to hate. But, it was a good try.
Also, good of you to avoid the question: Should the length of a war be determined by how many have died? Are you afraid to answer the question?
Oh, now I understand, Now it's just me that's sinned.
You can't weasel out now.
You'r own words show you to be a troop hater. I did read your words and they could only be taken one way.
The topic of this thread is the following statement
"It's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops""
We've shown that we think that you can be in support of the troops and against this war.
You've taken the argument one step further. You are saying that you can be a troop hater and still support the war.
You need to seek forgiveness for that sin.
Proud,
Of course how many soldiers and civilians will die is taken into consideration anytime a war is started. It was done in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and Gulf War II.
It's how all Politicians decide whether the risk is worth the endgoal.
There has never been a war in which either fought over anoble cause, it's always about power, money and protecting one's interests.
I'd like to know why you think we are in Irag. The WMD's and ties to Al Quaida have been debunked. Bringing Democracy to Irag has been abondoned.
It's a fact that we are creating more terorists than killing them.
The Iragi's want us to leave. The Saudi's are arming the Sunni's and the Iranians are arming the Shia. It is a full on civil war.
What are we doing there? What is your rational?
Should the length of a war be determined by how many have died?
No. Which is why the "we must continue this war to honor the 3,000 soldiers who have lost their lives" rationale is hogwash. Glad to see you agree, PC.
It should be part of the cost benifit analysis. There was NO justification for invading Iraq. Your allusion to terrorism is a talking point without validity. If the point was fighting extremist Islamic terrorists then invading the most secular Islamic nation in the region was pure insanity. Do you really think about the talking points you regurgitate or just go into repeat mode and spew out whatever Hannity or Limbaugh told you to say?
But King, you forget ldoren1626 and 90% of the trolls on this forum have mind reading abilities and know what our troops are thinking.
That's why they never have to site any sources, because there is no IP address for what they read in our soldier's minds.
" Most of the guys I served with were glad that there were people at home who wanted to end the war and bring them home. "
....Is what working said, and you claim I have mind reading abilities. Amazing! Yeah they were glad to wanted to be brought home, who wouldn't? It takes a drafted (?) poster to say his fellow troops were wanting to go home and you believe it. I would have more faith in the guy (?) if he/she joined. But, somehow I doubt that happened. Now he/she is complaining about another war he/she doesn't approve of. He/she should have moved to Canada when he/she had the chance. Who cares whether this war is approved of by working! We are in a war and you liberals are absolutely against success this time, too! Keep trying to sell your "illegal war" lies, the facts remain that terrorists plan on killing every American they can. They don't care if it's in Iraq or America, they plan on doing it. They've done it for years and will continue to do it. You liberals think if we leave Iraq they will stop killing Americans. That shows how really intelligent you are. I may be the only one on this site that supports our troops AND supports defeating terrorism, but it's obvious you and working DON'T! I hope just one tank of gas will get you to Canada, that way you don't give too much money to some republican oil barron that you fear so much!
I'm sorry. You are an extremely hate filled person. I made no such claim that I spoke for everyone who served in Vietnam. I speak for myself. I did not need mind reading abilities to know that the men who served with me were tired of war. I could see it in their faces. I could hear it from their lips.
I pointed out that I knew from experience that it was possible to support the troops yet oppose the war. The key word in that sentence being experience.
How dare you say write off my opinion because I was drafted? You have once again denigrated the men who served in Vietnam, you are a despicable coward.
Keep telling everyone how proud you are to be a Christian. I have always been a Christian myself. If being a Christian is to be included in the same group as someone like you. Before the world, I renounce it.
If you are a Christian, I am not.
It would be better if ignorant warmongers like YOU get out of our good country, why dont you go live in Guatemala where your black fascist heart would fit right in. Stars and Stripes published a poll that showed 72% of the troops IN IRAQ want all the troops home within a year. You can keep flogging the delusion invading Iraq had anything to do with terrorism but only the simpleminded are buying it. How many Americans did Iraqi terrorists kill BEFORE we invaded? That would be zero. The CIA said they were no THREAT to attack us but I am sure what they really needed was YOUR vast contacts and experience in the political/defense analysis of the situation. Why dont you give them a call and explain how much better YOU understand the situation than they do. They could use a laugh right now. You can keep trying to sell your delusional fantasies as somehow representative of factual reality but very few people here are dumb enough to buy the bilge you are fruitlessly trying to sell. We get that you are a warmonger, we get that you dont need a reason to want brown people killed wherever possible, we get that you couldnt care less how many Americans get killed doing it. What we dont get is why in the world we should take your insanity seriously
"But, nevertheless, I am sick to my stomach at your comments that the troops and their families need to grow up."
ldoren1626, I think you are being intentionally dense when you say that. No one said the troops "need to grow up" but you. What they said was CONSERVATIVE talking point seems to assume they are not grown up.
Do you really have that little respect for the troops that you think the troops will be crushed if they hear political debate on the war back home? You think they are that weak?
I think you misinterperate the argument. They are saying that the media is portraying military members and their families as children, not that they are children.
According to your philosophy, at what level do you try to engage in debate and try to learn the truth about a war, even if it presents tough answers to family members of fallen soldiers. According to your logic, it seems that nobody could investigate of uncover misdeeds by an administration involving a war for fear that the military families may be mentally injured by learning the truth.
