New Rule Suggestion for Bill Maher: Afghan War Supporters Must Walk the Walk to Be Heard

Last time, we were not only lied into war, but those who did the cheerleading and lying neither volunteered themselves nor did any of their children.

So, this time, before Michelle Malkin, or Eric Cantor, or Liz Cheney, or Rich Lowry, get a nanosecond on any other network but Fox to plump for escalating the Afghan War, let them demonstrate their belief in its importance, and rightness, by first volunteering to fight it. And, if (and let's be honest, there is no chance they would risk their own lives, so it is really "when") they have not demonstrated their own commitment, shut them out, they have no credibility even to give 'balance' to opposing views. (Liz and Rich are just over 40, but I am sure the Commander-in-Chief could get the military to make exceptions for them; and Michelle and Eric are just the right age to volunteer).

Are you listening Meet the Press, This Week, Face the Nation, the networks news hours, 60 minutes, CNN and the MSNBC cable shows? Do not let these people have the microphone until they demonstrate their commitment to their cause by their actions.

John McCain and Sarah Palin, whose sons have volunteered, have earned the right to be heard on this matter.

But not Bill Kristol if his sons have not volunteered, just as Bill sat out the Vietnam war vigorously promoting it in his late teens and early twenties; and nor Mitt Romney if some of his 5 sons have not enlisted--during the Vietnam War, Mitt himself avoided service by going on a mission for the Mormon Church in the dangerous jungles of Paris, and returned to the US, according to his own account, 'waiting to be called and disappointed he was not', somehow never realizing for 6 years that he could, like Lyndon Johnson's sons-in-law, volunteer. Dagnabbit--he had to spend his time hunting varmints. And, do not forget his comment in the '07 primaries that his sons were being more patriotic by driving around Iowa in a Winnebago to help not make Mitt President than they would have been by volunteering. Similarly, for Bill O'Reilly, and Dick Armey, and Jeb Bush, and Dick Cheney himself.

Because it is just too easy to sound macho while other people and other peoples' children die and are maimed for your vanity. During the disastrous Bush-Cheney Administration, not a single member of either the Bush or Cheney families--who were all of military age--volunteered. If they had had to, would Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Feith-Pearle-Wolfowitz have lied us into war, and then not provided the troops with body armor? If the media (or the Democrats!) had called them on it, how much support for that war would have melted as they stumbled through disingenuous 'explanations"/

While we are at it, it seems as if there are many patriots showing up at rallies these days, including those of the President, with guns. Most of them, one would presume from their comments on other policy matters, would consider the President a traitor if he does not send all the troops McChrystal wants. Perhaps at subsequent events, the Army and Marines can send some recruiters and give these people a chance to use those guns where they could really help? [Bill Maher--why not add that to the 'New Rule" suggestion?].

Let me say that I would like to hear the arguments directly, both for and against, the McChrystal position presented soberly, and with the alternatives completely analyzed and discussed. But, we should all be damned if we allow a group of cowards to cheerlead other peoples' children to their deaths or permanent injuries again without first putting themselves, or their close families, in the thick of battle.

Once was too much.

 

Comments

[the evil zargos]

Killing is wrong...di­d you know???

[ICorpsDoc]

Serving in and of itself does not mean that someone cannot be a Chicken Hawk.

I know a few Former Marines who are now ChickenHawks. While they did serve during my time period they did everything they could to avoid the fighting in VN.

Some just kept a low profile while their brothers died and some were more active in their desire not to go south for the winter.

And some dropped heavy objects on their foot right after getting their orders.

Giving the words always faithful a very hollow sound.

I would say that I hold them in the same light as I hold the non-serving civilians who become giant war supporters after their time to serve has passed them by. But that would be wrong.

They do not rate nearly that high. And I do not care how many yellow footprints they stood on.

[wietog]

I have always said that those who make decisions about sending others to war had better have first-hand experience. Although I am pro-Obama, I don't like that he hasn't been in the military.

