National Review's limitless chutzpah
By Steve Benen Monday Aug 06, 2007 8:11amThe Iraq war's most enthusiastic backers tend to have something in common with those who launched the war in the first place: they never served in the military. But that didn't stop National Review's W. Thomas Smith from writing this gem:
[T]he majority of the most vocal of the war critics have never even worn the uniform of our country.
As Kevin Drum put it, "You gotta admit, it takes balls for someone writing for National Review to even bring up the subject."
Frissssssssssssssst
are any of the staff or writers of this blog veterans? have any of you had your patriotism exploited to the point your life was in danger? i don't think you have to be a veteran to talk about how evil this war is, and chickenhawks are thick on both sides, but the real side, working people arwe the real victims. brainwashed from birth by the msm to be good consumers, good "patriots", good soldiers, good haters, good bye i say to the bullshit.
working people of the united states...maqrch on washington!!
I wore the uniform and I was against this travesty from the get-go. National review, blow me.
Newt Gingrich says war on terror is phony:
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/08/03/newt0803.html?=r...
The last National Reviewer to wear a uniform, except for those in Village People costumes, is probably William Buckely. From answers.com.
"Buckley served in the U.S. Army from 1944 to 1946, then entered Yale University and graduated with honors in 1950. In 1951 he examined his university education in his first book, God and Man at Yale. The 25-year-old Buckley wrote that he entered Yale with a firm belief in Christianity, limited government, and the free enterprise system. But he found Yale's teachers, courses, and textbooks showed little sympathy for Christianity and private property.
Instead, they favored secular values and advocated centralized government planning. Buckley urged his fellow Yale alumni to elect university trustees who would reform the university and fire atheist and socialist faculty. Academic freedom, Buckley argued, was a superstition that denied the university's right to promote ideas and values essential to a good education."
He does have a strange idea about education though.
But ... But ... um ...W.T. Smith is a military technical consultant for a documentary film series produced by Popular Mechanics, doesn't that make him an expert on patriotism and supporting the troops? Come on now! Smith can use The Troops as cheap political props -- he's a trained professional.
I wore the green 69/70 and carry some metal souvenirs from the folks who objected to us coming to their country and trying to kill them. Chimpy, Vicechimpy,the ENTIRE staff of the NR, Limpwithnoballs, Handjobity, OLielly cowards all. Why does the Murican public tolerate this bunch of yellow elephant,chickenhawk, draft dodgers who are so ready to send OTHER people off to die?
The pot said what about the kettle?
Look, many of this war's architects aren't simply people who didn't serve. Most Americans didn't serve and that's nothing to be ashamed of.
But Cheney ACTIVELY AVOIDED SERVICE by working to get multiple deferments. And his excuse was that he "had other priorities at the time."
Here's OUR priorities:
Restore our unalienable rights, including but not limited to habeas corpus and due process immediately; prosecute those who took these rights away.
Close secret prisons and end torture (whatever euphemism is being used to justify it); prosecute those responsible.
End the occupation of Iraq and bring our troops home, starting today; prosecute those responsible for lying us into war, and perpetuating it.
Create actually free elections throughout the country by reversing gerrymandering, removing electronic paperless voting machines; prosecute those responsible.
My DD-214 from the 1980's says "Honorable Discharge". What's more, I was Army Chemical Corps (MOS 54E30) and knew all this "WMD" stuff was utter BS. You have to have huge, highly specialized buildings with special air compression equipment, massive amounts of stainless steel and ceramics, etc. to make that awful s**t, and given that we had near total dominance of the air and space, allowing for in-depth recon, the US never saw any, or found any instances of such facilities during the ground campaign because Saddam had dismantled them long ago. These armchair warriors disgust me to the max. F**king chickenhawks...
hadenuf @ 3:
I think Newt is the litmus test between rightwing nuts and rightwing completely batshit insane. Back in 1994, I couldn't believe the GOP could get much worse than Newt and Pat Buchanan. But this admin is such a clusterfuck that those two look like normal people... just somewhat eccentric. At least the GOP then occasionally denied reality to fit their agenda, whereas now, it has become routine.
