I congratulate you for keeping your cool. I find myself getting close to snapping and getting ugly on someones tuchis.
That Marine fascist bastard is an example of the militaries desire to take Tom Delay's war on the 2/3 of America he hates to the next level. Except if their mercenary Army can't handle a bunch of Iraqis they sure as heck will have to draft a lot of Christian farm boys to handle the insurgency here.
The officer corp is a disgrace to this country and the uniform. They took an oath to defend the Constitution and now use it as toilet paper. They are cowards and theives as investigations into military contractor revolving door policies and searches for missing $Billions from Iraq would show.

Mr. Arkin,

Thank you for continuing to do a great service to the American nation. You are both a very good journalist and a very good American, and I value reading your column daily. My hat's off to you.

Best,
Tom

So-called Jounalist continue to astound me. It seems as though they are above rebuke and anything they say or do is fine because we are free and the Freedom of the Press is one of our most cherished rights. Bullcrap! Journalist also have a responsibility to know what may or may not seriously wound or kill people and its not always about the freaking story. During World War II, the press showed a little patriotism and still got the story out, the whole story. Today's jornalist would print a story telling our enemy's everything they ever wanted to know regardless of who it hurt. They have no remorse, they have no patriotism and they certainly do not have any regret because they are standing up for free speech and the Freedom of the Press! Sorry, the soldiers who are put in harms way are the ones who are standing up for free speech and Freedom of the Press. The vary same soldiers who you put in harms way by reporting about the invasion plans for Iraq. Who in the hell died and put you in charge anyway? I didn't want to hear about Americas invasion plans, I wanted to hear about Iraq's defensive plans. Why did you not report about Iraq's defensive plans or the readiness of his Republican Guard or the military equipment he was going to use. Why didn't you report about his Weapons of Mass Destructions, his chemicals weapons stock pile or his nuclear ambitions, if he ever had any? You could have been a real American hero had you been able to report with certainty about what iraq had or didn't have and maybe, if we had that information, war could have been averted from the beginning. But you didn't report about Iraq and you didn't have any knowledge about what he had or didn't have because in Iraq you didn't have the mighty American shield of freedom of speech or Freedom of the Press, did you. It always amazes me how strong and forceful our media is as they hide behind our beautiful constitiution. And, it amazes me even more how cowardly they are (Peter Arnett) when confronted by people who could give a rats ass about you're so-called freedoms. No Mr. Arkin, you are not a patriot, you are nothing more than a gifted mouth piece who probably caused a few more deaths in Iraq than was necessary. You see SIR, the only reason you are permitted to invoke your constitutional rights is because of the brave officers and enlisted men and women from the ranks of our society who deemed it worthy enough to die for. Now the next time you decide to write about our war plans, regardless of which spy gave you the information, think about giving our eneimies equal billing in your columns. Better yet, travel to Iran (our most probable next opponent) and report all that you can about thier current state of war preparedness, about thier possible plans for self defense and about thier current military configurations. Put that in the newspaper, thiers or ours, and you'll never hear me question your patriotism again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Though I don't like you much, nor your column usually, I applaud you here.
It wasn't about that moment with the general, but what his question said. Good to have a discussion about the role of the military brass. Their role in all this. The mealey mouthing on TV. No heros?

"'General, do you consider yourself a military officer or an American?'

The US is a democracy, the military is not (nor should it be).

I wish I could trust Americans in the military and not to understand the complexity of those statements.

Very well done Larry. You know that in life we can only do our best and when we are satisfied enough with our work, we can relax and rest a little. After all, nothing is important and everything is important. Go figure... Bloging is fun, allowing us to discover ourselves and others, and create logical speeches that sustain our thoughts, the most distinctive activities of human experience. Have a good one!
WishRobby

Some people tsk tsk your response to the General.

He deserved it.

I don't have any real way of knowing, but I suspect that idiots like that are part of the problem that we face now in Iraq. I'm all for "supporting the troops" but the high level brass fall into a different category. As much as I believe that Rumsfeld is insane, and that Bush and Cheney are grossly incompetent, the Generals have to share some of the blame.

I would have replied, "Both, and perhaps someday you will understand that", and left it at that.

Sounds like this guy was a real Pr*ck, though. Most Marines aren't.

-Fred

Nice exchange with the General. That takeaway was classic and I wish I'd been there...

about the exchange with the general:

challenging the general's question is compelling; the basis, the framing, probably intended insult of it . but

dropping the f-bomb is simply inflammatory. adding idiot is not a path of flattery to move minds among the reasonable.

It does provoke strong reaction, but mostly among those who take the dimmest view of the 4th estate as it is. And it provoked the general, who may have just been poking your verbal hornet nest with a stick, probing to see your reaction. Maybe you did surprise him with it. Other than it's cathartic value, was it constructive?

Surely there's a way (easy in hindsight) to turn your initial anger/frustration into something said that actually might shift the general's frame..

.. point out the absurdity of his question and it's framing, but use other parts of your probably extensive vocabulary and historical/political knowledge, taking the high road over his initial low. That might have actually caused him to think.

If someone swears at you, after that point do you hear any of his viewpoint? How well do you recall his legitimate points, after he called you a f**king idiot?

The general embarrassed his service and his rank by his query.

You wasted an opportunity because of your anger in response, Mr. Arkin. Don't blame you for the anger, but still ...

Neither person involved exemplified the best of their professions in that exchange, to say the best about it.

