I was especially impressed with the moving comments that the Commander-in-chief wannabe made in New Mexico yesterday as he spoke of the fallen heroes — “and I see many of them in the audience here today.” Is Obama just ignorant of the purpose of Memorial Day or is he just stupid? Of course, maybe his campaign had some dead military men at the speech. I wouldn’t put anything past liberals.

Yes, because a supporter of president Bush has a whole lot of room to criticize people for misstatements. Let’s not forget that Bush promised never to stop thinking of ways to harm our country and its people.

Maybe Obama learned about Memorial Day from his crazy uncle in the attic who Obama said was one of the American troops who liberated Auschwitz. Yesterday at a Memorial Day service, referring to an uncle who had been one of the first U.S. troops into Auschwitz, Obama said: “The story in the family is he came home and just went up in the attic.” The trouble is that the Soviets, not the Americans, liberated Auschwitz. Makes me wonder how many other crazy uncles Obama has in the attic. Maybe he should join them.

Maybe I have been too harsh on Barry. Perhaps Obama did not make a mistake after all when he said he saw the fallen heroes at his rally. He probaly has the sixth sense where “I see dead people.”

The fallen heroes thing is clearly just awkward speech. He was correct in his definition of the day (to honor fallen heroes) so those who say he does not know what it is are being silly. I imagine what he meant by the second part was he saw heroes (IE folks in uniform) in the audience. Or maybe family members who had lost someone in war. Whatever. A non-issue.

On the other hand, the uncle in Poland thing is potentially a big issue. It appears he made up shit to embellish a point. A huge mistake if that’s how it turns out. A huge mistake.

According to the Obama camp, he misspoke: His great uncle liberated Ohrdruf (Buchenwald), not Auschwitz.

“On the other hand, the uncle in Poland thing is potentially a big issue. It appears he made up shit to embellish a point. A huge mistake if that’s how it turns out. A huge mistake.”

Actually the second gaffe is more understandable than the first one. Obama said that his family had told him about his crazy uncle in the attic who had helped liberate Auschwitz. Family stories passed along have a tendency to change over a period of time. However, an educated political man has no excuse for not knowing the purpose of Memorial Day.

Yes, Morris, you are an ignorant asshole. No need to keep proving the point. The purpose, as he explicitly stated, is to honor fallen heroes. He said these exact words: “On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes”. Then he flubbed his recognition of the audience.

Tgirsch, yes I am relieved to learn that the basis for the story is true, he just got the details wrong. Which is still hard to believe, and he will be excoriated for it by some, but clearly there was no intent to deceive. So that’s a relief.

“The purpose, as he explicitly stated, is to honor fallen heroes.”

Then he obviously doesn’t know what “fallen heroes” are since he included some who were in attendance at his speech. Why do you always have to degenerate into namecalling?

OK, explain it. What do you think he meant by “fallen heroes”? People who had tripped on the way to the ceremony? Give me a reasonable answer to that and I’ll concede the point.

Before you answer (as if you could) keep in mind he also said the following in his speech:

“I know that our sadness today is mixed with pride; that those we’ve lost will be remembered by a grateful nation; and that our presence here today is only possible because your loved ones, America’s patriots, were willing to give their lives to defend our nation.

I know that while we may come from different places, cherish different traditions, and have different political beliefs, we all – every one of us – hold in reverence those who’ve given this country the full measure of their devotion.” … “Many of those we honor today were so young when they were killed.” …. “So on this day, of all days, let’s memorialize our fallen heroes by honoring all who wear our country’s uniform”

So go ahead, make a serious argument that his speech was not about service people killed in war. The fact that you even make this claim shows how dishonest and despicable you are. Of course it is not your claim – you are simply parroting something you heard elsewhere and that is why you will not be able to offer a reasonable defense of your position. Your childish bullshit is usually just that, childish bullshit – but when you denigrate a Memorial Day ceremony with your cheap, tranparant crap, it shows what a lowlife you really are.

OK your turn. Wow me with a lucid, reasoned rebuttal. I won’t hold my breath.

He referenced people who died in military service to their country AND people who were in the audience who obviously weren’t dead. As usual, your kneejerk reaction has led you into claiming something I did not say. Of course, he was referring to fallen heroes who had died. The reason this was a gaffe was that he a also INCLUDED those who HAD NOT DIED. You aren’t very bright, are you? You are absolutely wrong that I denigrated a memorial ceremony. Obama did that by his ignorance.

Why don’t you have the balls to admit that Obama made a mistake instead of acting like a petulant child who won’t admit when his buddy has made a mistake? I don’t think this is the worst mistake Barry has made, but it was a mistake.

Morris, you will note that in comment #5 I did state I thought he might have made a huge mistake, so your premise on that one is out the window.

As for the other, I have said “it was awkward speech” and “a flub”. I you need me to say it was a mistake, fine, it was a mistake. My point is it is childish to use it as a reason to say he is “ignorant of the purpose of Memorial Day”, or “However, an educated political man has no excuse for not knowing the purpose of Memorial Day.” Through the entire speech, he refers to the dead. At the beginning, he acknowledges heroes in the audience (military). If your sick little mind needs to pretend that he doesn’t know what Memorial Day is about (as if, before giving the speech, he and his people didn’t sit down and discuss what it is about and how to give the speech), so be it. It is ironic since, as Tgirsch has pointed out, Bush makes this type of flub all the time. Or do you think he really does think about ways to harm our country and people?