That's a very interesting statement, considering the source. Let's see, who has never seen combat in Lord Vader's adminstration? Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz... shall we go on?
I've heard of stupidity but this is ridiculous.
One of the bumper stickers on my hybrid....
"How come so many who stand behind the Iraq War also stay behind?"
stand behind & stay behind are in yellow....for the yellow ribbons made in China, sold at corporatist/con-servative walmart...and 10% or less of the proceeds actually ever reach any of the men, women stuck in the middle of act II of the geopolitical energy endgame...
National Review’s limitless chutzpah
Now if only we could convert that chutzpah to an energy source... ;)
So what is the significance then of Newt calling BS on GWOT?
No democrat is willing to say that.
"T]he majority of the most vocal of the war critics have never even worn the uniform of our country."
A considerable number of us had veteran parents who were HORRIFIED at the Vietnam involvement, and taught us to distinguish from self-defense and profitable genocide.
You gotta admit, it takes balls for someone writing for National Review to even bring up the subject.”
these chicken shit chicken hawks have no balls.
hadenuf @ 14:
You need to understand that Gingrich is a proud father of this immoral invasion. He has his own parking space at the Pentagon, fancies himself a military tactics expert, and was Ronald Dumbsfeld's political advisor for the Iraq matter.
He is, in other words, a co-conspirator -- pitching the truth to his rightwing pals, and bragging about it.
He is not sorry. And he isn't funny. A million dead. Ha, ha, Newt.
There will be a glut of this kind of propaganda leading up to the September report from General Betrayus, who will basically try to tell us everything is going swimmingly.
Where are almsot 200,000 weapons lost on your watch Gen Betrayus?
I've got a button:
"Like the war? Send your kids to the front lines!"
My husband was in the navy. He has been against the war from the beginning.
The last major war was Vietnam and most of those veterans know you don't go to war based on a hunch, or in this case, a lie.
(I'm a Democrat. Does that qualify?)
pissed off patricia @ 20:
The military-industrial complex doesn't have wars, they have corporate genocides for profit.
I wore the uniform through GWB's first term of office, and I still never supported the war in Iraq. If he's just comparing politicians and pundits, and ignoring everyone else then he still can't come up with more veteran war supporters then those are against this debacle in Iraq.
In general most people on both sides of the aisle haven't served in the military, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that by itself. It's just when we get an understanding of what lengths most warhawk politicians went to dodge the draft in their own time that it becomes shameful and hypocritical. And of course the obvious point of having someone with no military experience hypocritically try to discredit others based on the lack of military service. It's too bad the NRO are too cowardly to even have a comment section or give some sort of contact so they can be inundated by replies from war veterans against the war. I guess is all fun and games as long it's other people that are doing the fighting...
Thanks for setting me straight, Paul in LA :) Good phraseology.
Lord of Karma @ 23:
Far more Democrats have served. In 2006, Democrats fielded several veteran candidates -- the Republicans had NONE.
That pretty much says it all about the Warmonger Party.
nemo @ 9:
My DD-214 also says "Honorable Discharge. It's from the 1960's. I agree with everything you say.
pissed off patricia @ 20:
The last major war was WWII.
Conflicts since then include Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War II
Invasions for the greater good since then include Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan
Thanks, Paul in LA.
I was hoping that Gingrich's position meant that we'd have a kinder, gentler fascism, but I see that I'm wrong.
He must have been nurturing future chickenhawks.
I'm old :-) & a disabled vet of the crappy Korean Conflict.
This fact doesn't make me smart. I have many friends who
didn't serve in the military & they clean my clock when we
argue politics. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
My gripe is the hypocrisy of the Conservatives who never served
but want your kid to visit Iraq for an extended period of time
while they & their kids are safe at home.