You require that bloggers need not be paid any heed? You complain about their intolerance and lack of civility? Who would say to a General the word f*** and expect to get what they got? There are two sides to every story. I have seen just as much intolerance and lack of civility among the mass media as I have in blogs. To say that they are undeserving because they present another, perhaps diverse view, or that their view is intolerant is pure blasphemy when you yourself, and your beliefs, you want accepted as much. Many have been using the T. Roosevelt quote regarding patriotism in comparison to speaking out against the government. To a point he was right. However, one must know when to be quiet as much as when to spout off where patriotism is concerned.

Good for you Mr. Arkin. Dissent against policies of a government are by their very nature not "controlled" or "authorized" by the government in question.

A very brave patriot, Col. David Hackett, said the war was going to be lost in Viet Nam to ABC in 1971, and in 1974 it was lost. He had 10 Silver Stars, 8 Purple Hearts, and othe medals for fighting five years there. He got drummed out of the Army for his remarks. But he spoke truth as he saw it to an honest reporter who reported it.

What does it mean to be an "American" these days? Must you support illegal wars, torture gulags, the trashing of international law, the thumbing of your national nose at the rest of the world, polluting as much as possible and undermining global efforts to save the planet? Must you agree with every mad military adventure George W. Bush cooks up? Must you be a "Christian" fundamentalist bigot?
From this corner of the world, that's what being "American" looks like.
Even if I were an American, I wouldn't want to say it too loudly just now. Americans have so much to be ashamed of.

Why didn't you respond that you are an American journalist? Your answer in no way forces a susbstantive discussion. It answers a provocation with a provocation. Childish.

Why didn't you respond that you are an American journalist? Your answer in no way forces a susbstantive discussion. It answers a provocation with a provocation. Childish.

The General stupidly presented you with a false choice...as if you can't be BOTH a journalist and an American. This "false choice" dynamic is like a disease in this highly-partisan country we live in. The media engages in it. Politicians engage in it. And a lot of people who listen to the media and to politicians engage in it. Thanks for calling the General on the foolishness of his question.

So who was the alleged General? As far as I am concerned, this nver happened unless it is confirmed somehow.

OK I read the part about the general and the reply he got.

I don't understand why the general's name has not been mentioned (at least I missed it). To pander to bullies is to sell this great country to the lowest bidder.

Just prior to Gulf War I a big talking moron like this general did open his mouth and say something out of turn.

George Bush The first had him canned super fast.

Times have changed have they not?

There is a truth out there - America isn't the worlds only superpower. The US has been given this title simply because no one else wants the obligation. Most other nations that might lay claim to the title know better.
The United States is the worlds leading superpower only because they possess the most atomic weapons, but they can't use them, no one can, what good would it do to be a superpower in a devestated, ruined world.
Take away the atomic weapons and you have a military that hasn't fought effectively since world war two in the Pacific. The US military' with the help of other nations including Canada,merely tied in the 1950 conflict against Korea, leading to the confrontation we face to-day over nuclear weapons.
The US lost ignominiously in Vietnam.
A number of other confrontations were embarasingly unsuccessful except for the invasion of Granada. Now here was a great military triumph.
Now lets look at Afghanistan, where the war lords still hold sway over much of the country and 90% of the worlds illicit heroin supply is grown, much of which finds it's way to the huge US market. The war lords take the money from the US and European drug sales and buy weapons used to kill Americans.
Iraq - a monument to governmenht deceit and remarkable stupidity, faults that the youth in the military pay dearly for.
The remainer of the world is happy to let the United States play the "superpower" role.
George Bush, your president, is the butt of snide jokes in the backrooms of the worlds other nations. There is no respect for him.
It's up to the citizens of what is really a great nation, the United States,to stop playing to their collective ego and learn to work with the rest of humanity to create a world of sharing and compassion.

I can be rather frank with my opinions, and I have a constitutional right to my opinions. I can safely say that I have exercised that right on numerous occasions. I have never been a good "German" who will follow any idiot (yes Idiot) over a cliff. On three occasions, I promised to protect and defend the Constitution and obey the LEGAL orders of those appointed over me. I never got an illegal order, but if I did receive one, it would not have been obeyed. My alligence is to the Constitution and the United State. The President is not my commander-in-chief, because I am not in the Air force or Army anymore. My last commander-In-Chief was President Johnson. I respect competence, ability and intelligence. If a leader does not have the qualities, I will feel free, regardless of his rank or position, to call him or her an idiot. I get very annoyed when they violate the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or betray the interests of the United States. An oath after all is an oath!

God damn! The Post, which I'd had a very DIM view of lately, just went up 'cause they hired you. Well done, Mr. Arkin, Well done.

Bravo, sir. Journalists who pursue the truth are living up to the ideals upon which the United States was founded. By offering that despicable either/or false choice, the general showed that he doesn't really understand what it means to be a journalist or an American.

M. Arkin, thanks for being a great example of what a real journalist is - I wish some of the other Wash. Post writers would have the spine to speak truth to power.

Given that my dad wore the uniform, I don't think I'd have been as rude. But I would hope I would have been just as forthright ... perhaps something along the lines of, "General, you work for the commander in chief, and the commander in chief works for me, so in the unlikely event I ever need your opinion on what does or does not qualify one to be an American, I'll certainly pass that request down your chain of command."

Thank you for confronting the latter-day Praetorian Guard. Sad to say, the General's attitudes have been typical of the top brass for decades. My father was a USAF colonel and I am appalled by the open hostility to the constitution and democracy that he and his friends in the military, the DEA and the CIA regularly manifest.

