Questioning Arkin's Timing

Miraculously, it would appear as though Washington Post blogger William Arkin is alleged to have written a, for him, more reasonable post: A Note to My Readers on Supporting the Troops time stamped 5:31 AM:

By William M. Arkin |  February 1, 2007; 5:31 AM ET  | Category:  Iraq

However, most everyone who read his second insulting post, The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out - time stamped 9:39 AM can't seem to recall the now middle post linked at top being there until sometime this afternoon.

Is Arkin pulling a John Kerry by back tracking, or attempting a triple flip that would put a world class gymnast to shame? The latter may be more true.

In his third piece on the issue, timestamped to look like his second entry, he writes: I knew when I used the word "mercenary" in my Tuesday column that I was being highly inflammatory. I intentionally chose to criticize the military and used the word to incite and call into question their presumption that the public had a duty to support them.

But in his apparently actual first response in this controversy, he wrote: I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today. Witness there is no mention of his having done it as some sort of intentional device. He's gone from admitting an error, to attempting to justify it as somehow acceptable. Given the manipulation of the time stamp, is it right to give Arkin any credibility at all now in responding to this issue? Perhaps, not. And for an allegedly informed observer, when it comes to things military, Arkin can't help but expose his bias.

Of course those who choose to wear the uniform do so because they are patriots and because they feel compelled to take up arms to defend the nation.

Compelled? Really? I know few veterans, or those currently serving who feel compelled to pick up arms. I know many military men who, more so than some civilians, appreciate war as only a tactic of last resort. Following Arkin's logic, everyone in uniform joins simply for the day when they get to march off to war and kill some bad guys. It's insulting for the Washington Post to continue to employ this clearly biased gentleman as a commenter on things military, if at all.

Now Arkin would have us believe these are his sentiments:

When we in society make war and consent to war, we accept the righteousness of those who fight on our behalf with the knowledge that they are a part of an organized and disciplined military force that operates lawfully and chivalrously. We also accept that they kill only as a last resort, and that they are engaged in a just endeavor that in its existence and though their conduct presents the prospect of restoring peaceful relations once the enemy has been defeated.

Yet, just yesterday, this is what he wrote:

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform

Arkin's latest piece does nothing to apologize for that slur. If anything, it's as though he's highlighting it, suggesting our volunteer military is not acting as they should - given the sum total of his writing on the topic thus far. And Arkin continues to demonstrate his complete lack of understanding when it comes to the military in time of war:

But if those in the military are now going to argue that we are losing in Iraq because the military has lacked for Ssomething(sic), then the absence of such support should be placed at the feet of the Bush administration, Rumsfeld and company, and a Republican Congress

One must assume he knows nothing of war fighting, given that any complete history of every war we have ever fought details no end of complaining about everything from the food, to the command structure, to the mission. Bitching for a soldier has always been part of the gig, since man first marched off to war. Is it Arkin's position that in this overly politically correct and regulated world, when soldiers do such a thing, it means they are to be treated with scorn? This man Arkin is all about his right to speak out, but God forbid the topic he's paid to write about ever dares speak back to him. That's a farce.

not on the shoulders of the American public, who have been nothing but supportive, even those who have opposed the war

Supportive? As in a public that for two years has called their commander-in-chief a liar, when it simply isn't the truth? Supportive, as when US Senator John Kerry went on television to call them terrorizers of women and children in the night? This universal support Arkin now alleges in his defense does not exist.

What Arkin first wrote was not attacking the administration - he hurled insult after insult at front line troops, Sergeants and under who appeared on national TV. Now in concluding his latest time manipulated piece of tripe, he attempts to make it a responsible tome pointing out what is, in his mind, failed policy, as opposed to an attack on the troops. That's an out and out lie.

Arkin did not attack Bush, Rumsfeld, or anyone else in his original work. He attacked the very people he now seems to be scrambling to explain himself too without taking responsibility for his original work at all.

As I said above, the Washington Post is disgracing itself by allowing this biased and obviously uninformed bloviator to write on men and issues for which he lacks any understanding. I doubt many of the soldiers who responded to Arkin originally went to the trouble to play with the timestamps of their work.

See Allah's relevant video, audio and links from today.

Comments

[David M]

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 02/02/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

[DANEgerus]

He simply let slip the mask held up to hide the hate of the Left.

Bush flew onto an Aircraft Carrier to give a hearty thankyou to our guys and gals by noting the end of the Iraq army with a statement of "Mission Accomplished".

That mission was. The reason the Left was angry was because it was a thankyou to the military they despise.

The new mission is peacekeeping. It's cost 20 times the lives and is still a work-in-progress. It's ugly... but not as ugly as the unfounded criticisms.

The (D)emocrats only plan is to demand "Hands off Iran" demonstrating that French oil profits and Russian arms sales are more important the the (D)emocrats then Human Rights violations, the export of terrorism or a nuclear holocaust.

A nuclear holocaust their appeasement enables:

"It is fine for Democrats to talk of “redeployment” out of Iraq, “engagement” with Syria and Iran, more soft power, Europeans and the United Nations, organizing “regional interests,” etc. — until one realizes that we did mostly just that for most of the 1990s.

And? We got Syrian absorption of Lebanon, Afghanistan as an al Qaeda base, a Libyan WMD program, worldwide serial terrorist attacks, Oslo, a Pakistani bomb, a full-bore Iranian nuclear program, Oil-for-Food — and 9/11. If one doubts any of this, just reflect on why the Democrats have not offered any specific alternative plans. And when pressed, they usually talk only of “talking” and thereby bring embarrassment to even their liberal questioners." -- VDH