And thank you too, Jay for also setting me straight. I must have woken up crooked this morning :)
Paul in LA @ 25:
True, and what's more hypocritical is that the article mentions Murtha by name as well, which sort of destroys his point if he's bringing up the Democrats lack of experience.
I was fortunate enough to get a chance to deploy to Kosovo where I got to see how a functioning military under a competent Commander-in-Chief (I'm talking about Clinton here) was able to help rebuild a country. In all the talk about who served when, the important point here is that even now the Kosovar's look up to the Bill Clinton and the NATO forces as heroes, while those in Iraq curse the destruction that the president's policy has wrought in their country. In the end, all the poorly played ad hominem attacks won't mask the terrible effect the President has had on the region or how out of touch his defenders happen to be.
As a veteran, I appreciate this post. I'm sick of the hypocrisy of the right. Just because they happen to be on the right politically doesn't make them right morally or ethically. In fact, it just makes them a bunch of hypocritical fascists who think supporting the flag is more important than supporting our constitution.
Mr Smith makes a compelling case that wars are sweet, wonderful and desirable. His love and infatuation of war is very remarkable.
Perhaps he would like to spread war all over the world and even bring it home to the USA? Isn't war just the greatest thing ever? Mr. Smith clearly thinks so.
Maybe we need little magnets for our cars that say, Support the Constitution.
The constitution is being tortured these days as it is getting pulled apart piece by piece.
Sorry, it's a bit long. But just for the record:
Democrats:
Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V Purple Hearts.
John Edwards: did not serve.
Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-1953.
Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
Jack ! Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine ! in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
Chuck Robb: Vietnam
Howell Heflin: Silver Star
George McG! overn: Bomber pilot, many missions. Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
Bill Clinton: Avoided service with student deferments. Entered draft but received 311.
Jimmy Carter: Annapolis grad. Seven years in the Navy.
Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters
Tom Lantos: Said to have served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.
Wesley Clark: U.S. Army, 1966-2000, West Point, Vietnam, Purple Heart, Silver Star. Retired 4-star general.
John Dingell: WWII vet
John Conyers: Army 1950-57, Korea
Republicans:
Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
Tom Delay: did not serve.
House Whip Roy Blunt: did not serve.
Bill Frist: did not serve.
Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
George Pataki: did not serve.
Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
Rick Santorum: did not serve.
Trent Lott: did not serve.
Dick Cheney: did not serve. Had "other priorities." Several deferments, the last for wife's pregnancy.
John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
Jeb Bush: did not serve.
Karl Rove: did not serve.
Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Vin Weber: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
Douglas Feith: did not serve.
Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
Richard Shelby: did not serve.
Jon Kyl: did not serve.
Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
Christopher Cox: did not serve.
Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
Donald Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as aviator and flight instructor.
George W. Bush: six-year Nat'l Guard commitment (in four years); questions about his service remain.
Ronald Reagan: made war propaganda movies.
Gerald Ford: Navy, WWII
Phil Gramm: did not serve.
John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
Bob Dole: Army officer WWII.
Chuck Hagel: two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Duke Cunningham: nominated for Medal of Honor, Navy Cross, Silver Stars, Air Medals, Purple Hearts.
Jeff Sessions: Army Reserves, 1973-1986
JC Watts: did not serve.
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
G.H.W. Bush: Pilot in WWII. Shot down by the Japanese.
Tom Ridge: Bronze Star for Valor in Vietnam.
Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
Clarence Thomas: did not serve
Pundits & Preachers
Sean Hannity: did not serve.
Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
Michael Savage: did not serve.
George Will: did not serve.
Chris Matthews: did not serve.
Paul Gigot: did not serve.
Bill Bennett: did not serve.
Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
Bill Kristol: did not serve.
Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
Michael Medved: did not serve.
We all know our military is based on volunteering, so until it becomes compulsory the vast majority of Americans will never put on the uniform. No logical person would argue that only the vast minority should have a voice in the debate... but, yeah, guess I realize we're not dealing with intellectually honest people here.
That's the point, at least for some of us.
