Chris Hayes is being attacked on the comment blogs this morning

[proud2BlibKansan]

Michelle Malkin posted an abbreviated discussion he had on his show about heroes and Memorial Day. She claims he said he was "uncomfortable" calling our war dead "heroes".

I'm not linking to her site.

So all the winguts who aren't busy decorating graves or cooking burgers are sharing her opinion widely. I've seen negative comments on 6 sites this morning.

Here is the entire clip from Chris Hayes' show: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46979738/vp/47581623#47581631

And what Chris actually said:

I think it's interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words "heroes." Why do I feel so [uncomfortable] about the word "hero"? I feel comfortable -- uncomfortable -- about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don't want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that's fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

[Scuba]

1. Another feather in Chris's hat!!!

When those assholes start attacking you, you know you're doing something right!

[Gregorian]

2. Thinking hurts. Poor Malkin.

[elleng]

6. Problem is she thinks in 'dark' ways,

she knows what he said, and its meaning, but she and her 'friends' CANNOT attribute anything positive to Dems. AND she gets paid for her darkness.

[hrmjustin]

3. Well maybe he should have thought it through.n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. I've watched it twice now and think it was a very respectful and important conversation

And obviously well thought out.

[elleng]

7. Sounds like he did.

Did YOU?

'it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war.'

[hrmjustin]

8. yes i did thank you

They are my hero's. I separate them from the policy makers. I lost a cousin in iraq 7 years ago and he will always be my hero.

[elleng]

10. I understand.

Very sorry for your loss.

I'm sure you can understand Chris' concern, that 'it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war.'

[hrmjustin]

17. Of course but he needed to think what he said through.

His overall point about war mongers is right. He should have said that he is uncomfortable with people using the sacrifice of our soldiers to their agenda's benefit. That would have been more accurate. I like Chris Hayes but he should have thought it through.

[Plucketeer]

63. A person can be "your hero"

not a thing at all wrong with that. But as regards one's duties while in the military - there's a real distinction between heros and combatants. Combatants stay on the front in the pursuit of a mission - an objective. There's also the spectre that would ensue if they put down their rifle and quit. Heros not only do their partr, but go above and beyond what their superiors would expect of them. To apply the title of hero to everyone who's been in combat is to cheapen the honors for those truly deserving of them.

[spanone]

14. thought what through?

[hrmjustin]

35. what i mean is that the wing nuts will...

...only hear that he is uncomfortable with calling them hero's. I think they are hero's, and I understand what he was trying to say about warmongers will use their sacrifice. But they will only here the first comment.

[elehhhhna]

44. fukthe wingnuts. if they don't like what you say, they

lie about it. can't win.

[SemperEadem]

53. thank you

he could have chosen any way to say it and malkin would have found a way to whine about it because THEIR SIDE HAS NO GROUND ON WHICH TO STAND, PERIOD. They have to reach deep in their asses to pull shit out, as evidenced by malkin's clown show.

[Enrique]

31. he is thinking and thats why everyone is mad at him

no thinking allowed on TV!

[msongs]

5. military combatant war dead are not automatically "heroes" nt

[hrmjustin]

9. yes they are

they signed up and knew they might die. To me they should be honored as hero's

[Gregorian]

11. Maybe they just needed a job.

I'll bet that's the case for 90% of vets.

My dad wanted the GI bill to pay for his college. He's totally anti-war. But he went.

[hrmjustin]

16. they still went. they signed the papers and went. I could not...

...do that. I don't know about you but I could not.

[Rittermeister]

38. There are several jobs out there

far more likely to result in one's death or maiming than serving in the modern volunteer military. Sorry, but getting killed in Afghanistan or Iraq while fighting insurgents barely out of the stone age does not garner you more esteem in my eyes than falling off a fishing boat and drowning or being killed in a mine cave-in.

I should note that in an actual war of national preservation - WWII or the American Civil War, for instance - I feel differently. Going to war to defend kith and kin is something I can get behind.

[hrmjustin]

41. You are entitle your opinion and God Bless you for it.

But I lost a cousin in Tikrit Iraq and I hold him in the highest esteem and he is my hero. Those who protest the war are hero's to me. All who stood up in congress against the war are hero's to me. All who put their lives on the line are hero's to me. You have a nice day my friend.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. I suppose that's a psychological defense mechanism against

realizing that your cousin died for the oil companies and George Bush's ego.

In the past ten years, thousands of young Americans have died in combat for no good reason. If they thought they were "serving their country," they were deceived. Maybe it makes their families feel better to think of them as "heroes," but a hero is someone who dies for a WORTHY cause.

The country would have been better off if all the military personnel had said, "This war makes no sense. We're not going."

