Posted on 06/02/2008 1:33:27 AM PDT by Dawnsblood
Not surprisingly, something went unnoticed in the establishment media's coverage of Barack Obama's latest gaffe. What got the play was that Senator Obama had a great-uncle, not an uncle, who was involved, in some way or another, in the liberation of Buchenwald, not Auschwitz. Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army.
What didn't get much, if any, play was the Illinoisan's observation that his now great-uncle was, presumably, so traumatized by the experience of liberating a death camp that, when he returned stateside:
"...he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months, right. Now obviously something had really affected him deeply but at that time there just weren't the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain."
What insight does Senator Obama's words give us about his and the liberal mindset? It gives us this: that war is largely about injury to our fighting men and women, not just in body, but in mind and soul. Senator Obama's great-uncle was a shattered man, so shattered that he holed-up in his family's attic for a half a year. And that if only the facilities were available, his great-uncle would have found proper treatment for his psychic and emotional wounds.
It is curious that Senator Obama would have had the need to add this detail. Memorial Day is about celebrating the triumphs of our men and women in uniform, living or dead. And, yes, it is certainly about remembrance of their sacrifices, and about mourning, though that mourning is vivified with the knowledge that their deaths were not in vain; that their sacrifices served noble ends, and that those ends -- the advancement or preservation of freedom - gave their sacrifices great worth and meaning.
For liberals, war is a no-win proposition. Since Vietnam, a compromised and venal United States engages in conflicts with enemies -- if they can be called that -- who are, at the very least, the nation's moral equivalents or, perhaps, like the Communist North Vietnamese, its superiors. Soldiers, when not despised by liberals (again, see Vietnam) are pitied as dupes, under-educated and unemployable youths who sought paychecks in the military.
And the consequences for these youths being duped into military service? Mental and emotional illness, drug and alcohol addiction, rage and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In fact, the latter is practically a rite of passage for men and women exiting the military, or so seems the liberal belief.
Some of the best evidence for liberal thinking about military service and its effects is found in popular culture; specifically, the movies, where liberal perspectives dominate.
Post Vietnam War movies are chockfull of crazies and the traumatized. Apocalypse Now featured a gonzo Colonel Wertz (played by the bizarre Marlon Brando) being pursued by a troubled Captain Willard (played by Martin Sheen). The Deer Hunter featured a tightly-wound and anger-driven Michael (Robert De Niro) whose final - personal - mission in Vietnam is to rescue his friend, the AWOL and zombie-like Nick (Christopher Walken), from the games of Russian Roulette he indulges because he doesn't give a damn if he lives or dies.
The list can go on. Coming Home, with Jon Voight and Jane Fonda. Voight is a paralyzed Vietnam vet badly in need of a catharsis, which "Hanoi Jane" Fonda helps facilitate. Born on the Fourth of July has Tom Cruise playing yet another paralyzed Vietnam Vet, Ron Kovic, whose trauma and bitterness turns him into a full-fledge antiwar activist. In Full Metal Jacket, the first half of the movie is devoted to watching a simple, if unstable, Private Pyle (Vincent D'Onofrio) ground down by the merciless Drill Sergeant Hartman (R. Lee Ermey). Private Pyle finally shoots himself, in the latrine, no less. But first, he dispatches Sergeant Hartman -- in the latrine.
And there is a growing list of Iraq War films depicting soldiers as either coldblooded killers (Battle for Haditha) or broken (In the Valley of Elah). It seems there are no new storylines in Hollywood. Neither movie, to the credit of the paying public, has fared well at the box office.
Today, the unpopularity of the Iraq War hasn't spilled over onto the nation's soldiers and vets. However unfavorably the war is viewed by many Americans, fighting men and women are generally esteemed. Returning soldiers are met with gratitude and as heroes. Liberal politicians may try to deprecate General Petraeus, but they have the good sense not to mess with GI Joe or Jane.
Instead, as reflected in Senator Obama's comment about a great-uncle who fought in a long-ago war, liberals see soldiers as victims, who need access to "facilities" to cope with the inevitable traumas that result from the unspeakable horrors of war. It is surprising that Senator Obama didn't tack onto his remarks a proposal for additional hundreds of millions dollars for counseling and psychiatric care for vets. One senses that's where the Senator wanted to go, and still may.
Is combat a trauma? A firefight, with bullets flying and bombs falling, isn't quite like checking into the office at nine a.m. Are most soldiers traumatized by their combat experiences? No, most are not. Most Vietnam vets have gone onto live normal and productive lives. Most Iraq vets will do the same. Some will not, and most certainly, the facilities, as Senator Obama termed it, need to be available to make them whole again.
By virtually all accounts, combat is a searing experience, a life-altering experience. The soldier who has gone through that crucible has a greater appreciation for the value and fleetingness of life and the suddenness of death. His bonds to his comrades, living or dead, are greater still. And afterward, upon consideration, he knows that he's given his fullest measure to his country.
For Liberals soldiers are variably victims or criminals.
Of course, many of them have never worn the uniform, so all they know about the military is from movies (Rambo, the Deer Hunter, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, etc) amd TV shows (Gomer Pyle USMC, McHale’s Navy, F-Troop, etc) If that’s all I knew about the Armed Forces, I’d probably think they were psychotic bumbling fools, too! LOL
Of course, it isn't so curious if one actually took the time to listen to the context--realizing that the comment was made in answer to a question during the "Town Hall" format, and not during his speech.
Are most soldiers traumatized by their combat experiences? No, most are not. Most Vietnam vets have gone onto live normal and productive lives. Most Iraq vets will do the same.
It's hardly comforting to be able to say "most"...a term that would not include many hundreds of thousands. In fact, the number who are suffering is staggering.
A VA psychiatrist told me that the nature of the patients she sees from this conflict is different from previous ones, too. While many of her older patients had pre-existing conditions, unrelated to the combat environment, the current patients coming in tend to be otherwise healthy, but affected by the experiences....lots of PTSD.
Some will not, and most certainly, the facilities, as Senator Obama termed it, need to be available to make them whole again.
That was the point the sleazy senator was making. While he might be wrong on many things, he was right on target with this.
For liberals, every single person is a victim. Of capitalism, that is.
I’m not surprised that the MSM did not get to the context: liberals have trouble getting one fact correct in a row. Asking them to get two is simply unreasonable. That’s how our children are being miseducated. They give a whole string of incorrect and unjustified statements as text to their pupils. One can perhaps correct the first in the string, but all the others go uncorrected because the offending teacher sets up a howl about somehow being targeted for abuse. That shortcircuits the correcting process and leaves scads of misinformation uncorrected.
Now, the ‘correction’ may only consist in providing proper context. The facts may be correct, just used to support an incorrect or unjustified thesis. Still, the point is that we’re suffering from miseducation and hubris in our teaching class.
This example from Obama’s commentary is simply what you get from students thusly miseducated but not, please note, uneducated: he has got to be aware of how slyly his revisionism slips in to undermine any remnant of patriotism in his audience. For a while there I thought Obama was simply a tool. Now I realize he’s got his own thoughts. He may well be doing some of his time as someone’s useful stand-up prop in the store window, but he’s doing his own sales job at the same time. This is a full=frontal destroy American will to live and strive campaign.
I couldn’t dislike a person more than I have come to dislike Barack Hussein Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRvhI8w_-jU
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the_new_york_times_frags_veter/
Of course, if they'd been Navy, they'd have been shot in the head...
Sorry, couldn't resist...
Comrade Bork
mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.