<\/p>\n
Nationally syndicated talk radio host and Fox News contributor Mike Gallagher has recently lambasted me for besmirching Chris Kyle, \u201cthe American Sniper.\u201d<\/p>\n
It\u2019s time to separate truths from untruths.<\/p>\n
(1)Gallagher accuses me of throwing in with the likes of Michael Moore.\u00a0 But the latter implied that Kyle, being a sniper, was a coward.\u00a0 <\/em>Contrary to Gallagher, I never said or so much as slightly suggested anything of the kind.\u00a0 I even conceded Kyle\u2019s heroism in defending the backs of his fellow soldiers during his four tours of duty in Iraq.<\/p>\n (2)Nor have I, contra Gallagher, called Kyle a \u201cliar.\u201d\u00a0 Rather, I noted that all of the available evidence compels rational people\u2014people not blinded by ideology and the hero-worship to which it gives rise\u2014to conclude that Kyle did in fact lie about at least a few things while promoting himself upon his return to civilian life.<\/p>\n Now, Kyle may or may not have been a liar, <\/em>i.e. one who lies habitually.\u00a0 <\/em>Gallagher may find it scandalous to hear, but just because a person has donned military fatigues or is a combat veteran doesn\u2019t mean that he is beyond succumbing to vice.\u00a0 Still, it is<\/em> possible that these are the only occasions on which Kyle\u2019s ever been dishonest. The point, however, is that he did <\/em>lie on the occasions <\/em>in question.<\/p>\n (3)But even if I did <\/em>refer to Kyle as a liar (or anything else), so what?\u00a0 Gallagher\u2019s reaction\u2014and that\u2019s all that it is, a quite sincere, though deeply confused, hyper-emotional reaction\u2014is just another form of the old ad hominem attack: \u201cYou didn\u2019t actually say that, <\/em>did you?! Only an icky low-life <\/em>would say that!<\/em>\u201d Shocked, shocked! Intimidate into silence.\u00a0 End conversation.<\/p>\n (4)I wrote an exhaustive essay, drawing from a wide range of disparate sources\u2014local publications in Minnesota, where Jesse Ventura\u2019s defamation case against Chris Kyle and, later, his estate, transpired, and Dallas, where Kyle claimed to have gunned down two carjackers; New Yorker <\/em>magazine, which did an extensive, and especially sympathetic, expose on Kyle and his fellow soldiers; and even National Review On-Line, <\/em>a mainstream \u201cconservative\u201d publication from which Gallagher himself reads often on the air\u2014to make the case that Kyle was less than honest about his post-war exploits.<\/p>\n I sent this essay to Gallagher.\u00a0 It was a waste, for he continued speaking as if he hadn\u2019t read a word of it.<\/p>\n There are four claims that Gallagher continues to repeat:<\/p>\n I was \u201cinaccurate,\u201d he says, because I said that all ten jurors who composed the jury presiding over Ventura\u2019s defamation suit against Kyle found in favor of Ventura. But the jury was actually \u201csplit,\u201d for two <\/em>jurors \u201cbelieved\u201d Kyle\u2019s version of events.<\/strong><\/p>\n There are three problems with Gallagher\u2019s assertion here.\u00a0 The first, and biggest, is that I never said <\/em>that all ten jurors <\/em>agreed.\u00a0 Never.\u00a0 Quite simply, and truthfully, I wrote this: \u201cThe jury<\/em> awarded him [Ventura] 1.8 million <\/em>dollars in damages: $500,000 dollars for \u2018defamation\u2019 and the remainder for \u2018unjust enrichment\u2019 (Kyle, it was determined, monetarily benefitted from defaming Ventura).\u201d<\/p>\n The truth hurts sometimes, I know, but guess what?\u00a0 This is exactly what happened.<\/em><\/p>\n It\u2019s also revealing that Gallagher would refer to an eight-to-two decision as being \u201csplit.\u201d\u00a0 I noted that if 80 percent of the American electorate agreed on any decision, no honest person would say that it was \u201csplit.\u201d On the contrary, the \u201cissue\u201d wouldn\u2019t be regarded as an issue at all.\u00a0 The topic would be heralded as the one topic\u2014perhaps the only <\/em>topic\u2014that\u2019s succeeded in unifying <\/em>Americans.<\/p>\n Thirdly, Gallagher states that the 20 percent of the jury that didn\u2019t decide in Ventura\u2019s favor believed <\/em>Kyle.\u00a0 Wrong: all this shows is that they weren\u2019t convinced\u2014but not necessarily unconvinced\u2014<\/em>that Kyle acted with \u201cactual malice,\u201d i.e. that he actually knew <\/em>that he lied and\/or acted in reckless disregard of the falsity of his claims.<\/p>\n Gallagher brings up O.J. Simpson\u2019s acquittal to reinforce his contention that juries get it wrong.\u00a0 But if he wants to be consistent\u2014and this is a big<\/em> if here\u2014then he should compare apples to apples.