Pacifists do not fight in wars. We fight against them.
On the other hand, one would expect warriors to, you know, actually fight in wars.
Heh. Indeed.
hadenuf @ 14:
plenty of dems have said it.....
I have never been in a terrible train wreck either. Does that disqualify me from knowing that should be avoided at all costs?
Show me a war worth fighting, and I'll consider serving.
His argument has no legitimacy, let's not try to point out who served what - it makes no difference:
1. We argue within the framework of a DEMOCRACY and the Bill of Rights. Standing in opposition to or support of the war doesn't require a military CV.
2. Patriotism is a divisive ideology to begin with, it only puts labels on people, divides the world into political, social and ethnic groups and separates us along abstract lines. True progressive thought goes beyond nations and states.
3. He isn't even a journalist worthy of discussion, he represents only one idiotic voice.
you know, the basics as fleshed out by the likes of Clausewitz, Jomini, and Frederick the Great...
Yea, need to be familiar with outdated treatsies on strategy just in case the Franco-Prussian war breaks out again.
Supposedly, this guy (W. Thomas Smith Jr.) was "a former U.S. Marine rifle squad leader, parachutist, and shipboard counterterrorism instructor." Not sure if that means he actually served in the Marines or what, but I thought his comments on Pat Tillman speak volumes about his perspective and depth of intellect...
"Tillman was either a patriot or he wanted to go to war and smoke somebody. Maybe both."
By questioning Pat Tillman's patriotism or claiming to know why he volunteered to serve his country, Mr. Smith displays an incredible depth of ignorance or self-aggrandizement. Maybe both. (who else actually believes Pat went to war because he wanted to 'smoke somebody'? I mean, WTF? You have to be a little off-kilter to come up with that one, let alone telling the whole world that's what you believe.)
But it gets better...
"As far as whether or not there was a coverup: Who knows? Who cares?.... But does it really matter? No."
Again, this dolt puts on a public display of incredible crassness and an unbelievable lack of concern for the truth. I mean, how hypocritical is it for Mr. Smith to proclaim to be espousing the truth about what's going well in Iraq, while at the same time saying finding the truth about what happened to Pat Tillman and a potential coverup "doesn't matter".
This guy is truly an ass-wipe.
I served - 3years active duty in the Army M.P. corps (1978-81, Honorable Discharge)
Missing from the list above is Jim Webb, Navy Cross from Viet nam (the citation reads like something from a Hollywood action movie) and Bob Dole's purple heart - he can't use his right arm due to his injury in Italy during WWII
The fellow that wrote this article for National Review, W. Thomas Smith, did serve in the military.
His bio:
A frequent contributor to National Review Online and a columnist at Townhall.com, Smith's work has appeared in USA Today, U.S. News & World Report, and other publications. He also serves as director of the Counterterrorism Research Center of the Family Security Foundation. He is executive editor of World Defense Review and a contributing editor for NavySEALs.com. A former U.S. Marine rifle squad leader, parachutist, and shipboard counterterrorism instructor, Smith writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, the West Bank, and Iraq. Smith has served on the adjunct faculty at the University of South Carolina’s School of Journalism, and he is a military technical consultant for The New Technology of War, a documentary film series produced by Popular Mechanics.
Seems to me he's more than qualified to give his opinion on the war.
myiq2xu @ 44:
me...75-78...same HD....I was against this from the beginning....in March 03 ...I just thought that this was the stupidest thing ."After all this was the guy who tried to kill my dad" ....I knew we were going into Iraq when he said that.
I seem to recall that Commando Jonah Goldberg once led The Doughy Pantload Battalion and liberated several creme horns from the shelf of a deli.
-GSD
Sarcastro @ 42:
Our military officers read Clauswitz - one of the greatest military strategists in history. Even better was Sun Tzu, who wrote The Art of War. Both the Iraqi insurgents and our old friends the Viet Cong seem to understand old Sunny:
"Enemy advance, we retreat. Enemy halt, we harass. Enemy retreat, we advance."