What a load of crap! I'm so sick of people yapping on about how the troops need us to shut up for them to be succesful. It hurts morale? I think our idiot president has done enough to their morale thank you. It's liberals who have been supporting the troops by calling out war profiteering, lies that lead us to war and their neglect upon returning home. LDOREN you are not supporting the troops by following along like a sheep. Teddy Roosevelt said it was not only morally servile but treasonous to NOT question the president in a time of war. Iraq is not a noble cause, it has failed to reap the benefits we were sold, in fact it's hurt our troops and our safety at home. It's idiot's who think torture is ok that embolden the terrorists. It's morons on the radio that suggest bombimng Mecca or rounding up all muslims that get our men and women killed on the battle field.
IDOREN, I'm sick to death of halfwits puking Rush Limbaugh talking points. So, according to you, we should "support" all wars once we have incurred casualties, so that the families of the dead won't "feel bad"? That is the way a fascist state operates, not a free Republic. Read 1984 sometime if you haven't already. If you have read it, READ IT AGAIN! You obviously missed the point.
So, how many more casualties do we have to suffer before it's "okay" to admit that it was all a big mistake? How many dead soldiers have to die to protect George Bush's ego?
sure, that is exactly what he and all the neocons who got us into this mess are saying. we can't set a date, we can't leave, so we have to kill even more americans, and watch more iraqis weep over their relatives killed by a car bomb, because....uh....just because. unless we have an endless number of dead, we're dishonoring those who died before. so it's simple, we're in it and can't get out. but i wonder if all those soldiers who died would feel that way? more have to die because they died. i don't think all of them would agree with that.
Exactly its their favorite kind of talking point one that needs no logical support and assures that once the first person dies we can NEVER question the mission nor leave the battlefield. Its weak and mindless emotional blackmail. Only works on the simple minded like the wingnut base
"There is a difference b/w supporting the troops and not wanting the troops to die. While you don't want the troops to die, you don't support them."
How do you support troop? Example? How does Bush administration support troop? Here a few example of this administration's example of supporting troops:
- this administration allowed the services to bill our wounded $6.00 or 8.00 a meal while being treated
- this administration that refused to raise the death benefit for families of soldiers killed in action.
- this administration and previous GOP majority congress refused the Democrat pleas to allow servicemen and women to keep their homes in the new bankruptcy law. Veterans were given no leniency in any provision.
- this administration and GOP congress did not allow reservists and guardsmen medical care for wounds or injuries received on active duty. The VA cuts them off.
- this administration spent 40 million dollars for an inaugural celebration. That amount of money would have uparmored 116 Humvees.
- this administration kicked out a good general like Shinseki. The message was clear to any others generals. Bump the Rumsfeld and you're retired.
- this administration refused to give veterans and dependents tax breaks on housing loans and purchases. The pentagon said the $400 million was too much money. That's ONLY two days cost in Iraq!
- this president broke a campaign promise saying: "We are not going to send our servicemen and women to fight wars of liberation."
But they support our troops, right?If you want to support the troops, repeat after me:
Troops! Home! NOW!
If you want them to stay and get blown up, don't you dare say you support them....you're just trying to get them killed.
Okay, once again...not all the "troops" (the very word is annoying in its inclusiveness -- as if they all think alike) support the war. Even if they did, so what? We all have rights as American citizens to dissent. The media has embraced/invented this post-Vietnam pseudo guilt trip and foisted it upon everyone from Hollywood, CA to Hollywood, FL and everywhere in between.
My brother-in-law served in Vietnam as a combat Marine and, upon viewing the travelling "wall" exhibit at a local park he commented, "It was more than 30 years ago. Get over it!" I'd like to point out that he is unemployable due to untreated mental illness as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder. Eighteen months before ordination he decided he didn't want to be a priest, dropped out of the seminary, and lost his deferment. (You'll excuse him; it was a bit of a shock, such a transition.) So, if he can cotton on to this manufactured guilt trip, why can't everyone else. He once noted that he didn't know anyone who had been spit on when deplaning or left their uniforms in airport garbage cans after returning home from Vietnam because "we had no other clothes; what else would we have worn?"
My husband is a lieutenant colonel serving his second tour in Iraq. He thinks the whole thing is a huge mistake. In his words, "There are virtually no senior NCOs or field grade officers who think this is a good idea or that it is going well."
Here's one military family who is tired of hearing pundits on TV who have never served in the military, don't really know anyone in the miltary, wouldn't live next door to them if they could help it, and wouldn't know a PX from a BX, but yet feell they can wax rhapsodic about "supporting the troops." How about we just all act like Americans and say what we really feel and think? Isn't that what the ol' Constitution is supposed to ensure? Nobody takes an oath to "protect and defend" the president, his wrong-headed decisions, CNN, Rush Limbaugh, some yahoo with a yellow ribbon magnet on his SUV, Campbell Brown, or Chris Matthews (who still hasn't gotten over running into the Peace Corps during the 1960's.)
My husband's in Iraq, brother-in-law fought in Vietnam, my father fought in WWII, my grandfather fought in WWI, my great-great Uncle fought in the Spanish-American War, my husband's great-grandfather fought as a Confederate private from Mississippi in the Civil War, and his great-great-grandfather fought in the Mexican-American War. Other than the Revolution and the War of 1812 (when they were all comfortable Southern landowners and happily rooted for the Tories) this family has been in just about every war this country has ever fought. We vote Democrat and we don't apologize. Supporting the troops is about taking care of them when they come home. Who does that the best, Campbell?
Thank you very much for your post.
Thank You!
