Nattering neocon Dori Monson (KIRO m-f, 1-4p) devoted (way too much) time Tuesday going on about his college-shopping for his matriculating 17-year old daughter.
It was boring in that adenoidal bragging/complaining way that Dori has, but listener Randy wrote posing a great question:
What did Dori do to encourage his little girl to enlist to Serve Our Country? Why didn't he drag her down to an Army recruiter so she could do what's right and patriotic?
After all, the Eastlake brabbler supported the invasion, the surge, and every militaristic utterance and imperialistic inclination out of the White House.
So why not nag and browbeat, his daughter (the way he does the rest of us) until she joins up to help fight the War on Terror?
Dori's a quick draw on other people's hypocrisy.
As Randy put it, "After all, Monson strongly supported the
invasion of Iraq, because he believed that every person, including
Iraqis, have a god-given right to freedom – a right so binding that
Americans should serve in Iraq to provide it to them."
We won't be holding our breaths- Dori's patriotism apparently stops at his
daughters edge- he complained that he'd fear for her safety if she even lived near the USC campus in downtown LA.
We're guessin' downtown Baghdad would be out, then.
If a war was justified in your mind and/or our County was in jeopardy, would you encourage your son or daughter to enlist?
Posted by: Duffman | March 21, 2007 at 01:21 PM
Snarky
"My my, I hit a nerve. Please, continue to flame me..."
Only Snarky would consider public data that disputes her point to be a 'flame.' Next up, charges of 'trollism' will follow.
Cow:
Actually I don't see how your post and my post are that far apart. Like you, I would like to see a better apples to apples comparison. That will take more time. I also agree that absent data the case can't be made that one ethnic minority group is being disproportionately forced to shoulder the burden. Which is what Snarky was trying to do with her post and I wanted to offer a differing view with the data I had available.
With that said, being that this is a voluntary force during a time with a historically low unemployment rate -were not living in Hooverville shanties waiting for FDR to throw WPA at us- so people are not joining out of a need of food/shelter. People have options.
For those that have never served in the military, it may be hard to understand that there are a number of reasons for one to join. Has the military lowered its standards from when I served, yes.
What is interesting is that the military is not asking for a return to the draft. The job is too hard and weaponry too complicated for the military to want people that are not volunteers motivated to be in the service. At least, that is what I am hearing from my military friends (using the anecdoatal route favored by Snarky).
Posted by: Pugetsound | March 21, 2007 at 01:28 PM
If a war was justified in your mind and/or our County was in jeopardy, would you encourage your son or daughter to enlist?
If I really thought, if I really believed that this country was in danger, then yes, I would encourage my son to join up. Not only that, I would do whatever I could to volunteer and help do my part.
That being said, you might have one hell of a time convincing me of it. I'm about as cynical about the feds using the military "to go look for WMDs ect." as you can imagine.
Oh, and by the way, I don't give a damn who's in charge. They all have agendas that have a tendency to turn out to be bullshit when it comes to getting other people's kids killed.
robinz
Posted by: robinz | March 21, 2007 at 01:44 PM
I like your candor...well said! I think it will be the proverbial 'cold day in hell' before Congress again allows our use of force!
Our next President (hopefully Mrs Clinton) will have a tough one to face in Iran and the nuclear threat...and wrapping this horrific mistake up.
Posted by: Duffman | March 21, 2007 at 01:48 PM
What is interesting is that the military is not asking for a return to the draft.
I contend that if Bush (not the military, but Bush) thought they could get away with it they would do it in a heart beat. They don't dare though, they have enough dissension without that. If they had tried it in say, 2002 it would probably have flown. Now, not so much. They were so sure of their "cake walk and all those roses and candy" that they didn't do it. And NO I don't have one shred of evidence but my cynicism.
The job is too hard and weaponry too complicated for the military to want people that are not volunteers motivated to be in the service. At least, that is what I am hearing from my military friends (using the anecdoatal route favored by Snarky).
I will agree with you in this instance that the military would much rather have people join and as you point have the motivation to do the job than people forced to be there. I spoke to a Sargent a few years ago who said pretty much the same thing and it seems logical.
robinz
Posted by: robinz | March 21, 2007 at 01:59 PM
Indeed, WFD. VG! We have the plans in place to round up the neo-cons who still continue to support the Idiot, that is Bushler. Carry on!
Posted by: Derek Small | March 21, 2007 at 02:15 PM
Yes vg. we will exterminate all the Republicans. We need to ambsuh them at their pod-disperal stations.
P.S. the forum is lame now with posts like Flanagan saying she has to replace and furnace and would like advice on buying another.