Cheney, Bush, et al - that made me sick, too.

The horrors of war are unimaginable.

[indo]

the argument that no one should talk about war unless they serve is dumb... that's all there is to it. When Obama was running for President he was talking about escalating Afghanistan war and he was running against McCain who nearly died and has a son in the military.

[Tolby]

Don't allow anyone from the President, his cabinet, senate and house to have a voice regarding Iraq or Afghanistan wars unless they have served in the military or their or their chidlren have served. How about that?

[jamjam]

Well sir, I guess we hand over the plans to the White House janitorial staff. Eh, might turn out okay. Who knows, he might have played Command and Conquer on his playstation. right?

[BillN]

Thank you, but no. The commander-in-chief of the US armed forces is a civilian by design - just as the founders and the authors of our Constitution intended.

This thread pertains to so-called "journalists" and other right-wing pundits who are cheerleaders for war, but who lack the basic courage to do it themselves. You see, it takes no special talent or intestinal fortitude to promote war - as long as someone else (or someone else's kids) have to fight it.

The term "chicken hawk" is a very accurate and appropriate depiction of such people.

[liamd1]

And if you are on welfare, you can't vote.

[ajmediator]

Before you shut out the President, you may wish to do a quick read of the Constitution which clearly states the Military answers to civilians and ultimately the Commander in Chief is the President.

It is however important that those in congress who so aggressively support war, experience some level of the pain if you will, compared to those they so readily send in to battle.

Clearly and unfortunately this is unrealistic but it would surely temper the fervor of our elected officials to start and/or escalate wars where we don't belong and that have nothing to do with protecting the American Way of life.

[Reality Czech]

Anoyone in this day and age who "wants" war for the sake of war has no credibility period.

However, some wars must be fought. Our question remains is whether or not Afghanistan remains worht fighting for.

I would say that preventing the return of Taliban rule is a noble goal. However, strategy should dictate once that is accomplished we not repeat the mistakes of Iraq and intead rebuild nation through diplomancy and aid.

[JulieSA]

I'm still wondering how you can perpetuate this chickenhawk meme when the current CiC never served but campaigned on a promise to escalate in Afghanistan. He used his strong stance for the war there to get elected.

Don't you see the inconsistency here?

[BillN]

No.

[Chris]

I am sure it just was an oversight but Mr Obama claims Afghanistan is a war of necessity. Since his girls are too young are you honestly suggesting that POTUS sign up for duty?

Or does you "new rule" only apply to those you disagree with?

[regellner]

Bombs and bullets will not win this war.
Today marks the 8th Anniversary of the Afghanistan War. We need to shift the strategy to one of social and economic development, rather than continue on our present path.

Following is a commentary on this line of thought:

http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m10d7-Difficult-decisions-abound-for-President-Obama-on-eighth-anniversary-of-Afghanistan-War


Raymond Gellner – National Liberal Examiner at Examiner.com
http://www.examiner.com/x-11326-Liberal-Examiner
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­________

[davidly]

Since the president campaigned this war to his advantage, indeed, promising to send more troops, I think it might not have been a bad idea to send anyone who voted for him straight to boot camp.

[alex61]

The basic premis is silly. Do have to be a combat veteran or of combat age, or have a child in uniform to be in support of a war? Any number of presidents, including Democrats, made the tough decision to fight wothout being vets or having children in harm's way. It has nothing to do with these things. You either believe the war is necessary and support it or you don't. End of story.

Nobody likes or wants war. People who support a war know how terrible it is and are not "war mongers," but they are thinking of the hoped for outcome that would make the awful investment worth it. People who think they are "superior" because they are "anti-war" or "for peace" are as silly as the premis. But they do have the right to be self righteous because other people over the generations have gone out to do the dirty work for them.

[enlightened45]

I think your premise is naive. Of course, some want military conflict. Conflict means big bucks for corporation, just look at Blackwater, Halliburton, Wachenhut, etc. The general theme is that those who have a personal investment will make a much more deliberate decision than those who do not.

