This is beyond crazy.. Navy seal sent to Bellvue hospital in NY

[Douger]

Typical stupid, brainwashed Jarhead. Someone got spit on once.....somewhere.... and immediately this spit was flying everywhere in the US by anyone with long hair. ******* meatheads.

Really?

You were walking with military personnel during the early to mid 70's?

One person got spit on?

Jeez....the US populace spit on every memeber of the military during the Vietnam Conflict.

My comment was exaggerated to make a point.

Go back under your rock.

You're a ******* idiot. I signed on to meathead central in 1971( army, nike missile meathead-Korea-) to get revenge for my brother and cousin who died in that Nazi induced farce.
The only spitting going on was hippy chicks that didn't care for creamed tonsils.

 

[bodecea]

He was stopped by the cops for running a red light. For some reason they thought they should search his car which had a gun and ammo which he is allowed to have having a security clearance .. He said he was a Navy seal. Instead of checking that out with the government they sent him to Bellevue for being crazy.. well he really was and the navy came and got him. Is this how NY treats our heroes
Cops Protecting Your Rights, or Taking Them Away? - Fox Business Video - Fox Business

Pardon me if I don't take your word for it that this is the entire story.

 

[Truthseeker420]

When I was in the Navy cops treated me very well. Got out of tickets a couple times when I was in uniform.

thanks for your service....

But....

You allowed your uniform to afford you special rights?

That wasnt my style back in my day....but then again, back in my day, a good day was not having some hippie spit on you when you were in uniform.

Thank you for you're service but I didn't serve in war. It seemed more like a regular job to me. I wasn't looking for special treatment.

 

[Jarhead]

Typical stupid, brainwashed Jarhead. Someone got spit on once.....somewhere.... and immediately this spit was flying everywhere in the US by anyone with long hair. ******* meatheads.

Really?

You were walking with military personnel during the early to mid 70's?

One person got spit on?

Jeez....the US populace spit on every memeber of the military during the Vietnam Conflict.

My comment was exaggerated to make a point.

Go back under your rock.

You're a ******* idiot. I signed on to meathead central in 1971( army, nike missile meathead-Korea-) to get revenge for my brother and cousin who died in that Nazi induced farce.
The only spitting going on was hippy chicks that didn't care for creamed tonsils.

Im sorry for your losses.....but You need help my man

 

[Jarhead]

When I was in the Navy cops treated me very well. Got out of tickets a couple times when I was in uniform.

thanks for your service....

But....

You allowed your uniform to afford you special rights?

That wasnt my style back in my day....but then again, back in my day, a good day was not having some hippie spit on you when you were in uniform.

Thank you for you're service but I didn't serve in war. It seemed more like a regular job to me. I wasn't looking for special treatment.

I, too, was one of the lucky ones to not have to fight in a war a didnt understand.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Was there any spitting stories before this movie?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qIgVrOy9vM]Rambo First Blood final speech - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Zoom]

It is an unfortunate fact that - if everyone who claimed to be a SEAL actually was a SEAL - the SEALs would outnumber every other branch of the services. You can usually tell the SEALs by the fact that they don't tell you they are or were. They're a secretive little bunch of ass-kickers.

I'd like all the facts before I form a definite opinion.

You do know there are ways to check to see if he was telling the truth.

(I have to assume you knew this).

OH and by your logic, everyone who doesnt say they are SEALs are in fact SEALs?

Wow.

 

[mskafka]

He was stopped by the cops for running a red light. For some reason they thought they should search his car which had a gun and ammo which he is allowed to have having a security clearance .. He said he was a Navy seal. Instead of checking that out with the government they sent him to Bellevue for being crazy.. well he really was and the navy came and got him. Is this how NY treats our heroes
Cops Protecting Your Rights, or Taking Them Away? - Fox Business Video - Fox Business

Speaking from experience, there are some looney toons on the streets. Now if he reeked of alcohol, had several missing teeth, dirty fingernails, smelled and looked like he hadn't showered in weeks, who knows? I'll have to look it up and see a photo. We've all heard bullshit stories of people claiming that they served in the military. And each and every time they tell you a story, it gets more sensational.