It's basically Sal and Polgara making every other post. No word yet on if Izzy committed suicide since he was locked out, ya know?
Posted by: David St. Hubbins | March 21, 2007 at 03:27 PM
dispersal, dear.
Posted by: Getrude Stank | March 21, 2007 at 03:28 PM
Izzy/ergo, it was hard to differentiate between the two. Good to see that Sal/Pol got their wish and turned it into what grand scheme Rich has for Pathetic and flan's wish for more white power.
Posted by: Derek Small | March 21, 2007 at 03:45 PM
even better was Mr. Mayor's huff over being accused of using taxpayer money to go to New Orleans...heheheh
ok back to work, you two.
Posted by: sparky | March 21, 2007 at 03:54 PM
Dori is no libertarian--people, please stop saying that
Posted by: lukobe | March 21, 2007 at 05:59 PM
Why do people think he is libertarian???
Posted by: sparky | March 21, 2007 at 06:01 PM
The other day, Dori Monson, the "poltroon in the afternoon" was getting into one of his frothy lathers over a youth who was beaten severely by a neighbor weilding an aluminum bat beacause he was caught walking close to the goon's car, which was on fire for some reason. Monson was all certain that the goon had stopped a dangerous punk who was setting fires. Little man Dori was waxing all contemptuous over us silly things who think that a human life is worth more than a car or other property. Then the youth's uncle called up and cast serious doubt over whether the kid had even done anything wrong. He had been walking home from a friends house after staying over, and the uncle added that no one had even determined whether the car was on fire because of an electrical short, not arson. In any case it was overkill, the uncle said. The goon broke the bat on the kids head. Even the wee little fella had to now back off his original stance, but of course Monson never renounced his policy that he would indeed shoot a thief he caught stealing his car. Monson must go.
Posted by: Tommy008 | March 21, 2007 at 06:28 PM
I'm starting to think that Dori has 'soldiers' on this blog whose purpose is to stir up controversy and interest in him to perpetuate his ratings. Quite frankly I've never seen an obsession like this.
He just a talk show host folks!
Posted by: Duffman | March 21, 2007 at 06:38 PM
I haven't listened to dori in years. but I still know he is an ass.
Posted by: howieinseattle | March 21, 2007 at 06:42 PM
Monson never renounced his policy that he would indeed shoot a thief he caught stealing his car. Monson must go.
That's because it's really the old west don't ya know? Where Men were MEN. Oh, and we shoot horse thieves. I do believe and I admit I could be waaaay off base here but if he did shoot said thief as he was fleeing with Dormouse's car he could get himself in a whole lot a trouble. That's why they tell you to drag the burglar back over the threshold. :)
If it were me I'd be relieved the thief didn't do anymore than steal the car. Cars can be replaced.
robinz
Posted by: robinz | March 21, 2007 at 06:45 PM
If Jethro would get the story straight, he would know the guy who was beaten was attempting to set fire to a local church in the neighborhood, not just passing by.
Posted by: Steve | March 21, 2007 at 06:52 PM
"I haven't listened to dori in years. but I still know he is an ass."
BRILLIANT!
Posted by: Duffman | March 21, 2007 at 06:52 PM
Joanie writes,
"Afghanistan - okay. Iraq - a frivolous use of our young and older soldiers be they reservists, guard or active."
"Why can't you see the complexity of all this? Why can't you see how wars differ and that sending our soldiers into war must be a thoughtful and prudent process?"
Joanie must have gotten this from General of the Air Force Randi Rhodes. You all know she and President Carter won the Cold War all by themselves right, so she would know what she is talking about. She's a Veteran (Randi that is). Now Joanie, she never set foot in a recruiters office, she couldn't know the complexities of war could she. The thoughtful and prudent process of sending soldiers to die. For if she does, and we know she is for sending troops to Afghanistan to die for our great country, to fight the terrorist there before they hit us again. To retaliate for the events of 9-11. Then could Joanie be considered a "ChickenHawk" herself. Joanie, say it is not so.
Posted by: Steve | March 21, 2007 at 07:22 PM
Anyone interested in what type of stories will soon be coming out of the anti-war activists websites that will no doubt make the rounds on AA and the like just click and read.
Iraq Vet Commits Suicide by Inducing Police Action
This is a tragic story, but IMHO the anti-war propagandist shouldn't take advantage of stories like this. Not only does it show no respect for the veteran, it makes them and those that believe it look like fools. Now can anyone tell me where in the story does it say (besides the headline) that this soldier served in Iraq.