When our officers argue for decades that Filipinos should not be allowed to choose their leader (because we bought and ownded Marcos), that Haitians should not be allowed to choose their leader (because we bought Duvalier), that Nicaraguans and Salvadoreans should not be allowed to choose their leaders (because we bought the ones we wanted), and that South Africans should not be allowed to choose their leaders (because we liked the whites better) - it was only a matter of time before they began to apply the same world view at home. If Franco were alive, he'd be smiling - and he'd feel right at home in the USA.

As a father of a 10y.o. daughter, I tend to be judicious when selecting my words. I try not to throw words around and I believe this has resulted in my girl having a more powerful ability to express herself. Words matter.

Occasionally, there is great utility in saying, "Fuck you" to the powerful -- especially when they have perfected the technique of saying it to you in not so many/few words. Sorta like when Frank Zappa told some Wash Times jerk to kiss his ass. It's not the profanity or rude imagery that offends, but your audacity in not tolerating their heap of crap that invariably gets tossed when you question their world view. Bravo, and really, that Marine Gen. can plant one right on your tucchus too.

Uhm, Archimedes - Sorry - but if I go to Europe this summer, I'm going to make sure that everyone who spots me for an American also knows that I did not vote for the current President and that I am very, very sorry he is such a vindictive, destructive idiot.

If the the guy at the top claims to be speaking for you but is really not, no purpose served by keeping this "debate" internal.

Disliking the man is one thing, but I think that the vast majority of Americans would agree that respect for the office is a must.

Bush doesn't have respect for the office of the Presidency - he's used it to create his own private fiefdom, where he makes the laws. He doesn't respect the checks and balances our founding fathers built into the system, to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

And because what Bush does affects the whole world, it cannot simply be a matter of keeping it in the family.

Hey, if we should be keeping it in the family, why aren't the so-called terrorists who are being held at Gitmo on American soil, being handled through the American judicial system? Shouldn't that be something that's kept in the family, too?

It's *our* government, and the Bush administration, since November 2000, when they lost the election, have made a mockery of our democracy. They deserve no respect.

I think it is great that you stand up to the Military, which can be imposing. I would think judging from the tense atmosphere right now it must be hard to be a journalist in the USA.
I do have to respond to a poster who made this comment: "There are very few true journalist who are not Americans.

Because there are not to many countries that actually allow Free Speech and Free Press."
This ignorance is something that really angers the International community. Guess what we have Free Speech and it works even when yours doesn't. We stood and screamed for you not to go to Iraq and you ignored us. We had information in our media I could not find in yours. Your propaganda machine was running full tilt after 9/11 and America the individual and America the nation was calling us names for fighting what we believed in. You marched like nice little well brainwashed citizens waving your flags and calling us names.
I hope that America changes after this evil government is history. I hope America joins the International community in dialogue and stops isolating itself from us. You demonized us because you can't be bothered with non Americans. Ignorance got you where you are so change you behaviour if you do not want a future repeat of the tired old formula 1) America declares war 2) Other countries speak up from their healthy democracies and healthy free speech zones 3) America listens to it's corrupt news media and waves flags and calls us names
It is getting a little tiring to have the tyrants next door dictating to the rest of the world.
How about restoring your free speech. Maybe question the Propaganda you accept as facts. Exlore the world outside your borders.

I wish we had more journalisst with spine.

I think I'm going to be able to sleep better at night knowing that the Post is willing to let you be one of its voices. My country isn't down the tubes . . . yet.

Dang, you're wonderful.

--a drooling fangirl

Our country was founded by people who went to war over political principles. A little name calling based on righteous indignation is actually pretty mild incomparison.

Why is it that only the Post bloggers who write open and honestly about difficult subjects have comments enabled?

Anonymous

I figure that you Sir Mr. Arkin are both a journalist and an American.

There are very few true journalist who are not Americans.

Because there are not to many countries that actually allow Free Speech and Free Press.

And the good old U.S.A. is fast on the way to loosing those rights with the Nazi George Walker Bush in power.
Sp4MP Army Veteran
Jackson, Michigan

You could have asked him, "Do you consider yourself a Mercenary or an American?"

But WHO was the thin skinned prick? Can anyone tell me who the Marine was?

http://perceptionmanagers.blogspot.com/

And how does one talk 'civil' about Torture, Imperialism, and mass murder?

"Please don't do that George" isn't working.

Mr. Arkin:

by defending the freedom of the press, you are a true American. Thank you for standing up for the first ammendment. You are the type of journalists that we need. It is not unpatriotic to question the military. As Clemanceu said, "war is too important to be left to generals."

THank you for being such a stand up guy.

Yours respectfully,

Charles L. McCain

Hear, hear, Arkin.

The Army mostly looks out for the government. It's the Press that really protects the people's freedom.

Without a free AND BRAVE press democracy wouldn't survive a week.

The pen is mightier than the sword!

Two points, one argumentative and the other poli-sci oriented. Both in defense of our host, Mr. Arkin, so I HOPE YOU READ THIS.

First, in my many arguments with right wingers I have come to relish their name calling. When you discuss the topic for a while and they finally succumb to their safety blanket of telling you that you're "drinking the Coolaid" or "listening to the liberal media" or in your case being "unpatriotic" that is your signal that you've just won. There is rarely such a defining moment in an argument as when the topic is thrust aside for some fallback rhetoric. Relish it. Point it out to them. They love that.