I wish you were correct that nobody likes or wants war, however, reality shows that is not the case.

[ICorpsDoc]

"Nobody likes or wants war"

Totally disagree with this statement. Many do. Even those on the front lines. I certainly did when it was my time to ruck up.

I do believe that our previous VP was over joyed also to have his Iraq war.

Clearly he did not give a hoot about AStan.

And it shows

[davidly]

Don't you see? People who support the war - ESPECIALLY IF THEY DON'T LIKE WAR - need the reality check of being forced to face it. They are the ones having the dirty work done for them.

[alex61]

This is great. I see I riled you libs up with my observations. How do you know I didn't serve? It makes you feel good to think that only "chicken hawks" (whatever) support a war. Do you think that not having served automatically makes a person wonderful?

USMC 1969-1973

[dadw5boys]

If your going to knock the President and Support a War then I think you need to have an iron in the fire !

Supporting a War is something that is dangerous even to the Soldiers.

They wrong people too often have more Media Access the those without a PROFIT MOTIVE !!!!!!

[cigi]

alex, my son is in Iraq and is scheduled already for a tour of duty in Afghanistan 2012. As his Mother, he has my complete support, morally and financially with my taxes. However, I work with several groups right now who are calling for "peace"...­I have done this ever since the Vietnam war, the war my husband served in . My family has a long heritage of military service of which I am proud and appreciative of. My Mother and Father were both in the military during WWII. My Father retired after his ship was sunk in the South Pacific in 1944 on a medical discharge. We must strive for peace with all the same zealotry as those who constantly push for wars..main­ly the "military industrial complex" that President Eisenhower warned us against. The industrial elites of this country who make weapons of war are in the "business of war" and it behooves us all to remember that! Too many of our pols have never served and never will have children who will serve either. I believe that does limit their insights to war and the realities of the life and death decisions that they are making. I am for a program whereby ALL young people give time service to their country, whether it be in a civilian endeavor or military. Too many people wave the flag with no understanding of patriotism­.Too many Americans have an unreasonable sense of entitlement from country rather than duty to country.

[fiftysomethingMO]

I'm a vet and I agree with this post. If you want to vote to go to war then any military age children you have should be drafted and put on the front lines. I think it would make the decision to go to war much more thoughtful.

[alex61]

I, too, am a vet but I understand that national decisions to fight are not based on the age of your children. I certainly understand the emotions involved, but that's not how these decisions are made at the very top. National interest decides these choices, just as they always have. We have all of our rights and freedoms because Americans have always been willing to fight if necessary. If we lose that because of our emotions, then we are finished.

[ez14livin]

If you cannot convince your own offspring of the 'serious national security' matters that warrant declaring war, you have no business 'selling' it to the masses.

[davidly]

We don't, however, have any freedoms because Americans have always been willing to fight when not necessary. To assume that every time those "at the very top" make a decision to go to war that it is necessary is the most surefire way to surrender that supposed freedom.

[cigi]

alex, the test for me is if I want a war and I believe in the position of pursuing that war, then I must be willing to say that I would give a child, a husband, a wife, a sister or brother to go pursue that war. Save for WWII, I cannot think of a war that we have fought since then that has not been more for political rather than national protection of our country. We retaliated for 911 and that was for a show of strength..­.what we are doing now in Iraq and Afghanistan has not made us safer and I do not see a good outcome for us or those who will be sent there in the future. The Iraqis and Afghans need to be left to do what they will with their own countries. We will not win hearts or minds at the end of a gun or if we are perceived as the "infidel occupiers".

[cigi]

What you are promoting is the reason we are paying jerks like BlackWater or any other mercenary force to do the "dirty work" of war billions while griping about payraises and benefits for our own military who have to work along side with these thugs. THe Romans took the mercenary route while they expanded their "empire". Their populace sat at home and went to see the Lions eat the Christians every weekend. The Roman people were totally dumbed down with the circus' and bread they were given to eat and eventually they imploded internally. I see America doing that now...we make nothing, we do nothing except jobs that include "do you want fries with that?" or Wall Street and the Bankers making money off other people's money like they are croupees in Vegas. The Romans lasted a 1000 years, bet we can take down this country in 300 at the rate and direction we are going in.