Posted by: Steve | March 21, 2007 at 07:38 PM
Then could Joanie be considered a "ChickenHawk" herself. Joanie, say it is not so.
I'm not Joanie but I want to raise my hand and comment on this. :) To me the difference is that Chaney "who had other priorities" or Bush who's service is very suspect were called upon and managed a way out but now the shoe is on the other foot.
This mis-administration is full of guys who for some reason managed to be creative with the draft board when others didn't have the juice to do the same.
I will say I don't blame them for getting clear of that mess but if your going to save your skin and be against interventions like Viet Nam then be consistent and don't do a 180 when you have the power. To me regular people aren't chickehawkes. Regular people don't qualify because they don't have the power to send other peoples kids off to get killed.
robinz
Posted by: robinz | March 21, 2007 at 08:02 PM
This is a tragic story,
You won't get any argument from me.
but IMHO the anti-war propagandist shouldn't take advantage of stories like this. Not only does it show no respect for the veteran, it makes them and those that believe it look like fools. Now can anyone tell me where in the story does it say (besides the headline) that this soldier served in Iraq.
I'm not really sure what your getting at here....Who looks like fools? Doesn't show respect for this veteran or all veterans?
Actually I think that the headline is a mistake. It says in the article that he served in Afghanistan. What I want to know is why they are sending guys back over there when they've been diagnosed with PTS. What I want to know is why a guy who was on meds for depression and abusing alchol is being set back to a war zone when clearly he was not in the right state of mind. We are not just talking scared here, this was a far more serious problem.
but IMHO the anti-war propagandist
Oh, and you want to talk propaganda watch a army recruiting commercial sometime.I tried to teach my son early to see the agenda of others. Everybody has one weather it's Madison Ave or the U.S. Government. Even I have an agenda, it's to keep him living a long happy life. :)
robinz
Posted by: robinz | March 21, 2007 at 08:32 PM
So, just curious: how far would you let Iran go in it's nuclear weapons build-up before doing something about it? [Something other than what the UN is doing - which appears to be nothing]
First I'd find out the truth about Iran and nuclear weapons. Second, I wouldn't go trading nukes for mangos with India and then get my dander up about Iran. You sound like a typically ignorant American.
With that said, being that this is a voluntary force during a time with a historically low unemployment rate -were not living in Hooverville shanties waiting for FDR to throw WPA at us- so people are not joining out of a need of food/shelter. People have options. For those that have never served in the military, it may be hard to understand that there are a number of reasons for one to join. Has the military lowered its standards from when I served, yes. What is interesting is that the military is not asking for a return to the draft. The job is too hard and weaponry too complicated for the military to want people that are not volunteers motivated to be in the service. At least, that is what I am hearing from my military friends (using the anecdoatal route favored by Snarky).
What a load of crap! Tell that to the kids in Detroit, Michigan. god, putsie-fugalisticexpiali-obnoxious, where do you get your information? You must have a huge ass!
Posted by: joanie | March 21, 2007 at 08:40 PM
Ah, robinz . . . good luck! I've been there and done that. It was a wasted trip.
Posted by: joanie | March 21, 2007 at 08:41 PM
Actually the whole chickenhawke term interests me in another way and maybe someone will know what I'm trying to remember.
I remember a movie, I have no idea the name, but the wife of one officer referred to another officer as a Chickenhawk Major and I thought at the time it was because he got his commission or whatever the term is during peace time. Am I completely hallucinating or does this ring a bell with anyone else? :) I do of course realize when it come to movies even if I'm remembering right it could have no basis in fact because it's a movie.
I'm probably hallucinating.... :) I hate it when I have some torn bit of information rattling around in my head and I don't know where it came from.
Robinz
Posted by: robinz | March 21, 2007 at 09:30 PM
I, like sgt Ste-vil, wish Randi was General of the Air Force. It is also quite telling that those who would worship the current admin, like Steve, believe when one side tells the truth about a veteran, in this case one who met a tragic end, then it's shameless propaganda. But when their side makes up claims about veterans like Max Cleeland , then suddenly sgt stev-il is MIA. How tragic. Only the 'good' should be reported, let's have Reader's Digest hand dispense the news, hell, let's have them go into Walter Reed and tell those lying in bed that we cannot have any more vets with broken bodies 'taking advantage' of 'anti-war' websites and to keep their mouths shut. Yeah, that should hold of the insurgents for a couple of moments.
Posted by: coiler | March 21, 2007 at 09:31 PM
Ph(J)oanie sez:
"What a load of crap! Tell that to the kids in Detroit, Michigan. god, putsie-fugalisticexpiali-obnoxious, where do you get your information?"