Morris:

Your intellectual dishonesty gets you into trouble like this. Either Obama’s “fallen heroes in the audience” statement was a simple verbal flub — which virtually everyone with any modicum of intelligence acknowledges it was — or it was some sort of gross ignorance. You can’t have it both ways, but boy oh boy do you try. You repeatedly pretend that either Obama doesn’t know what memorial day is about, or that he doesn’t know what fallen heroes are. You’re obviously not man enough to acknowledge the third option, that it was a simple misstatement, of the sort your best buddy GWB makes just about every time he opens his pie hole. I’ll give you credit, though: you don’t care that this makes like even more of an ignorant asshole. In fact, you seem to be proud of your third-grade-level debating skills.

But false dilemmas are fun, though. Let me try:

Is Morris a child molester, or just a murderer? Because everyone knows it has to be one or the other.

Sorry to interrupt, but I actually have a sincere question.

So, Memorial Day was originally to honor those who died in the American Civil War. After WWI it was expanded to apply to all Americans who perished in war, and presumably all who would perish in future wars.

Some years following, Congress approved Veteran’s Day as a national holiday.

Here we have a classic case of all members of group A are members of group B, but not all members of group B are members of group A. But, isn’t this a distinction basically determined by circumstance? When one goes into battle (and granted, not every participant in military operations is involved in what we commonly refer to as “battle”) isn’t there the inherent risk of death?

Essentially, aren’t we basically just honoring soldiers in either case, some of whom died and some of whom survived. Are those who died, de facto, more brave than those who were fortunate enough not to? Those who we honor on Memorial Day are not being honored because they are dead, they are being honored for what the did when alive, for how the died. Why would the person next to that person in combat deserve anything different?

It seems like the whole living veterans/dead soldiers thing is something of a false distinction in the first place. Enlighten me if you feel otherwise, I could certainly be way off base here.

And, Morris, don’t even start, I’m not defending Obama by attempting to conflate the two. I give two fucks about Barry O, so kill that noise from jump. I’m just asking, is it really inappropriate to honor living soldiers on Memorial Day, not in traditional observance, but in essence? Obviously, if Morris’s ridiculous allegations are true, then conceding my point wouldn’t absolve Obama because it’s not as if he made his (mis)statement to make a political point. Of course, I’m on the side of sentient human beings who attribute it to a mere slip of the tongue, but whatever.

Digg:

The ones who survived are no more brave than the ones who didn’t, but the latter group inarguably sacrificed a lot more. And that’s worth some amount of additional honor, IMO. (Of course, the dead guys themselves don’t care much, but memorials are like parades — they’re not for the benefit of the people in them.)

I’m with you Tgirsch.

Fair enough, I can respect that. Though I, as a rule, try to privilege intent over outcome.

I don’t intend to start any tangential debate, but I guess it is worth mentioning the token caveat of those veterans who sustained such terrible physical injuries or mental trauma that they would, in fact, rather have been killed.

digg:

On that you have a point. I remember a few years ago during the National Memorial Day Concert in D.C., they did a special tribute to the “silent casualties” of war, those who came back with permanent injuries (like lost limbs, etc.). Not sure if it’s still true, but at the time, such casualties outnumbered deaths at a rate of close to three-to-one, and got (and still get) almost no press or attention. (Sadly, this administration likes to keep a lid on the costs of war, fearing it will weaken our national “resolve.”) They deserve much better.

“this administration likes to keep a lid on the costs of war,”

If the lid is on, how do you know so much?

Because not everyone involved agrees, and some of them give interviews. And, of course, there are the returning vets themselves.

But unless you’re watching documentaries on PBS or the History Channel, you’re not getting a very detailed picture. How many nightly news stories have you seen on those maimed in the current war? How many newspaper articles? They barely get any mention. Only now are things like PTSD and the lingering effects of combat duty starting to get any sort of attention. Yes, the MSM is absolutely complicit in this (and I fault them greatly for it), but the administration has pressured the media not to emphasize such things.

“How many nightly news stories have you seen on those maimed in the current war?”

Many. The stories are abundant. I saw one recently about how so many more of those injured in war survive because of the improvement in medical care immediately after a person is injured. I saw another about a man whose neighbors renovated his house to make it handicap accessible as well as making major improvements in the house. I saw another story about a woman who was engaged to a severely injured soldier and the care she was giving him. etc., etc, etc. There is no lack of stories about those injured in Iraq.

“the administration has pressured the media not to emphasize such things.”

That’s a good one. Thanks for the laugh.

“Only now are things like PTSD and the lingering effects of combat duty starting to get any sort of attention.”

Another good one.(although not a funny one) I’m actually old enough to have known a man who suffered shell shock in WWI. Everyone knows about “battle fatique” in WWII. The name of the problem changes but the syndrome has been recognized for many years.

Those who serve our country in war deserve the best we can give them.

Morris:

It should have been obvious that I was talking about media coverage the current Iraq war, not all wars at all times. Sorry, I forgot who I was dealing with, and didn’t think I needed to spell everything out.

Even with respect to the nightly news stories you mention about the current war, though, I’d be willing to wager that the overwhelming majority of them were in 2006 or later. From 2003-2005, we got almost nothing of the sort, and on those infrequent occurrences where we did, the administration and right-wing pinheads chided the media for “only reporting the bad news” from Iraq (despite all the evidence showing that, if anything, the “good news” from Iraq is over-reported by several orders of magnitude).