It's their war. Why aren't they fighting it?
posted by OYE @ 7/18/2007 05:54:00 PM
Max Blumenthal speaking out his ass. Curiously high number of medical reasons they can't serve? Obviously Max has never been to a recruiter."But in reality, the numbers game is stacked against recruiters. In the prime age group for recruitment (17 to 24 years old), 7 in 10 are ineligible for military service, Army officials say."
anonymous (18 July, 2007 20:29)-This blog agrees that those who are ineligible to serve are basically off the hook.That said, it doesn't appear from the video that any of them applied to enlist but were not accepted.Thank you for pointing out the stats.
Thank you for making us aware of this clip. I was just earlier today looking for this clip, because those people interviewed myself and others from my CR chapter, at the Convention. Another group interviewed and filmed me, regarding the Iraq war, and my view of the Bush administration. (The latter did not specifically ask me whether I supported the Iraq war, but did ask me whether I supported a withdrawal option, and I gave a favorable impression of that strategy, and made clear that I opposed a troop surge. I specifically asked for an ID or a card before they interviewed me... The reason I did so, was because of what had happened earlier that day, with the "reporter" who you link to, in this entry.)I was unaware, until now, about the identify of Max Blumenthal... That is why I was looking for info, on the web, after returning from Washington, D.C. I want to thank you for finally making me aware of who interviewed us.It should have been a red flag, when he and his co-workers did not produce a business card to give to us, even after I handed them mine. They told us that they were with "La Republica," the Italian news network... and Mr. Blumenthal (now I know who he is!) pointed to his Italian cameraman... He said that the interview would first be translated, and then be broadcast.It was a little later that I was informed, by a CR who recognized them from a previous conference, that they were lying about their identity, as they have done before... They actually trick conservatives into giving interviews, and then selectively clip and edit the video, to make it say something different from what the speaker intended. This is why they were kicked out... Not because they were liberals [there were a lot of other media people there], but because they were lying, claiming to be from La Republica. (They even had that station's website written on their equipment.)From watching that clip, I see the selective editing. Standing next to our new CR Chapter Chairman was our 2nd Vice-Chairman, who responded to Mr. "La Republica's" question, about whether he was going into the military, by saying "I'm talking to a recruiter right now." - I see that that part was not included, in that clip. Also conveniently omitted was my response, in which I noted that each of the past three semesters, my CR chapter has done a "military send-off," in which we bid farewell to our College Republicans members, before they departed from our state, to go into the U.S. Armed Forces. (As far as I know, all of these CRs are still deployed in their locations - the specifics of which we are not allowed to know.) Our last meeting (which concluded the Spring semester) was very emotional for many of us, and the fact that our organization's Treasurer was about to go into the United States Special Forces was one reason for this.I have been opposing warfare and military interventionism since the Clinton administration, and was providing commentary against this war from the start... and I made this very clear - Please see here, and here is an archive of my entries, from before the Iraq war began:Antiwar ConservativeAt the update I recently posted at the top of that weblog, I pointed out that there are many young conservatives who are aware of true conservatism, and the long-standing conservative and 'republican' tradition that stands against this war, and against the expansion of the "welfare-warfare state."The Facebook Group "Paleoconservatives" has 174 members (and this is even after the recent exodus from Facebook, by many people, due to privacy and occupational concerns):http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204669538The Facebook Group for The American Conservative has 89 members:http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2212816973The Facebook Group for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute has 666 members:http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204547871Speaking of ISI, their representatives were there, at this month's CRNC Convention. ISI is education-based and philosophy-based, so naturally, they are in tune with the traditionalist Right.I was at the table with the ISI reps, at the Dinner Gala at this Convention, and I mentioned that the Wikipedia article on Paleoconservatism notes that ISI has adopted paleoconservative viewpoints into its platform of principles. This is not 100% accurate, as the updated Wikipedia more correctly notes that ISI is following the fusionist tradition (which is still contrary to the desires of the neocons).This is precisely what Ron Robinson emphasized, when I was at the Young America's Foundation 2004 "National Conservative Student Conference." I told him that I was glad to hear him emphasize fusionism, and was frustrated by the increased influence of the neoconservatism on the Bush administration, and the Republican Party. But I pointed out that Young America's Foundation was cited in the famous Washington Times article in 2003, about how many leading American conservatives are frustrated by this, with regards to both domestic and foreign policy matters.Young America's Foundation is divided on the Iraq war, and has been, from its beginning... It's major speakers include both pro- and anti-war commentators, and its Washington staff members also hold varying positions on this issue.