Second, avoid this discussion that you have the "right" to speak your mind. Criticizing the government is MUCH more than a right. If you do as the government tells you in a time of war you are acting as you should in a military dictatorship. Literally. If you keep your mouth shut then democracy is sick or dead. We must make sure our soldiers aren't dying in vain as soon as possible because if they find it out later they're going to be even more pissed. Seriously, freedom of speech is what makes us special and it really only matters when the stakes are high.

Free speech at peacetime or on uncontroversial issues can happen in any country. It's the right-wing boo birds that don't know what the Constitution means. It's the Fox News minions that turn off their brain and get the government's line spoon fed to them.

Stay strong Arkin and do not stop speaking your mind. Our nation literally depends on it. The right-wingers are going to call the media "liberal" or "unpatriotic" no matter what you all say, because the facts are not on their side right now.

Before this Bush era I'll bet you considered yourself very middle of the road. I thought of myself that way. Now, according to the right wingers I speak with and Fox News I'm some sort of left wing freak of the week. In love with Michael Moore and a member of the George Clooney fanclub. It is a weak, weak tactic. ATTACK IT!

http://www.bernards.blogspot.com

of it's the democrats

vs

the republicans.

I see two groups doing the same things, for their freinds. I don't see two groups at odds with each other...

I see WWF wrestling style posing, and working towards getting their piece of the rock....to the exclusion of the serfs...

I think you need to let go of thinking of things as "character" attacks when

your effin president sends the National Guard to Iraq, without real combat training, when he joined the National Guard to be assured safe passage through the Vietnam era...

and let me ask you this: could you get elected president or a clearance if you'd snorted coke, been an alcoholic, been a draftdodger, a business failure, or a marginal student that is ill-mannered and ill-spoken?

why not.

how could he?

does he owe any favors to anyone?

how does he pay them?

are they all Americans?

Have VA benefits been cut in "war" time?

Who actually perpatrated 9/11?

huh?

.

what's your take?

did you know that the not going to Bagdhad was because they were saving it for a rainy day?

has this whole thing been orchestrated?

come on Norman, speak up...tell the truth.

Is this administration and congress corrupt, running it's own agenda in the background of patriotic foofarah, called flim flamming?

is it the international wealthy against the peasants of all countries?

.

If there's one thing spending time in Iraq has given me, it's perspective. I wish everyone had the same chance - not so they'd end up agreeing with me, but because any opinion benefits from a greater context.

As it is, I don't think the writers of blogs and speeches such as these can really grasp their ultimate irrelevancy. It's a very powerful feeling to express an opinion, and what better than earning a living doing so? But all writing like this does is preach to the converted. There is no real anaylsis, only a search for angles that best support the writer's already-formed opinion. There is no thirst for knowledge, only a thirst for justification.

Calling someone a "f***ing idiot" isn't brave, or witty, or a noble defense of free speech. It's no less childish in Mr. Arkin's repsonse than it would have been for the general to use it in a question. What that situation calls for is a thoughtful, powerful statement on why criticizing America from abroad isn't unpatriotic (if you feel that way). I wonder if Mr. Arkin even considered doing so before plowing ahead with proudly displaying his feathers.

This is the exact problem. The majority of media outlets are now entertainment providers. They have no interest in the thoughtful response, not when the attention-grabbing response is a ready alternative. Mr. Arkin is simply a product of his environment. His tactless, graceless attacks on the war are absolutely no better than tactless, graceless defenses of it.

The world is better served by people who can ask a question than give an opinion. Everyone has their own thoughts on an issue, but few can stimulate others to think. That used to be a primary role of our media, but it isn't anymore.

So raise your glass if you choose to the displaced anger and malcontent of a man like Mr. Arkin. Despite what the general might have implied, he certainly is a modern American journalist. And that's the most disturbing thing of all.

-Mac
Somewhere in Baghdad

" ... applies to intimidation at home, either from the government or from anonymous bloggers who feel like they can launch personal attacks and question one's patriotism, as if their very right to spew isn't safeguarded by the very journalists and news media organizations they seem to so hate, institutions that make sure that voices other than the government's can be heard."

Mr. Arkin, I would hope that you continue to speak, write, and publish, wherever you please, whether individuals agree with your positions or not. Individuals do not have to agree. They may, however, be forced to reach a consensus, upon occasion.

While the 'anything goes' attitude (personal attacks) with regard to public debate/discussion is not a new entity, it has been promoted as an acceptable behavior by members of the current administration. American citizens have simply adapted the model to fit various media platforms and now regularly use those tactics against each other. Let them go. Reader's/writer's comments reflect individual character; such revelations are educational.

Accordingly, "journalist or American" is a comment reflective of the speaker's individual character. But, questioning one's patriotism has also become a learned behavior, again, one modeled so elegantly by the current administration. What is interesting about this tactic, however, is how very badly it has managed to backfire on its proponents. Individuals are now recognizing and seriously considering their level of 'patriotism' and the Democrats really didn't have to lift a finger to find themselves ahead, slightly, already, in some of those polls that the administration never sees. All they have to do is sit back and watch as their 'opponents' play the game, poorly - and hope that the American people are also watching. They need only be ready to pick up any ball and run with it in the right direction. Default score.

The administration will also not succeed in causing the American people to regret having learned details about the conflict in Iraq as presented by 'the media', unless one watches FOX news, exclusively. While the American people are indeed in a precarious position in that the MSM media serves as our primary source of 'information', with the passage of time, we will learn who told us the truth about events in Iraq and who may have spun that truth. We will learn and respond accordingly.