I just don't think that they would have taken him to the hospital, unless they thought that he was crazy. He may have been a clean cut guy; but if he was having conversations with imaginary people....sorry....Navy Seal or not...he's sick.

I worked as a dispatcher for central communications before I got into EMS. I don't recall there being a query database on our computer system to check service records. And vehicle stops are among the most dangerous parts of a police officer's job, as many officers get shot on traffic stops. They must have felt threatened or that he needed help, or they wouldn't have done what they did. That one little ride, cost them at least 45 minutes worth of documentation.

Could you not make shit up to make your 'point'. He was on two weeks leave from the Navy. He was not 'having conversations' with 'imaginary people'.

Why do we need to know about your experience? It's not relevant.

If you don't like my posts ya little brat, don't read them. You have no ******* idea what he was doing....neither of us do, because we weren't there. You must really have low self-esteem, because you can't seem to make a comment without insulting someone-with your "room temperature IQ" comments. Pot calling the kettle black.

What the **** do you know about law enforcement? How much street experience do you have, other than watching CSI, Law and Order, or Third Watch?

I'll waste my time telling you the relevance about dispatch, because OP wanted to know why law enforcement couldn't make a few phone calls and find out whether or not this guy was a Navy Seal. And I don't give a damn whether you're interested in my experience or not. I was out actually living this shit, while you were filing your nails and reading Cosmopolitan and Teen Beat.

It was an ignorant statement and assumption, that the police can simply call someone up and ask: "Hey, is this guy a Navy Seal?" While he's mumbling incoherently, which multiple sources have reported. The police had crap to do.

Look, I know that you're what....maybe 30 at the oldest? And you think that you have the world figured out. But the one thing that you haven't figured out is respect. And until you learn that, many in here will continue to treat you in the manner in which you behave-like a clueless, ignorant, bimbo.

It was a point that I was trying to make, that clearly sailed right over your head. That dispatchers don't have military service records available to them. MOST civilians don't have that kind of information available to them, in case you haven't noticed.

Don't read my posts. I really don't give a flying ****. Let's see you make a few "points", other than calling people stupid. If you're so brilliant, then why aren't you more visible? Why hasn't tricky ***** been published? Is it YOUR room-temperature IQ? It's okay if it is. You would fall in with the majority of the American population.

I will GLADLY debate you, anytime. But when you begin your unoriginal insults, your true colors come out-that you don't really have any unique ideas.

But it's okay. It's actually quite amusing to watch. Still reading Cosmo, or have you moved up to People or the Weekly World News?

 

[MikeK]

My guess is this guy was drunk and the only alternative to arresting him was referral to Bellvue for observation for "unusual behavior." That will let him off the hook when he's released after 48 hours. He'll walk away with a traffic ticket and the search will be justified as a "plain sight" observation while evaluating his "unusual behavior."

If he was an ordinary civilian he would now be facing jail time, loss of driving license and a $2,500 fine. So two days in a bathrobe and a $100 red light fine is a good alternative.

 

[amrchaos]

He was stopped by the cops for running a red light. For some reason they thought they should search his car which had a gun and ammo which he is allowed to have having a security clearance .. He said he was a Navy seal. Instead of checking that out with the government they sent him to Bellevue for being crazy.. well he really was and the navy came and got him. Is this how NY treats our heroes
Cops Protecting Your Rights, or Taking Them Away? - Fox Business Video - Fox Business

Navy Seals are dangerous even when they are sane!!

How would you treat one that has gone off his rocker? Could you handle one that has gone off his rocker?

 

[MikeK]

When I was in the Navy cops treated me very well. Got out of tickets a couple times when I was in uniform.

thanks for your service....

But....

You allowed your uniform to afford you special rights?

That wasnt my style back in my day....but then again, back in my day, a good day was not having some hippie spit on you when you were in uniform.

That "spitting" complaint was a myth. It never happened.

(Excerpt)

Spitting on the Troops: Old Myth, New Rumors
By Jerry Lembcke:

The largest anti-war movement in American history emerged during the weeks leading up to the attack on Iraq. Capped by massive rallies in Washington, DC on January 18 and New York City on February 15, the movement spanned generations and united diverse political interests to degrees that surprised participants and pundits alike.

