This is my opinion and is not a reaction to ANYTHING you said Jason. 

I am speaking from my heart here and not in response to anything you posted.

The military’s mission is to be ready to fight a war.  The politicians mission is to tell us when and where.  Barak Obama should be raising hell with these people  He is not.  Barak Obama is relying upon his code pinko’s to surge him into office.  This base will dictate terms to him or will quickly begin to suffer ODS.  Politicans govern to the base.

I call upon America to reject this Antiwar, Anti Liberal, Antiamerica, anti right, anti conservative, anti 70 percent of America version of poisoned politics.

Remember there are Liberals and their are progressives.  Even the progressives have renounced common Liberal policies.  They want their radical policies enforced.

A vote for Obama is a vote for Radical agenda that is steeped in venomous anger.  Certainly many people are swayed by their idea that Obama is a moderate.  His base will ensure that is not the case once the oath is sworn.

If it is not in reaction to anything I posted, why post it on a comments thread that is for responses to one of my posts?

Seriously, Abri, lighten up. You were right on another thread when you said that I had been shutting you down too quickly, so that’s why I stopped.

Besides, we don’t disagree about the anti-war protesters, even though I don’t buy for a second your overreaching attempt to link Obama into this.

I agree with you about how our political system treats soldiers more than you know.  We disagree about methods of treatment, not the diagnosis of the problem.

Democrats pander to a base that demonizes soldiers and keeps subconsciously falling back on "baby-killer" themes of the Vietnam era. 

Republicans pander to a base that puts soldiers on an abstract pedestal, but which is completely disconnected with their actual experience and is unwilling to pay the full costs of treatment and rehabilitation of both the physically and mentally wounded.

Eddie, all those Berkley people had  already secretly converted to Islam, they have nothing to worry. But  the invasion will start from the left coast anyway. It is closer to the Middle East geographically, so their armies will have less distance to cover…

I am sure that when you were a commander you also had cases of people who returned from treatment and did not slip back into their old problems.

Should they be denied that opportunity because some others could not live up to it?  "Make one mistake and you’re gone forever." — Is that the message that you really want your troops to receive?

This seems particularly important if the psychological problems are the result of battle experiences.  I mean, we give people who suffer physical injuries the opportunity to rehab and the possibility of returning to service.  Shouldn’t psychological injuries receive the same opportunity?

I’m not disagreeing that if they repeat, that’s it.  A second chance doesn’t mean a third or a fourth.  And if they are not able to return from their injuries, we shouldn’t try to force it.  And you’re right about the manpower implications — the military should try to make sure that units aren’t left hanging while individuals are absent for rehab.

And when — Gods forbid it, but we know it’s coming – the next earthquake smacks the West Coast and people in Berkeley need help, do you think the U.S. military and the people in it will pass them by? Or do you think they will pitch in with the same will they would if it had been their own hometowns (which, the community leaders are making every effort to insure, it won’t be)? Do you really have to pause to think of the answer to that?

Wow.  You people crack me up.  I consider myself a progressive, and fairly well read when it comes to the blogosphere (obviously, I’m commenting at Poligazette for cryin out loud), so while I don’t claim to speak for progressives, I do feel that I know what progressives are talking about.  "Baby-killers"  is not a term that comes up.

I hope ya’ll take the time to read the popular opinion sites of the groups you criticize.  Progressives  care a great deal about both the military and liberal values.   I know its a personal anecdote, but I cannot recall a signal instance of a progressive blogger of prominence lambasting the men and women in uniform.  Now, we do tend to rail against the heads of our government and military when they deserve it, such as when they hoodwinked our country into that disaster in Iraq.  And no, calling Iraq a disaster is not critical of our troops, it is reality.  The troops deserve better, and progressives understand and advocate for that idea.

Now, was it the liberals who sent our troops into that desert without the proper body armor, protective vehicles, anti-IED measures, or exit strategy?  Did the defeatist-left allow injured veterans to languish in squalor at Walter Reid?  Did the DFHs cut funding for veteran care for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, especially in the critical area of mental health services?  If I remember correctly, these atrocities, these ultimate acts of disrespect for the truest Heros of our country, were committed by BushCo and the rightwing fundies who enable them. 
I know, we Lefties have a reputation (fairly or not) of calling soldiers horrible names, even spitting on those who return from battle, but I guarantee that if those acts do take place, they will be condemned from the Progressive mouthpieces just as loudly as from Bill, Sean, and Rush. 

Ya’ll love picking at that mote in my eye, but that beam looks like a pretty uncomfortable monocle.

"I guarantee that if those acts do take place, they will be condemned from the Progressive mouthpieces just as loudly as from Bill, Sean, and Rush.

Still waiting for the evidence. Silence from the far left is deafening."
Ok bro, my point is that these things, soldiers being spat on, or called baby-killers on a prominent progressive blog, have not occurred, and IF they did, they would be denounced by the liberal voices as well.  Gotta read, I know it hurts, but you’ll get it.  So far, a liberal college town is attempting to end recruitment for a war they (correctly, in my view) disagree with.   So far, i don’t see anything worthy of condemnation.

"you aren’t as well-read as you think you are."

Now, I wasn’t claiming to be an omniscient blogger, only that I feel that I have a good idea of the progressive position and conversation, and military bashing is in no way a part of either.  Critiques of civilian and military leadership, when warranted, abound, but there doesn’t appear to be the deluge of soldier-hating that your post implies.  So I don’t think it is a "subject change" to attempt to point out that the right, in general, has done a great deal more harm, both physical and otherwise, to the troops than any imagined "Baby-killer" conspiracy among the dirty commie hippies on the left.  I readily admit that I have an extreme bias against the Bush Admn and its supporters, but to dismiss such concerns as "BDS" flies in the face of the reality of Bush’s disastrous and criminal conduct of this war.  It is not irrational, nor unpatriotic, to remain focused on these issues until some real accountability emerges.  So before we run around declaring that progressives are all military-haters, lets do a little research first.