'Hard reporting'/'good' reporters are difficult for the average consumer to identify upon request. Oftentimes, we do not understand a story or a reporter's motivation for producing a story until after additional facts have been brought to light and have been investigated, well beyond the original story (example: Judith Miller.) However, I suspect that the American public still appreciates the 'truth' and the reporters who remain committed to unmasking it despite any effort to intimidate them by either government entities or members of the public.

If individuals can not research stories for themselves, they are left with no other option but to maintain a strikingly high level of trust in the media. This trust is difficult to maintain in that the public has learned that the media is sometimes maliciously and voluntarily used, by certain groups and individuals, for their own purposes. For as long as you are willing to earn that trust, I will continue to read. Alternately, lie to me or spin the story and I will no longer be a willing pawn.

I appreciate this blog, especially because you (and/or The Washington Post) allow it to be used as an outlet for public opinion, even if your responders do not agree with your point of view. Many other blogs/forums can not compete with this blog on those terms.

The General is mistaken. I suspect that there are indeed many credible, "patriotic" American journalists working as I write. I may not be able to list them while the story is still being written, but the list will be known, just as the list of truly "patriotic" Americans will ultimately be known.

"Learn and change"? I hope to continue to do so, along with everyone else.

great thread, some great responses. its heartening to read.

i think the concept of freedo of speach made some assumptions that we have forgotten. relevant disccussion is valuable even when it is unpleasant. but there is also the phenomenon of noise, which is not discussion at all but a bid for attention and power.

exeraneous noise occurs in any medium, but as a population grows, the number of individual instances is likely to occur. and since meaningless or irrlevant noise is in some ways more easily recognizeable (because it trys to be) than relevant information, it may tend to attract more attention to itself, provoke interest and immitation, and eventually overwhelm the functional discussion.

further, as population volumes and/or political geographic areas increas, the juxtapositions of relevant issues can apear to become more complex, as dissimilar circumstances are falsly compared due to efforts to administer a unified policy. this policy error further distorts debate.

it seems to me that these simple factors underly much of what has been discussed here. and that the surface issues cannot be eqitably, or rationally, resolved unless these basic factors are recognized and accepteed as intrinsically limiting factors to healthy community and government.

I feel your rage, I too was called unpatriotic because I was vocal against the war in Iraq. In my American family, my father was a Republican and my mother a Democrat. We debated politics's on a daily bases and some were rather heated. Yet at the end of the day we all slept under the same roof, with the knowledge that one can learn something from the other person even if you do not agree with their ideals, maybe we can learn to find a middle ground. I love my family like I love my Country and because I grew up in a Democratic Society, I am able to speak out about both family and Country to strangers, spilling out the good and bad of both. Does that make a bad sister or bad Patriot? No! For talking, giving ones view on a subject is Knowledge and can help gain insight into their way of thinking. Knowledge is power! I question anyone who tries to tell me that I must shut up and join lock-step and not question the powers to be, because it looks bad to outsiders, weither we are at War or not. I am proud that I am following a long, long American tradition handed down from our fore-fathers who wrote it in our Constitution enabling freedom of speech and descent. Who knew better than they what life was like living under a Monarky regime. You Mr.Arkin are a true Patriot, you question use facts and research not to break down America but to help make her better. Next time say, "Sir, I am an amazing man I can actualy chew gum and walk at the same time."

THE GENERAL WAS A F---- IDIOT AND DESERVED YOUR REPLY. THE GENERAL WAS PART OF THE LEADERSHIP WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY. NONE OF THOSE JACKASSES, INCLUDING DUBYA, SHOULD BE LEADING THIS COUNTRY.(There I go, using their own tactics).

Arkin:

You are my new f*****g hero!

Funny how the general just assumed that yours was the insulting remark. In my book, it wasn't even close.

As for these indignant generals I say who care? Unless and until some of them, one of them, the active ones, go and tell Bush to his face what they've been crying to Murtha in private - that there are not enough troops to do the job in Iraq, or that the war is breaking their beloved army, I say they are just another bunch of bureaucrats who place their career ahead of the interest of the country. So tell them to stuff their phony patriotism.

With regard to "the blogosphere's intolerance and lack of civility" I would say I have no problems with it. Actually I kind of want to see it to gauge the level of bigotry and anger in the general society. Now that we are past the age of public lynching and public display of intolerance, the typical bigots have learnt to hide their prejudice behind polished propaganda and legality.

People are not really against immigrants, they are only against illegal immigrants. We all know full well whom they are against and why the rage behind the debate. Some on another blog even threatened Civil War II over the issue already.

Or why they were for impeachment of Clinton. Because he lied under oath. As if plain lying is OK. Maybe that's why Congress nowadays sometimes don't bother to swear in the people they call before them.

Or that they are against scholarships for minority because they oppose discrimination over all. There's an op/ed in the NYT today about how female applicants to colleges are being 'punished' to make room for less qualified male applicants because not enough of them go to college nowadays. What will Rush and Bill say about that?

So let the blogosphere blogs! It's part of the new American experience.

Beautiful answer to his majesty, the general. Too many officers in the military let those pretty gold decorations go right to their ego.

As far as freedom of speach and conservatism in this country, you must first understand the fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats.

Republicans are very monolithic in their agenda. With rare exception, when things are going well, they will quell the internal quabbling and ramrod through their agenda on the strength of uniformity. Ultimately, the conservative view of the world is one where falling into lockstep is seen as less disruptive in the long run, sacrifice of personal glory (except the leadership) in the name of progress. Personal agendas are worked into the mainstream through seniority and back scratching.