The older I get, the less I buy that "patriotism=militarism" bullshit.

In fact, I avoid all Memorial Day and Fourth of July celebrations, because I used to be a college professor, and when armchair patriots get all misty about "our heroic men and women," I see the boys and girls I used to teach, young people with their whole lives ahead of them. Lost. And for what?

[hrmjustin]

55. My cousin is a hero to me.

If you don't think so thats your opinion. My family was never for the war but my cousin served in the national guard for years and served his country proudly. He left four kids and a wife behind and he was killed just a few days after his arrival. My cousin death hit this family very hard and we will always honor his service.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. He may have THOUGHT he was serving his country

but World War II (and possibly Korea) was the last time this was actually the truth, as opposed to pro-enlistment propaganda.

Were George Bush's ego and the oil companies a worthy reason for four children to grow up without their father?

[hrmjustin]

58. My cousin did serve his country.

You don't have to like the war but don't diminish the service of our armed forces.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

59. The insurgents in Iraq would have said that THEY were serving THEIR country

In their minds, they were fighting a foreign invader.

Do you honor them, too?

[hrmjustin]

62. My cousin was not killed by an iraqi n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. Friendly fire?

Even a worse waste.

But that's dodging my question. Would you consider the Iraqi insurgents to be heroes? They see themselves as fighting for their country, and they have families who mourn them.

[hrmjustin]

65. It was not friendly fire. As for your question I do not have all the answers, but...

...I will say that many of those insurgents were citizens who thought that our presence need to begotten rid of in their country. It is true many came from other countries to fight us, but the majority were regular Iraqi's trying to get rid of us. I can not say if they are hero's or not. I can understand how Iraqi's can all them hero's.

[crunch60]

61. I agree with you. I see these lost lives, our young men and women, as victims

of the military industrial complex, the latest wars I attribute to the Bush/Cheney wrecking crew and continued by Obama. My uncle was awarded a bronze star for his service in WW2, and he suffered horrendous "shell shock" for years. Lives forever changed, even if you survive the atrocities that is war. I do not support these latest wars, but honor and appreciate those who served.

I also believe we should have stopped the Nazi regime long before we did. Also not a just war, but certainly a necessary one.

[hrmjustin]

12. war sucks and...

warmongers are evil but separate the soldier from the warmongers and chris did not do that. They are our hero's. Just like the people in congress who stood up against the war are my hero's.

[Honeycombe8]

13. I disagree with his statement. And he surely knew that would incite some heated responses.

IMO, the soldier on the field is divorced from the CAUSE of any war. They didn't declare war or decide to go to war. They are doing their job. That job takes a certain amount of physical strength, commitment, loyalty, and bravery. Anyone who voluntarily faces a bullet on behalf of his country is a hero, IMO. Even those who face a bullet involuntarily, but step up to the plate and do their job on behalf of their country, are heroes.

Many pull strings to get out of having to face a bullet. That would be people like Cheney and Bush and Romney. Those people are cowards, IMO.

It has nothing to do with the cause of the war, which was declared by others.

[whatchamacallit]

32. I agree with you, mostly

You're right, putting yourself in harm's way for your country is indeed brave, maybe even heroic. That said, there is something corrupt about leaders who send men and women to war for questionable reasons, calling them heroes in an attempt to legitimize the conflict. It works well because questioning the conflict dishonors the "heroes" who made the ultimate sacrifice for it.

[jtuck004]

33. His statement said nearly nothing about the soldier, in the field or no, and your last statement

is exactly his point.

"It has nothing to do with the cause of the war, which was declared by others."

When he said "we marshal this word in a way that is problematic" he is saying that hero is used, by some, in the same sentence as a justification for more war because heroes are so desirable, used as a marketing tool to justify the, or more, war. Their sacrifice is forgotten, and the selling of more war becomes the focus.

In so doing we use their sacrifice too cheaply, almost as if their being a "War Bond" salesmen for people who profit from war, whether politician or businessperson, was the reason we asked for, sometimes, their life. In so doing we dishonor every single person who has ever served, any family or loved one that has waited at home, and a nation who asked for that sacrifice.

Although he did not say it directly, I think that by asking the question he is also asking if we should return the value to that word, and use it with the reverence and thanks that we should.

[Honeycombe8]

39. That's what I disagree with. I think he's wrong when he says that

people use "heroes" as justification for war. I don't think that's true. I think HE was inferring that HE sees the two as linked, and therefore, HE has a problem with using the term "heroes." I have no such problem. The two are disconnected, and I think that is so with most people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. Oh, you'd better believe that they use "our troops" as justification for war

The U.S. has regular armed forces all over the world, and yet National Guard and Reserves, mostly from small towns, were sent to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why?

