Ken Schram Commentary: Confusion? Hypocrisy? Or Both?

Komo News 4 Seattle ^ | March 20, 2003 | Ken Schram

[HairOfTheDog]

Ken Schram Commentary: Confusion? Hypocrisy? Or Both?

March 20, 2003
 
By Ken Schram

SEATTLE - I find it tough to accept.

Think about all the people who claim to support the troops, but are opposed to the war.

Is that confusion, or hypocrisy?

Maybe it's both.

How can people deplore the use of bombs, but maintain they stand behind those who drop them?

They demonstrate against the bullets that fly from Marine rifles, then turn around and proclaim they'll be there for the person whose finger pulls the trigger.

I find this line of illogic an attempt to purify lingering social images of soldiers returning from Vietnam; a politically correct posture meant to ease people's conscience more then it's meant to show they actually stand behind the men and women in uniform.

I'm certain a soldier taking cover behind some Iraqi sand dune doesn't grasp the subtle difference between some people's disdain for what he does, and the fact that he is the one doing it.

I don't know if those opposed to invading Iraq are deluding themselves into believing that by saying they support the troops, they're giving themselves some kind of absolution.

Here's what I do know: You can't have it both ways.

With the first bullets having been fired; with the first bombs having been dropped, you can't claim to oppose the war and still support the Americans fighting it.

Not without at least a tinge of hypocrisy, or being so confused as to understand little about yourself, or the world around you.

Want to share your thoughts with Ken Schram? You can e-mail him at kenschram@komo4news.com

[HairOfTheDog]

Ack! This is the second Ken Schram editorial I have posted here because it was excellent.

What is the world coming to? Ken Schram making sense? I just watched him read this editorial live in the middle of a downtown Seattle protest (second street).

Shock and awe.

[HairOfTheDog]

Shock and Awe ping.

[PoisedWoman]

Ken can nail it when he wants to. Those idiot protestors who glue treacly "but I support the troops" grins on their dirty faces are typical leftists, who have no spine or moral backbone and don't know up from down.

[HairOfTheDog]

Ken Schram really can't stand protests...

Here is the other Ken Schram editorial I posted here:
What Did They Expect To Accomplish?

[expatpat]

It's quite easy to understand: they hate Bush.

[HairOfTheDog]

They think we are stupid. Saying they support the troops and hate the war is a crutch for them. Keeps them from having to take the hard stand. But they aren't fooling people as much as they think.

I am glad he called them on it!

[irishtenor]

Not only is he making sense, I agree with him! I don't get it? Was he a closet conservative all this time?

[HairOfTheDog]

Oh no.... I wouldn't go that far, his editorials in-between these two are not exactly on our platform, but he does get this one right!

[Scott from the Left Coast]

We had a solo protester along the marina walk today who was standing there giving the peace sign to passing cars with a sign that said "Occupation is not Freedom". My wife, the bold one, walked right up to her, in front of her face, and flipped her off.

It was hilarious. Silent protest against a protest.

[HairOfTheDog]

I sent him an email. He is gonna get hammered for this one.

Subject: "EXCELLENT EDITORIAL: Confusion? Hypocrisy? Or Both?

Excellent editorial, I find it tough to accept too.

"I don't know if those opposed to invading Iraq are deluding themselves into believing that by saying they support the troops, they're giving themselves some kind of absolution. "

That is exactly what it is, and I could not have said it better.

###########
Tumwater, WA

[HairOfTheDog]

HA! - Sometimes words just don't have the same impact!

[CFC__VRWC]

They think we are stupid. Saying they support the troops and hate the war is a crutch for them. Keeps them from having to take the hard stand. But they aren't fooling people as much as they think.

Instead of calling it crutch to avoid taking a stand, I see it more as a fig leaf to obscure their blatant anti-Americanism, which they know deep down will never resonate with the majority of Americans.

[HairOfTheDog]

That is it, of course. There is no evil that is not Bush. But they don't have the guts to admit that's all the deeper it is.... And they don't have the courage to say they really hope we lose horribly to prove their point, but it is clear between their words. I have read their stuff the last 24 hours over in that other place that shall remain nameless. It is pretty clear to me.

[HairOfTheDog]

It is anti-American has long as Bush is in office. They'd be praising Clinton's courage if he was freeing those poor Iraqis from this dictator.

Well, some of them would.

The anarchists at Evergreen wouldn't go for that either, but they are at least more honest. They hate everything.

[jammer]

I'm not being argumentative. But to Ken, and all who agree with him totally, there are only three choices: support the action, oppose the action, or oppose the action, yet "support the troops", the latter being an example of hypocrisy. Admittedly, there is a lot of this, and we can say that Daschle, etc. "support[ing] the troops" is that much BS. They haven't, they don't, and they won't. But, don't you think there is a possiblity that there are honorable people who think the action is a strategic blunder, yet are gung-ho when the shots are fired? If not, I feel sorry for you, and us.

[HairOfTheDog]

But, don't you think there is a possiblity that there are honorable people who think the action is a strategic blunder, yet are gung-ho when the shots are fired? If not, I feel sorry for you, and us.

Not sure anything I have said would be contrary to this. That is not what he is saying, and it is not what I have said.

Of course there are. There are people who by nature don't like war or aren't predisposed to support Bush. I have a couple of mostly Liberal friends in this category. They aren't out on the streets protesting the war and pretending they are not hurting the troops.

[jammer]

Sorry, I thought that was exactly what you and he said--those who opposed the war and "support the troops" are confused or hypocrits. I still think that is what you and he said. I am saying that I agree with that for almost all those on the left. For many on the right, that is not true.

[jammer]

But, I want to emphasize that I agree with you and him about (and I'm putting my words in your mouth [g]), that the sight of these buzzard pukes saying "they support our troops" when we know damned well they never have--most don't want them to vote--is outrageous.

[HairOfTheDog]

You left out the fourth option in your scenario above. Be quiet. Don't go shout in the streets during the conflict and hang with folks that have signs indicating Bush is as bad as Hitler, and claim that you really support the troops, just not what they do.

[expatpat]

Yeah, those folks in the other place are truly poisonous creeps. So much anger!