I'm a VN Vet, my nephew did tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two uncles were lifers one of which fought in three wars (WWII, Korea, and Vietnam). My dad fought in the Pacific in WWII. Like you my family's war experience is deep and long in American history. Campbell Brown has no business saying what she said and I sent her a note saying so. I am a member of Veterans for Peace and contribute regularly to Vietnam Veterans of America and just started donating to IAVA because of their agenda with respect to veterans health issues in Congress and I have been in Peace Rallies recently. There is no contradiction. Troops Home Now is best support we can give these guys and gals.
RVN, 1/5, 1st Cav 69-70
YellowDogDemocrat
(Me standing and clapping), well said!
Great post
RedKing, you couldn't have said it any better. How can you support the troops by getting them killed for a war of lies. You support them with money for equipment until they a safely back home.
No, that's just encourages the generals who want to play with their toy soldiers and get them butchered. To stop Reagan's private war in Nicaragua, Congress cut the funding and the Nicaraguan civil war practically ended overnight. If Congress refuses to fund Iraq, the troops will HAVE to be brought home.
It makes me sick to my stomach that people like YOU think supporting the troops mean to try to get as many as possible killed for no good reason. I personally think its more important to assure the next wife doesnt become a widow than worry about whose feelings are hurt because you dont think the mission is worthy of their deaths
" It makes me sick to my stomach that people like YOU think supporting the troops mean to try to get as many as possible killed for no good reason. "
It makes ME sick that people like YOU think terrorism is "no good reason"! You may as well be saying that fighting nazism is "no good reason". What the heck do you consider a GOOD reason? Do you want to wait for them to blow up a couple of our buildings? Maybe attack a couple barracks? What do you consider a good reason? How many AMERICANS do terrorists need to kill before you consider fighting back a good reason? How many IRAQI'S do terrorists need to kill before you consider fighting back a good reason? Oh, I know, you think they can take care of themselves and don't need help. Sure, but what about the Americans they kill?! And, yes, moron, the terrorist are in and always have been in Iraq! It's funny you keep calling Iraq the most secular nation in the area while they were controlled by one of the worst dictators of our time.
"It's funny you keep calling Iraq the most secular nation in the area while they were controlled by one of the worst dictators of our time."
-----
That isn't funny at all. Iraq was a secular nation. Sadaam was a secular dictator. The reason Sadaam had nothing to to do with 9/11 is that he hated Osama bin Laden and his radical religious zealotry. The fact that it's becoming a religious nation now has everything to do with the Bush Administration's colossal incompetence.
Hint: That's why the US supported Sadaam against Iran back in the 80s. That's why Don Rumsfeld went to Iraq to shake Sadaam's hand.
What's funny is how the wingnuts scream, "But Sadaam gassed his own people!" now, but at the time their response was to sell Sadaam more of the same gas and more helicopters of the same type used to spread that gas.
Man, you really are stupid. I mean you understand that dont you? How many Americans they are killing NOW, IN IRAQ isnt really relevant to their threat BEFORE we invaded. Only a true moron thinks that we get to invade a country kill at least tens of thousands of THEM then snivel they are killing us back. Would they have been killing Americans had we NOT INVADED? The CIA said directly in their threat assessment BEFORE the war that they were no threat to do so. Again if the threat was terrorism by extremist Islamists then invading the most secular Islamic nation in the middle east was insanity. Did you really think there was a point by asking why the most secular country in the region was run by a brutal dictator made sense? You really are ratchetting up the stupidity. Exactly why couldnt a brutal dictator be Secular? Mao was. Stalin was. How many suicide bombing happened in Iraq before the invasion? That would be zero. Terrorism was an EXCUSE to invade Iraq not a reason and only simple minded idiots like YOU took it seriously. Try to have some dim conception what you are talking about before posting an ignorant rant like that one. I enjoy the laugh but your stupidity does your cause no good and its boring to swat down the mindless stupidity of such posts. Try making some sense. Maybe even, perish the thought, a cogent argument, something that engages the discussion instead of moronic ranting without a shred of insight, information or frankly lucidity. If you EVER know what you are talking about try us again.
By the way moron. Are you trying to make the point that since WW2 was justified then any war, anytime, anywhere, for ANY reason is therefore justified? You do realize thats just stupid dont you?
No, I don't say that. But, in typical liberal form you create that out of what I did say. Let me ask you why did we attack Germany? Since they did NOT attack us. It wasn't our fight to save the world, was it? Japan attacked us and we fought them in SEVERAL different areas of the world. It's pretty obvious you don't know anything about history, so claiming that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism is all I expect from you. Since you can't understand that terrorism is world wide then I wouldn't expect you to understand that terrorists would go to fight the US while we are removing that 'liberal-freindly' dictator that you seem to approve of so much. Wait, I even hear you supporting the terrorists by saying that we should leave Iraq and let them take over the country. You don't care what happens to them and you don't care what happens to us!
I am sick to my stomach at your comments that the troops and their families need to grow up. - LDoren
Maybe it will soothe your sensitive stomach to observe that that's not what I said.
It is never good to say that someone has wasted his or her life, when they have sacrificed so much- their life- for their country. However, should we not say that there has been a waste somewhere? Those soldiers did not have to lose their lives. As a matter of fact they would probably still be around today if we did not wage this war.
To sit back and say that nothing should be said, is similar to saying we should not question what is going on with, the war or, the soldiers lives. At the end of the day, the troops lives are better served protecting this country from an agressive enemy. We have sent the troops into harms way and caused over 3,000 of their lives to be lost, in an unnecessary war , that was not waged to protect us. As such their precious lives have been lost. Thus the most simple conclusion is there has been a waste.