Jeremiah @ 43:
This comment says a lot about Mr. Smith. Perhaps he entered the military for the thrill of killing and maiming people?
It never occurred to me that Pat Tillman maybe wasn't a patriot, or that he entered the military for the thrill of inflicting pain and suffering. I have to wonder about people who think of such things first.
dennis @ 46:
Is he qualified to make statements about the motives of people he has no knowledge of? That is what he argues. He claims to have omnipotent powers of insight into people he knows nothing about.
dennis @ 46:
It makes no difference if he's 'qualified to give his opinion'. Hell, we all qualify 'to give our opinion'. What matters is whether he makes an intelligent, rational, constructive argument. It's my opinion that he doesn't (see previous post). But, what matters even more is who actually believes idiots like Mr. Smith.
BAlls? Not so sure about that because if they had em..they would be a dusty pair from Iraqi sand now wouldn't they? I for one am once again tired..as I was in the 60's.. of individuals lecturing folks on patriotism and not one of them, or there children are carrying a weapon in the middle east nor were they then in south east Asia. The college Republicans of the 60s and this century are the same...big mouths but certainly wouldn't see them on the front line of anything except maybe a cocktail bar...just like mom and dad. You want an end to this crap..and all the "optional" wars in the future? Restore the draft for both boys and girls with NO deferments of anykind. I will wager that peace will prevail...and very quickly. As long as the poor are the fodder of war...there will always be war because the poor do not govern.
Jeremiah @ 52:
We're all entitled to our own opinion. We're not entitled to our own facts. He made a factual assertion that is unsupported by any data and that, IMHO, is wrong.
The FUCKING HELL I DIDN'T WEAR THIS COUNTRIES UNIFORM!!!!! Mr. Smith better hope to his god satan that I never meet him in person!
POP @ 34, I like that idea! A LOT!!!
It doesn't take balls to write something like that. Most of the scribblers at National Review are just too fucking dumb to realize that they're leaving themselves open to criticism.
dennis @ 46:
So what?....Big Deal....Doesn't make him smart does it..Doesn't make this war right or legal or anything...And oh yeah....I'm a veteran against this war....And if I say I'm right...then dammit I'M RIGHT!!...Just like this Smith character....IT'S easy....if he's supporting it...it's cause he's GETTING PAID TO....SIMPLE...
The author writes as if he's a decorated vet himself. There's so much in those few paragraphs that's just so evil, so wrong on every level.
The people get the government and the war they deserve... let's not forget how many people voted for Bush when to many of us here, it was already WELL KNOWN what a bunch of crooks and liars they already were... so it's not surprising that these days, it's hard to find someone willing to admit they voted for Bush.
And anyone who volunteered to "serve", knowing what was ALREADY KNOWN, should not be surprised at the misery the Bushies are putting them through, before during and after their service.
Isn't that a bit like claiming, "Almost NONE of the people arguing against murder have ever killed someone."
myiq2xu @ 54:
Yeah, unless you're part of the Bush Administration.
"I pretend my husky boy pants are BDUs"-Jonah Goldberg
If there is any aspect of this war that is a mess, it is the militarily stifling mess created by the micro-managing politicians who think they know something about warfighting and the classic principles of war (you know, the basics as fleshed out by the likes of Clausewitz, Jomini, and Frederick the Great).
Oh, man! "The classic principles of war" eh? Jesus! What are we dealing with here, a fucking history major in college? Hey slick, there's a goddamn big difference between READING about war and ACTUALLY fighting it. I'd love to see this dickhead go over to the Anbar province and start giving the troops a lecture about what Von Clausewitz would have done. I'd say he gets fragged inside of an hour. Shit, I guess this idiot Smith wants to get adopted by Fred Kagan's family.
I have worn the uniform of this country proudly. And from the beginning I opposed the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation. I didn't temporize about the terrible Hussein regime or endorse the obviously skewed intelligence that flowed from the Bush propaganda machine.