Democrats, quite oppositely, are pluralistic. They're a big rambunctious and fractious group that, in some ways, undermines their own agenda by too urgently trying to push ALL their agendas. They're the perfect foil to the Republican monolith. Its not to say the Democrats lack personal discipline, but they constantly give the appearance of trying too hard to make everyone happy through catering to their every desire to be heard, instead of working a centerline solution that serves all interests equally. The beauty of the Democratic mindset is that they're VERY ammenable to free speach, in some ways almost too ammenable for their own good. Everyone's view deserves to be heard, and the view from the outside resembles a cachophony instead of a chorus.

That's the general view, at least from this side of the Beltway. Somewhere in the middle of all that is reality.

Unfortunately, the conservative Republican manner of doing business tends to be a lot more efficient at exploiting opportunities and masking weakness, until the whole works starts to come apart around their house of cards.

Mr. Arkin, while I agree that the general's question was impertinent and unfair (and therefore he deserved the answer you gave him), let's have some perspective. If you were a correspondent for, say, Fox News, during the U.S. campaign in Kosovo, and you disclosed some sensitive information to an audience in order to spite President Clinton, wouldn't a general have the right to be angry with you. Wouldn't many of us non-wignuts also have the right to be angry with you?

Beachhead...

an entirely appropriate response to a f**king idiotic question

any a**hole who questions someone's patriotism for looking for truth, or questioning the party line (ie. Republican warmongering) shouldnt be shocked by that kind of response

...again these types (your 'leaders') arent used to being questioned, so they think they are above all else

democracy can be rude and ugly, baby!

Arkin,
I'm sure you will never read this, but I'll post it anyway.
Calling the general a 'f___ing idiot?'
Congratulations on elevating the debate to such a high level. Of course, most of those responding here will actually believe that was a great move because, like you, they are intellectually superior to guys like him who follow the 'conformity machine.' Keep cherishing your right to sink to name calling wherever and whenever you want, but don't get indignant when they ask you questions like the Marine general's. Next time someone may drop an f-bomb on you to punctuate a question....since it seems to be pretty easy to get your blood boiling.

don't worry if it's left or right,

it's all about the truth.

and quite frankly if I had a son that was put in harms way by a lie...I wouldn't be happy at all

that may be the understatement of the century

I grew up on Andy of Mayberry, there's nothing that gets more angry than a good guy that's been lied to

regardless of all the issues, i think its great you replied to the general that way.

those types need to be periodically reminded that they are not above the rest of us.

herr general likely occupies a similar space as Dubby Bush where unexpected responses are shocking

Bravo, as they say in france

Despite what archimedes said in his comments, I do believe there is no relation between patriotism and being a critic of the government, whether at home or abroad. As a matter of fact, it is your DUTY as a citizen to let your government know you disagree, it's the whole meaning of the word DEMOCRACY. If some consider this a lack of respect for the "office", remind them that respect is something you must gain, not something that is owed.

It is also preposterous to say that these debates should stay "between americans". When foreign policy is in any way involved (especially american foreign policy)it means others countries are also concerned (memo: foreign means "places that are not America", basically, the rest of the world, in case some were wondering).

I am canadian (even worse, a FRENCH canadian) and I fellow american politics closely because, guess what, the actions taken by the american government do have an impact on my country. Should I be left out of a debate? Feel indifferent to the incompetence of your leaders (and I'm not saying ours are better...trust me)? Hell no!

Oh, just cut it out! All of you are just talking blather. Everyone knows that the right wing will punish you for speaking out, especially if you are effective. You will have you taxes audited, your child sent to the front lines in Iraq (I did!...my son, an ARMY NURSE, ended up serving under Marine command and is out on combat patrols), etc. They pull their trite little news conferences, the president sets up a vain reporter, and the next day a mindless drone in a fixed audience trashes the press. Or a nitwit crooked Republican senator, actively soliciting bribes from defense contractors who are in turn selling military hardware and technological secrets to any enemy country who ponies up the money, accuses a Democrat of treason for the courage to call for a simple censure of the single most dishonest, incompetent, and just plain crooked President in our nations history.

The left is no better with their politicially correct nonsense. You cannot identify the race of a criminal in a newspaper article - at least if they're black, you cannot point out that illegal Mexican workers are stealing hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs from American workers - because that is "racist", you cannot point out that some/many abortions are done as a birth control method and that father have no say-so in that decision, even though it can trap them into involuntary servitude - because that is "sexist", you cannot point out that male homosexuals are responsible for nearly half of the child molestation cases - because that is "homophobic".

We haven't been able to speak the truth freely in this country for quite some time and it is as much the fault of the left as it is the right.

THANK YOU for telling the general off. My late father-in-law was Naval commander in WW2 and before he passed away he was appalled by the change in military culture since that conflict. He was amazed at how spineless the Pentagon has become in the face of an administration that puts more value in faith than in on-the-ground facts.

You disagreed with a military officer, you must be on the side of the terrorists. You probably believe in Censuring the president, also. When are we all going to be just as interested in going after the terrorists. It is amazing how todays political climate creates nasty meaningless debates. If we were to write our constitution today we would allow free speech as long as you agree with those in power!!!

based on recent history in your country, free speech and patriotism dont mix (if you're a right-winger)

the Washington Post has got some blocking software in place for Freedome of Speech, what's that?