** If you want a good overview of the diverse viewpoints among young conservatives, on these contemporary topics, check out the award-winning Time Magazine article, covering that 2004 conference: ----> The Right's New Wing <----Mr. Cloud (the author of that piece) is a liberal - but at least he is fair and honest - unlike Mr. "La Republica" Blumenthal.*** I think that if many of your "OYE" readers would go through that Time article in its entirety, you might have a different impression of College Republicans and young conservatives.Of the major conservative policy organizations based in Washington, D.C., which are focused on American youth, all of them have strong influences of traditionalist and paleoconservatism, and pro-liberty republicanism.I already mentioned ISI above... The Associated Press, in its video coverage of our recent CRNC Convention, featured Ryan Sorba, who was with the Leadership Institute, and is now with ISI. But neither Ryan, nor anyone from those organizations [both of which were represented at the CRNC Convention] appeared in Mr. "La Republica" Blumenthal's video clip.(Also see the weblog of conservative leader Francisco Gonzalez, who is with ISI and Young Conservatives of Florida, for a traditionalist approach to Iraq and foreign policy.) While LI and ISI do not take an official position on the Iraq war, their Washington, D.C. staff is very anti-state and pro-liberty, and many of them resultedly oppose the Iraq war, and many of the policies of the Bush administration.I see that in two of your recent entries here, you mentioned Young Americans for Freedom. But have you looked at YAF's background?Conservative youth groups like YAF have never been united in favor of war - in fact, it has been quite the opposite!!With regard to the Vietnam War, YAF (Young Americans for Freedom - not the other "YAF") did have a faction that was very much pro-war, but it also had a faction that was anti-war... This came to a head at their national convention, when a YAF member burned a [photocopy of a] draft card on the convention floor.With regard to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, most YAF members viewed President George Herbert Walker Bush as not conservative enough, and many were skeptical of this war.Following the 2002 State of the Union Address by the current President Bush, including the controversial "axis of evil" line, which pleased neoconservatives and liberal internationalists, but had many traditionalist conservatives and libertarians upset, Young Americans for Freedom posted the following piece:Bush, the Left-Wing Utopian Interventionist, EmergesThe logic used to justify the current Iraq war is a violation of the time-honored "Sharon Statement," which is the original set of principles for the modern conservative movement. I have pointed this out a number of times, in recent years.So, the bottom line, regarding this matter, is:1) Mr. "La Republica" lied about his identity, which is what got him kicked out of the CRNC Convention (something he totally mischaracterized at the end of that clip).2) Mr. "La Republica" totally left out those CRs who are in the military (and there are others who are currently on active duty, and were not at the Convention).3) Mr. "La Republica" left out the viewpoints of myself and other CRNC Convention attendees, who have been consistently anti-war (including during the Clinton administration, when most Democrats were pro-war - and many continue to be).4) None of the leading national conservative youth organizations have endorsed the Iraq war, and while their staff and speakers have diverse views on the current war, all of these organizations have a strong influence of traditionalist conservatism, paleoconservatism, paleolibertarianism, or fusionism, geopolitical traditions that run contrary to the philosophy behind this war.I very much hope you and your readers will look through the reference material I provided here [especially that Time article!!], and the material I provided in yesterday's comment post, pointing out that Democrats in general support warfare and military interventionism more often than conservatives and Republicans do... Something that the world's #1 anti-war web publication, Antiwar.com, has also pointed out.Many in the anti-war movement have understood this point as well, and over the past few years (and right up through the present), anti-war protests have been held against people such as Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, Speaker Pelosi, and House International Relations Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (the latter of whom, while a San Francisco liberal, is perhaps the most pro-war member of the entire U.S. Congress. (And who ironically, is a commentator at the same web publication that you link to in this entry [to that article by Mr. "La Republica" Blumenthal], where he was recently itching for confrontation with Iran... Another California liberal Democrat Congressman also wrote a hawkish piece on Iran there, where he criticizes the Republican leadership for not being hawkish enough!!. As noted yesterday), Tom Lantos, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama have been more hawkish towards Iran than the Republican leadership [President Bush, Secretary Rice, Senator Lugar, and Congressman Hyde all oppose confrontation with Iran.].As I also said yesterday, I very much hope that you will target your "Operation" at the upcoming College Democrats National Convention, and at their other events (especially since the College Democrats is affiliated with the National Democrat Party, while the College Republicans is an independent, non-partisan organization.)In any case, I think that it is past time that we hold EVERYONE accountable for their positions and actions.Finally, I want to thank you, once again, for providing that link, which reveals the true identity of the "reporters" from "La Republica."
