Trashing Chris Kyle…and America

By | June 2, 2016 | 0 Comments


My idea of how to observe Memorial Day is to post a column reminding us of some of the heroes who died to preserve the freedom we enjoy. My idea is to visit a national cemetery, see the small American flags decorating each grave, and say a quiet thank you.
Other people have other ideas of how to observe this meaningful day. Many people invite friends over for a barbecue and then watch sports on TV. Other people take a long weekend to get out of town, or catch up on work around the house. But some people have a bizarre notion of how to observe the holiday. Their leftist bias impels them not to honor it but to dishonor it.
● Most people have heard of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, our leading sniper. He did four tours in Iraq, was wounded twice, and was promoted to chief petty officer. Our enemies put an $80,000 bounty on him, and his picture was posted around the city.
Chris Kyle survived and came home to his wife and two children. But he did not survive for long. He devoted himself to helping troubled veterans, one of whom shot him and his friend to death. The murderer was sentenced to life in prison. Kyle is portrayed in the award-winning film “American Sniper.” Watch the last few minutes and see actual film of how fellow Texans honored him.
One might think that Kyle would have atoned for the “sin” of being an outstanding American by his death. One would be wrong. Now “journalists” are probing an inconsistency in his story. You see, the Navy personnel file states that Kyle received one Silver Star (our third-highest award for valor) and three Bronze Stars. However, in his biography, Kyle claims two Silver Stars and five Bronze Stars. This higher total is borne out by his discharge papers, form DD-214.
Which is correct? The Navy regards the central personnel file as authoritative. But the discharge papers were prepared locally, by his SEAL command, which would be expected to know him best. As expected, leftist pundits claim to see this as a scandal. If records conflict, they believe the one that gives the lower total of decorations for valor. They could not miss an opportunity to trash the memory of an American hero during the week of Memorial Day. But this is nothing new.
Remember Dan Rather’s CBS “news” story that broke during the 2004 election season? Remember the letter, supposedly from George W. Bush’s commanding officer in the Texas Air National Guard? The letter stated that Bush had been absent for large portions of the service he claimed to have performed. But it soon became obvious that this letter was not written on a typewriter, but on a modern computer and printer.
CBS claimed it “verified” the documents by interviewing the 86-year-old woman who had been the secretary for the supposed author, now conveniently dead, and for several others as well. She stated that she never typed those documents, but she recalled typing similar ones 32 years earlier.
That is, we had fabricated copies of nonexistent documents not typed by the secretary of a dead man. This gave “verify” a whole new meaning. But not to be deterred by facts, the Los Angeles Times published these headlines:

Bush Releases More Military Documents. Questions remain about his service.
– Front page headline, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 14, 2004

What Did Bush Do in the Guard?
– Front page headline, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 15, 2004