Totalitarianism disguised as prudence. right.

when is it prudent to hide the machinations of your elders that are self serving?

never, the fact that incidentally they happen to be the same race, gender, country of birth

doesn't take precedence that they are trying to sell sh*t for shinola...

take this administration.

funny enough everyone connected with the president is getting riche

as the country itself suffers economic setback after economic setback...

they even had to cancel payment for overtime work, $30/month off of social security medical payments for seniors on fixed income, as well as VA benefits, and the right to file bankruptcy after your effin jobs have been outsourced to Bangalore India.

rednecks sitting around, working odd jobs, trying to stay one step ahead of the illegal immigrants after their factory jobs moved to Indonesia, China, India, Russia, Mexico, Brazil

corporate owners selling themselves as Americans, if the actual owners are foreign does that make them an American company?

IF THEY DON'T ACT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY and they want tax breaks or to not pay a tarrif in their "AMERICAN?" product made in Thailand from American timber, cut in North Carolina and shipped to New York to be assembled for various "American Furniture Companies"

while your average North Carolina native that used to be fully employed in the furniture industry falls off the economic cliff.....the death of America

would you call these companies, corporations, legislators that enable them

AMERICAN?

Bridge to NoWhere, ridiculed in Congress, reviled....passed...aid to Katrina, not by senators who acted in favor of comity, with the exception of the Senator from Oklahoma.

Who is American, a president with friends who starts a war to make sure his international friends remain safe.

Or some posters that write in and say that the president should be arrested along with his cohorts for

commiting fraud, larceny, and war crimes against humanity?

I would think the latter, I know the difference between sh*t and shinola.

voter fraud, homophobia, hate, pandering to predjudice...dumbing Americans down, that's sh*t

that's Karl Rove, Bush1 Bush2 Neil and Jeb, Noriega, Hussein, Rumsfield, Nixon, Cheyney....
only difference is Noriega and Hussein since they can't claim American citizenship get sold out...they were part of the team....but hey, the family needs to turn a member over to the cops once in awhile to make the average_joe feel that they can trust 'em. it's a symbol, not a reality.

.

why are you blocking me, tell me in public.

Totalitarianism disguised as prudence. Thanks for standing up to that General, you dah big man?

Why am I being blocked?

By raising a stink, I imagine the general reinforced the views of his superiors that he is/was an ass, and one with a thin skin to boot.

The military should seek to be non-political. Among the many reasons for this is one that has recently come to mind: if and when the Iraq War is labeled a failure, the Bush administration may seek to push blame onto the military, claiming that it was not competent to execute the Administration's policies in Iraq.

This may be caged in terms of the Clinton Administration's failure to prepared the military, but the result will be similar. The Secretary of Defense already said a few years ago something to the effect of you go to war with the military you have, not the military you want to have.

I can understand a general reacting the way he did, but not condone it. If my responsibility was executing a mission ordered by the commander-in-chief, while trying use our resources carefully, including the lives of our soldiers - and then somebody revealed mission details to the enemy, I would be rightly pissed. On the other hand, the general also invokes that dangerous mental model that divides the world into us and them, Americans and un-Americans, and castigates those with opposed views as un-American. So I can understand Arkin's response.

It's as if we think about the world in terms of football - there are two teams, and you must be on one side or the other; we're the good guys and they are bad guys. Questions are supposed to be kept inside the locker room, and once you are in the huddle you follow orders. This is such a bad model for how the world works; it's no wonder we keep screwing up.

I can express my opinions about Rummy and his incompetent execution of the Iraqi campaign wherever I want - it's one of my human and civil rights. And the British press can weigh in on the US presidential race - it's not solely an internal matter when his decisions affect, to some degree, all of the people living on this earth. US voters are, of course, free to ignore the British press, although if we are to lead the world it might be preferable to think about what they say even and especially if we disagree.

And back to the football model. Iran's mullahs call the US the 'Great Satan'; GWB calls them part of 'the Axis of Evil'. Just maybe - we are two countrys with different interests, guided sometimes by rational thought and sometimes by a religiously-inspired world view, neither of us above using covert ops and deadly violence in pursuit of those interests. I think we're better off without an Iranian bomb, but I don't buy the argument that they are going to begin a war by nuking Israel - the consequencies would be too dire. They are in a volatile region, with nuclear-armed neighbors, and the world's most powerful country regards Iran as an enemy _and_ has a propensity for invasions. Under those circumstances, who wouldn't want the security of nuclear deterence? As long as we think through football schemas, there is no alternative to crushing our opponent or being crushed ourselves. If we can get beyond Manichean dichotomies, then we can ask, pragmatically, where are interests converge and where we can compromise on those interests that don't converge.

So in the end, if Arkin divulges operational details that threaten the lives of our troops, he is irresponsible and should be, at the least, ostracized; possibly charged with a crime and subjected to trial under our laws. But I haven't seen and such exposures of details in his blogs, and no crime has been charged. However, using the charge that someone is un-American to shut down debate and dissent, (or to pretend that we can divide these debates with global consequences into internal and external) is deadly for democracy and the fruit of our democracy - America's strength and influence in the world.

Let me add a note about this last point. The reason a competitive market economy is stronger than a non-market economy is that it collects information from thousands or millions of decisions, and allows entrepreneurs to continually test new ideas. A centrally-directed economy simply can't match the long-term efficiency and responsiveness of a market economy (Hayek's argument about why the socialist system was fundamentally flawed.) In more recent terms, a market economy is a complex adaptive system. So is a democracy. But a democracy where we all take our marching orders and talking points from a commander-in-chief is no longer a complex adaptive system and no longer a democracy. The strength of our system lies in it's protection of dissent; indeed it originated in unpatriotic dissent.

