Thursday, December 02, 2004

Burning Questions

That by which we call napalm
By any other name would burn as bright.

Remember how much hay Republicans made of Clinton's discussion of the meaning of "is"? Boy, that was a perfect example of how liberals try to twist things to make themselves look better.

Well...maybe it's a nonpartisan kind of defect of character. During the initial invasion of Iraq, our military spokespeople were asked if we were using napalm. Oh no, we were told; the military didn't even have any napalm.

Now it turns out that, while such a statement was technically, narrowly true, it wasn't quite...what's the word?...honest. Napalm, firebomb, who knows what these crazy military kids will come up with next?

Do we even have real reporters anymore? Do any of them care that this administration serves them shit sandwich after shit sandwich? I'm really getting tired of this "Thank you, sir, may I have another" attitude of our press.

I took my own advice and broke out my well-worn copy of Dispatches. It's simply an incredible book, and it says a lot about war, the military, the press, and a million other things. This little tidbit jumped out at me.
If a commander told you he thought he had it pretty well under control it was like talking to a pessimist. Most would say that they either had it wrapped up or wound down; "He's all pissed out, Charlie's all pissed out, booger's shot his whole wad," one of them promised me, while in Saigon it would be restructured for briefings, "He no longer maintains in our view capability to mount, execute or sustain a serious offensive action," and a reporter behind me, from the The New York Times no less, laughed and said, "Mount this, Colonel."
Can you imagine that today? Me neither.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home