I got an inkling in 1991 when I lived in a small town that was headquarters for a National Guard unit. If you protested the Gulf War, you were dissing "our brave troops." The people in that town did NOT distinguish the troops from the cause. They were incapable of separating them.

[jtuck004]

57. I think I understand where you are coming from, but it sure seems so to me...

6440 people have died since this guy told us that the people with the WMD's were gonna come get us. That's over twice as many as died on 9/11.

To underscore it, he appeared on the deck of an aircraft carrier, a "hero" among heroes. He knew we hadn't won anything,and he wasn't honoring their sacrifice.

It was a sales job to underscore his brilliance.

That is what Chris thinks we can do without, and I agree.

[CTyankee]

15. I saw that segment on his show. It was fascinating. It's something that

intellectuals like Hayes can do when given a chance: talk about ambiguity. Discuss the way words take on meanings in different contexts. It's the opposite of sound bites.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. I saw it too and I thought 'well this is too deep for the wingnuts'

and I had a feeling they'd attack Hayes. Which they did.

[CTyankee]

26. He might be glad that he got the publicity! It may drive more liberals and

other intelligent people to his show!

Somebody once said that there is no such thing as bad publicity!

[EFerrari]

28. Way too deep for the wing nuts is polysyllabic words and compound sentences.

We need much more of this. Trying to keep it simple for them has led to people thinking Jesus rode dinosaurs. It's high time to challenge them and especially on militarism.

[EFerrari]

18. Calling a dead person a hero or claiming they made a sacrifice doesn't erase

the hundred bad policy decisions that got that person dead.

I'd say America has 'way too many heroes and not nearly enough good policy makers.

[hrmjustin]

19. Ok that was well said

[EFerrari]

23. That is what he was getting at.

Craven politicians have always been ready to honor those who died for their bad decisions -- they think it lets them off the hook. It is an exploitation, not an honor, to be used that way.

Let's really honor the dead. Let's help the wounded heal and let's end these wars. And please, let's deny the men who sent them to their deaths the ability to use those deaths as a political chip. We owe them that, at least.

[hrmjustin]

29. I would have said it differently because all they will hear is...

...uncomfortable calling them hero's.

[EFerrari]

34. I think you're right about that.

And we can't let ourselves be bullied by people who don't even need us to speak before they start their bullying in an effort to shut us up. Imo, anyway.

[malaise]

24. Freaking perfect

[spooky3]

21. Wingnuts simply cannot process nuance.

It's a carefully worded, nuanced statement, that they have chosen to misinterpret.

[hrmjustin]

27. Yes i agree they will take it to a level he did not mean n/t

[lunatica]

22. Wow! He's coming up in the world!

They attack those they fear.

[Odin2005]

25. I agree with Chris, but I will never say it openly.

I have a cousin who is an Iraq veteran, and if I do anything that implies that he is not a "hero" I will be torn apart.

[BlueStater]

30. It's obvious to me what he's saying. People are morons.

He's not attacking the soldiers. He's attacking the scumbags who have and continue to exploit them for their own selfish causes.

[hrmjustin]

36. Yes but all they will hear is I am uncomfortable calling them hero's.n/t

[DirkGently]

37. Touched a nerve by suggesting war isn't by definition "heroic."

It's a huge, well-known piece of dishonest rhetoric that respect for service people should shut down any criticism of war. The gold standard example is using the deliberately inflated perception that liberals protesting Vietnam villianized Vietnam Vets to dodge the overarching question of whether that war was just or wise or successful.

It's that religious type of enforced groupthink we hear (mostly, but not exclusively) from conservatives, in which invoking the flag or "the troops" is code for blind acceptance of any kind of military endeavor.

It's bullshit, we all know it's bullshit, and yet even Hayes had a hard time saying it, so successful is this taboo.

Enough. We're not children. We can respect service and sacrifice and still oppose foolish wars. That may be too complicated for the Malkins of the world, but the rest of us just aren't that stupid.

[digonswine]

40. There should be a nuanced discussion of "heroes"-

I personally do not think that being in the military makes one a hero. Or dying for a cause makes one a hero. Or dying for one's country makes one a hero. Or being a firefighter makes one a hero. Or being willing to take a bullet makes one a hero.
The dudes at Mei Lai were willing to take a bullet for Uncle Sam. These are not heroes. These are people.
Until we stop the lionizing of fallen dead and the glorification of the war, these kids will keep being cannon-fodder.
We need to knock it off already.