There is a point made by some that dissent can weaken our leaders in times of war and give hope and comfort to our opponents. Actually, I agree with it. This is why a permanent state of war, whether imperial expansion or a 'war on terror' is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. (Ask the Romans.) Preserving and enhancing American power depends on democracy; imperialism drains the wellsprings of our strength.

I don't know how true this story is, but it appears that an American journalist stationed in Moscow, in the late 50's met and married a Russian woman and brought her to the States.
At a dinner party, she was asked what freedom and living in American meant to her and she is supposed to have answered that she thought that president Eisenhower was a bastard!
Her dinner companions, not to speak of her own husband, were shocked!

She then went on to explain that freedom to her meant that she could say that about the president--whom she admired--and not be afraid of the knock on the door in the middle of the night.

We Americans should remember this simple lesson.

Way to teach the general some 8th-grade civics lessons. We need more guys like you!

"Me: 'Well General, because I am an American, I cherish the fact that I can call you a f***ing idiot for asking the question.'"

Brilliant. Consider me a fan for life.

Way too much is made of expression's point of view and far too little of the beloved right to express it.

The mock outrage over every political utterance from a movie star is case in point.

Been a citizen of this country I love for a half-century and been critical of it since I was old enough to read a newspaper. And I do love this country for allowing me to do it.

I fear for the future of free speech in America as never before. Ironically, this comes at a time when we have more ways than ever to make our voices heard.

For more on this take, you might be interested in "Oodles of Googles." http://www.eyewitnessmuse.com/diary.php?p=195

Thanks again for the thought provoking belly laugh Mr. Arkin!

I'm with you: I'm all about the free speech. I'm all about being an American, not a Democrat or Republican. In my opinion, Ronald Reagan, while loved by so many, is the culprit. He unleashed this awful beast trying to swallow our civil liberties and smash values with shallow slogans. And the Dems right now are the current problem. They are so self-important and worrying about power moves and who will be president, they can't find a unifying voice to help us move past this terrible period. They couldn't even come together to defeat Ailto. It seems that nobody in Washington really understands how bad things are. This isn't politics as usual. That's not good enough any more.

Keep bad-mouthing those generals. best regards... Pamela Fiore

What seems most lost to me in all of this is the idea that confronting the government, or expressing dissent or your opinion regardless of which side of the issue you are on is the hiogest form of patriotism. After all I believe what we ought to be fighting to perserve is our way of life, our ability to say what we want to be critical to protest to dissent. All these ideas that by doing so, expressing dissent, we are unpatroitic, is really what is unamerican and against our values.

I love your response to the general. Bravo!

Mr. Arkin,
I read with interest your reply to the general 3 years ago. You evidentlly believe that you can be a provactive speaker and should not get provactive questions. That is a quaint idea that held by the media. I would have had more respect for you had you not reacted the way you did. In light of your decision to provide friend and foe alike military plans you invited the generals question.

Arkin, I would have to disagree with your response to PR's post. While the global reach of news media is not in doubt, there most certainly are debates which are, and should remain, American. This is particularly true in regards to the actions/conduct of OUR government officials and whether or not we approve or not of the job they are doing. Disliking the man is one thing, but I think that the vast majority of Americans would agree that respect for the office is a must. It is from this respect that, naturally, internal debates on the merits of the man holding said office should be kept just that, internal, as it is no one else's business but our own if our government officials, elected or otherwise are competent or are doing their job to our satsifaction. I do no think you a coward, as I have read those same views in these very pages, I only think that you stepped out of bounds in carrying an internal Aerican debate onto foreign shores. Just as when the Guardian and other foreign papers thought it a good idea to weigh in and, rather apallingly, try to influence our last presidential election, it is equally wrong of us to export our internal debates to places that have no business debating them.

When did the rules change and serving generals - or military personnel of any kind, for that matter - feel it was ok to question the patriotism of Americans not in uniform - especially overseas?

When I served we weren't even supposed to express opinions in public.

I call foul on those who dissed you.

Mr Arkin,

Another method of response to your general might have been. "General x, when did you start believing the two are different?" The two are obviously journalist and American.

Following a question that is intended to be inflammatory, with a "When" question alters the dynamic and leaves the questioner with a set of questions to answer. This is done in the tone of seeking information, and it is quite effective as a form of mental judo.

K.

Perhaps this should be the agenda for the Democrats...learn and change. The very idea that a senior man in the military, who should have a tempered view of the world, could ask if you are an American or a journalist smacks of McCarthy. What happened to America? When did anyone SO blindly follow the President or a party. America is so partisan it is sickening. Why are you either a Democrat or a Republican? So much of this country is all or nothing, for or against. I have voted Liberal, Conservative and Socialist at different times in my life. I listen to platforms, evaluate the leadership and then decide. Why is that so difficult? So many people show their party card at the door. This is who I am. Really? This is who you are? I'm a Republican. I'm a Democrat. How about I am a citizen. I am a person. I have rights and I will defind them. Do you not see the intolerance within becomes the intolerance without? Everything is so twisted. It is time for the people to take back their country and make the government SERVE them, not the other way around. The arrogance is disgusting. Where's the humility of leadership. Where's the admission and accountability for mistakes? America is hardly the beacon for freedom it should be. It doesn't take a lot to figure that out.

Wow, don't know where that all came from...sorry for the rant!