I'm tired of those who helped us get into this mess assess my motivations, history and patriotism.
They should be defending themselves, not attacking me.
pissed off patricia @ 39:
It's a bit like claiming, “Almost NONE of the people arguing against murder have ever killed someone.“
Jeremiah @ 43:
In the comments of Kevin Drum's article, someone linked to a bashing of Smith boasting about his military career. Smith graduated from University of South Carolina with a BA in History in 1982, and was in the Marines for five years... I'm guessing that like most people with a BA in humanities, he couldn't get a job anywhere and decided to enlist. It looks like most of his assignment was guarding South Korea and playing war games in that area.
Oh, one other fact I'd like to point out to W.Thomas- Generals stopped following the rules of warfare as set down by your heroes Clausewitz, Jomini, and Frederick the Great way back in the Civil War when they realized that "the classic principles of war" as you call them, were getting men killed by the hundreds per hour. After that, both sides started to rely more and more on trench warfare.
Kevin Drum's article has comments where someone linked to a bashing of Smith boasting about his military career. Smith got a BA in History in 1982 from the Univ. of S. Carolina... and like most people with a humanities BA, probably couldn't find a job. He joined the marines after college and was there for five years. Most of his assignment was guarding S. Korea and playing war games in the region.
gene214 @ 61:
What exactly, do you think that our cadets at the U.S. Military Academies (West Point, Annapolis, Colorado Springs) study? We also have what is known as the "War College" where officers go for advanced study. They study every conflict in history to learn what works or doesn't work, and why.
BTW - I was a history major in college, before law school.
What kind of twisted logic is that? Let me get this straight. It's okay for draft doggers and chickenhawks to war monger but those who haven't served in the military have no right to stand up for peace? My brain hurts.
Mr. W. Thomas "I'm a Journalist" Smith Jr:
"To me accuracy is everything".
http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzdhZmJjYzdkOGVhMzc3NTUzOTBiOWJiM...
He forgot to mention accuracy is everything except when it comes to Pat Tillman.
http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzIzZTc1ZDg1YzE0M2Q4YmY0ZTIwNjFiN...
Excuse me? How many Repukes never served a full day in their lives? Mad King George included.
Mr Smith wants to lead the charge of Flanders field. What a guy.
What makes me crazy is the broad brush of who opposes this war. Sure there are a number of people on the "left" who, rightly, oppose this war, but there are those of us in the great "unwashed" middle who recognize the folly.
As a former Marine & an Annapolis graduate (Like Jim Webb), it is easy to see from studying Clausewitz what the outcome would become. Clausewitz wrote extensively of the will of the people to resist. Like Britain in 1940-41, our actions have galvanized their "will" and due to mismanagement, deceit and outright lies, our "will" has been broken.
I truly resent those that use our military as props or a shield. It is both disgraceful and cowardly.
Leadership is leadership. We have a void in this area that has put us in peril.
I'm an air force veteran that did crash recovery for war games here in the states (during desert storm). If i start spouting off about how you should support the disaster in Iraq, feel free to call me a chickenhawk. I know Mr. Smith's credentials. He's a f*cking chickenhawk just like the rest of the twits that play with GI Joe's at NRO.
I never served and was opposed to this war from the beginning. Growing up, I learned from my father and grandfather, (Korea and WWI respectively) and my friends' fathers, all of whom served in WWII, that war is a horrible, awful, thing which should be avoided at all costs unless we or our allies are attacked. Only chickenhawks don't seem to learn this lesson. Draft the college republicans.
Well, Mr Smith is right about me. I never served, and I oppose the war.
Before I give support for the war, I'd like a better answer to some questions.