As the war against Iraq commenced, however, public opinion began to shift. The surprisingly favorable coverage given protests in the weeks leading to the bombing of Baghdad on March 19 gave way to evening news reports about the growing numbers of people turning out for demonstrations and vigils to "support our troops." The nightly-news footage of parents and neighbors distraught over their loved ones' deployment to the danger zone testified to the emotional wreckage left on the homefront when troops ship off to war. At the same time, whatever the intent and stated purpose of the public musterings for the troops, the reality was that they were viewed with skepticism by many observers as thinly-veiled pep rallies for the war policy of the Bush administration.

There is still another layer to the pro-troop rhetoric that has escaped commentary, however. Implicit in it is the assumption that someone doesn't support the men and women in uniform. Behind that supposition lurk the myths and legends of homefront betrayal that have bedeviled American political culture since the Vietnam War, and which have been resuscitated recently by rumors of hostility toward military personnel.

By early April, stories were circulating in several US cities about uniformed military personnel being spat on or otherwise mistreated. In Asheville, North Carolina, two Marines were rumored to have been spat upon, while in Spokane, Washington, a threat to "spit on the troops when they return from Iraq" was reportedly issued. In Burlington, Vermont, a leader of the state National Guard told local television, "We've had some spitting incidents," and then claimed one of his Guardswomen had been stoned by anti-war teenagers.

Upon further investigation, none of the stories panned out - the Spokane "threat" stemmed from the misreading of a letter in the local paper promising that opponents of the war would not spit on returning soldiers - and yet, in each case the rumors were used to stoke pro-war rallies.

Many of the current stories are accompanied by stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans. The recent story of spitting in Asheville, for example, was traced to a local businessman who says he is a veteran who was also spat upon and called a "baby killer" when he returned from Vietnam. An Associated Press story of April 9 reported stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans surfacing in several cities including Spicer, Minnesota whose mayor said he was spat upon in the San Francisco airport while coming home from Vietnam in 1971.

Similar stories became quite popular during the Gulf War of 1991 which raised my curiosity about where they came from and why they were believed. There is nothing in the historical record - news or police reports, for example - suggesting they really happened. In fact, the Veterans Administration commissioned a Harris Poll in 1971 that found 94% of Vietnam veterans reporting friendly homecomings from their age-group peers who had not served in the military. Moreover, the historical record is rich with the details of solidarity and mutuality between the anti-war movement and Vietnam veterans. The real truth, in other words, is that anti-war activists reached out to Vietnam veterans and veterans joined the movement in large numbers.

Stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans are bogus. Born out of accusations made by the Nixon administration, they were enlivened in popular culture (recall Rambo saying he was spat on by those maggots at the airport) and enhanced in the imaginations of Vietnam-generation men - some veterans, some not. The stories besmirch the reputation of the anti-war movement and help construct an alibi for why we lost the war: had it not been for the betrayal by liberals in Washington and radicals in the street, we could have defeated the Vietnamese. The stories also erase from public memory the image, discomforting to some Americans, of Vietnam veterans who helped end the carnage they had been part of.

The facsimiles of spat-upon veteran stories that are surfacing now confuse the public dialogue surrounding the war. Debate about the war itself and the politics that got us into it is being displaced by the phony issue of who supports the troops. Everyone supports the troops and wishes them a safe and speedy homecoming. It's the mission they have been sent on that is dividing the nation and it is the mission that we have a right and obligation to question.

The "support the troops" symbolism also comes with a hidden agenda, a subtext that is about the anti-war movement. Understandably, the war brings a lot of emotion to the surface and some of that feeling stems from frustration with the economy, a sense of helplessness in the face of large-scale social and technological change, and fear that cherished American values are being lost. For some people, the real war is the war at home and the enemy coalition comes bundled for them in the anti-war movement. The redirection of their legitimate anger about the deteriorating quality of life in America onto peace activists is shortsighted scapegoating that won't solve problems.

The truth is that nobody spat on Vietnam veterans and nobody is spitting on the soldiers today. Attempts to silence opponents of the war with those figments of hostility are dishonest and should, themselves, be banished from our discourse.