[kiranon]

42. Agree and my husband and I are both veterans. When someone says to me

"thank you for your service", I hear the rest of the statement "because then I didn't have to serve." So many of the people who say "thank you for your service" voted for the wars and are Republicans.

[digonswine]

43. No doubt-

and I do appreciate your and your husband's service. I don't like it all to be reduced to platitudes and a way for some to circumvent real discussion. "They are heroes, I have called them such, my job is done-now watch this drive!" Or something.

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. I saw Andrew Card from the Bush administration try to thank a disabled vet for his service

Card was on a book tour. There was a man in a wheelchair at the event and Card approached him as he was leaving and said "I'd like to thank you for your service" and held out his hand. The man said "No, I won't shake hands with a war criminal". The look on Card's face was priceless.

Here's the really funny part. The man wasn't even a veteran. But Card saw the wheelchair and jumped to conclusions.

[limpyhobbler]

46. Chris Hayes is great but I disagree with him on this.

A certain part of patriotism is just the difference between being a human being versus being an effing robot.

How could my grandpa who risked his life to fight Hitler not be a hero? gtfo.

Chris Hayes is great and I'm glad he's making this point. Somebody had to make it and it wasn't going to be me because I don't agree with it.

It takes courage to make a point like that when you have a TV career to think about.

I won't be surprised if he gets canned, or they don't renew his contract when it comes up.

So hopefully his internet podcast will also be good.

Not every soldier is necessarily a hero, but many are. To try to tarnish their reputations in the memories of their families, even if there is a valid point, is politically stupid. And kind of rude.

Whatever though. I get what he meant.

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. It's a conversation we absolutely need to have.

Maybe if we did we'd have more to consider before going to war in the future.

[truedelphi]

48. It would be so interesting to know how many of the pro-war

RW wing nuts that want to perpetually honor the fallen soldiers would also want to have their taxes raised to cover the trillions of dollars we as a nation are spending to fight the wars. Honor a war grave - send in some money.

Boy oh boy - I bet the people honoring the war dead (especially all the sleezy, multi millionaire dollar a yr Talking Heads) who have never been on any combat mission would change their tune in a hurry if they had to start paying for the wars.

People who are war heroes usually don't want to talk about it much at all. They'd rather that you just hand them a burger and let them hear the ball game announcers.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. And they don't want to pay for the care and support of the "heroes" they sent to the slaughter

The veteran who will never work again because of a traumatic brain injury? Let his family take of him, is their attitude.

[MrMickeysMom]

50. Michelle Malkin and War

One takes advantage of the hideousness of the other.... in the attempt to find a career path.

[alarimer]

51. Hero is a word that is greatly overused.

Not everybody who dies in war is a hero. A hero is someone who does something extraordinary, like rescuing other people or something. Dying in a war does not automatically make you a hero.

[ScottLand]

60. I'm sure they will call Malkin a hero for standing up to Chris Hayes.

It doesn't matter how or what Chris says, the RW's job is to disagree.

[chowder66]

66. Is the term hero for us to feel better about those who serve or ...

is it really for them? I ask because the majority of times (maybe even every time) most people ask NOT to be called a hero when they do their duty/job.

It's a very nice sentiment to give to another person but it should be used correctly and quite carefully because it does lose it's meaning when overused or abused. I have the same issue with the word "miracle". I don't buy into miracles but if I had a dollar for every time someone uses it I'd be the richest person alive.


It would be a miracle to find one hero that identifies as a hero.

[limpyhobbler]

67. the Chris Hayes Apology

Statement from Chris Hayes

On Sunday, in discussing the uses of the word "hero" to describe those members of the armed forces who have given their lives, I don't think I lived up to the standards of rigor, respect and empathy for those affected by the issues we discuss that I've set for myself. I am deeply sorry for that.

As many have rightly pointed out, it's very easy for me, a TV host, to opine about the people who fight our wars, having never dodged a bullet or guarded a post or walked a mile in their boots. Of course, that is true of the overwhelming majority of our nation's citizens as a whole. One of the points made during Sunday's show was just how removed most Americans are from the wars we fight, how small a percentage of our population is asked to shoulder the entire burden and how easy it becomes to never read the names of those who are wounded and fight and die, to not ask questions about the direction of our strategy in Afghanistan, and to assuage our own collective guilt about this disconnect with a pro-forma ritual that we observe briefly before returning to our barbecues.

But in seeking to discuss the civilian-military divide and the social distance between those who fight and those who don't, I ended up reinforcing it, conforming to a stereotype of a removed pundit whose views are not anchored in the very real and very wrenching experience of this long decade of war. And for that I am truly sorry.

http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/28/11924150-statement-from-chris-hayes

Gotta say I saw this coming.