I'll standby what I wrote. I would ask you to cite some sources to dispute it but since you have yet to live up to your promise to support your earlier contention that Dave Reichart is a coward I won't expect much more than the comment above.
Oh yeah, let me take this arrow out of your quiver:
The Carbon Offset Program is a niceconcept but it is subject to a number of abuses by people that can afford to pay a little 'guilt' money and fail to conserve. There.
Posted by: Pugetsound | March 21, 2007 at 09:35 PM
The Carbon Offset Program is a niceconcept but it is subject to a number of abuses by people that can afford to pay a little 'guilt' money and fail to conserve. There.
this is the result of weeks and weeks of research? And no citations?
I rest my case.
Posted by: joanie | March 21, 2007 at 09:49 PM
Cwptl: Also consider that the death rate of our soldiers is extremely low compared to past conflicts due to advances in combat medical care and triage.
Which means they are coming home in larger numbers more needy of medical care and more disabled than ever before. Mental health cases and debilitated cognitive abilities due to brain injuries.
Also, cowptl, I know several people at my school and personally among my friends who have sons, daughters and fathers over there. Most are white and middle class. The sons (2) because recruiters got to them in their high schools. (parents were against it but could do nothing) A dad who who was a naval reservist sent over last week. Two more dads who were guardsmen sent a long time ago. One daughter (of a single mom friend of mine) who signed up a year ago and is over there. Two more sons of friends who signed up in response to recruiters in high school but who did not get sent to Iraq. They are in the Marines.
Posted by: joanie | March 21, 2007 at 09:56 PM
sons of friends who signed up in response to recruiters in high school
Don't these people teach their kids not to talk to strangers? Seriously, I know the goal is to get them young when they still think they will live forever but recruiters in a high school is just wrong. Bad enough colleges, but they shouldn't be in high schools. If a kid is interested enough on his or her own they can go search out the recruiter.
robinz
Posted by: robinz | March 21, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Well Joanie, if you would have brought something to the table except tears for this country's enemys in Iraq, maybe it wouldn't have been a wasted trip.
Posted by: Steve | March 21, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Robinz, they didn't make a mistake in the headlines, it was on purpose. And why would they do that? To get fools like Joanie to believe the Iraq War was the cause of his death.
Posted by: Steve | March 21, 2007 at 10:58 PM
Coiler, you are incredible, all the clues and yet you still do not know what branch of the service I was in. Was Ste-vil your idea or your momma's?
Posted by: Steve | March 21, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Did anyone catch Gayrea's opening today. He was fantasizing about watching Dave Ross taking his clothes off and running down the street naked. Even suggesting shrinkage because of the cold weather. I wonder...
Oh yeah, Dori's an idiot.
Posted by: Steve | March 21, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Dori is another example of the many easily malleable Americans, such as my Republican marina neighbor, who have been transformed from conservatives or libertarians to fascists, ,since Bush came to power in 2001.
Posted by: Tommy008 | March 21, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Frank, in another of his many efforts to bring more mediocrity, stupidity, boredom and banality to the late night shift, has a pcychic on tonight giving readings.
Posted by: Tommy008 | March 22, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Speaking of Dori, did anyone hear the show where he admitted to stealing a Oui Magazine from the Ballard Foodtown, when he was working there as a 13 year old boxboy, and "looking at it" behind the dumpster. looking at it? We all know what you planned to do with it, Dori, and it involved more than looking at it.
Posted by: Tommy008 | March 22, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Robinz, they didn't make a mistake in the headlines, it was on purpose. And why would they do that? To get fools like Joanie to believe the Iraq War was the cause of his death.
Well, I'm not a mind reader so I don't know their intent but does it really matter weather it was Iraq or Afghanistan? He was still put in that position from having PST from being in a war and they were trying to send him back??? Doesn't that part make you mad at all? Doesn't it bother you that they abuse soldiers like this? If the intent was to mislead they blew it. They should have just gone with what they had it's bad enough. I don't care which war got him where he ended up, to me that's not the point. The abuse by the government is the point.
robinz
Posted by: robinz | March 22, 2007 at 04:19 AM
Did anyone catch Gayrea's opening today
Why do you have to do that? What's it get you? I did hear it and the possiblity of RR's being or not being gay never entered my mind.
robinz
Posted by: robinz | March 22, 2007 at 04:24 AM
Did anyone catch Gayrea's opening today
Why do you have to do that? What's it get you? I did hear it and the possiblity of RR's being or not being gay never entered my mind.
robinz
forget I posted this. Not like I haven't called Bush "the boy king" and Rush that "drug addled bag of wind."
robinz
Posted by: robinz | March 22, 2007 at 06:28 AM
robinz: Honorable!
