Jesus Melissa, you belligerent, agendized fuck. You couldn't even get out of the first paragraph before you personally blame "W" for the Tillman coverup! You and your ilk are so disgusting. Aren't you anti-war, anti-military, anti-conflict in every way? When it's convenient, your people squat at airports, spit on soldiers returning from Indo-China and call them baby killers (did I forget to mention the war I speak of was initiated and propagated by Democrats, as were WW1 and WW2?). Then if it suits you, you get behind our troops and blame any insufficiencies on the Republican administration of the era? Good lord Little Miss Demagogue, the military is a unique culture, regardless of the Commander in Chief. Get off your high horse and quit circle-sniffing the farts of all your progressive commrades, it's making you drunk with self-righteousness.
Dubblebub, why don't you get your history right. Eisenhower was president in 1955 when the Vietnam war "officially" began with the insertion of US "advisors" into the conflict.
In addition, you exaggerate the incidences of any disrespect shown our troops. The disrespect shown our fallen comrades by the anti-gay protestors at military funerals by right-wing nutjobs like yourslef are far more insidious.
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.