Jerry Lembcke is the author of "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" (New York University Press, 1998). Jerry is the New England contact for VVAW. He is also an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts and can be reached at 508-793-3050 or jlembcke@holycross.edu.

(Close)

 

[mskafka]

My guess is this guy was drunk and the only alternative to arresting him was referral to Bellvue for observation for "unusual behavior." That will let him off the hook when he's released after 48 hours. He'll walk away with a traffic ticket and the search will be justified as a "plain sight" observation while evaluating his "unusual behavior."

If he was an ordinary civilian he would now be facing jail time, loss of driving license and a $2,500 fine. So two days in a bathrobe and a $100 red light fine is a good alternative.

Be careful. California Girl seems to have little experience with the reality of the streets, and she'll accuse you having a low IQ for ever CONSIDERING that the guy might have been snowed on something.

She'll be the devil's advocate, until an asshole t-bones her at an intersection after running a red light, and mumbling incoherently to himself.

YES....there's no WAY that the guy could have been impaired, in any way-drinking, drugs.....NO WAY. Or that he might have mental illness.

But we could type his name right into NCIC and bring up his top-secret security clearance. Yup. That's as likely to happen as snow in July.

 

[The Gadfly]

My guess is this guy was drunk and the only alternative to arresting him was referral to Bellvue for observation for "unusual behavior." That will let him off the hook when he's released after 48 hours. He'll walk away with a traffic ticket and the search will be justified as a "plain sight" observation while evaluating his "unusual behavior."

If he was an ordinary civilian he would now be facing jail time, loss of driving license and a $2,500 fine. So two days in a bathrobe and a $100 red light fine is a good alternative.

Be careful. California Girl seems to have little experience with the reality of the streets, and she'll accuse you having a low IQ for ever CONSIDERING that the guy might have been snowed on something.

She'll be the devil's advocate, until an asshole t-bones her at an intersection after running a red light, and mumbling incoherently to himself.

YES....there's no WAY that the guy could have been impaired, in any way-drinking, drugs.....NO WAY. Or that he might have mental illness.

But we could type his name right into NCIC and bring up his top-secret security clearance. Yup. That's as likely to happen as snow in July.

The last (bolded) part is essentially correct; as for the rest of this thread, it is much ado about nothing. Some of you have been reading too many novels, watched too much TV/movies, listened to too many tall tales, and/or have overactive imaginations. There is a good reason special operations personnel are called "the quiet professionals". Whether they are SEALs, Special Forces, OD-D, or other specialized organizations, they belong to a small, rather exclusive fraternity. Outside that "family", they generally do not discuss what they do; this is especially true of the subset of them actually currently or even formerly engaged in covert activities. As a matter of fact, quite a few, even after retiring, will not admit to an outsider that they served in such a capacity, much less discuss specifics. Any such operator engaged in anything which would require him to carry a weapon in a civilian environment would NOT be carrying anything which would identify him as such; nor would he identify himself as such to civilian authorities; if arrested/detained, he would simply give them a number to contact his command or supervising authority. These would arrange for appropriately documented personnel to come and take custody of him. Other than that, civilian police cannot simply call the military and verify that any such person is who and what he claims to be. End of story. The best guess here, is this was an off-duty or former SEAL, experiencing psychological problems, and/or under the influence of alcohol/drugs. The matter, whatever it was, has been handled; the cops did nothing wrong or improper, and that is that. I doubt any more will be heard of it.

 

[California Girl]

When I was in the Navy cops treated me very well. Got out of tickets a couple times when I was in uniform.

thanks for your service....

But....

You allowed your uniform to afford you special rights?

That wasnt my style back in my day....but then again, back in my day, a good day was not having some hippie spit on you when you were in uniform.

That "spitting" complaint was a myth. It never happened.

(Excerpt)

Spitting on the Troops: Old Myth, New Rumors
By Jerry Lembcke:

The largest anti-war movement in American history emerged during the weeks leading up to the attack on Iraq. Capped by massive rallies in Washington, DC on January 18 and New York City on February 15, the movement spanned generations and united diverse political interests to degrees that surprised participants and pundits alike.

