Prev | List | Random | Next
CNN recently ran a piece on an IRR Soldier who's been recalled to active duty.
Her finely honed commitment to honor, duty and patriotism is being matched against her equally strong instincts of motherhood and family. At the same time, she has deep feelings of disillusionment with the Army, to which she owes so much allegiance and gratitude, for changing the rules.I can understand all that - sympathize even. But there's one problem. The subject of the piece is calling bullshit:
Whitney and tens of thousands of reservists around the country were finding out that the Army had instituted a stop-loss provision. The Army was freezing reservists in place, allowing no resignations and no voluntary transfers to inactive status.
Her initial anger was soon crowded out by worry. How, she frets, can she leave Matthew? If she were sent overseas, "Mom would have to take over with Matthew full time since Joe works 16-hour days. He isn't available."
As Whitney talks about the impact on her family, a trace of anger returns to her voice.
"This isn't just my life that is being disrupted; it is the whole family," she says. "Everyone in the family is upset and worried."
"Call-up could come at any time," she said. "It could be as short as 72 hours' notice, although the rotations lately have had more notice than that."
If the call comes, she'll be gone for a year. Right now, that's half of her son's life.
"I'm just worried that when I leave Matthew will feel abandoned because his mom just disappeared. I worry that my absence will affect our bonding," Whitney says.
My name is Kathleen Whitney and I am an emergency room nurse and a 1st Lieutenant in the Army reserve. A few weeks ago I was featured in a story on CNN.com. Let me start out by saying that the author of that article was my aunt, and I don't believe she would ever intentionally misrepresent me. However by the time the story got through the editors there was a definite liberal slant to it.But who are you gonna believe, CNN or your own lying eyes? Read the whole thing at MilBlogger Grunt Doc's.
Almost 250 Milblogs in the ring now. Today might be a good day to tell a friend about Free speech from those who help make it possible.
Thanks for the link!Posted by GruntDoc at June 16, 2005 09:39 PM
What a stupid objection. The CNN story, which actually wasn't theirs but came from an affiliate as disclosed at the top of the link, didn't have the woman complaining about going. It had her talking about the difficulty involved. You wingnuts are so terrified by anything that isn't a full-throated cheerleading section. Get a grip!Posted by Willysnout at June 16, 2005 10:22 PM
The story is trying to make you feel sorry for her for being called up, plain and simple. My feeling is if you don't want to run the risk of getting called up, especially when you are preggers, RESIGN YOUR COMMISSION. She has 9 years in. She's free and clear. There was nothing holding her in, no obligations except that she wanted to stay in the Reserves. Fine, you make that decision, you have to accept the consequences of it. She's an adult and an officer, not a little kid.
And before you start saying I'm a heartless SOB, one of my good friends, an awesome Trauma nurse I trained and worked with recently had a baby and resigned her commission. I was sad to see her go as she was one of the best nurses I've worked with. She confided in me that it was a hard decision to make (she was also an OIF vet like myself and knows the real deal), but she didn't want to run the risk of being deployed again while she had such a young baby. I respect her decision very much and don't begrudge her time with her baby. She made the decision that was right for her. But in the same vein, had she opted to remain in, I would have expected her to deploy if she got orders to do so. And knowing her, she would have sucked it up and done her duty.Posted by armynurseboy at June 17, 2005 02:14 AM
In the original story, the woman wasn't complaining. It was about the sacrifice she was prepared to make. For chrissakes I don't see what the problem is here other than the story not being simplistic and rah-rah and presenting the woman as some sort of two-dimensional stick figure. Sheesh, what the hell problem do this country's wingnuts have with real people living real lives and voicing their apprehensions?
Something's really the matter with you people.Posted by Willysnout at June 17, 2005 02:57 AM
Willysnout, so you get banned at GruntDoc, only to come over here to complain some more?
Don't you think that if the subject of the story hadn't complained, this wouldn't be an issue at all?
Or does she not count?Posted by michaelt at June 17, 2005 03:55 AM
Willysnout, leftist scum like you are the reason I find no need to make any pretense of civility when I respond to their mental diarrhea.
Editors Note: Offensive language deleted, also I'm not fond of name calling on this site and have been known to delete it. We wingnuts are better than that.
I just learned that the wingnut who runs "Grunt Doc" banned me. See, your typical wingnut defines anyone who disagrees as a troll. This is because the typical rightwingnut hates the truth, loves to tell lies and despises freedom more than anything on earth. And has no principles that can't be abandoned as soon as desire or self-interest get in the way.
Take at the current rightwingnut enthusiasm for torture and sexual perversion. If the things that American soldier did to Muslims had been done by them to us, you people would be wanting to nuke Mecca. But you're don't bat an eyelash when the U.S. military decides to reopen Saddam's rape rooms under American management. Not a peep out of you. In fact, many of you are ALL IN FAVOR of it.
You imagine that you support the troops because you talk tough on the Internet, but in reality you don't even do that. You're perfectly o.k. with having sent 1,700+ Americans to die in Iraq, and with hiding the 12,000+ American wounded like they're a shameful secret. With "friends" like you, who needs the other side?
And Ricky Ricardo: Back at ya, wingnut scum.Posted by Willysnout at June 17, 2005 07:57 AM
The reason you are not banned from this site is because we believe in free speech, regardless what you spew. Although I do demand it stay PG, that goes for everyone.
But mainly we leave you on this site to show how ridicules the left has become.
