Yellow Elephant Matthew Continetti: Read the Transcript!

Here's the complete transcript of Matthew Continetti (left) being Asked The Question by a real American in Beaverton, Oregon. It's clear from the current issue of The Weekly Standard (right) that Associate Editor Continetti is some kind of military groupie like Brian Kilmeade of Fox News Channel. That's why we haven't given up on Matthew Continetti: We think that military service will actually help not only him, but also America.

Caller [Beaverton, OR]: Rob, let me have just a minute with Mr. Continetti here.

Host: Just a minute.

Caller: Yeah, just a minute, 'cause I've been a good C-Span caller and respectful. All right, uh, Matthew, if I may, OK, uh, do you support this war, correct? Yes or no?

Continetti: I do.

Caller: Are you capable of holding a gun? Yes or no?

Continetti: Uh, Let me stop you right there, caller.

Caller: No, no, there's no need to stop me. Answer the question: Yes or No. Are you capable of holding a gun?

Host: Beaverton, cut to the chase.

Caller: Uh, uh, OK. Let me cut to the chase. Here's another traitor and a coward like the earlier callers we were talking about before. He's all out for this war, you know, I was watching Imus before his fall. He mentioned maggots in the legs of soldiers up here in the Northwest, up here in a hospital. You know, I'm disgusted to the bone with anybody who supports this war. They are cowards if they are not over there. You're perfectly of age. You're perfectly capable of being over there and shootin' 'em up. You [cut off]

Host: We're going to leave it there.

Continetti: The caller, besides his anger, raises a point that's brought up, out against the supporters of the war a lot and that's the argument that if you really supported the war, you'd be fighting it. And, unfortunately, that goes against the Constitution, which gives every American the right to speak their mind, regardless of their biography or regardless of what they do, so it's an unconstitutional argument. It's a demeaning argument to the troops in the field because it assumes that they're somehow victims, and that they're not there of their own free will. We have a voluntary Army and the people serving are there of their own free will.

It's demeaning to the caller because it suggests that his entire argument in opposition to the war is based solely on the, his opinion of the supporters of the war, with no intellectual content. You can talk about why America is in Iraq and why America ought to be in Iraq and what America can do to win in Iraq, but so many people aren't willing to have that conversation because of the emotions that are brought up by this war, on both sides, and it's time that, for both sides I think, to kind of take a step back and have a serious discussion about what we need to do going forward to protect everyone.

OYE Comment:

Well, Mr. Continetti, since this blog has not taken a position on the war, we're Asking The Question with less, if any, bias:

We agree with you that all Americans have the right to any opinion they want, including no opinion at all, but the real question for you is why we should respect your opinion on the war, given that you support it only if "other people" do the actual fighting.

Stepping back, how important is success in Iraq to America if our national civilian leadership has yet to encourage real Americans eligible to serve who support the war [including Matthew Continetti] at least to consider volunteering for military service at this time, even if they plan other careers later in life?

It would appear that there is a disconnect or inconsistency or something.

'Care to comment?