Last night, I posted a Memorial Day tribute that was feisty and angry in referring to certain segments who engage in criticism of the military. Maybe it was a reflection of my mood-or that extra glass of wine for dinner I sneak in when my wife is not home, I dunno. I actually woke up in the middle of the night with enough second thoughts to go to the computer and put it back in the draft status. By then, I had already received a retort from my biggest co-respondant asking me if having problems with Abu Ghraib, Guantanemo and waterboarding means denigrating the whole military. Point well taken.
This morning, in looking at that fourth paragraph, I feel a clarification is in order. My friend is correct. Objecting to Abu Ghraib is not denigrating our whole military. In fact, it was the military who investigated the incident and punished those responsible. It was not something that was standard practice, and I don't approve of it either. I just feel it pales in comparison to the torture and beheadings that befall those who are captured by our enemy. As for Guantanemo, that was a political decision to establish that prison camp-one that I agree with. As for waterboarding, as I understand it, it was a practice-now suspended-that was carried out by our intelligence folks as opposed to the military. Reasonable people can disagree on whether it should be done.
As for my references to folks like those who run San Francisco and Berkeley, the most I can do in the way of a retraction is perhaps to say "to heck with you" instead of "to Hell with you".
At any rate, a memorial Day tribute should have focused on honoring our troops-and perhaps leaving it at that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yeah, that didn't really sound like you. Don't drink and post. If I did, I'd probably write something about how people who make pasta salad should be deported to Liechtenstein.
Now there's an idea.
Post a Comment