It was a comment on this post<\/a>.<\/p>\nI could tell from the source history that he viewed your blog and then went to mine next, but I don\u2019t know who it is. I\u2019m new to blogging, but I assume this is a common thing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Source history? I don\u2019t know what that is, but it sounds useful. How do you find that?<\/p>\n
As to the content of your reader\u2019s gripe, my guess was that he saw the words \u201cAbu Ghraib\u201d in your post and reacted Pavlovianly to that visual stimuli, like a dog salivating at a picture of a steak. People taught by Talk Radio to think in shibboleths rather than rationally often act that way.<\/p>\n
It is always amusing to me that the chickenhawks and crackerbarrel patriots who anonymously post to attack their Talk-Radio-designated enemies see no problem slamming even the soldiers who serve them when it\u2019s a choice between honoring your service or giving up their fat-butted, civilian rah rah beer and brass bands nationalism. They yammer on about \u201chonoring the troops\u201d in theory. But the moment you are perceived to disagree with the Crazy Right, you are \u201cevil\u201d. And they aren\u2019t afraid to say it to your face\u2013anonymously.<\/p>\n
For my part, I thank you for your service, Chris. Don\u2019t let the crazy chickenhawks get you down.<\/p>\n