Now, you claim that we need to denounce, vocally and in print I suppose, every instance of liberal activism that you find offensive?  Come on now, I don’t ask you to do the same for David Duke, the Minutemen, or Mike Savage.  I understand that unless I read or hear something in your positions which supports these nuts or their views, you are probably a real human being as well, and I do not take your lack of outrage as support.  I expect the same respect and civility from anyone sincerely interested in public discourse.

I don’t ask you to do the same for David Duke, the Minutemen, or Mike Savage. I understand that unless I read or hear something in your positions which supports these nuts or their views, you are probably a real human being as well, and I do not take your lack of outrage as support.

BTW, perhaps if you bothered to check things out before marching with the standard talking points, you might have noticed that I have been very loud and explicit in my condemnations of the racism that infects some segments of the anti-immigration movement such as the Minutemen. And any time that someone calls to my attention other instances of open racism, I am not shy about condemning those as well.

Perhaps you should have the same willingness to avoid spinning and contortions and evasions when it comes to the prejudices that infect some segments of YOUR side of the ideological aisle. Maybe the “progressive” movement should not be exempt from the criticism that it loves to hurl at others.

Perhaps you should have the same willingness to avoid spinning and contortions and evasions when it comes to the prejudices that infect some segments of YOUR side of the ideological aisle. Maybe the “progressive” movement should not be exempt from the criticism that it loves to hurl at others.

Totally man, I agree, you find me an example of racism or bigotry in a prominent progressive blog or paper or whatever, and I will join in the blasting of them with you.  And I am not claiming that progressives are perfect on every issue, in every manifestation, and if one of us says something stupid or spiteful, we as a community are pretty decent at calling them on it. (see the recent David Shuster "pimping" comment about Ms. Clinton)

And I wasn’t accusing you of racism, I was saying that until I see some evidence of racism, or bigotry, or *insert negative attribute here,*  in your writing, which I have not, I will refrain from accusing you of holding such a position.  I would hope you would afford us the same courtesy.

Just by the nature of this argument, some protest that I, as a progressive, view as legitimate, a conservative might object to, and vice versa. So for us, as a movement, to rely upon the judgment of conservatives when it comes to what we approve of or disapprove of, just seems a bit off.

Yet you expect conservatives to respectfully and attentively engage with the criticisms of "progressives" about anything and everything conservative. Double standard much?

They do criticize military recruiters as being "sales people known to lie to and seduce minors and young adults into contracting themselves into military service with false promises regarding jobs, job training, education and other benefits. Many enlisted persons never see the benefits they are promised and find out they are not eligible for the educational benefits due to loopholes and they did not receive the training promised or it did not qualify them for jobs outside the military."

Yeah, my degrees funded in part through the GI Bill must be part of the conspiracy of lies. And how can you read the above as anything except going BEYOND criticism of the war to bashing the military itself as liars who "seduce" (loaded language that casts soldiers as nothing more than moronic suckers incapable of making their own choices) young people into joining.

You’re just spinning, trying to cook up an explanation to minimize what was offensive. In doing so, you refute your own claim that progressives would be willing to defend the military if they were actually unfairly criticized.

You also prove the charge true in what you refuse to talk about: the Berkeley council’s notion of how to respond. When their action accompanying their criticism of "military policy" is to repeatedly harass and vandalize the recruiters’ offices (which the enlisted people have to endure and clean up, not the leaders) and to try to ban military members from even being in the city, I don’t see how you can spin that away as being ONLY targeted at the leadership.

I do support these people’s effort to protest the war, which a little research, again, proves is what they are doing.

That is PART of what they are doing, but not ALL of it. No amount of spinning from you can distract people’s attention to the other parts.

Perhaps you should take note of what some “progressives” do to protest the war that I do NOT criticize. If “progressives” want to march against the war, that’s fine. If they want to conduct counter-recruitment rallies, that’s fine too. But at the point they want to BAN pro-recruitment speech and BAN military people entirely, you can’t expect me to believe that they haven’t moved beyond just protesting the war.

Anyway, I stand behind the point of my post. There does, in fact, exist a segment of the anti-war movement that moves beyond merely opposing the war to bash the military itself. It is not ALL anti-war progressives, but it is SOME of them and that portion clearly holds a huge voting majority in Berkeley. Your choice to spin instead of dissociating yourself from that segment indicates that your claim that “progressives” are willing to dissociate themselves is not true in your case.

"But at the point they want to BAN pro-recruitment speech and BAN military people entirely"

Show me where this come into the release by the BCC.  I just saw some new requirements for recruiting offices and political statments about US military and international policy.

Dean, the whole point of the resolution was to declare the military as unwelcome in Berkeley.

Ah the "gotcha game".  The last refugee of the defeated arguer.

Hey, the boss is out today, so we can have at it.

I am still not convinced that attempting to limit the ability of the military to recruit in their town, during a war that they (as well as the majority of Americans) disagree with, by requiring a hearing to determine the desirability of a recruitment station before it is established (yes, just like other undesirable shops, such as porn stores), really constitutes, as you argue, "open anti-military hatred."  Obviously, it is a critique of our foreign policy along with military recruiting policy, but I see no evidence of negative sentiments against the soldiers themselves.