College Republicans are a non-partisan organization? That's like saying the Pope is not Catholic.
"HELL, NO! THEY WON'T GO!"
Oh, my.I just read the previous comment.Am I in paradise, or did that Yellow Elephant just attack George W. Bush for being a left-wing librul?? A left-wing librul interventionist? Will the Yellow Elephants be noticing the Clinton surplus anytime soon? And which non-Republican Republican conservative krypto-librul pissed it away?You Yellow Elephants helped get this vile jerk elected. Take some credit for the blood that's on your hands.
The previous previous comment, I meant. (Now the previous previous previous comment,But you know that.)
In my opinion, it doesn't matter what the ratio is concerning willing and not able and not willing and able. If there is just ONE that supports the war and is able to go, you should be there physically supporting your brothers in arms. If you 'cannot' because you are in college now, this means you could have BEFORE you enrolled in college. A true 'patriot' would not let those they support die alone, and would be there with them, possibly preventing those casualties. If the motives were so virtuous, these people would put any further education plans on hold, take care of business there, because their fellow patriots are DYING, then come back and continue their lives. That would be the moral thing to do.
I served 34 years ago. These Republican pussies make me sick. Put them in my platoon and they would get a blanket party.
aakash-Thank you for sharing your insights with us, but as this blog has not taken a position on the war, a lot of your comments are simply off-topic.The Republican Party controlled both Houses of Congress when Our Nation went to war; it continues to control The White House. So you should not be surprised that we give that party full credit for its leadership accomplishments.Why don't you join us in encouraging those eligible to serve [of whatever party], who support the war, to consider volunteering for military service? That's really what this blog is all about.
aakash,a detailed rebuttal indeed. i hope you also point blumenthal towards your comments as i would appreciate seeing his reply. with no ponies in this race, however, i think many of your arguments are flawed. looking at your 5 main points...1. maybe blumenthal should not have lied about his credentials. but your very post and arguments actually defend his position since you make it pretty clear that he would have been treated differently had he been honest. in all likelihood, no one would have spoken to him.2. off point. of course there are some college republicans that have gone to Iraq. but when it comes to war, it does appeaar that the pro-war crowd is filled with chicken hawks. personally, i question whether it is okay to be pro-war and against fighting in it. how can you send others to die for your beliefs?3. again off point. you seem to think that blumenthal has a responsibility to not edit his video. that's called raw footage and no one would watch it.4. you've got to be kidding me. just silly. you try to minimize republican culpability because historically republicans have been against war? huh. do you think the iraqis give a rats ass that republicans were against X or Y war in the past?i concede that many republicans were against entering WWII and fighting the nazis but i'm hardly going to claim that makes you all a bunch of neville chamberlains.finally, i think you lose a lot of credibility with absurd lines like: "while the College Republicans is an independent, non-partisan organization."
I posted this on youtube -- everyone should see it!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhqK1RFKhZs
two words for those with medical excuses: medical waivers -- you can get a waiver to serve with many medical conditions. I'm sure most of the CRs in this video didn't even try for that.
Aakash,What are your military plans?Thanks,LibVet
From Mr. X: I guess i can't really complain too much. On the issue of serving, i fully intend to go after i graduate. I do however make HILARIOUS videos of the leftists at my school that make them look retarded. I don't really need to doctor it up too much, because they do most of my work for me. But lets be real here, the guys a liberal documentarian, he can't come back with a piece that makes the CRs look good. It would have been just as easy to show 10 CRs who had served. He has his movement, we have ours. I do consider this a shot across the bow and will up my efforts to create videos that "expose" leftists democrats and socialists for what they are, naive children who don't know, or choose to selectively interpret history.On another note, i ran into Adam Kokesh in the pisser at CRNC, and had a 2 hour conversation/debate with him (once we left the bathroom of course) and i must say, i left that conversation with hope that not every anti-war activist is a piece of shit, trust fund baby with a che geuvara shirt and white guilt. Adam Kokesh, we disagree, but you sir have more than earned your right to say your piece and be heard.