As the war against Iraq commenced, however, public opinion began to shift. The surprisingly favorable coverage given protests in the weeks leading to the bombing of Baghdad on March 19 gave way to evening news reports about the growing numbers of people turning out for demonstrations and vigils to "support our troops." The nightly-news footage of parents and neighbors distraught over their loved ones' deployment to the danger zone testified to the emotional wreckage left on the homefront when troops ship off to war. At the same time, whatever the intent and stated purpose of the public musterings for the troops, the reality was that they were viewed with skepticism by many observers as thinly-veiled pep rallies for the war policy of the Bush administration.

There is still another layer to the pro-troop rhetoric that has escaped commentary, however. Implicit in it is the assumption that someone doesn't support the men and women in uniform. Behind that supposition lurk the myths and legends of homefront betrayal that have bedeviled American political culture since the Vietnam War, and which have been resuscitated recently by rumors of hostility toward military personnel.

By early April, stories were circulating in several US cities about uniformed military personnel being spat on or otherwise mistreated. In Asheville, North Carolina, two Marines were rumored to have been spat upon, while in Spokane, Washington, a threat to "spit on the troops when they return from Iraq" was reportedly issued. In Burlington, Vermont, a leader of the state National Guard told local television, "We've had some spitting incidents," and then claimed one of his Guardswomen had been stoned by anti-war teenagers.

Upon further investigation, none of the stories panned out - the Spokane "threat" stemmed from the misreading of a letter in the local paper promising that opponents of the war would not spit on returning soldiers - and yet, in each case the rumors were used to stoke pro-war rallies.

Many of the current stories are accompanied by stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans. The recent story of spitting in Asheville, for example, was traced to a local businessman who says he is a veteran who was also spat upon and called a "baby killer" when he returned from Vietnam. An Associated Press story of April 9 reported stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans surfacing in several cities including Spicer, Minnesota whose mayor said he was spat upon in the San Francisco airport while coming home from Vietnam in 1971.

Similar stories became quite popular during the Gulf War of 1991 which raised my curiosity about where they came from and why they were believed. There is nothing in the historical record - news or police reports, for example - suggesting they really happened. In fact, the Veterans Administration commissioned a Harris Poll in 1971 that found 94% of Vietnam veterans reporting friendly homecomings from their age-group peers who had not served in the military. Moreover, the historical record is rich with the details of solidarity and mutuality between the anti-war movement and Vietnam veterans. The real truth, in other words, is that anti-war activists reached out to Vietnam veterans and veterans joined the movement in large numbers.

Stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans are bogus. Born out of accusations made by the Nixon administration, they were enlivened in popular culture (recall Rambo saying he was spat on by those maggots at the airport) and enhanced in the imaginations of Vietnam-generation men - some veterans, some not. The stories besmirch the reputation of the anti-war movement and help construct an alibi for why we lost the war: had it not been for the betrayal by liberals in Washington and radicals in the street, we could have defeated the Vietnamese. The stories also erase from public memory the image, discomforting to some Americans, of Vietnam veterans who helped end the carnage they had been part of.

The facsimiles of spat-upon veteran stories that are surfacing now confuse the public dialogue surrounding the war. Debate about the war itself and the politics that got us into it is being displaced by the phony issue of who supports the troops. Everyone supports the troops and wishes them a safe and speedy homecoming. It's the mission they have been sent on that is dividing the nation and it is the mission that we have a right and obligation to question.

The "support the troops" symbolism also comes with a hidden agenda, a subtext that is about the anti-war movement. Understandably, the war brings a lot of emotion to the surface and some of that feeling stems from frustration with the economy, a sense of helplessness in the face of large-scale social and technological change, and fear that cherished American values are being lost. For some people, the real war is the war at home and the enemy coalition comes bundled for them in the anti-war movement. The redirection of their legitimate anger about the deteriorating quality of life in America onto peace activists is shortsighted scapegoating that won't solve problems.

The truth is that nobody spat on Vietnam veterans and nobody is spitting on the soldiers today. Attempts to silence opponents of the war with those figments of hostility are dishonest and should, themselves, be banished from our discourse.

Jerry Lembcke is the author of "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" (New York University Press, 1998). Jerry is the New England contact for VVAW. He is also an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts and can be reached at 508-793-3050 or jlembcke@holycross.edu.

