Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
By saying that "we use this word to justify more wars", he is clearly not talking about the soldiers but rather the ways politicians hide behind soldier's heroism to justify misguided policies.
Look at how Bush administration used Tillman. They covered up the causes of his death, and then they created a fake story to feed into their promotion of the Iraq War.
Every time someone questioned the Iraq Policy - it's regional aims and methods - the Bush administration warned that policy objection served to discredit the heroism and sacrifices of the troops.
Jroc, dear sir
We want to separate the troops - who deserve the ultimate praise - from the corrupt policy makers in Washington. When Washington mimetically fuses the heroism of the troops to their incompetent policies, we need the free press to call them on it.
During the Iraq War, we didn't have a free press. Everyone rolled over for the Bush administration - Left, Right, and Center. Even the New York Times was a cheerleader. And that's the problem with Republican administrations. When they take charge, there is never any dissent. There is no Tea Party. Once Romney takes the White House, you will not hear a peep about his spending until he becomes a lame duck. The one thing Republican Voters never question is a sitting Republican president. They trust government more than any single group in history. When LBJ ramped up Vietnam, the student Left protested him and was instrumental in making sure he did not run for a second term. You would never see this on the Right. When Bush took us into Iraq, all the conservatives fell in the line behind Dear Leader. Republican Presidents know that Washington gets total obedience from the Rightwing voter when the GOP is in power. Nobody trusts Washington more deeply than Republican Voters - nobody falls in line behind their party's president more than Republicans.
What a blow hard, you must think if your posts are long enough people will be more impressed The guy was wrong and is an idiot. MSNBC should make him apologize for it. All the rest of your post is just rambling
By saying that "we use this word to justify more wars", he is clearly not talking about the soldiers but rather the ways politicians hide behind soldier's heroism to justify misguided policies.
Look at how Bush administration used Tillman. They covered up the causes of his death, and then they created a fake story to feed into their promotion of the Iraq War.
Every time someone questioned the Iraq Policy - it's regional aims and methods - the Bush administration warned that policy objection served to discredit the heroism and sacrifices of the troops.
Jroc, dear sir
We want to separate the troops - who deserve the ultimate praise - from the corrupt policy makers in Washington. When Washington mimetically fuses the heroism of the troops to their incompetent policies, we need the free press to call them on it.
During the Iraq War, we didn't have a free press. Everyone rolled over for the Bush administration - Left, Right, and Center. Even the New York Times was a cheerleader. And that's the problem with Republican administrations. When they take charge, there is never any dissent. There is no Tea Party. Once Romney takes the White House, you will not hear a peep about his spending until he becomes a lame duck. The one thing Republican Voters never question is a sitting Republican president. They trust government more than any single group in history. When LBJ ramped up Vietnam, the student Left protested him and was instrumental in making sure he did not run for a second term. You would never see this on the Right. When Bush took us into Iraq, all the conservatives fell in the line behind Dear Leader. Republican Presidents know that Washington gets total obedience from the Rightwing voter when the GOP is in power. Nobody trusts Washington more deeply than Republican Voters - nobody falls in line behind their party's president more than Republicans.
What a blow hard, you must think if your posts are long enough people will be more impressed The guy was wrong and is an idiot. MSNBC should make him apologize for it. All the rest of your post is just rambling
What, exactly, should he apologize for?
What a blow hard, you must think if your posts are long enough people will be more impressed The guy was wrong and is an idiot. MSNBC should make him apologize for it. All the rest of your post is just rambling
What, exactly, should he apologize for?
Ok, I guess he doesn't have to...Looking like a fool is enough punishment for the idiot
What, exactly, should he apologize for?
Ok, I guess he doesn't have to...Looking like a fool is enough punishment for the idiot
I'm serious. What does he apologize for? Inartfully trying to make a very complex point?
IMHO, he can apologize for hurting some people's feelings by trying to have an intelligent discussion on a very sensitive issue on a day not meant for very intelligent discussions on certain very sensitive issues.
By what criteria was it a "success"?
Getting Saddam Hussein?
Well then, why didn't we leave then?
Iraq was a very stupid and costly war against the enemy of the president's father. We went to Iraq to win the war daddy couldn't. Oh yeah, and oil.
Funny how rw's think they're qualified to decide about past wars. I mean, the hero of the rw is a mealy mouthed little man who literally hid out in the lap of luxury in France rather than go to Vietnam. The closest thing Mittens ever saw to fighting an enemy was when he committed assault and battery on a classmate.