1. What fucking noble cause?
2. What will winning look like?
3. What will we win?
4. Is our current plan of just slaughtering thousands of people, the best way to achieve out goals?
5. Why does our strategy remain constant while our enemies adapt?
6. Are we fucking up constantly as part of a broader plan toward victory?
7. Is it true that we are responsible for planting many of the bombs that have triggered this civil war?
8. How do you militarily bring peace through escalation?
9. How do you boost morale by screwing the troops over?
10. If we're not willing to bring back the draft, are we committed enough to win?
11. Does keeping the draft off the table, embolden our enemies?
michael @ 2:
I agree with you there. I wore the uniform (USMC) as well and have been against this screw up from the start. The National Review and others that still support it have never served as stated. Hell, I'd lay odds that a Private right out of boot camp has more knowledge about tactics, over all strategy, and the military in general than all of those at the National Review, Republican Party and the Bush Administration combined.
tp @ 71:
Exactly. They assume that every anti-war protester is a draft-card burning dirty fucking hippie... and yet they accuse liberals of thinking 30-40 years backwards. Remember when Tweety was absolutely shocked that the group of anti-war protesters being interviewed "were a bunch of clean folks"?
Yeeesh! Neo-con SOP. Accuse your opponemt of the sins YOU are most guilty of...
myiq2xu @ 66:
Great, that's just great! So the brass study a lot of cool military history and shit. I'm impressed! And then they go over to a place like Iraq where the working class grunts are fighting house to house counter insurgency; a place where the enemy can be practically anybody, and all that really neat history they learned at West Point means exactly jack shit in real life. How many troops die because their officers can't get it through their thick skulls that what worked for Patton in WWII is useless in places like Iraq?
michael @ 2:
Ditto.
Blue Buddha @ 76:
Agreed. That is the assumption which is also incorrect. Many of those "draft card buring hippies" today are veterans as well.
Being pro-war does not make one a "chickenhawk." John McCain is not a chickenhawk, even though he continues to support the war. William "Bloody Bill" Kristol is a chickenhawk.
What's the difference? McCain put his life on the line for his country, but Kristol never did.
Chickenhawks are pro-war, but only if someone else has to do the killing and dying.
They want you to die for their country.
dennis @ 46:
Reich-wingers state a vet is "qualified to give his opinion on the war" as long as they support the "war".
"You've got to admit they've got balls..."
Yeah, exactly, and that's why Democrats are spineless and lose elections. We have no balls and bitch about Mike Stark going to Orally's house because we want to always take the high road. While the conservatives continue to use their balls and go on the offensive time after time after time.
Sorry, but I've lost all hope after seeing "some" Democrats cave in on the Protect America Act (FISA). Just a few months ago, I was on here debating against the idea we're getting closer to a Fascist nation. Now I'm not so sure I could make the same argument.... What a sad time in our country's history.
Matthew Graybosch @ 40:
Here are some reich-wing "wars" you can choose from:
The "war" against x-mas"
The "culture war"
The "war against brown people"
The "war against rap music"
The war against the truth, facts, and honesty
gene214 @ 78:
Dude, it ain't the officers' fault - it's their chickenhawk commander in chief's fault.
Patricia - The point of having someone who actually was in the front lines, watching their buddies die, killing the innocent people who just got in the way. This experience would make someone go to the last degree before sending anyone else into this hell.
Our volunteer military had no qualms going into Afganistan, even though 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi...but making them die in Iraq is beyond evil...for Bush's ego..revenge..to save his father's face for not pursuing Saddam....we will never know the mind of a maniac with power.
And fact checking on Republicans who served...for one GHB is vague about being "shot down by Japanese". There is a contradiction that no shot was received...but a small electrical fire started and Bush jumped leaving his crew behind. Read that and think.
And war is war no matter what it is called the loss of losing your family is the same..... now as for Grenada that was Reagon's fantasy...there was no reason to "rescue" college kids from the island....come on.
Dr. Matt @ 82:
Agreed. and when they find one they hide behind him/her. Fortunately, the numbers of those "qualified" military people that the right hides behind are dwindling by the day. Every service person sees this leadership in many of the same ways as those that oppose this war. Still other veterans and active duty see them as completely incomptent.