Every American should spend a reverent space of time studying the "Faces of the Fallen" published by the New York Times. The grimmest losses, always, are the young. But one cannot help but be struck by the number of older people.
My attention went to one of the most recent casualties, Army Staff Sergeant Theodore Spatol, 59. (The NYT could not obtain a photo of his face.) The cause of death seems a bit mysterious. He died in Wyoming of a "non-combat related illness" acquired while serving in Iraq. Even his obituary does not give any clue as to what that illness was.
A member of the National Guard and former Navy Seabee, he was a gregarious fellow who sold hoagies and hot dogs for a living. Apparently, our overstretched military told a near-retiree to report for duty in Iraq. You have to wonder about a nation forced to resort to such measures.
If manpower is in such short supply, why don't the Bush twins sign up?
11 comments:
Radiation sickness?
On another subject, count me as one who does not wish to see you quit this blog. Given some of the reports I see in Hopsicker's work, or occasionally on Madsen's page (in some of his saner moments), perhaps the CD fanatics are not fanatics at all, but paid operatives who want to keep all 9/11 questioning on the fringe. Maybe they are swarming you with the intention of driving you off the web.
On the other hand, it obviously takes an inordinate amount of work to sustain a daily blog, and emotional exhaustion is a natural result. That makes any decision to quit unsurprising. But if you need encouragement, remember you have readers who are not nuts.
I'm not able to view the Spatol obit -- want to check the URL?
Curious that the NYT could not get a picture. One of the things that I noticed about the NYT coverage of the victims of 9/11 was that there seemed to be a photo available for every single person killed.
sofla said...
I do not support these calls for the Bush twins to report asap to Iraq. If they were somehow leading the call for other youth to enlist, or even if their father was doing that, maybe. But neither they nor their father are doing that.
Far as I can tell, they're doing what their father is asking all of us to do, which is to go out and go shopping.
Until they were killed pulling point duty there, nobody would be satisfied anyway. If they enlisted, but were put stateside, or safely in Europe, no good. If they were in the Navy in near-theater support, that wouldn't be good enough. If they were in country (Iraq), but in the Green Zone, not good enough.
This is really one of the absurd canards of the anti-Bush crowd, along with CD theories, I guess.
What, is he supposed to ORDER these young women to do something they don't want to do, and then somehow make that happen? And then THAT will assure us that his plan for Iraq is fine??!?!?!
I don't think even male children should have to make such decisions for the benefit of their father's political decisions or political fortunes, and I surely don't think female children are any different.
And there are the faces of the "intended to fall" in the political wars here at home:
"CNN asks 'Where's Obama?' in
segment on Bin Laden
A Monday night broadcast of CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer confused America's "number one enemy" with one of America's most popular senators." (From HineSight)
Miss P.
"absurd canards of the anti-Bush crowd...."
Oh, come off it. The point is, the daughters of this family of self-described patriots have no intention of serving the nation (at least, not if the other alternatives like causing international embarrassments are available), and daddy Bush has no desire to see them in Iraq, or make the slightest personal sacrifice.
Indeed, that's the long established pattern of the Bush family: let the little people make all the sacrifices, because the sweetheart deals are only for the Bushes and their retainers. Pointing to the dereliction of the latest Bush spawn is a perfectly valid point.
In the next few days our fearless leader will come forth to remind America that the War on Terror can not be won unless we are prepared to "sacrifice". The ("troop surge") - er - escalation from occupation back into full fledged war means we must >"sacrifice"<. We, not they - the bush clan or the warmongers get a pass, not their flesh, not their blood, their sons and daughters need not be placed on the alter to enjoy the benefits of freedom and liberty. "Sacrifice" - the Crown has Decreed is not warranted by members of the the Royal Court or their cronies who are very well connected.
sofla said...
No, the Bush family tradition concerning war includes the example of one George Herbert Walker Bush, enlisting at almost too early an age (possibly required parental permission, so young as he was, I forget just now), becoming a very young torpedo bomber pilot, and serving honorably, if not heroically IMO.
And, if memory serves me in this, one of the daughters has or will become a teacher, a profession that does entail service to the country considered so vital that it may have even been a reason for a deferment in the past (as farming was, in WW II).
Look, I am no Bush supporter, and quite the opposite. It's just that even in my anti-Bush mode, I try to avoid absurd canards.
Demanding a father treat his adult children like chattel, and order two women into a combat role (and if they refuse?), makes little or no sense whatsoever. (And the Secret Service protection details would be more than inconvenient over there, but they'd be necessary, because who could possibly be a higher profile kidnap victim in Iraq than either of these two women?)
Please let's deal in reality, even as we may consider Bush the worst president in history. Nobody needs to use this particular rhetorical flourish any longer.
What "rhetorical flourish"? All the Bush leadership scammed out of Vietnam. Bush himself used privilege and high powered social connections to keep himself safe. The whole family uses the mechanisms of the state as their private resource. The Bush clan see themselves as royalty and don't give a rats ass about "the little people". They are scumbags, supporters of Enron thieves and organized drug traffickers, or haven't you noticed? Total f*cking criminals.
It is unquestionably right that Bush's two trampy daughters, Jenna and Barbara, should be enlisted and sent to the most dangerous front line areas of Iraq if we are to take Bush seriously at all about the need for sacrifices! And whiole we are at it, draft-dodging, war-profiteering Dick Cheney has one or two daughters who are eligible for military service, and they should be volunteering to go to Iraq, too.
George Bush has unabashedly asked Americans to make sacrifices for his illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq. Americans should expect nothing less of our leaders than for them to set the example by ordering their own sons and daughters and kin, and themselves, to make such sacrifices and join the front lines in their battles against their "Axis of Evil." Nothing Bush says should be regarded as sincere if he and his family are not willing to set examples for the nation.
sofla said...
No, Bush has never asked this country for sacrifice. He's passed tax cuts in war time, for the first time ever in human history, and instructed us all to go out shopping, travelling to holiday destinations, and etc.
Do you equally think Clinton should have prevailed upon Chelsea to enlist once she was of age, because he got us involved in Kosovo, or bombed the shit out of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox?
Personally, I do not. And in this age of no draft, a volunteer armed forces and national guard, there is no expectation that ANYBODY sign up and enter the military, unless our country itself becomes far more at risk. Still less the progeny of the aristocratic oligarchy that controls this country.
(Other than Bush 41, name the last person in high office with that kind of pedigree that went to fight, anywhere. And that was in WW II, an apparently just war, where we'd definitely been attacked, and there was a general conscription and a call for manpower from everywhere. Even the supposed 'war hero' Bob Dole tried to sit out WW II, only getting in the service at the end of the war in Europe, seeing his first action within a couple weeks of VE day.)
"(Other than Bush 41, name the last person in high office with that kind of pedigree that went to fight, anywhere. And that was in WW II, an apparently just war, where we'd definitely been attacked, and there was a general conscription and a call for manpower from everywhere. Even the supposed 'war hero' Bob Dole tried to sit out WW II, only getting in the service at the end of the war in Europe, seeing his first action within a couple weeks of VE day.) "
I take issue with this. President FDR's sons fought in WWII and were recieved medals for their bravery. JFK served as did his brother. I don't think that Bush I is special. In fact I believe his family had gotten in trouble for their dealings with the Nazis. Bush I had to go to save the family honor.
In Vietnam, John Kerry served as did his friend Pershing. Neither needed to actually experience combat, but they volunteered. So there have been men with great pedigrees who went to serve.
Post a Comment