
![]() | |
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
|
Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! July 24, 2009 SurrenderBy Greyhawk...surrender, but don't give yourself away. Heh: "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News."It wasn't Hirohito" says Gateway Pundit: On September 2, 1945, on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay, the Japanese envoys Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu and Gen. Yoshijiro Umezu signed their names on the Instrument of Surrender. ...which is correct, but only approaches the punchline:
Admiral William F. Halsey and Vice Admiral John S. McCain on board USS Missouri (BB-63) shortly after the conclusion of the surrender ceremonies, 2 September 1945. Admiral McCain's grandson would have got that one right, which might be part of the reason the President would prefer not to invoke it. Anyhow, I find it chuckleworthy. But I also think it's funny that so many people are responding to a Fox News story about an ABC news story. The good folks at ABC gotta be wondering WTF they gotta do to get some link love, baby... (Oh, and the word "victory" - like so many other terms - became unfashionable last year.) More milbloggers on "the V-word": Bouhammer (Do NOT miss his bottom line...) Jonn Lilyea at This Ain't Hell Next day update: (Warning: party-killing commentary follows - but it ends with another chuckle.) I found some humor in the struggle with terminology and the chosen analogy (hence "chuckleworthy") and what it "invokes". I should clarify that I don't interpret the President's struggle with what word best describes "achieving our goals" as some sinister indication that he doesn't want to achieve our goals. I also find the response to his comments chuckleworthy because in the immediate aftermath of the election last year I predicted that the only thing that would actually change about our approach to Iraq was the terminology used to describe events. Here's the full entry, but here's the conclusion:
"He" being President Obama, and quotes around the word victory implying that might not be the word used. (Yes, I was talking about Iraq then, and we're talking Afghanistan now. Point is the same.) Beyond semantics, there's a good point in what the President is implying. Let me put it this way (because I already have): "Only the losers get to determine when a conflict has ended". In WWII we were confronted with an enemy that could sign a formal surrender document. In our current conflicts we are not. There are many topics for reasonable (and humorous, even!) discussion here. Those who boil it down to "the President is opposed to victory" are ensuring that reasonable discussion won't happen. Back to the funny - here's the Obama administration's victory declaration on Iraq:
Posted by Greyhawk / July 24, 2009 5:20 PM | Permalink 27 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
![]() Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com ![]() Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
John Sidney "Slew" McCain went home shortly after this surrender ceremony. He died two days after he arrived in Coronado California (home to North Island Naval Air Station) in early September, 1945
He would have been gravely insulted to hear that a US President had trouble uttering the words "victory".
Yep. Heck of a story.
Of course, the fact that he had died of a heart attack was used against McCain in the Presidential campaign.
We live in interesting times all around.
The beginning of that refrain almost describes the First Couple - Mommy's alright, Daddy's alright, they just seem a little weird. More than weird though.
Instead of using the word "victory," how about if Obama just says "We won?" He had no trouble saying "I won." How about a little love for America here?
No that won't do. He didn't say it but victory also implies "war" and that's another word no longer used.
What's wrong with victory over the Japanese warlords? Was liberating the Chinese and Filipinos and Koreans a Bad Thing?
I'd like to see Obama get an MRI of his brain. Something is wrong.
Does the word victory invoke a notion of something or evoke it? I can never get that straight, not being a Harvard lawyer and all.
In fact, here's the full definition of "invoke:
1 a : to petition for help or support b : to appeal to or cite as authority
2 : to call forth by incantation : CONJURE
3 : to make an earnest request for : SOLICIT
4 : to put into effect or operation : IMPLEMENT
5 : BRING ABOUT, CAUSE
So it could be any one of those he wanted to avoid.
If he said what he meant.
Hmmm... one definition for invoke is to "to call forth by incantation" - I guess like saying "candy man" five times and he appears.
FWIW, Obama didn't say "invokes" - but rather "evokes"
Heh again. You led me to listen carefully to the actual quote (here).
He does indeed say "evokes". The ABC written transcript (linked in post) is the source of the error.
A minor point in that - good fun at actual words used aside - all would agree (I hope!) that he meant "brings to mind an image of".
But a major point insofar as it's a good reminder to listen to what the President says in addition to what others say about it.
Wry humor at my expense! I can take it!
Funny, he sure seemed OK with using the word "Victory" in November, and wasn't worried about invoking images of Bush or Dole conceding to Clinton.
Since it's apparently ALL about Obama these days, the fact he thinks he's the Superior Metrosexual Male, I'd like to make a suggestion. Obama against Osama. A knife fight in the tradition of Celebrity Death Match. Obama wins, Taliban/Queda leaves. Osama wins, we go home. It's a win-win for america. At least no more of our servicmen/women will perish for a president who doesn't want victory. We could put it on pay per view!