Posted by: Duffman | March 22, 2007 at 06:38 AM
As an aside: good thing A.G. was in a 'controlled' environment yesterday - he would have otherwise been torn to shreds.
[F/record: I am NOT a fan of either A.G. or S.R.]
Posted by: Duffman | March 22, 2007 at 06:45 AM
As an aside: good thing A.G. was in a 'controlled' environment yesterday - he would have otherwise been torn to shreds.
[F/record: I am NOT a fan of either A.G. or S.R.]
Duffman, I'm slow this morning. Who is this your talking about? I think the A.G. is Gonzalez. No idea about S.R.
robinz
Posted by: robinz | March 22, 2007 at 07:04 AM
Sorry robinz: I'm kind of noted (on this blog) for my disagreement with former VP, Al Gore and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter.
I thought yesterday's metaphorically comparison of 'a baby with a fever' with our '4.5-billion year old earth' was a bit MUCH.
Posted by: Duffman | March 22, 2007 at 07:10 AM
As if his belly was empty, more Duff bile:
Sorry robinz: I'm kind of noted (on this blog) for my disagreement with former VP, Al Gore and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter.
You're noted for citing the drudge report & a Serbian genocide apologist as sources... and then claiming to be college educated.
Not suprising. You're also noted for insisting we all hop on a "bandwagon" & follow a "standard bearer"... and then insisting you're not a
National SocialistGOP Troll.Posted by: mercifurious | March 22, 2007 at 08:58 AM
Is global warming a 'settled argument' among scientists? Was he arrested?
Case closed!
Posted by: Duffman | March 22, 2007 at 09:03 AM
Excuse me here Duff but some of what you're on about here doesn't make sense.
On Gore, first of all he was in no danger of being 'torn apart' by a complete idiot like Inhofe. Secondly, the only "evidence" you have ever posted here refuting Gore and his activism was an article from DRUDGE. I went through it point by point and debunked it for you, remember? Did you even read all that stuff? Will you finally accept that you were flat wrong to believe all of that crap and acknowledge your error? If not, you are kind of proving the whole troll angle.
Second...who cares about Ritter and why the heck do you insist on bringing the guy up? Is it some roundabout way of apologizing for the "errors" (read: lies) about Iraq's WMD?
Bleh even I'm starting to smell troll.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | March 22, 2007 at 09:35 AM
I'm sure this blog tired of this subject long ago. My final words on this are: folks here are quite able to dig for the data themselves (if even interested) and conclude accordingly. [It is NOT a settled scientific argument - period!].
[Warning! digging too deep for data on these subjects may lead to ENLIGHTENMENT!]
Just because I'm cheerleading for Mrs Clinton doesn't mean that I have to agree with A.G. and S.R.
[Believe me, unlike some I follow NO ONE's 'talking points']
Posted by: Duffman | March 22, 2007 at 09:43 AM
Fine. Time to drop a citation Daisy Cutter on Duffy.
As if Al Gore was the very first person to deal with global-warming from a scientific basis.
Sources? Not drudge. (sorry Duffchump) Not orbusmax.
Au voilla:
AAAS "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"
"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise"
J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001)
Seattle Times: The Truth about Global Warming
"Every major scientific body to examine the evidence has come to the same conclusion: The planet is getting hotter; man is to blame; and it's going to get worse.
Again, the overwhelming consensus of every peer-reviewed scientific study supports this conclusion. Why does this matter, Duffy?
NOAA: "Peer-Review - Why does it matter?"
"The peer-review process sets a scientific standard; we know that peer-reviewed scientific work has been subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation by experts in the appropriate field and has been judged valid."
See? Citations, Duffy. Peer-reviewed citations. No Drudgereport. No conservative
thinktank. . No oil $$$-funded study. No Frosty Hardison study about how Global Warming does not exist... and also how the world is 14,000 years old & ending on June 7th.Peer-reviewed scientific consensus. If you have better, show it.
If not - take a hike, Troll.
(Again, along with claiming to be college educated, you're also noted for insisting we all hop on a "bandwagon" & follow a "standard bearer"... and then insisting you're not a
National SocialistGOP Troll.)Posted by: mercifurious | March 22, 2007 at 09:46 AM
We'll see who's right, won't we...in ten years or so. I take hike's all the time...do you (might clear your mind a bit).
Posted by: Duffman | March 22, 2007 at 09:52 AM