Your kind are making it easy in 2008.Posted by Mrs. Greyhawk at June 17, 2005 09:20 AM
I know it's "ridicules" to object to torture and perversion and the deaths and wounding of many thousands of American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians all for a phony president's lies. Interestingly enough, I don't think I've cursed at anyone here unless you would define "rightwingnut" as a curse.Posted by Willysnout at June 17, 2005 09:35 AM
I never accused you of foul language, I merely stated my rules of free speech on this site comes with responsibility. Look at the other commenters, ding dong. Nice try at twisting though.Posted by Mrs. Greyhawk at June 17, 2005 09:44 AM
"See, your typical wingnut defines anyone who disagrees as a troll."
No, people tend to call people with your winning personality a troll, especially when it becomes obvious that you are thriving on spewing crap and playing the martyr act when called on it.
You, on the other hand, seem quite attached to labeling people who disagree with you a variety of names on a common theme. Ever since you showed up here, in fact. "Rightwingnut" this "Bushbot" that, "rightwing" all over the place. It's called "projection" in case you were wondering.
Do continue with the "help, help I'm being REPRESSED" cry if you wish, though I must warn you that Michael Palin did a better job.Posted by Patrick Chester at June 17, 2005 11:48 AM
Hey, being deployed out of my comfy life would be very inconvenient. That's the deal, though. If they want the help of an out of shape Air Defense officer, I'm ready to go. I wear slacks to work, but the card in my wallet says "Major." That card is a privelage and an obligation.Posted by Peyton at June 17, 2005 12:30 PM
"You imagine that you support the troops because you talk tough on the Internet, but in reality you don't even do that. You're perfectly o.k. with having sent 1,700+ Americans to die in Iraq, and with hiding the 12,000+ American wounded like they're a shameful secret. With "friends" like you, who needs the other side?"
Listen [DELETED]. I've been to Iraq. I've treated those wounded soldiers. I've been shot at by terrorists. DON'T YOU DARE SAY I DON'T SUPPORT OUR TROOPS BECAUSE I'M ONE OF THEM. I've seen first hand what is going on over there. Have you?Posted by armynurseboy at June 17, 2005 05:40 PM
armynurseboy: with respect to you and anyone else who is actually there or has served in Iraq, I take it back and apologize. I wasn't aiming my comments at those who are serving. People get hot under the collar and that includes me. That said, I do NOT retract those words insofar as they apply to those who are not or have not been in Iraq. I consider the waste of lives there to be shameful, and I further consider the conduct of this country's leadership to be criminally incompetent.Posted by Willysnout at June 17, 2005 07:26 PM
Willy, do you know where you are? The whole "rightwing-wingnut" schtick really doesn't work here, and I tried to warn you off of that chickenhawk stuff once before. This blog is run by a still active duty OIF vet (plus 20 years of prior service around the world) and most of the commenters you are dealing with are also vets or active duty - like the "wingnut who runs gruntdoc".
Civilians are free to comment too, and often do. I appreciate that - encourage it even, but there's nothing here about judges, or no child left behind, or gay marraige, or any other number of things that the many political blogs elsewhere on the net deal with. In fact, I'm not sure when the last time there was anything about president Bush here.
Other than what you write.
The problem with blogs is you can't hear the laughter.Posted by Greyhawk at June 17, 2005 09:19 PM
As I've written before, the difference between me and the average wingnut is not that I make mistakes and they don't. It's that when I make them, I will own up to them and move on. The wingnuts think they're perfect, and therefore to acknowledge that this or that comment went too far is absolutely not possible for them. They're just following the lead of the Liar-in-Chief, who when asked during a press conference in 2004 if he had made any mistakes in office said he couldn't think of any.
Now, I want to be clear on how I define this. The fact that someone has been in the military does not, to me, make them an expert on all things military or somehow give them an exalted status in commenting about the Iraq War. A while back, I found myself being told sternly (on another website) by someone that he was the guarantor of my freedom. Turned out he was an instructor of MPs in Germany. My ass-kissing doesn't extend that far, but when it comes to people who are serving in Iraq or have served there there are a few lines I won't cross or at least don't want to cross.
As for the political content here, the fact is you are exclusively linked to right-wing websites, and those sites -- and your links to them -- are often on matters not directly connected to the war. For instance, your links to "Stop the ACLU" and their battle against the ACLU on child porn. I actually happen to sympathize with the opponents of the ACLU on that one, but it's not a war issue.
The far-right-wing orientation of this website carries the clcear implication that only your side is patriotic. You go so far as to join the disgraceful smear attack against Sen. Durbin, whose speech actually ought to be welcomed and supported by everyone.
As for the wingnut shtick, well you certainly seem to be on board with the moonbat and left-wing scumbag shtick. So as long as I see that here, you're going to see the rightwingnut shtick. Until you eventually cave into your instincts and block my postings. It's only a matter of time, because your side actively hates the freedom it claims to uphold.
Posted by Willysnout at June 17, 2005 09:43 PM
Willy - If you don't want intelligent, first-hand-experience debate, why are you here? I'm not a Vet nor a currently serving Warrior, but I'm a regular visitor to this site for information. If I wanted to hear the garbage you spew, I'd turn on my TV or read Newsweek. I think you just like attention and can't get it anywhere else.
I think we should all just ignore him - maybe he'll go away...Posted by Laughing at Willy at June 18, 2005 01:15 AM
Mrs Greyhawk, I would like to apologize for using profanity in your site. I'll try to watch it from here on out. I'm just a simple soldier who gets REALLy pissed off when someone is disrepsectful to people he should be saying thank you to.Posted by armynurseboy at June 18, 2005 01:55 AM
If you don't want intelligent, first-hand experience debate, why are you here?
It would be nice to have a vigorous yet respectful debate. I started here in that spirit, but soon ran into the usual hoo-hah from the right wingers. If you want to debate without invective, I'm fine with it. Try me.Posted by Willysnout at June 18, 2005 02:15 AM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(19) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)