\u00a0 The Kyle\/Ventura trial was a civil <\/em>trial.\u00a0 Here, \u201cpreponderance of evidence\u201d is the standard of proof. \u00a0In a criminal <\/em>court of the sort that acquitted Simpson, the standard of proof\u2014\u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt\u201d\u2014is significantly higher.\u00a0 Guess what?\u00a0 When the families of Simpson\u2019s victims sued him in civil court, the jury found him guilty.\u00a0 <\/em>Did the jury get that one wrong too, Mike?<\/p>\n Gallagher insists that he essentially confirmed Kyle\u2019s account of the carjacking gone-bad when he spoke to DMagazine\u2019s <\/em>Mike Mooney, who assured him that Kyle may <\/em>very well have been telling the truth.<\/strong><\/p>\n Had Gallagher cared to read the essay that I sent him, he would know that I checked Mooney\u2019s account (yes, Mike, as hard as it is to believe, some of us do <\/em>research these things before we comment on them).\u00a0 Mooney admitted that he <\/em>could not <\/em>verify Kyle\u2019s story.\u00a0 Still, he accepted it. I also noted in my piece that Nicholas Schmidle of the New Yorker <\/em>quoted the authorities from all three of the counties covering that area where this incident was alleged to have occurred.\u00a0 They unequivocally denied that anything of the sort happened.\u00a0 Moreover, Schmidle quoted a former special operations commander who assured him that it was \u201cbullshit.\u201d<\/p>\n Gallagher continues to peddle the line that the Kyle\/Ventura situation is a case of \u201che said, he said.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n This is simply and utterly false (Guarantee you that had the jury found in favor of Chris Kyle, Gallagher would most certainly not be saying any such thing).<\/p>\n Although Gallagher initially, and wrongly, said that it was the word of a bunch of Navy SEALS versus that of Ventura, even he has now retracted that (though without apology). The truth is that not only is Ventura a former SEAL himself (something that Mike scarcely mentions\u2014why not thank him <\/em>for his service, <\/em>Mike, instead of casting aspersions at this <\/em>veteran?); his witnesses, including the owner of the bar in which the fight was supposed to have occurred, were SEALS<\/em> (Since several of them served during the Vietnam War era, Mike, by disregarding their testimony on Ventura\u2019s behalf, are you essentially no different from those who spat on our troops when they returned from Vietnam?)<\/p>\n The fact<\/em> is that the jury\u2014or, if it will please Gallagher, at least 80 percent of it\u2014<\/em>found Ventura\u2019s witnesses credible and Kyle\u2019s witnesses in<\/em>credible.<\/p>\n Gallagher said that I accused Kyle of lying about being the most \u201cprolific\u201d sniper in American history.<\/strong><\/p>\n Wrong.\u00a0 For starters, I couldn\u2019t have possibly accused him of this, for Kyle never claimed to be the most prolific <\/em>sniper; he claimed to have been the most lethal <\/em>sniper.\u00a0 It\u2019s strange that though this claim is <\/em>the subtitle of Kyle\u2019s book, Gallagher doesn\u2019t repeat it.<\/p>\n But even so, I never accused him of lying<\/em> about that.\u00a0 <\/em>I objected to his bragging <\/em>about that.\u00a0\u00a0 That he bragged about his kills and sought to build his reputation on this feature of his life alone suffices to show that he was a braggart. \u00a0This arrogance is an ugly character trait (Imagine George Washington, General<\/em> George Washington, promoting himself as the bad ass that chased the British from North America!).<\/p>\n Humility, however, is a cardinal Christian virtue.<\/p>\n Gallagher expresses incredulity that anyone, let alone someone, like me, who\u2019s on the right, would so much as think, let alone speak aloud, any criticism of Chris Kyle.\u00a0 What\u2019s the end game?<\/p>\n There are several reasons for why I\u2019ve said what I have.<\/p>\n First, it is the truth. <\/em><\/p>\n Second, at no time is truth more needed than when lies are being spun to vindicate a policy that has resulted in the astronomical loss of blood and treasure.\u00a0 And make no mistakes about it: ultimately, it isn\u2019t Chris Kyle the man <\/em>who Gallagher and his ilk care a lick about; rather, Kyle is a politically-useful symbol<\/em> by which to vindicate the unmitigated disaster that is the Iraq War and, perhaps even more importantly, the foreign policy vision\u2014the global crusade for Democracy, and ever larger government\u2014underlying it.