He may not like the word victory but he sure likes to say "I won!" Seems success is something he wants to punish, unless it is his own.
"I'd like to see Obama get an MRI of his brain. Something is wrong."
Sorry, we haven't invented dis-functional MRIs yet.
Nick.
Don't joke about cut and run.
Even though the Obama is pretty strange, we need to stay and fight.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are very important. Ask a Marine. They are cleaning up Taliban on one side of the border while the Paks actually finally attack Taliban on the other side.
Now is not the time to bugout.
Don't give Mr. No victory, any ideas.
Cut and run would give us chaos and Osama with nukes.
"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
"Germans?"
"Relax, he's on a roll."
"...Hell no! And it ain't over now...."
check out my blog for a photo shop of Obama at the surrender on the missouri
For the record: any comments prior to this one were made prior to my update.
Aside from that, I deleted two comments that unfortunately came from folks who had no sense of humor and delved into topics best left to white supremacist forums. For those folks: I have no idea where you're coming from, but can assure you that you've arrived at a place you're not welcome.
That said, the topic of this post invites commentary on both the serious and humorous aspects of the content. I've no problem with comments of either sort, have rarely deleted comments here, and invite folks who disagree with my thoughts on a topic to make their case (and make me think, laugh, or both).
Sorry, I hate to comment about comments. Please consider this as not a warning, but my thanks to those folks who contribute and engage, and my invitation for more.
General Stillwell
For me that brief comment evokes the General's motto: "Don't let the bastards grind you down."
But a major point insofar as it's a good reminder to listen to what the ...
As long as we're talking "teachable moments" here, there are, perhaps a couple others to be absorbed (at least potentially) as well.
First, when it's unlikely that a rather smart ("book-smart", at the very least; and arguably a good deal smarter yet) fellow has mis-spoken, er . . . well, it's unlikely, then! And so it proved to be here
"B", I'm pretty much "on board" with your definition of "evoke", but that said, it should be noted that Obama didn't describe the scene on the Missouri as including Hirohito in the flesh. "On the whole" I'm an Obama supporter (and voted for him), and even when I quake with disagreement over one policy or other of his (as I have), my take on him is (notwithstanding such disputes) that he is one smart cookie. And (fwiw, again), I'd be much surprised if Obama thought HIM ever graced the decks of the Missouri, notwithstanding his express invocation of the "notion" of same being evoked (or not). Kind of a metaphor, as it were.
Anyone, of course, is free to think the man an idiot, notwithstanding. It's not a belief (I think) which has the prospect of yielding much in terms a positive return on investment, but it's a free country, still, after all.
You and I agree on more things than you might think. (I'm not clear if you think you're disagreeing with me or others here but you started by quoting me.) I can declare without qualification that I believe the President to be a wise and learned man, I can acknowledge he meant "a representative of Hirohito" or that he said "Hirohito" as meaning "Japan". (I can hope to avoid a drawn out discussion of who "ran" Japan at the time.) In fact, in my update I thought I addressed at least part of what I thought he meant ("Beyond semantics, there's a good point in what the President is implying") and pointed out why I agree with it.
I can even "chuckle" that the grandfather of his opponent in the presidential race was on the Missouri - a bit of ironic trivia that 99.9999% of people don't know - without saying the President is not intelligent or feeling any superiority whatsoever in knowing a bit of trivia he may or may not have known. If we part ways there, so be it. I believe we agree on rational and serious points.
And I can also write serious things like this about what the President says - because I tend to listen to what he says and seek to understand it. Because he is - as you say - "one smart cookie", that understanding part ain't always easy.
And thanks - I took your comment as a request for clarification, hope I've provided that, and think we're definitely involved in reasonable discussion here.
"...Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur,"
MacArthur insisted Hirohito NOT be there. Mac wanted to keep the Emperor's authority intact and use it for America's purposes; to win the peace by democratizing Japan.
But then, Obama learned history from Bill Ayers.
I'm not clear if you think you're disagreeing with me or others here but you started by quoting me.
I was more directing myself to others than to yourself, in following up on your "teachable moment" remark; some in this thread and --considerably more "inscrutably" -- to some similar remarks in the thread that led me here.
And thanks - I took your comment as a request for clarification, hope I've provided that, and think we're definitely involved in reasonable discussion here.
I wasn't particularly looking for clarification (though I hadn't caught your meaning on the "semantics" comment, as you've clarified it, so thanks for that), but it's been worthwhile and reasonable, I agree. And while I don't believe I had earlier drawn any conclusions about your take on Obama's "smarts", your most recent comments are (imo) spot-on and helpful.
. . . your most recent comments are (imo) spot-on and helpful.
Not that every soul wants a helping hand or thought . . . as some posts seem to prove . . . (as I dawdled in reply . . .)
Ah, well . . .
Obamateurism of the Day
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/27/obamateurism-of-the-day-85/