I have no idea what caused some guy to go batshit and assault a soldier, but to characterize him as part of "my side" is pretty offensive.

Are there anti-war folks who hate soldiers for the job they are doing, to the point where they condone violence against them? Sure. Are there pro-war folks who think we should just kill all the Iraqis and be done with it? Sure. Does that mean everyone who is pro-war condones genocide? Of course not. Personally, I have nothing but respect for soldiers. They go out to places that no one should have to go to and do jobs that no one should have to do, and they do it exceptionally well.

Obviously, I know nothing about the a-hole who assaulted Barton, but, considering he's a former active-duty soldier, I doubt he can be characterized as a 'peace loving anti-war loyal oppositionist fan of Rall'.

Unless you are a 'peace loving anti-war loyal oppositionist fan of Rall' that would hypocritically engage in this type of behavior, I apologize for playing fast and loose with words. The "my side" comment was intended for Roy Edroso. In the link provided to his site, you can be regaled with these turds of genius which clearly show the esteem in which he holds "my side":

"They imply that a guy who went to a Toby Keith concert and got into a fight -- which sounds like a normal, red-blooded American knucklehead's perfect Saturday night to me -- was motivated by leftist politics."

and

As my phony angle is as good, or as bad, as anyone else's, let me offer this: perhaps the bounder in question is a loyal Bush supporter and, having gotten a bellyful of Toby Keith's testosterone entertainment, went around looking to pounce on anyone who fit the profile of the enemy: i.e., a veteran with a Purple Heart.

These provide the context, but not an excuse for what appears to be a rather broad swipe. I can tell that you obviously have respect for soldiers as well as for the "other side" - in fact I suspect you either have been involved in military or are close to someone who is/was. Am I correct?

I added the italics below. It's an excerpt of that Rall piece. I think in your haste to slam Rall, you seem to have ignored his main point, which is that the folks in the military are getting a raw deal. Whether it was a good idea or not, he used someone else's book and someone else's claim as an intro to his argument. When he gets around to making his point, he comes off as extremely sympathetic to the military, if you ask me. Which you didn't. ha.

"It's a powerful, tragic cliché of the Vietnam era, dramatized in the "Rambo" movies, and a cautionary tale for today's antiwar left. But according to Holy Cross College professor Jerry Lembcke, a Vietnam vet and author of "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam," it never happened.

"If you go back and look at the historical record, like I did--newspaper accounts, police records, and also just things historians have written," says Lembcke, "you don't find any record or any evidence that these things happened--or even that they were being claimed as happening--in the late '60s and early '70s." There isn't even one letter written by a soldier at the time referencing such an incident."

p.s. Rall's no peacenik, by the way...

I understand he was drawing on someone else's work. I also understand that he endorses that work. I know from my own personal interaction with Vietnam Vets (my biological father and my uncle) that he is full of shit. He pretends to sympathize with soldiers, but this kind of shit, where he pisses on the body of barely cold Pat Tillman gives him away. I am sorry, and saddened that I feel this way about another human, but Ted Rall is beneath contempt to me.

Yeah, I saw that cartoon when it came out. Are you telling me you honestly don't see the point Rall is trying make there, either? Because I do understand that nuance and subtlety don't necessarily play well with your core readership...

I feel all dirty now, but I went and waded through the bile that is that cartoon. It is truly amazing how many debunked moonbat talking points he can work into one cartoon - you know, the Afghanistan oil pipeline (is it done yet), AQ hated Saddam (hello, Mr. Zarqawi), Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 (state sponsor and sanctuary of the terrorists that attacked us), etc.

All while squeezing in plenty of far left vitriol - soldiers are stupid ("we are looking for people who don't read the paper"), they are part of a low rent occupation army of racists that shoot civilians for fun ("Do I get to shoot Arabs?"), etc.

Then there is complete distortions of reality - implying we should have attacked Pakistan, if anyone. Being so full of nuance and sublety, one would think Teddy would note that they would have been attacked but they wisely chose to help us root out the Taliban - a task they have been very adept at, as they should be since they were propping them up. A nuanced and sublte person might say it wouldn't be fair to blame them for doing so since, either, since they had an interest in a stable Afghanistan neighbor that they could influence, and it would only be fair to note that they quickly realized the Taliban had outlived its usefulness to them when it attacked the US on 9/11 and then commenced attempting to assassinate Musharraf.

The Tedster also smoothly works in some distortions of the role of the military, as well, castigating them for not protecting museums as a full fledged war was going on (do we even need to get into the fact that the looting was done by Bathist officials ahead of the invasion?). He also smoothly slips in factual errors that aren't worth getting in to - oh, what the hell, maybe just one - the military didn't work on rebuilding the Iraqi oil pipeline, the other Lunie Lefty bogeyman did - Haliburton. I wonder when the shipments of free oil will start arriving?

So what exactly was his point, other than Pat Tillman was a racist, bloodthirsty, idiot?

The phrase "I wouldn't piss down your thoat if your lungs were on fire" was invented with "people" like Ted Rall in mind.

Infidel Cowboy, you're kind of like an asshole.

You make an astute observation, Steve, and your arguments are hard to refute.

BTW, Liv is really hot. Are you sure she is really YOUR daughter?