1/25    Transcript of radio interview with that L.A. Times columnist
        Note that probably all right-wing sites are saying this shows how
        pathetic he is
        http://radioblogger.com/#001332
        \_ Hell, many left wing sites think he's pathetic.
           He's making a meaningless distinction to stir the publicity
           pot.  And he's falling on his face cuz he's, well, a schmuck.
           \_ "Shmuck"?  Yeah.  To be fair, the shmuck factor is in taking the
              subject way too light-heartedly when he does have at least one
              valid, very important point.
              \_ Which is?  He feels like a hypocrite because he thinks
                 soldiers have a choice about what wars they're told to
                 fight in?
                 \_ That when you sign on as a soldier, you need to take
                    responsibility for putting yourself in a position where
                    you are expected to follow orders, for good or for worse.
                    Reporter:  "And I think you're saying the average guy
                    out there who's considering recruitment is justified in
                    saying 'I don't want to serve'?"
                    Murtha:  "Exactly right."
                    \_ Stein's is a different argument from Murtha's.  Murtha
                       makes sense.  Murtha is talking about people that aren't
                       already in.  If you're already in and you try to make
                       this distinction, you are arrested.  The problem is
                       not with the men.  It's with the commanders.  Murtha
                       knows this.  Stein apparently doesn't.
                       \_ Stein knows that once you're in, you're in until
                          your term is up, and you are expected to follow
                          orders until then.
                          \_ And how long does Stein think that term is?  Does
                             Stein know that people are being stoplossed?
                             Called up on IRR?
                             \_ He would say he "sympathizes" with those
                                people.  Anyway ... I'd like to emphasize I
                                agree that his treating this in such a
                                light-hearted way was schmuck-worthy if not
                                insulting.
        \_ Up next, transcripts of O'Reilley beating some schmuck up on TV.
           \_ This transcript isn't quite like that.  The guy is actually
              honest throughout the entire interview, and the interviewer
              calls him on everything but doesn't shoutfest him down like
              O'Reilly.
              \_ The guy doesn't really address the column at all.
                 \_ What do you mean?
                    \_ The interviewer spends all of his time trying to paint
                       the guy as a pure pacifist.
                       \_ That may be true, but Stein had plenty of opportunity
                          to defend his position, IMO ...
        \_ Stein may be a schmuck but there's a point there, that he's not
           making very well however. And I'm not sure how to talk about it
           either. But basically assume you don't support the Iraq war. What
           should the mindset be regarding a parade in honor of the troops
           there? Assuming you "support the troops" like any proper American.
           I mean, are you celebrating only their service to country? Such
           a parade would necessarily also honor the goals for which they
           fought. Many might disagree with the actions and goals of the
           troops, even though they were just being good troops. It may
           be argued that besides questions of needless costs and deaths etc.,
           the whole Iraq war additionally hasn't helped matters. Or was
           immoral. That the casualties were in vain. In that case instead
           of a parade one would be sorry for them etc. But furthermore,
           not supporting the goals of the troops is not supporting the
           troops themselves. How does that affect their morale, or
           the will of the country to fully commit to their cause, as
           in Vietnam? Anyway I think everyone can agree that Stein's
           tone in the article was unwise and he makes a fool of himself.
           \_ The "goal of the troops" is to survive and complete their
              missions.  The military is a tool of the state.  This is
              by design and necessity.  To lay the blame of military use
              upon the soldiers is misplaced and wrong.
              \_ Completing their missions, exactly. So what if you disagree
                 with those missions? I'm not saying anyone should
                 blame the soldiers (except those who signed up afterwards,
                 perhaps) but it gets to the point of "supporting the troops".
                 Should someone who disagrees with a military action
                 /celebrate/ the soldiers who carried it out? He would be
                 celebrating the accomplishment of that mission.
                 \_ I would celebrate the safe return of our troops and
                    their risking their lives without having any say in
                    defining the overall mission, and take the assumption that
                    they joined up out of a selfless, genuine desire to defend
                    freedom(TM). -someone else