George W. Bush released his Air National Guard records. They showed that he completed two years’ active duty for pilot training, a difficult and somewhat dangerous achievement. They showed that his subsequent years of service were all satisfactory years, meaning that he attended more than the required number of drills annually. They showed that he was rated highly by his superiors. They showed no letters of reprimand or other punishments. They showed that he received an honorable discharge.
But leftist pundits learned nothing from their “forged but accurate” Bush documents. So now they are pushing their “genuine but inaccurate” Chris Kyle documents. I predict that they will again succeed in discrediting themselves rather than the target of their attack.
● President Obama took the opportunity to visit Hiroshima and make an implicit apology for our use of the atomic bomb. Did Japan surrender within a few days? Did the bloodiest war in history finally end? No matter – an opportunity to bash America was not to be missed.
At the same time, the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed piece co-written by Oliver Stone. And what, exactly, did the editors expect from a man whose film “JFK” blames Vice President Johnson and the “military-industrial complex,” instead of the leftist who actually assassinated Jack Kennedy? Did they expect a pro-American article? No, the editors got what they wanted: an article that calls it a “myth” that the bombs led to Japan’s surrender.
Island by island, Japanese forces were pushed back with huge losses; Japan did not surrender. Large portions of their fleet were sunk; Japan did not surrender. Their cities were bombed almost daily; Japan did not surrender. A nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima; even then, Japan did not surrender. A second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki; Japan surrendered.
And when the allied fleet sailed into Tokyo Bay to accept the surrender, diehard Japanese officers planned to fire on it, despite the emperor’s order to surrender. With some difficulty, the military coup was put down. Relatives of the emperor flew to remote outposts to assure the troops that he had indeed ordered them to surrender. Only then did the surrender take place. That is, even after the second nuclear bomb, the surrender was in doubt for a time.
If Japan had not surrendered, one of two tragedies would have occurred: (1) We would have invaded, resulting in 100,000 to 500,000 American deaths and millions of Japanese deaths, or (2) We would have blockaded Japan, resulting in millions of Japanese civilians starving to death while the army was fed. By what perverted morality could either of these calamities be thought preferable to the bombing?
And what do these uncontested historical facts prove to Stone, the Times editors, and other historical revisionists? They prove that Japan was going to surrender anyhow, and the bombs were unnecessary and sadistic. This goes beyond the illogical and reaches the delusional. But we must admit that Obama’s visit and the Times article are effective ways to dishonor Memorial Day.
Obama could have visited Pearl Harbor, site of the Japanese sneak attack that pulled us into war. Then he could have visited Nanking, site of horrible Japanese atrocities. And finally he could have visited Hiroshima, and reflected on the horrors that aggressive war unleashes. He could have concluded his speech by quoting the Bible: “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” But, of course, he did no such thing. Obama isn’t anti-nuclear, or even anti-war, as much as he is anti-American.
Years ago, I was in an Army Reserve medical unit. I was assigned to give a talk on mass casualties. I went to the library at the University of California, San Francisco, and found authoritative references. As of about 15 years after the atomic bombings, when the vast majority of the deaths had already occurred, it was estimated that 75,000 died at Hiroshima and 50,000 at Nagasaki.
But now, leftist pundits list the deaths as at least twice that. Why? Do they know more than experts on the ground knew? Or have they found yet another way to further their leftist agenda? According to them, America should destroy its nukes. But the fanatics ruling Iran and North Korea? Oh no, their nukes are of no concern. This goes beyond the delusional and reaches the frankly psychotic.
By way of comparison, at least 100,000 and perhaps 200,000 died in the non-nuclear fire-bombing of Tokyo – more than either nuclear bomb, and perhaps more than both of them combined. As General Sherman said, war is hell. Nuclear weapons are only one aspect of that hell – and in fact have proved to be effective in deterring war between nuclear states.
● Was Chris Kyle an American hero no matter how many medals he earned in Iraq? Did the atomic bombings of Japan end World War II? These questions have been answered. But one question remains: What can we conclude about the motivation of leftist “journalists”?
Memorial Day is a time of traditions. Most Americans observe the tradition of honoring those who gave their lives to preserve our freedom. But some people observe quite another tradition: Dishonoring our veterans, even those who gave everything for us, while glossing over the misdeeds of our enemies, past and present.
Which tradition do you observe?

Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com

No Comments

  • M.W.Leonard says:

    You right wingers love to gloss over obvious problems. Chris Kyle was a good soldier, no doubt about it. But as a sniper, he sat back in safety and shot people at long distance. Not very heroic. And what about the enormous suffering from the first nuclear bomb, not to mention the second? You just let that slip by, because we won the war.

    • 1. I don’t see myself as a “right-winger.” I see myself as a John Kennedy Democrat, which is now called “conservative.”
      2. Chris Kyle was a Navy SEAL, not a “soldier.”
      3. Kyle was a top sniper, but he was constantly in urban combat — hardly “safety.” How would you like to be in this “safety”?
      http://www.military.com/special-operations/two-chris-kyle-stories-you-wont-see-in-american-sniper.html
      4. I thought I made clear that I justified the nuclear bombings because of the enormous amount of suffering and death they prevented. Either the invasion or the blockade of Japan would have resulted in millions of civilian Japanese deaths.
      5. Real life, unlike the movies and TV, is messy. On TV, a 110-pound female police officer can throw an uncooperative 220-pound man against a car and handcuff him with no trouble. In real life, taking a resisting suspect into custody is difficult and dangerous, even for two large officers. On TV, war consists of relatively “clean” combat, with the wounded shot in the shoulder, not with half their face or limbs blown off and spurting arterial blood. Of course, civilians are never hurt, and it’s easy to distinguish them from combatants.
      Perhaps that’s the key difference between what we now call liberals and conservatives: Conservatives can see and deal with the mess.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.