(Close)

I'll take the word of my brother - who is a Marine, and not prone to lying about something like being spat on.... and he has been spat on... by a stupid Code Pink *****.

No myth. Reality.

 

[Zoom]

My guess is this guy was drunk and the only alternative to arresting him was referral to Bellvue for observation for "unusual behavior." That will let him off the hook when he's released after 48 hours. He'll walk away with a traffic ticket and the search will be justified as a "plain sight" observation while evaluating his "unusual behavior."

If he was an ordinary civilian he would now be facing jail time, loss of driving license and a $2,500 fine. So two days in a bathrobe and a $100 red light fine is a good alternative.

If this is in fact what went down, then I can almost condone it. But if he was drunk driving, you really want him behind the wheel next week?

Seal or no Seal, if he was drunk, he HAS to pay the price for driving drunk. **** that, a hero killing my child makes that child just as dead.

Sorry.

 

[mskafka]

My guess is this guy was drunk and the only alternative to arresting him was referral to Bellvue for observation for "unusual behavior." That will let him off the hook when he's released after 48 hours. He'll walk away with a traffic ticket and the search will be justified as a "plain sight" observation while evaluating his "unusual behavior."

If he was an ordinary civilian he would now be facing jail time, loss of driving license and a $2,500 fine. So two days in a bathrobe and a $100 red light fine is a good alternative.

Be careful. California Girl seems to have little experience with the reality of the streets, and she'll accuse you having a low IQ for ever CONSIDERING that the guy might have been snowed on something.

She'll be the devil's advocate, until an asshole t-bones her at an intersection after running a red light, and mumbling incoherently to himself.

YES....there's no WAY that the guy could have been impaired, in any way-drinking, drugs.....NO WAY. Or that he might have mental illness.

But we could type his name right into NCIC and bring up his top-secret security clearance. Yup. That's as likely to happen as snow in July.

The last (bolded) part is essentially correct; as for the rest of this thread, it is much ado about nothing. Some of you have been reading too many novels, watched too much TV/movies, listened to too many tall tales, and/or have overactive imaginations. There is a good reason special operations personnel are called "the quiet professionals". Whether they are SEALs, Special Forces, OD-D, or other specialized organizations, they belong to a small, rather exclusive fraternity. Outside that "family", they generally do not discuss what they do; this is especially true of the subset of them actually currently or even formerly engaged in covert activities. As a matter of fact, quite a few, even after retiring, will not admit to an outsider that they served in such a capacity, much less discuss specifics. Any such operator engaged in anything which would require him to carry a weapon in a civilian environment would NOT be carrying anything which would identify him as such; nor would he identify himself as such to civilian authorities; if arrested/detained, he would simply give them a number to contact his command or supervising authority. These would arrange for appropriately documented personnel to come and take custody of him. Other than that, civilian police cannot simply call the military and verify that any such person is who and what he claims to be. End of story. The best guess here, is this was an off-duty or former SEAL, experiencing psychological problems, and/or under the influence of alcohol/drugs. The matter, whatever it was, has been handled; the cops did nothing wrong or improper, and that is that. I doubt any more will be heard of it.

Thank you! It's not as if NYPD were just too lazy to contact the USN. It's just not something that most people have access to on a whim.

 

[mskafka]

thanks for your service....

But....

You allowed your uniform to afford you special rights?

That wasnt my style back in my day....but then again, back in my day, a good day was not having some hippie spit on you when you were in uniform.

That "spitting" complaint was a myth. It never happened.

(Excerpt)

Spitting on the Troops: Old Myth, New Rumors
By Jerry Lembcke:

The largest anti-war movement in American history emerged during the weeks leading up to the attack on Iraq. Capped by massive rallies in Washington, DC on January 18 and New York City on February 15, the movement spanned generations and united diverse political interests to degrees that surprised participants and pundits alike.

