Yet another Journalistic Jackass insulting our troops in Iraq

Just when I think I can't get more offended by the anti-military bias in the media along comes some new sewage to stink up the place.  The latest is  "Derrick Z. Jackson" of the Boston Globe, who pontificates on the efforts of soldiers in Iraq to win "Hearts and Minds" by describing them with the following rhetoric.  Note the obligatory jab at Bush.

"Funny, when Bush told us we were liberating the Iraqi people, he said nothing about employing the Crips and Bloods."

Well, he wins the Jackass of the Month prize as far as I'm concerned.

The reason Mr. Jackson's nose is twitching is because of a radio report he heard this morning on NPR.  (of course)

In this story, a reporter embedded with a unit out patrolling and distributing coalition newspapers captured some of our soldiers on tape, using rough language with some Iraqi citizens. 

On Iraqi even came up to them and took one of the newspapers and tore it up in the soldier's face.  So the GI lost his temper.  Judging by Mr. Jackson's little tirade, you would think the soldier had committed a war crime.  He claims the soldier was violating the Iraqi's "right of free speech".  Excuse me, but you can't compare America to Iraq that easily.

In America when the paper-boy is out delivering the morning news, he is not usually in danger of being blown up, shot, or captured and beheaded. Even in East LA. So an Iraqi tearing up the newspaper that maybe that soldier's friend died trying to deliver the day before just might be a bit more upsetting than if it had happened here.

So I think the Iraqi's actions amounted to more than a little "free speech".  Making threats is also an excerise of your right to free speech, but it's not speech without consequences. Not even in America. Try making threats to a police officer and see where you end up and how fast you get there.

And meanwhile of course, Mr. Jackson is sitting on his  ever-widening butt here in the USA on a nice comfy arm-chair free from all danger except the occasional verbal jab.

And of course the reason he has the freedom to do that is because of young men like those in Iraq and their forefathers before them defending this country and losing their lives in the process.  But of course that merits not the slightest ounce of respect from Mr. Jackson. Those young men and women may be a little rough around the edges, but I sleep a lot better know they are out protecting me rather than some sop who complains more about "rights" than understanding them.

Of course what can you expect from a newspaper that reports someones pornographic fantasies as fact?

This jackass needs the pajamahadeen sic'd on him.

Comments

[seawitch1261]

I think the point that is being missed is that the Iraqi citizen felt comfortable and free enough to tear up a newspaper that was being handed out by one of the US soldiers. I wonder if that Iraqi would have even considered doing that under Saddam.

A dialouge took place, the Iraqi showed disdain for the newspaper and the soldier in true blue fashion, cussed him out.

[Graham]

Different units in the Army have different levels of discipline. If someone in my unit cussed out an Iraqi civilian and the commanders found out, they'd be reprimanded.

But this article really is stupid. Comparing the troops to gang members is as bad as calling Gitmo a "gulag."

[Graham]

Different units in the Army have different levels of discipline. If someone in my unit cussed out an Iraqi civilian and the commanders found out, they'd be reprimanded.

But this article really is stupid. Comparing the troops to gang members is as bad as calling Gitmo a "gulag."