I think that we are not really thinking about the troops here. Their lives are of paramount importance, as are our own. They are not wasting their lives, this Administration is wasting their lives. That is what we as Americans need to pick up on and finally see, above all the stupid rhetoric about the "morale of the troops." We should think about saving their lives and limbs, which, I think, is more important than Morale.
What you say is total b-s blackmail spin! The bereaved families should be outraged and unforgiving at the liars who sent the soldiers there...
"It IS difficult to take Obama's position and convince the American public you are behind the troops. Period."--LDoren
Well, indeed, especially if the punditocracy keeps saying that the positions are inherently contradictory. But you've restated/misstated the issue as one of perception rather than genuine intellectual consistency. The American public may be hard to "convince" that Obama can support the troops and not the war, but the difficulty of that sell proves nothing about the worth of his position.
Shifting gears--from what I understand, quite a few of the troops themselves no longer support the war. What would you say to a soldier who sees no worth in continuing to fight in Iraq? Is s/he sick too?
They have died in vain. You are just having a hard time accepting it, and you are not alone. What a waste!
ldoren1626: I think you're twisting their words. They didn't say the troops should grow up, they said they are adults and can deal with the debate on Iraq. It amazes me that people like you that say you're so supportive of the troops yet never even bother to question how the troops are being used. Would you be so supportive of this war if this administration came out and stated that we're fighting in Iraq to open up the vast Iraqi oil reserves for US oil companies to pump? Fact is Bush doesn't care about the Iraqi people or their freedom, and there were not terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion. Sadam was a secular dictator and the Islamic fundamentalists like Bin Laden hated him. They knew Sadam wasn't a threat. Rice and Powell stated even stated as much saying that he was contained. So tell me why these kids are fighting, killing and dying over there. If you know anything about American history and what the framers of this country believed, then you'd know that questioning the government is the patriotic duty of every citizen. Unfortunately, we've become a society to lazy to think for themselves, and instead rely on others to tell us what we think. We've become a nation of sheepol. Jefferson is turning in his grave.
Allow me to quote Matt Taibbi from this week:
Then there's this whole business of liberals who are accused of "rooting" for failure in Iraq. I'm sorry, but the next pundit who whips that one out should have his balls stuffed down his throat. You c**ksuckers beat the drum to send these kids to war, and then you turn around and accuse us of rooting for them to die? F**k you for even thinking that. We're Americans just like you. You don't have the right to get us into this mess and then turn around and call us traitors. Your credibility is long gone on this issue; shut up about us.
Me - I don't really see the difference between the accusation that "we liberals" are rooting for failure in Iraq and Ms Brown's assertion that it's difficult to support the troops when you don't agree with their mission.
It's all in the same category of projectionist nonsense, and rather like Taibbi, and I'm actually sick and tired of politely registering my annnoyance/anger when they whip out this insinuation. It's not just that they are questioning one's patriotism, it's questioning one's sense of compassion.
And it's deserving of a venomous riposte.
Oh my God! Now, this is a great example of pure propaganda.
"It's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops."
False. The only way to be for the troops at this juncture is 1) equip them as they should be, 2) get them the hell out of a civil war.
How can 'setting a timeline' to bring troops out of harm's way, not be for the troops!!
In defense of Ms. Brown's statements, it IS "difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops." It is difficult to say, not because the two positions (pro-military, anti-war) are inherently mutually exlusive, but because a vast majority of our misinformed Americans would perceive them to be. For Brown to make that claim doesn't mean that she actually believes Obama doesn't support the troops. She just understands what obstacles an "anti-war" ticket will reasonably be up against.
That being said, repeating this tired rationale on national TV does give it legs, and thus I can't commend Ms. Brown for her comments.
I would venture to say that some of our troops in Iraq are against the troops if wanting them brought home is the criterion we use.
Mmmmmm....
Who supports the troops? Who is against the troops?
Those that send them into an unjustified war, then leave them there to get caught in the cross-fire of a civil war?
Or those that want to bring them home from this fiasco?
Yeah that's a tough one to answer....
Jeter right on the dial!
This war has and always will be a fiasco, and to be blunt, has actually harmed us(meaning the United States) than helped us. I hope more people will wake up and realize we need to get out of there as NO OTHER tactics will work.
Hey, they supported them by sending them in without sufficient body armor, without properly armored vehicles, and by sending them in in insufficent numbers to secure the country.
See, they were saying, "We know we can send you in without all the things you need and in small numbers because you'll kick ass anyway!"
Or in other words, "Bring it on!"
Wait... none of that really supports our troops, does it?
"It's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops."
What a rediculous statement. We want our troops to be ready to protect us from actual threats. We want them to be well protected, armoured, and ready, just in case there is a real war (unlike this war that Bush fabricated).
Some (maybe most) of us who are against this war have a number of reasons. Not the least of which is--
WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
To agree with this war = Anti-troops !
Nice thing about the 24/7 news is that you can spread your stupid statements within nanoseconds over a large geographical area.
Balderdash.
First, I must respect the troops more than conservatives, because apparently they seem to think the troops are ready to collapse in despair if they hear a discouraging word. The troops are tough people, conservatives. Stop disrespecting them!
This simplistic reasoning puts every officer (and commander in chief) who ever ordered a retreat into the camp of "not supporting the troops". Guess what? The USA has not won every battle. The USA has not won every war. Withdrawls have happened before.
