Quote:
|
Originally Posted by glenmore
So I guess you extend the same courtesy to mothers of fallen soldiers who support the war effort wholeheartedly? Where does that leave your anti-war arguments?
From this article:
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200508170759.asp
I quote the author:
"at the end of the day, arguments must stand on their own merits, regardless of who delivers them". |
I in no way tried to downplay the opinions or credibility of mothers who lost children in Iraq but support the war nonetheless. I say let them speak out. Haven't heard too much about such a group. Could be they're hedging their bets.
I read most of the NReview article. I can only stomach so much of those guys -- they remind me of the Weekly Standard crowd: masters of spin. That's why they make the big bucks.
I'm not too keen on Sheehan's energy, man. I didn't do a nation-wide search for a spokesperson for the anti-war faction. She turned up. What can I do about that? Maybe she's getting an ego supercharging from all of this.
There's no way anyone can defend the former regime of Saddam and boys. I agree he needed reining in and defanging. I strongly disagree with the way we went about it. All of these crocodile tears for poor chickenhawks (see NRO piece). Funny how the real vets were a lot more cautious about this thing going in than the non-vets. I'm not a vet. I don't think that disqualifies me from speaking out in civic matters or defense issues. Still, Bush and Cheney embraced the warrior thing when they could be the power behind the generals, but avoided it when it was their time for dues-paying, even though they supported the mission at the time (Vit-nam). In light of that, I think they should have given more weight than they did to the views of Powell and Shinseki.
They didn't. Things not looking so good. Saddam's in jail. Whoopee.