In this remarkably stupid article from the Washington Post’s blog, William Arkin defends his critique of our soldiers in a previous post, claiming that:
These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people. What I've heard ever since my article was published on Tuesday are a lot of people telling ME to shut up and be grateful for the sacrifices others are making. I never said we shouldn't support the troops. I just lamented that "we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?"
I thought that anyone who talks in favor of the war but doesn’t serve was guilty of being a “chickenhawk.” So let’s see if I have this straight: If you support the war, but aren’t in uniform, you’re a chickenhawk. If you support the war and you ARE in uniform, then you have too much influence in policy, and there’s no reason we should give up our rights and responsibilities to speak out just because you’re in uniform. So, apparently, the only way you can be justified in speaking your opinion is if you oppose the war. Note to Mr. Arkin: THIS is why we call your party the Democrat Party and not the Democratic Party.