This simplistic reasoning means Gerald Ford did not "support the troops" because he ordered the withdrawl from Vietnam... thus crushing troop moral? They were probably happy to get out.
Read some history and get real.
This may very well be Karl Rove's greatest propaganda victory; this idiotic talking point that our troops will melt into gelatinous blobs of sobbing blubber if they somehow come to the realization that they are fighting an unwise, illegal, unjustified war. Most of them probably realized it long ago. This is just one more dishonest propaganda club that the Troglodytes can use to beat Democrats over the head.
This ties in with the statement Obama has been forced to apologize for. Apparently he slipped up and made an uncomfortably true statement; that our troops have died wasted deaths in Iraq. Well, folks, they HAVE BEEN WASTED! Get over it, accept it. The troglodytes can jump up and down and pull out their hair, and it won't justify the 3000+ lives that we have WASTED over there.
Oh, and if any of the Troglodytes want to try and beat me up with phony outrage, I have a nephew over there, and if he dies, HIS DEATH IS A WASTE! So, up yours!
Nerzog I hope the best for your nephew.
I agree completely, the brave men and women have been involved in a senseless war; because of lies of distortions created by Bush and his administration. This is not their fault of course, and I believe most of the troops over there KNOW that Bush messed up badly.
Nerzog--I'm wishing the best for your nephew (as I am for all the troops) and hope this BS is over before my 3 grandson's are old enough to serve. Thoughts and prayers.
Well, N... I (for one) hope your nephew (and all the service men and women) make it back safely and intact. I overheard a guy at my work -- courier -- tell one of the secretaries that he's heading over to Iraq for a 16mo tour. He's a reservist. The madness has to stop. I firmly believe that. This illegal war has gone on long enough.
Thanks for the good wishes. My heart, cynical though it may be, goes out to all who have family stuck in this meat grinder, whether they're Conservative or Liberal, whether they support the war or not.
I think Campbell is hot so I'll defend her a little bit. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and put some words in her mouth. I think what she is saying is literally true, it is difficult in a 15 nanosecond sound bite to clearly communicate that one is proud, and in awe of the courage it takes to go out and try to patrol a dangerous urban battle ground, and yet at the same time ashamed and deeply saddened that our fellow citizens who volunteered to fight our battles for us are mired in yet another hopeless civil war far from home, and far from protecting our security.
No its not difficult to say, its not only the easiest thing in the world it makes perfect sense unlike this totally bereft of logic rightwing propaganda parrot talking point
Well, solon, maybe you can keep your wits about you while facing a horde of cameras and microphones, and speak in a nice clear voice, in complete sentences and so forth. I can tell you that I crumble and spew stuff I whish I'd never said. I once said to Erma Bombeck "if you want a chauvinist pig I'm your man" That was a big hit with the ladies.
Now that's funny :-)
Hey Pit, I don't know what it had to do with the rest of your post, but that pick-up line you used on Erma Bombeck, did it work. ;0)
Not well. Her producer had us all liquored up though, in my defense.
Link to the whole story, for the bored or curious. It was slightly relevant since we were mocking the insanity of MAD, the crux of the cold war.
http://www.vaillawnchairteam.com/carnes/PLCDT_Resume.html
If the people can't voice their disagreement with a leader's use of the country's military, how do a governed people stop a Hitler? If the people must roll over and support EVERY use of the military, then the people have abandoned their roll in our democracy.
While I understand that such dissent may be hard for the troops to hear, that's not a reason to silence it. The troops are sent wherever the leader sends them, they have no voice in it ... so of course they want it to be a "good war". But that wish doesn't make it so.
The best we can do is try and make sure we only send them into "real wars", and then get them out when we've been wrong.
Bush is no Hitler, but his administration has been amazingly wrong in Iraq. Supporting the troops means NOT sending them into the wrong war ... and if you did, then you need to be honest about it get them out.
Campbell Brown is married to Dan Senor, who used to be the spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority. This is probably coming straight from him. She gets the talking points at night during pillow talk, then emits them the next day. Senor should be arrested for prostitution for some of the things he said in making excuses for George Bush.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
Does this me i have no chance with Campbell?
Only if you're a cop who likes to shoot dogs. Campbell show a lot of sympathy to dog killers.
What if she meant...
It's [unfortunately] difficult [for Democrats in this current political environment] to say that you're against the war and at the same time not [be misinterpreted as] say[ing] that you're against the troops.
I'm against that fellow beating h--- out of me but I am for those policemen who tried to protect me.
I am for criminals.
I'm against child pornography, and want any children involved in it removed from the pornographers custody.
I'm against children.
I hate Christmas. Also our troops.
Just for the record, I am ashamed that I cannot point out to my teenage son, how I did every thing I could to stop our invasion of Iraq. All I can say is, at the time I believed that Condi, Rummy, Powell and yes even the president would not have invaded unless they had solid evidence that it was the only choice. Sadly, I was not yet wised up to the level of deceit that what used to con us into this tragic mistake. One of our recent high school graduates was killed in Iraq, and it is impossible to convey in words the shame and embarassment I felt when I met his parents. In our small town, it really hits hard when of the ones we raised, and were so proud of, is sent home to be buried. He was in Iraq for all of 4 weeks. What a waste. To think we sent an idealistic, patriotic son, to die, so that we can have heated towel racks.
I was reluctantly in favor of invading Afghanistan, and completely against Iraq. I can't know how you must feel. But, their machine was rolling, and there was nothing you or anyone could have done to stop it.