Do I fault Mittens for hiding out from the real world? Not really. But that's because I KNOW that the only real enemy for the common man is war itself.
Don't even bother replying to that last. Believe me, its way more than your radical right nut job brains will ever GET. Fact is, we will have made real progress when we stop sending our "best and brightest" to die for nothing at all. I have the worst kind of first hand knowledge of this; I would bet that YOU do not.
If you want to live in a country where warriors are heroes,
and teachers are villains,
don't be surprised if in the long run it doesn't work out for you.
What, exactly, should he apologize for?
Ok, I guess he doesn't have to...Looking like a fool is enough punishment for the idiot
I'm serious. What does he apologize for? Inartfully trying to make a very complex point?
IMHO, he can apologize for hurting some people's feelings by trying to have an intelligent discussion on a very sensitive issue on a day not meant for very intelligent discussions on certain very sensitive issues.
Chris Hayes is a bright young man; however, his comment on Memorial Day weekend may not have been his brightest moment.
Chris Hayes is a bright young man; however, his comment on Memorial Day weekend may not have been his brightest moment.
It was clumsy, but also likely a Freudian slip; he showed more of his mindset than he likely intended too.
But perhaps it was merely clumsiness as you say; as it stands he said what he said and deserves the heat.
These talking heads get alot of perks from being in front of the masses so much and with that comes a lot of risk if you shoot half-baked thoughts from the lip.
Chris Hayes is a bright young man; however, his comment on Memorial Day weekend may not have been his brightest moment.
It was clumsy, but also likely a Freudian slip; he showed more of his mindset than he likely intended too.
But perhaps it was merely clumsiness as you say; as it stands he said what he said and deserves the heat.
These talking heads get alot of perks from being in front of the masses so much and with that comes a lot of risk if you shoot half-baked thoughts from the lip.
I generally agree with what you said. As a veteran, I was not offended by his comment. I think his context had to do with the glorification of war.
UPDATE: Chris Hayes issued a statement on Monday apologizing for his comments:
On Sunday, in discussing the uses of the word "hero" to describe those members of the armed forces who have given their lives, I don't think I lived up to the standards of rigor, respect and empathy for those affected by the issues we discuss that I've set for myself. I am deeply sorry for that.
As many have rightly pointed out, it's very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about the people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots. Of course, that is true of the overwhelming majority of our nation's citizens as a whole. One of the points made during Sunday's show was just how removed most Americans are from the wars we fight, how small a percentage of our population is asked to shoulder the entire burden and how easy it becomes to never read the names of those who are wounded and fight and die, to not ask questions about the direction of our strategy in Afghanistan, and to assuage our own collective guilt about this disconnect with a pro-forma ritual that we observe briefly before returning to our barbecues.
But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don't, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry.
Ok, I guess he doesn't have to...Looking like a fool is enough punishment for the idiot
I'm serious. What does he apologize for? Inartfully trying to make a very complex point?
IMHO, he can apologize for hurting some people's feelings by trying to have an intelligent discussion on a very sensitive issue on a day not meant for very intelligent discussions on certain very sensitive issues.
Funny, I actually posted a link to a liberal who managed to have an intelligent conversation about a complex point without looking like an idiot, and he did it in less than 140 characters. Maybe the problem here is that the MSNBC idiot is an idiot.
UPDATE: Chris Hayes issued a statement on Monday apologizing for his comments:
On Sunday, in discussing the uses of the word "hero" to describe those members of the armed forces who have given their lives, I don't think I lived up to the standards of rigor, respect and empathy for those affected by the issues we discuss that I've set for myself. I am deeply sorry for that.
As many have rightly pointed out, it's very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about the people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots. Of course, that is true of the overwhelming majority of our nation's citizens as a whole. One of the points made during Sunday's show was just how removed most Americans are from the wars we fight, how small a percentage of our population is asked to shoulder the entire burden and how easy it becomes to never read the names of those who are wounded and fight and die, to not ask questions about the direction of our strategy in Afghanistan, and to assuage our own collective guilt about this disconnect with a pro-forma ritual that we observe briefly before returning to our barbecues.
But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don't, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry.
Chris Hayes Apologizes For Saying He Feels 'Uncomfortable' Calling Killed Soldiers 'Heroes' (VIDEO)