[OYE - I realize that you may think this comment is "irrelevant," but I am responding to a prior comment posted in this same thread.]Forget World War II...Remember the ultra-hawkish "Clinton Doctrine"? I have been generally anti-war since the Clinton administration... when most Democrats were pro-war, something which caused enormous frustration among principled anti-war liberals.(Mr. "La Republica" Blumenthal's own magazine, in fact, has been rebuking Democrat leaders for their support of warfare, from past to present.)Many liberals and Democrats used those same "Clinton Doctrine" principles to justify support for the current Iraq war, which is why some have continued to support it, even after the WMD revelations. I overviewed those issues, and the Democrats' longtime, recent, and ongoing, support for warfare and military interventionism in my comment at that prior entry at this site (and I pointed out that, with regard to [a potential war against] IRAN, the Democrat leadership has recently been more hawkish and confrontational than the Republican leadership... I could have also including material about the recent situations in Sudan, Haiti, and Liberia, but did not do so). I also examined this issue - about overall Democrat hawkishness - here and here and here and here.Even Howard Dean, now the Chairman of the National Democratic Party, boasted that, while he opposes the Iraq war, he has supported warfare and military interventionism, since the 1991 Persian Gulf War [and he's done so more frequently than the Republicans have, during this period!]But the same year he opposed the war against Iraq, him and his party supported military intervention in Liberia, which earned the "antiwar" Dr. Dean the rebuke of Antiwar.com.As I said, both yesterday and above, the world's leading anti-war web publication was started by Republicans, to oppose the imperialism of the Clinton years... Antiwar.com has remained a consistent source of anti-war activism. It's co-founder and webmaster, Republican antiwar activist Eric Garris, pointed out:Democrats are always the worst warmongers. That is why I have been an active Republican for years. - April 27, 2004The other co-founder, libertarian conservative writer Justin Raimondo, was the Republican nominee for U.S. Congress - against none other than Nancy Pelosi!! Republican Raimondo ran against the pro-war Pelosi on an anti-war platform.Today, Antiwar.com refers to Speaker Pelosi (and Hillary Clinton) as "War Goddesses," and both have faced protests from anti-war activists. Cindy Sheehan has threatened to run against both of them... while Rahm Emmanuel (the Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) worked hard to engineer a pro-war Democrat majority in Congress.I have already addressed how, due to the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress, the foreign policy Committee Chairs, in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, have gone from anti-war Republicans to liberal hawks (pro-war Democrats).Principled antiwar activists recognize, right up through the present day, the Democrats responsibility in supporting the current Iraq war, and their overwhelming support for warfare and military interventionism in the recent past, and right up through the present period.If they have recognized this, why can't everyone else? As I said above, it is time to hold EVERYONE accountable for their positions and actions.And as for your final point: I also addressed that at the past entry here. The College Republicans include Republicans of all persuasions (from paleoconservatives to neocons to libertarians, and everything in between) to independents, and even some Democrats. [At my particular university, many non-Republicans are involved in the College Republicans meetings and events.]In my comment above, I was trying to emphasize the diversity of the youth conservative movement in America.I strongly recommend that all of you read that award-winning Time Magazine article on our 2004 Young America's Foundation "National Conservative Student Conference." The author is a liberal, but unlike Mr. "La Republica" Blumenthal, he is honest and fair.The Right's New WingDiverse and well funded, the next generation of conservatives is winning battles on campus. But not all are fighting for George W. BushI think that if many of the OYE readers would go through that Time article in its entirety, and the resource material I provided in my last comment at this entry, they might have a different impression of College Republicans and young conservatives.And finally, there is one vital point I need to make. "OYE" keeps saying that this "Operation Yellow Elephant" site takes no position on the current Iraq war. For those who are truly against war, however, please consider:What you are doing is alienating the young conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, et. al. (like I referenced in my last comment, above) who do not support the Iraq war, and who have been working hard to spread traditionalist (and anti-war, anti-state, pro-sovereignty, pro-liberty) perspectives among our generation. Conservative student leader James Lawrence addressed this topic two years ago, and I only recently reported that progress is being made, in this area. (Ironically, one of the areas where anti-war youth conservatism is strongest is in Michigan, with the Young Americans for Freedom, and some CR, groups there. But the last CR I saw attacked at this weblog is someone who has been consistently anti-war - and part of the "Paleoconservative Youth Movement, a title which should have been a major indication of their opposition to the policies of neoconservatism and liberal internationalism, which are underlying the Iraq war.)