I marched in anti-war protests in February, 2003, continually wrote emails and letters, and encouraged family and friends to do the same. Maybe I could have done more, but it wouldn't have mattered.
Now every Sunday at the end of 'This Week with George Stephanopolis', I read the names of those who died and wonder if I could have done more. The pit in my stomach usually dissapears before the following Sunday. So I write letters, send emails, and march in anti-war protests.
Do what you can now. Maybe we can help bring the rest of them home just one day sooner and help save the lives of a few more.
Best Wishes, Rick
"It's difficult to say that you're against the war
and at the same time not say that you're against the troops"
Is it difficult? Let's see...
To "not say that you're against the troops" is to twist your mouth unnecessarily into a double negative... it seems easier to say:
I support the troops.
I support our Sons and Daughters, our Brothers and Sisters, and our Fathers and Mothers in the U.S. Armed Forces, be they in Iraq or any other place on the face of the earth.
That was easy enough... that can hardly be the "difficult" part alluded to in the quote. All that's left is to say:
I'm against the war?
OK, that's it... that's the difficult part... so difficult that I had to put a question mark on the end of it (and couldn't make it bold either)... why the heck is it so difficult to say "I'm against the war"?
I know. It's because before I can say the word "war", I'm compelled to ask:
Just who is it that our Sons and Daughters and Brothers and Sisters and Fathers and Mothers are at "war" with, in Iraq?
If you see what I mean, then you'll know why it is, that not only do I find it "difficult" (as the quote claims) to say the two things "at the same time", I find it impossible to say one of those things:
"I'm against the war"...
...because I can't for the life of me figure out just who it is we're at "war" with in Iraq.
Now, as to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I can say easily these two things:
I support the troops
and I'm against the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Easily said.
Because the troops I support, are our Sons and Daughters and Brothers and Sisters and Fathers and Mothers...
And because the invasion and occupation I oppose (an invasion and occupation dreamed up by the Bush administration), is based on lies and greed.
Right, and just because some people find it difficult to put the square peg in the circle hole doesn't mean that's where it's supposed to go.
Those who lump the two together do it because they can't muster a decent reason that the trops are in Iraq. Therefore they try to silence the war critics.
I support the boy scouts, but I don't want them camping in the wilderness where hungry bears are present. Perhaps this isn't the best comparison, but can you imagine anyone taking the oposing side of this debate?
opposing (sorry)
Well Rick, I'm pro-bear. So basically your saying bear's can't have a little snack once in a while? I think that's very specist of you. (Just joking)
LOL ! ! !
The only way you can honestly be for the troops is if you're against the war.
I'm glad I read this piece. Otherwise I might have gotten myself in a heap of trouble.
I was about to go out with some friends and criticize Lovie Smith, the head coach of the Chicago Bears. You see, I think that he had a bad game plan for the Super Bowl. But know that I see Ms. Brown's argument I know that if I had criticized Lovie Smith I would have actually been telling all my friends that I hate individual players that make-up the Bears team. They love the Bears (actually, until now I thought I did too, but obviously since I don't think the game plan was perfect, I can see that I must actually hate them).
So thank you Ms. Brown for making me see the error of my ways. In America it's either blind obedience to the whims of our leaders, or we hate our troops.
Campbell Brown is Mrs Dan Senor, right? as in White House spokesman, Bremer's CPA spokesman, Bush/Cheney '04 spokesman, isn't he?
Mightn't this be relevant when discussing Iraq policy?
I don't understand the argument of " if you're againt the war, you're anti-American". I am against the war but I support the troops. I support the troops because they didn't have a choice (once they signed on the dotted line), and they're doing what they're ordered to. Do I think they need to come home...yes. Do we need a phased pull out, redeployment to finish the job in Afghanistan...yes. Do they need to vigorously train the Iraqi Security Forces....yes. Did the Bush Admin srew this puppy to high heaven....yes. Do the troops need what they need (supply wise) to do the best job in the field...yes.
I support my troops I don't support the Bush clusterf**k.
I respect the Office of the President I DON'T respect the person in the office.
Recently there was considerable press about Kerry's "joke"concerning the intelligence of our troops. The Bushies were out front saying that our troops are the most intelligent force ever assembled and have chosen to be part of the Armed Forces. Since this is true, why can't the TROOPS decide who supports them or who is against them? Seems simple enough. But our expert commentators do it for us. And this sour bunch of Republicans in the HOUSE cannot believe their own rhetoric concerning the for/against the troops debate. They are still the fools following the script of the Cheney/Bush White House. I believe the order of "C/B" White House is the correct one.
Hey, what happened to LDoren? Was this such a decisive beatdown that the conservative poster couldn't even try to dig itself out?
I almost feel sorry for it, and I don't feel sympathy for Republicans very often.
Sorry HBL, I was supposed to give everyone the message. LDoren and his commanding officer, Col. Roy Campbell were called away.
It's pretty hush, hush. You'll probably be reading about their mission in the next day or two. They've both been recalled to Planet Wingnut. I've heard that their mission involves an invasion of Pluto. Their orders are to land and gather up as much Plutonium as they can gather. Then they'll return to earth, invade Iran and spread their deadly radioactive cargo over the entire country.
Thank God for heroes.
God Bless our brave crazy people!
Worrierking,
In the case of ldoren and the Roy's mission, I can honestly say, "I'm against the mission and against our troops." (Oh no, now I'll never get into the right wing tree house to meet Prezident Bush!)
