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.
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.
Cheney, Bush, et al - that made me sick, too.
The horrors of war are unimaginable.
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.
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.
Don't you see the inconsistency here?
Or does you "new rule" only apply to those you disagree with?
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
__________________________________________________________
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.
I wish you were correct that nobody likes or wants war, however, reality shows that is not the case.
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
We had to get into trouble to get to the front lines.
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.