As the war against Iraq commenced, however, public opinion began to shift. The surprisingly favorable coverage given protests in the weeks leading to the bombing of Baghdad on March 19 gave way to evening news reports about the growing numbers of people turning out for demonstrations and vigils to "support our troops." The nightly-news footage of parents and neighbors distraught over their loved ones' deployment to the danger zone testified to the emotional wreckage left on the homefront when troops ship off to war. At the same time, whatever the intent and stated purpose of the public musterings for the troops, the reality was that they were viewed with skepticism by many observers as thinly-veiled pep rallies for the war policy of the Bush administration.

There is still another layer to the pro-troop rhetoric that has escaped commentary, however. Implicit in it is the assumption that someone doesn't support the men and women in uniform. Behind that supposition lurk the myths and legends of homefront betrayal that have bedeviled American political culture since the Vietnam War, and which have been resuscitated recently by rumors of hostility toward military personnel.

By early April, stories were circulating in several US cities about uniformed military personnel being spat on or otherwise mistreated. In Asheville, North Carolina, two Marines were rumored to have been spat upon, while in Spokane, Washington, a threat to "spit on the troops when they return from Iraq" was reportedly issued. In Burlington, Vermont, a leader of the state National Guard told local television, "We've had some spitting incidents," and then claimed one of his Guardswomen had been stoned by anti-war teenagers.

Upon further investigation, none of the stories panned out - the Spokane "threat" stemmed from the misreading of a letter in the local paper promising that opponents of the war would not spit on returning soldiers - and yet, in each case the rumors were used to stoke pro-war rallies.

Many of the current stories are accompanied by stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans. The recent story of spitting in Asheville, for example, was traced to a local businessman who says he is a veteran who was also spat upon and called a "baby killer" when he returned from Vietnam. An Associated Press story of April 9 reported stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans surfacing in several cities including Spicer, Minnesota whose mayor said he was spat upon in the San Francisco airport while coming home from Vietnam in 1971.

Similar stories became quite popular during the Gulf War of 1991 which raised my curiosity about where they came from and why they were believed. There is nothing in the historical record - news or police reports, for example - suggesting they really happened. In fact, the Veterans Administration commissioned a Harris Poll in 1971 that found 94% of Vietnam veterans reporting friendly homecomings from their age-group peers who had not served in the military. Moreover, the historical record is rich with the details of solidarity and mutuality between the anti-war movement and Vietnam veterans. The real truth, in other words, is that anti-war activists reached out to Vietnam veterans and veterans joined the movement in large numbers.

Stories of spat-upon Vietnam veterans are bogus. Born out of accusations made by the Nixon administration, they were enlivened in popular culture (recall Rambo saying he was spat on by those maggots at the airport) and enhanced in the imaginations of Vietnam-generation men - some veterans, some not. The stories besmirch the reputation of the anti-war movement and help construct an alibi for why we lost the war: had it not been for the betrayal by liberals in Washington and radicals in the street, we could have defeated the Vietnamese. The stories also erase from public memory the image, discomforting to some Americans, of Vietnam veterans who helped end the carnage they had been part of.

The facsimiles of spat-upon veteran stories that are surfacing now confuse the public dialogue surrounding the war. Debate about the war itself and the politics that got us into it is being displaced by the phony issue of who supports the troops. Everyone supports the troops and wishes them a safe and speedy homecoming. It's the mission they have been sent on that is dividing the nation and it is the mission that we have a right and obligation to question.

The "support the troops" symbolism also comes with a hidden agenda, a subtext that is about the anti-war movement. Understandably, the war brings a lot of emotion to the surface and some of that feeling stems from frustration with the economy, a sense of helplessness in the face of large-scale social and technological change, and fear that cherished American values are being lost. For some people, the real war is the war at home and the enemy coalition comes bundled for them in the anti-war movement. The redirection of their legitimate anger about the deteriorating quality of life in America onto peace activists is shortsighted scapegoating that won't solve problems.

The truth is that nobody spat on Vietnam veterans and nobody is spitting on the soldiers today. Attempts to silence opponents of the war with those figments of hostility are dishonest and should, themselves, be banished from our discourse.

Jerry Lembcke is the author of "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" (New York University Press, 1998). Jerry is the New England contact for VVAW. He is also an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts and can be reached at 508-793-3050 or jlembcke@holycross.edu.

(Close)

I'll take the word of my brother - who is a Marine, and not prone to lying about something like being spat on.... and he has been spat on... by a stupid Code Pink *****.