[JulieSA]

So Chelsea Clinton and John Edwards' daughters should've been drafted. Is that what you're saying?

[dadw5boys]

agreed --- how many bought their way out of the Vietnam War --- I know 3 .

[cigi]

Yeah, Cheney got more military deferments than he has chins right now! Bush Boy got a sweet deal with the Reserves and believe me in the mid to late 1960s you had to know someone to get a ride with the Reserves or the Guard and THEY DID NOT go to the front lines like they do today. Even in Desert Storm, my son's unit was sent to Europe and the Regular Army guys serving in Europe went to the desert. Our Reserves and Guard units are being misused to avoid a draft right now and employers here are griping that they are tired of holding jobs for them...eve­n government jobs! How patriotic of American business.

[enlightened45]

Agreed, but be sure the military position is actually one of substance. For example, Palin's son was assigned to drive VIP visitors around in Iraq, and this assignment does not give her full credibility on making war statements. Some have served legitimately and some have just been assigned. Those just assigned certainly do not deserve the respect of people like McCain and others who did not use their position or contacts for a cushy detail.

[CuaViet68]

This could also be said of Al Gore who was not in a line company in Nam, but his journalistic duties with Stars and Stripes should not diminish his Honorable service. Whether or not his father's Senatorial clout was a factor is a mute point. He opted NOT to skate, for this he is to be commended.

[enlightened45]

I agree with you completely, however, he was a journalist; not on the front lines, and of course, his father's clout had EVERYTHING to do with it. I guess I am overreacting and making this issue too clear cut, but the position I take is for those responsible for putting military in harm's way need to have some personal investment in the decision.

[dadw5boys]

many of us joined to fight only to meet some test score and end up doing paper work.

We had to get into trouble to get to the front lines.

[alex61]

A fair comment. Liberals bashed Bush because he was "only" a trained fighter pilot. Let's not forget that Clinton was an actual draft dodger yet sent our miltary to Bosnia and Somalia. Remember "Black Hawk Down?"

[TheHandyman]

Liberals bashed Bush because he was AWOL if not totally a deserter and he sent over 4000 young Americans to a needless death. Bush is, was, and always will be a liar and a coward. And Clinton didn't lie to send our troops to either Bosnia nor Somalia! And you conveniently forget thaqt it wasn't only Liberals who bashed Bush. Anyone with an IG greater than 60 recognized the shrub for what he was. And that leaves you 20 points shy of making the cutoff!

[frank1569]

Another new rule:

Stop calling it a f@#king war already - unless you can produce the Act of Congress declaring War on Afghanistan.

We, The USA, have fulfilled the goals laid out in the original AUMF in Afghanistan - according to our own military commanders, Al Qaeda is no longer present, the country is not harboring terrorists (and never has, actually,) and there is no proof that, once we and NATO leave, the country will again become a 'safe haven' for 'terrorists (but, since it never was, it's improbable that it would become such.)

Do words still matter? Are they still important? Yes? Well, there's is a huge impact difference between 'war' and 'illegal military presence on foreign soil." If we keep using the word 'war,' we keep enabling the profiteers and their fear/patriot cards; if we stop, and start saying 'illegal military presence on foreign soil," then maybe - just maybe - more fellow Americans will realize that our soldiers have no business killing Afghans and need to come home ASAP.

[enlightened45]

Sorry, but war, military action, and illegal military presence, have all come to mean the same thing. A combat death is still a death, no matter what the conflict is called.

[holeybuybull]

Our presence in Afghanistan forces the Taliban into Pakistan and thereby creates instability in a nation that has nuclear weapons and is supposed to be our "ally". An excellent example of why the term "military intelligence" is an oxymoron.