Radley Balko tightens up his shot group

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

I figgered Radley Balko would respond to credible information about the white phosphorous equals chemical weapons baloney, and he did. I wrote a piece yesterday calling him out by name and many other excellent blogs had detailed, informative explanations as to why the story was wrong. When I wrote I made a point of noting that I didn't believe this was a situation of anything other than a lack of information. He noted this:

"First things first. Thanks to a slew of explanatory emails and posts from other blogs, I'm now convinced that the Independent article I linked to last week on the use of white phosphorous was erroneous, on several counts."

Thanks to anyone who emailed him, and I think Radley gets credit for taking note and listening over the weekend. He brings up a related point that I didn't accuse him of but apparently others have and I hope people recognize the wrongness of it.

Radley continues:

"That said, I'm not going to apologize for linking to it. I'm also not going to accept the charge that linking to it was some how indicative of my contempt for the military, or the people who serve in it. I think I've been clear on this site that despite my opposition to the war in Iraq, I hold no animus for the individual people fighting it. In fact, I've taken care to note exactly how careful the U.S. military has been to avoid civilian casualties, despite my position that no casualties were necessary in the first place. A few other emailers cited my recent column on the way the military brass has treated Pat Tillman in conjunction with my linking to the Telegraph article as proof that I, in the words of one charming fellow, "like to shit on America." Well, no. I had nothing but praise for Tillman as a hero when he joined the military. And I noted his loss with regret, despite some nasty aspertions from the crasser corners of anti-war libertarian land.

I don't think it's the least bit unpatriotic to take note of an article in a mainstream newspaper that's commonly known to be pretty midde-of-the-road (to the right of the Guardian, to the left of the Telegraph) and express (a) outrage if accounts of abuses by the U.S. military are true, and (b) hope that the charges aren't. It's not as if I picked this up from Kos or the Democratic Underground. I linked to it. Several people convinced me it was inaccurate. So I'm now posting that it's inaccurate."

I think we need to be careful about declarations about what is and is not patriotic. Dissent is the very essence of patriotism and our Founders were a bunch of agitating, dissenters who would not abide tyranny. The act of disagreeing with or protesting against the actions of your country is one of the most basic freedoms we enjoy, and I see no reason to discuss limiting it period. Every American can look at what is going on and if they don't like it, well, they can shout it to the mountain tops. The sticking point is when falsehoods and lies are spread to undermine policies that the dissenter cannot countenance. That is where far too many anti-war, W haters are stuck and that is where patriotism can be challenged. But in all cases it is usually better to focus on harmful effects of someone's activities not your own opinion of their motivations.

Radley was exploring this issue honestly and questioning the entire framework it was presented in, that is the beginning of intellectual discourse. He also responded when presented with credible information debunking the story, that is the hallmark of an open mind. This is a good object lesson in how to approach difficult issues and I hope everyone will throttle back a bit with the hater rhetoric, myself included, and try to argue from substance about real damage done.

There is also a big difference between disagreeing about the rightness of going to war and actively opposing it and a bigger jump to misrepresenting the reality of it. Protesting is not unpatriotic, that doesn't mean it can't have real world negative effects on the troops by improving the morale of our enemies or gaining them supporters. That is a balance for the protester to work out, but there is no place for false, defamatory information and those using it against our troops are unpatriotic and it is right and proper to call them on it.

---

Mission: To protect and promote the reputation and dignity of America's Warriors.
Join us!

Comments

Radley Balko tightens up his shot group

I figgered Radley Balko would respond to credible information about the white phosphorous equals chemical weapons baloney, and he did. I wrote a piece yesterday calling him out by name and many other excellent blogs had detailed, informative explanations as to why the story was wrong. When I wrote I made a point of noting that I didn't believe this was a situation of anything other than a lack of information. He noted this:

"First things first. Thanks to a slew of explanatory emails and posts from other blogs, I'm now convinced that the Independent article I linked to last week on the use of white phosphorous was erroneous, on several counts."

Thanks to anyone who emailed him, and I think Radley gets credit for taking note and listening over the weekend. He brings up a related point that I didn't accuse him of but apparently others have and I hope people recognize the wrongness of it.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfadb53ef00d83425c16b53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Radley Balko tightens up his shot group:

» Radley Balko gets an education about Willy Pete from Small Town Veteran
At least he's smart enough for it to take, something I can't say about too many libs. I'm tired, so just click here, here, and here. [Read More]