Don't worry. While they're all up in the tree house, we can steal their ladder.
And I think meeting George W would be a letdown. I've already met a better president. I shook hands with Tricky Dick in 1960. My hand still feels dirty.
I may be wrong about either or both of these incidents, but I think Campbell Brown was the woman who several months ago in a segment on maximizing auto fuel efficiency asked the guest how to use a tire air pressure gauge. I also seem to remember that in a different segment late last year Ms. Brown could not park the new idiot-proof Lexus car which parallel parks itself.
So consider the source. Campbell Brown just doesn't seem very intelligent.
George W. Bush and the GOP leadership are PRO- AL QAEDA and PRO-TERRORISM. I'm sorry to say that but it is true. It is going to be difficult to justify starting this war with Iraqis, getting our troops stuck in Iraq and at the same time say that they are not against our troops. Bush has given our troops no way of destroying Al Qaeda where Al Qaeda is. He has stopped even trying. The main force of Al Qaeda is neither in Iraq nor Afghanistan. Most of them are long gone and rebuilding elsewhere and recruiting more terrorists faster than ever using Bush as their reason to hate America. How can Bush create so many terrorists and still say the is for America?
The diversity of opinion within the military is no different than that of the general population.
Some will use the "you can't support the troops unless you support the mission" canard. That's fine...despite the convoluted logic.
Others say it's time to leave and applaud the statements of Republicans like Warner and Hagel (both veterans) and Democrats like Kerry and Webb (both veterans).
There's a great line in Flags of Our Fathers...just paraphrasing - "Everybody thinks they know what war is all about...especially those who have never fought in one." How true it is.
Don't people who can't seperate support the troops from support the war have jobs? When your boss tells you to do something that yoou feel is a bad idea, don't you still have to do it? Soldiers have to perform to the best of their abilities even if their orders are ill conceived and incompetent, just as we have to do what the boss directs regardless of our opinion as to his decisions.
Support the troops talk is nothing but cover, a diversion for the gross failures of our executive leadership. Unfortunately it works all too well, republicans continued to use this tactic on the House floor during the recent Iraq debat. Debating the need for war is ok, but bring sensible arguments, not hide behind the blood and guts of our soldiers. May the posers and cowards rot in Hell.
The remaining Bush backers are probably squirming in their slippers realizing that despite their efforts that their support of the troops is no different from the rest of the country, pro or anti war folks. They have nothing left to grasp onto to convince themselves that this Admin led them down the yellow brick road and into hell.
However, the new boogeyman, IRAN, is responsible for everything. To those blind followers, Dorothy and her gang walked and skipped down the yellow bricks. When the Admin tells you, through a Sr. Administration source that Dororthy said that " I RAN, yes, I RAN down that road because of IED's", remember she RAN but it was away from the Lion, not towards him.
This country has a difficult time understanding history, including this failure of a president. Fighting the Vietnam war didn't make this country safer from anything, anymore than fighting in Iraq. Our country may be permanently split into for and against on everything from here on. I have a dead Marine in the local cemetery where I live KIA from the Vietnam war and to look at his gravestone is just depressing, only 19 years old and dead, over a waste of a war.. The same thing will be said about Iraq......
I saw that piece and, I must say I don't think Brown was asserting that a statement that one is against the war is a statement that one is against the troops. I think she was indicating that it is hard for a candidate to articulate an anti-war statement in a way that allows him or her to avoid creating an impression that he or she is also against the troops.
Thanks,
Dale Wisely
After watching the clip, I'd be prepared to accept the explanation that she was merely discussing the political aspects of the difficulties that the Democrats face when communicating the (to some) disparate concepts of rejecting the war while supporting the troops. On the other hand, Campbell's husband, Dan Senor, is a Republican consultant and a regular on Fox News. (It is rumored that Campbell may be making her own move to CNN or Fox later this year.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_Brown
There seems to be just a whiff of repeating Bush talking points under the guise of media analysis going on here, but the clip is inconclusive.
I am disgusted by the comment from Campbell Brown: "It's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops." That is like saying you are against cars, food and anything else that causes cancers because you are against cancer. I though Ms Brown had some sense but I can see she is under the spell of that Repuglican warmonger Dan Senor.
A simple statement to support the troops - bring them home to save their lives. More are being killed and maimed as we fools discuss this matter.
If Campbell didn't mean what she seemed to say, she's failed in her job as journalist and should clarify and apologize. If she really meant what she said, she's nothing more than a mouthpiece for a criminal administration and should be required to wear a sign around her neck which says as much. If she's just mouthing the words whispered to her in sweet bedtime moments by her husband, then she's strictly from Stepford, and let's hope she doesn't explode around innocent people.
The idea that you either support an unelected president and his immoral and incompetent war or you somehow wish ill to the troops -- who are Bush's first line victims -- is shamefully wrong and abhorrent. I hope she clarifies and apologizes, but I'm not holding my breath.
As someone that never voted for the war, I would like to see us get out of Iraq. However, I would also like to see us squash some terrorism. Send a message they will never forget. Bomb Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, and Irans Terrorist strong holds. THAT, WILL SEND A MESSAGE. And if it does not work the first time, do it again. It is better then leaving our troops in the middle of a civil war.
Yeah, because that is our problem in the middle east. We just arent killing enough innocent people.
I suspect these talking points must come from her husband, Dan Senor. Perhaps the English schools I attended misled me. I would love hear here explanation as to why we can support our troops, and be against the war. Ms Brown should go back to school..kindergarden no less.