<\/p>\n Those of us who value the lives of flesh-and-blood soldiers; the untold numbers of innocent Iraqis (and others) whose lives have been destroyed; the resources of American taxpayers; American liberties; and a truly limited, federal <\/em>government have an invested interest in seeing to it that the overwhelming majority of Americans who turned against the Iraq War do not forget why they did so.<\/p>\n Third, Kyle, or at least the Kyle of the extremely popular Eastwood film, could very well influence untold numbers of impressionable young boys.\u00a0 He is now a \u201crole-model.\u201d\u00a0 One needn\u2019t be an opponent of the Iraq War in order to see why this is bad.<\/p>\n (1)Kyle, as I already mentioned and as is obvious to all with eyes to see, has bragged about his exploits.\u00a0 This is arrogance.<\/p>\n (2)He\u2019s bragged about things with respect to which he\u2019s lied.\u00a0 This reveals both arrogance and dishonesty.<\/p>\n (3)It isn\u2019t just that he lied about killing carjackers and armed rioters and knocking out Jesse Ventura.\u00a0 Even if he was telling the truth about such things, these are not <\/em>the stuff of which an education in liberty is made.<\/p>\n Think about it: I have no problems with Kyle shooting and killing men who tried to carjack him.\u00a0 I do <\/em>have a problem with local police deciding, on a whim, or on the sole basis of a suspect\u2019s word, who can and cannot kill with impunity.\u00a0 I have an even bigger problem with agents of the national government (the Department of Defense) deciding who local authorities can and can\u2019t arrest.<\/p>\n I have no problem with Kyle shooting armed rioters in an American city.\u00a0 I do have a problem with government authorities commissioning by stealth, <\/em>i.e. \u201coff the books,\u201d former soldiers to do this.<\/p>\n If Ventura initiated force against Kyle, I\u2019d have no problem if Kyle dropped him.\u00a0 I do <\/em>have a problem with a man, especially one who is supposed to have fought for \u201cour freedoms\u201d\u2014including our freedom of speech\u2014assaulting a person with whom he disagreed. <\/em><\/p>\n I do have a problem with a man assaulting a person with whom he disagreed over an issue about which the entire country <\/em>disagreed.\u00a0\u00a0 Even if Ventura did make the ugly comments that<\/p>\n Kyle said he did, it would have still been fundamentally immoral\u2014to say nothing of criminal\u2014for Kyle to have punched out Ventura just because of this.<\/p>\n I do have a problem with a man assaulting another man who is 23 years his senior<\/em> and who did not physically threaten him.<\/p>\n In short, the events that Kyle relays are worse <\/em>if they really happened.<\/p>\n (4)There is one final consideration why I want to undermine the hero worship of Kyle.\u00a0 It is a reason that, shockingly, no one, as far as I have been able to determine, has mentioned.<\/p>\n Kyle supposedly had, and presumably still has, huge bounties on his head.\u00a0 Very dangerous people\u2014exactly those who the Gallaghers of the world insist are already here, <\/em>in the USA\u2014have wanted Kyle dead.\u00a0 <\/em>If this is true, then it was utterly reckless\u2014<\/em>not gutsy, but reckless\u2014for him to flash his face to the world and promote himself as America\u2019s \u201cmost lethal sniper.\u201d In doing so, he endangered his whole family: his wife, his children, etc.<\/p>\n Those who now continue to promote him act recklessly as well, for though Kyle is gone, his family remains.<\/p>\n Courage should be emulated.\u00a0 As the father of a five year-old, I for one do not want my son growing up to emulate recklessness.<\/p>\n In the final analysis, then, it isn\u2019t Chris Kyle who was the target of my criticisms.\u00a0 Had it not been for the hero-worshipping of Kyle, exemplified by Mike Gallagher and his fellow devotees of the Iraq War, I doubt that I would\u2019ve written much if anything about him.<\/p>\n So, I end with a question for Mike?\u00a0 Heroes there have always been and will always be.\u00a0 Why rave to the extent that you do about \u201cthe American Sniper?\u201d\u00a0 What\u2019s really <\/em>going on here?<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Nationally syndicated talk radio host and Fox News contributor Mike Gallagher has recently lambasted me for besmirching Chris Kyle, \u201cthe American Sniper.\u201d It\u2019s time to separate truths from untruths. (1)Gallagher accuses me of throwing in with the likes of Michael Moore.\u00a0 But the latter implied that Kyle, being a sniper, was a coward.\u00a0 Contrary…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":399,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1241","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n