About Steinberg?s Apology on MIA/POW Flags;

[travisab1]

This seemed a little more Important than Steinberg?s Apology;

I'm passing it on from the Gunny;



From: George Fallon gfallon@nji.com
Subject: RE: OJC Digest - 11 Feb 2004 to 12 Feb 2004 (#2004-41)

Folks,
I tried to read Steinberg?s article several times before I was able to get
past that first outrageous paragraph.
When I was finally able to calm down and get through the entire thing I
wrote what I like to think of as a rational response, explaining some things
to him that he obviously wasn?t aware of: That
1. Not everyone believes there were no men left behind?
2. The POW flag is not now nor was it ever intended to be anti-American?
3. The POW flag is not now nor was it ever intended to be anti-government?
4. The POW flag is not only a symbol of our fight but a memorial to all
POWs?
5. Thousands of POWMIA family members are still waiting for answers?
6. Thousands of POWMIA family members are still waiting for closure?

Several took the same route with varying degrees of hostility while most
others responded with understandable indignant outrage, wise-assed epithets,
insults, threats and aspersions about his parenthood.

Steinberg responded with restraint to some of the first attacks and then
ceased answering, choosing instead to publish a second article, explaining
his rationale for the first article? That being, he believed he was saying
something that he thought was on everyone else?s mind? Obviously he was
wrong about that?

But try and read his response with some common sense instead of anticipatory
outrage:

Steinberg was not saying in that second article that he had been
misunderstood.
He was admitting that he himself had obviously misunderstood the feelings
and sensitivities of those of us for whom the POW flag is a part of our
lives.

He apologized for offending family members and veterans who had been angered
by his article.

And let?s get some perspective here? There is a major difference between
saying ?I am sorry I offended you? and saying ?I am sorry you were
offended.? The latter, puts the burden on those offended without accepting
responsibility. The former, Steinberg?s approach, accepts blame and
acknowledges responsibility.

Steinberg is not alone among well-intentioned Americans who believed the POW
issue was an empty Trojan Horse. He is not the only one who believed it was
over? That all were home who were coming home? There were others who felt
the same way including 99% of the nation in April of 1973. That number
included me until a few months later when I ceased celebrating the
homecoming and started to realize there was a gap in the numbers.

One other individual who bought into the lie for several years afterward was
someone you all might remember: Ted Guy? But Ted came around when the family
of an unaccounted for POW asked him to look at their son?s file. Then Ted
started asking questions and we all know where that went?
I?m not passing judgment on the initial responses from any of you? They were
pretty tame compared to the one I started to write? would have completed if
I hadn?t taken the time to look at the big picture.

But now that Steinberg has given as much of an apology as any of us have
ever seen from a journalist, can we back off on the vitriolic diatribes?

Just what do you think the odds are that sarcasm, insults and playground
threats are going to make him want to look closer at the POW issue and try
to see our side of it?

How many new converts do you believe you are going to bring to our camp by
refusing to accept his apology.

Are we so hungry for somebody to blame that we can afford this sort of
distraction?

Some of you are screaming for a retraction of his original article.
How exactly would you like to see that done? (I?m only interested in
rational, realistic alternatives here folks. Don?t hand me a bunch of
rhetoric because you all know I?m not going to buy that)

This isn?t a matter of the POW issue being attacked. It isn?t a matter of
principle ? It?s a matter of committing suicide.

You don?t shoot someone carrying a white flag and asking to parley? It makes
him dead but it makes the shooter a war criminal.
Remember this much: He has an audience of how many thousands, and his
readership is generally as ignorant of the facts of this issue as he is/was.
Our audience is how big? And which side are they on?
We preach to the choir... They are alreay open to our way of thinking.
His audience is full of potential converts... We can use as many of them as
we can convince him to bring over into the light.
Let's stop eating our young...

Gunny



Hope this helps.



Travis