But then again, given our stellar TV personality line up, I am not surprised that to land such a cushy job, the solitary criteria is that one's IQ must equal one's belt size.
Let me spell it out for ya, Browny:
That is the underlying argument to the "support the war if you support the troops" doggerel.
It draws a false relationship between the two, and is designed to suppress contrary opinions on the war so as to shift the debate from "do you support George Bush's policy of preemptive war with Iraq and the subsequent policing of a Civil War?" with "do you support the troops?" which nobody is sanely debating.
Pabulum such as this is diabolically undemocratic, for it attempts to spin the following web of false causality: if you don't support the Iraq war and soldier is killed, that the blame rests on your shoulders because non-support "emboldens" the enemy, as if the enemy has a closed circuit feed trained on you in your living room.
This and the “we MUST win in Iraq” canard both contend that debate is bad, which means democracy is bad, because without debate there is no democracy.
Campbell Brown is married to super-ultra-neocon zealot Dan Senor who...... was one of Paul Bremmer's triumphant joyriders who gleefully strutted and held court inside the Green Zone while he (Bremmer) was there, screwing everything up totally and for all time. Senor was on the power trip of a lifetime as a so-called aid in a vanity job paid for by the taxpayers for the Republco Party faithful.
Gosh! Invasions and occupations ARE SUCH FUN!!
Don't tell me Campbell Brown isn't a biased mouthpiece and shill for the Republicans, I know better! She gives herself away everytime she opens her mouth!
Brown says: "It's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops"
I say: It's difficult to say that you're in democracy if you cannot criticize president and his war policy.
I cannot believe the art of human compromise still works to this day. There is no one who hates any of the soldiers fighting in Iraq. The only people who hate the soldiers are the people telling the soldiers that some Americans hate them and want them to fail. The best way to lower morale is to tell the soldiers no one supports you. Spreading fear and hatred while compromising people into emotionally schizophrenic corners seems to work when discussing the war and how the soldiers are handling this war.
I've only two words for you, Campbell Brown's new husband, Dan Senor, late of the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Why wasn't he in the Rep. Waxman's hotseat last week?
Whoever she is, whatever her stripe of punditry, whomever she's married to, it is perfectly obvious to anyone who watches this clip that what she meant was that it's politically dificult to oppose the war without genuflecting to "the troops". I'd like to think this perception is wrong. Obama is not risking it, and apologized. This point needs to be made: that opposing the war, and trying to extricate them from the fool's errand Bush sent them on, that had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, *is* supporting the troops.
This eminates from the standard narative about Vietnam, that we lost because we didn't "support the troops". Ever since then, during every military engagement, we see a preponderance of yellow ribbons and the like, to support the troops. Thanks to MMFA for helping to debunk the Vietnam story.
This has been the most usefull MMFA thread yet for me. I think I finaly get it. By saying what she said, that the anti democratic idea that to criticize goverment actions is somehow seditious, and any one who does so, must be considered somewhat suspiciously, the concept gains credibility. Once someone publicly criticizes the invasion of Iraq, they must be considered less than fully patriotic. This idea is fomented from many sources and now that she has said it again, no matter the context, it gains traction.
This is what MMFA does best, expose the subtle use of mass media to reinforce false hoods and anti democracy views.
Readers of this thread now know that Campbell is literally in bed with a republican operative, seriously doubt that even 1% of the viewers of the Today show know this.
By saying what she said, that the anti democratic idea that to criticize goverment actions is somehow seditious, and any one who does so, must be considered somewhat suspiciously, the concept gains credibility. Once someone publicly criticizes the invasion of Iraq, they must be considered less than fully patriotic.
I don't think she's saying that, exactly. She is saying that for any opponent of the war, the burden of proof that they are not against the troops lies with them. This concept does gain traction, as you say, through the media's help.
Most Americans ostensibly support democracy, and accept that in general, if you don't agree with the government you speak out and/or vote against it. But, to say something that can be construed as against the soldiers who are risking/sacrificing their lives evokes emotions that can be exploited politically. You know, and I know, that the result works against democracy. But, I guess my point is that the message is a lot more subtle than you are suggesting. It's not sedition against a "wartime president", but demoralizing the people who are dying, that is being suggested. Even though, logically, the blame should be placed on that wartime president, not his critics.
Brown is just like that virtual character in "Simone". She is a total creation of someones imagination, in this case her husband. All he has to do is get her to repeat the phrase, in any context and the damage is done. She does not even know what she means, nor does it matter for her puppet master's purposes. This is deep, deep damage control for the O8 republican canidate whoever that may be. They are trying to embed this message in the collective pysche.
By Brown's logic the only way to be supportive of the troops is to send more to their deaths.
If that's her idea of support, i don't know how much more of it our military can bear
Ha, now there is at least one Democratic canidate that no one can say this about!!http://midwestvaluespac.org/blog/125/usophotoessay
No it isn't. I just did.
PJ, are you saying a guy who has done USO shows in Iraq does not support the troops?
I would venture that doing a USO show, no doubt at some risk of physical harm, is supporting the troops a hell of a lot more than someone who drives around with a stupid decal.
I would also venture that Franken got at least a few laughs for those jokes.
"who drives around with a stupid decal" Oh dog darn it!! That is something that really chaps my hide!! An 06 Hummer idling in front of the post office in the summer with some of those fake ribbon stickers, so that some one won't have to experience the discomfort of a little heat!! Luckily for them it's illegal to set said hummer on fire.