**** If we are going to truly stop unnecessary warfare and interventionism, and prevent future wars, then we are going to need a coalition that reaches across ideological lines. This is something that was advocated before the Iraq war began, and even before September 11th.It was not that long ago that myself and other conservatives were using the "chickenhawk" argument against the neoconservatives and neoliberals (and others) who were clamoring for this war, in opposition to the military leaders, members of the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, and State Department officials within the George W. Bush administration, who were urging restraint. I did this post about it (in August 2003) at the weblog of Pieter Friedrich, another antiwar young conservative (he was still in high school when the Iraq war began, and we got into many debates with the pro-war crowd, in the Blogosphere).I recently remember when the chickenhawk charge was being used against different people... In 2002, before the Iraq war began, respected war veteran U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) was urging that the chickenhawks (like Richard Perle) be ignored. [Note: Perle, one of the architects of this war, is a Scoop Jackson Democrat.] Conservative writer Tom Clancy nearly came to blows with Democrat Perle over this issue.And Lt. Col. Oliver North penned an article after 9/11, in opposition to the Democrat war hawks, who were criticizing President Bush for not moving more swiftly against Iraq, and whose interventionist policies had decimated our military, during the past decade.Chickenhawk Democrats clamor for another war, October 21, 2001The "chickenhawk" charge was once being more-appropriately used... If opponents of the war would go back to using it that way, rather than in a slanted and overtly-partisan matter, it would be more effective, especially with regards to convincing more people to oppose this war. I realize that the author of this blog says that he has no position on the Iraq war, but for those who do, please keep this in mind.
It's amazing that Karl Olson, who controls this web site, was unwilling to serve himself. He "claims" they wouldn't take him, which is a typical lie for these leftwing cowards. Karl, serve or shut up!
anonymous (19 July, 2007 19:33)-Wow. You can actually read the right-hand column listing our contributors. Thank you for spelling my name correctly. [Karl as in Rove.]The most I can do is apply, responding to their specific questions with the truth. After that, it's their decision.But don't forget: Making the initial contact with a military recruiter is your decision.
Demanding Anti-war people must serve is ironic or moronic. The simple statement is this: If you support the occupation of Iraq, enlist.
When I left basic training to go to airborne school, it turned out that there was no medical release for me to attend. I had to wait around for an extra week while waiting to get in to see a doctor to get an 'airborne physical.' When I went in for my physical, the doctor told me that my blood pressure was so high that I should not have even been in the army. He saw I was disappointed, and asked if I 'really wanted to do this' (go to airborne school and stay in the army). I said yes. And so, the doc signed off on my forms, 17 year old with high blood pressure and all.And here I am 20 years later, just having come back recently from a 20-year reunion of my of my old unit - an airborne battalion combat team.It makes me sick to read about these right-wing sissies who like to talk tough and play sports and go to their frat parties and the like, only to whine about their 'bad knees' and their hernias and their pilonidal cysts.Spoiled right-wingers, brainwashed into thinking they are better than those folks that actually have to do the fighting for the failed poliocies of their clueless right-wing "leaders."Pathetic hypocritical sissies.
aakash-wow!! you just don't get it
The people who "just don't get it" are those who think that the Democrats are "anti-war."The very publications that carry Max Blumenthal's pieces have pointed out that Democrats generally support military interventionism more often than conservatives and Republican do. That was the whole basis of the "Clinton Doctrine" - as mentioned above.Look at "Grung_e_Gene"'s comment above.Targeting a whole organization or movement - one that is incredibly diverse - with an [otherwise-legitimate] label is dishonest, and is harmful to the anti-war movement.It was not that long ago that I argued in defense of the "chickenhawk" argument... and used it myself, to defend those of us who were opposing the Iraq war.No progress is going to be made, against an interventionist foreign policy, so long as we continue to misidentify its causes and and creators.The Right's New Wing, TIME Magazine
Post a Comment