No myth. Reality.

I've been spat on hundreds of times on my job. Why would you mention this? What is the relevance? Most of us have MANY relatives who've served in the military-during war and peacetime.

No one gives a rat's ass about your life, as you don't give a crap about anyone else's. See how that works? You get what you give. Respect is recommended; and it will win you a lot more friends...something I suspect you're lacking in REAL life, being the rude narrow-minded, feculent person that you are.

 

[mskafka]

My guess is this guy was drunk and the only alternative to arresting him was referral to Bellvue for observation for "unusual behavior." That will let him off the hook when he's released after 48 hours. He'll walk away with a traffic ticket and the search will be justified as a "plain sight" observation while evaluating his "unusual behavior."

If he was an ordinary civilian he would now be facing jail time, loss of driving license and a $2,500 fine. So two days in a bathrobe and a $100 red light fine is a good alternative.

Be careful. California Girl seems to have little experience with the reality of the streets, and she'll accuse you having a low IQ for ever CONSIDERING that the guy might have been snowed on something.

She'll be the devil's advocate, until an asshole t-bones her at an intersection after running a red light, and mumbling incoherently to himself.

YES....there's no WAY that the guy could have been impaired, in any way-drinking, drugs.....NO WAY. Or that he might have mental illness.

But we could type his name right into NCIC and bring up his top-secret security clearance. Yup. That's as likely to happen as snow in July.

The last (bolded) part is essentially correct; as for the rest of this thread, it is much ado about nothing. Some of you have been reading too many novels, watched too much TV/movies, listened to too many tall tales, and/or have overactive imaginations. There is a good reason special operations personnel are called "the quiet professionals". Whether they are SEALs, Special Forces, OD-D, or other specialized organizations, they belong to a small, rather exclusive fraternity. Outside that "family", they generally do not discuss what they do; this is especially true of the subset of them actually currently or even formerly engaged in covert activities. As a matter of fact, quite a few, even after retiring, will not admit to an outsider that they served in such a capacity, much less discuss specifics. Any such operator engaged in anything which would require him to carry a weapon in a civilian environment would NOT be carrying anything which would identify him as such; nor would he identify himself as such to civilian authorities; if arrested/detained, he would simply give them a number to contact his command or supervising authority. These would arrange for appropriately documented personnel to come and take custody of him. Other than that, civilian police cannot simply call the military and verify that any such person is who and what he claims to be. End of story. The best guess here, is this was an off-duty or former SEAL, experiencing psychological problems, and/or under the influence of alcohol/drugs. The matter, whatever it was, has been handled; the cops did nothing wrong or improper, and that is that. I doubt any more will be heard of it.

It's a story that has been sensationalized by people who have NO IDEA what they are talking about. But it's typical. Anytime I personally have ever made the news, or something that I've been involved with has made the news...the media seems to be about...maybe....50% accurate (and sometimes, that's being generous).

Leave law enforcement alone. Most of them are decent men and women who are just trying to get by in the world, like the rest of us. They aren't Satan's demons sent to earth to spread injustice. Damned Fox News. Things like this story (and that's what it is...a story-belonging in the fiction section) are the reason why I don't watch Fox.

 

[HUGGY]

Typical stupid, brainwashed Jarhead. Someone got spit on once.....somewhere.... and immediately this spit was flying everywhere in the US by anyone with long hair. ******* meatheads.

Really?

You were walking with military personnel during the early to mid 70's?

One person got spit on?

Jeez....the US populace spit on every memeber of the military during the Vietnam Conflict.

My comment was exaggerated to make a point.

Go back under your rock.

My dog just drooled on me. Should I be concerned?

 

[mskafka]

Typical stupid, brainwashed Jarhead. Someone got spit on once.....somewhere.... and immediately this spit was flying everywhere in the US by anyone with long hair. ******* meatheads.

Really?

You were walking with military personnel during the early to mid 70's?

One person got spit on?

Jeez....the US populace spit on every memeber of the military during the Vietnam Conflict.

My comment was exaggerated to make a point.

Go back under your rock.

My dog just drooled on me. Should I be concerned?

Be concerned. Be VERY concerned.