Tie A Yellow Ribbon—Or Else

|

I doubt that the editors of The New Republic met with Michelle Malkin and decided to craft of message of the day. It's probably just luck that puts Rob Anderson's screed against "The Left's military hatred" on the same calender date as Malkin's expose of the fifth column at UC Santa Cruz.

Anderson's is the less convincing of the two epistles, if for no other reason than Malkin has pictures. He reviews a short book called 10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military, a collection … of well, what the title says, written by wits like Cindy Sheehan. Books like this have been dropping from left-wing publishing houses for decades, but Anderson sees a trend brewing. Liberals like Matthew Yglesias, John Kenneth Galbraith, (ostensibly funny) columnist Joel Stein and "the editors of The Nation" have started wringing their hands about military intervention. It's practically epidemic!

Malkin, meanwhile, is working the campus military recruitment beat with words, photos, and at least two buckets of spittle. A group of anti-war students protested and kicked military recruiters out of a job fair, posted pictures of the deed, and haven't been punished yet. "This used to be called sedition," Malkin writes. (Although If our war-on-terror strategy depends on recruitment at UC Santa Cruz, I think we've already lost.)

Class act that she is, Malkin posts the names, numbers and e-mail addresses of the anti-war student leaders. I've never heard of anti-war students posting the contact info of individual soldiers or military recruiters.

NEXT: BIO 2006 Dispatch 4—Real Medical Tricorders Soon

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Gotta love the “chastened” liberal hawks.

    Came the same conclusions as I have, but three years earlier?

    You must hate The Troops.

  2. i want some of what michelle malkin is smoking. it must be really fuckin’ good.

  3. Malkin and others like her are hypocritical scum. She is always willing to voice her support for a military that she would never consider serving in. If she really supported the troops and the war as much as she claims, she would join up and do her part. I have zero respect for the chickenhawks that support sending our troops to fight a war that they are not willing to take part in.

  4. Absolutely class act that Michelle Malkin is.
    I say we flood her blog with comments in retaliation for posting numbers and addresses, oh wait, that’s right she doesn’t allow comments to her ever so insightful rants.
    She needs to take a deep breather, go home, lay out the Seder and break the Matzah and chill out on her left-bashing for just a bit.

  5. Scott,

    It’s the old “Great sacrifices will need to be made* to win this War” chestnut. It’s a longtime favorite of politicians and pundits.

    (*by the rest of you)

    Of course, someone like Malkin probably believes she’s doing her part by “taking the fight” to “liberals” here at home.

  6. Is it any wonder that shes referred to on the net as “Me So Horny”!! Sedition my pasty white butt! Fuckin Sean Hannity in drag!

  7. John Kenneth Galbraith, (ostensibly funny)

    JKG deserves his own “ostensibly funny” label. I look forward to his laughable columns in every issue of MJ.

  8. Posting names and addresses? Information longs to be free, I thought. Or is that just the other guy’s information?

  9. So far as I can see, Malkin only posted the contact information that the anti-military group provided on their own press release. Am I missing something?

  10. I’ve never heard of anti-war students posting the contact info of individual soldiers or military recruiters.

    Yet. Perhaps Malkin has just raised this to a whole new level?

    On a side note, why is it that whenever I see her picture on her site, I am reminded of alien photos from the Weekly World News? Legal aliens, of course.

  11. I have zero respect for the chickenhawks (sic) that support sending our troops to fight a war that they are not willing to take part in.

    Thanks for sharing what can only be called one of the stupidest statements ever written.

    Just because someone supports the war doesn’t mean they should fight in it. I’m straight, but support gay marriage. By your reasoning, if I really was serious about my support for gay marriage, I’d marry my best friend Debbie who is also straight.

    Every time I read the “Chicken hawks should enlist” line, I picture it coming from a very red-faced screaming adolescent ideologue and I say to myself, idealism, precedes experience.

  12. Just because someone supports the war doesn’t mean they should fight in it. I’m straight, but support gay marriage. By your reasoning, if I really was serious about my support for gay marriage, I’d marry my best friend Debbie who is also straight.

    Bad analogy–supporting gay marriage is not the same thing as supporting a cause that will require other people to put themselves at risk of death or dismemberment. And I have a low opinion of anyone who says “This cause is worth having people sacrifice their lives, but not mine. Let other people die for the cause I support; I’m too busy blogging about it.”

  13. Not to pick the nits but hypocrisy is indeed Malkin’s trademark. For example in her recent tirade about the immigration protestors (michellemalkin.com/archives/004971.htm) she decires “this obnoxious use of an American flag by a thug protester in Los Angeles wins the most offensive prize” for wearing the flag as a bandana covering his mouth. She then proceeds to point to the flag rules of etiquette declaring “Not that anyone cares about rules…”

    This wouldn’t be such a hard pill to swallow from her if it weren’t for this interview with The American Enterprise (taemag.com/issues/articleid.18657/article_detail.asp) where she states that,“I have a poster in my home office done by a young artist after 9/11 -a tastefully sketched Statue of Liberty holding a baby swaddled in the American flag.”
    She is referring to this picture: http://www.rememberingseptember11.com/images/LibertyBaby.jpg

    Not that anybody cares about consistency…

  14. UC Santa Cruz was the same place anti-war protestors bum-rushed the career day fair in a “demonstration” against the military. Guaranteed it’s those exact same kids, over again. After the first episode, I bet they love the spotlight.,,

  15. She’s on-point in the firefight against the Fifth Column on the homefront. The most important front on the entire War on Terror! How dare you call her a chickenhawk.

    (I think that’s how it goes).

  16. So what’s the problem with people intimidating other people so that yet other people will have fewer career choices?

    Some of the recruiters reported that their tires had been slashed and one employee at the career center was injured.

    If any man says he hates war more than I do, he better have a knife, that’s all I have to say.

  17. Remind me again why anybody listens to a single word of Malkin’s?

  18. I got my degree at UCSC. UCSC is famous for its unending stream of pointless student rallies. Many of these protests are of the low-stress variety, like “we’ll do a sit-in at the library”… which mainly results in the folks at the library being even smellier than normal.

    They had their moments, though. While I was there, Kresge College* “seceded” from UCSC, in a gesture to complain about… I dunno, student fees or something. I had a class at Kresge, and the students at the college entrance issued me an entrance visa. They had an article about it in the local paper; the UCSC chancellor said “I don’t even know what this means.”

    And then there was the petition (and protest?) of the local “Golden West Restaurant”, complaining that their logo (a slightly-cartoonish American Indian girl kneeling, holding up a stack of pancakes) “reinforced the negative stereotype of the supplicant Indian squaw”.

    larry

    * UCSC uses the “college system”, where the university is comprised of sub-colleges, each with their own culture. Kresge is, or at least was, the “art poseur” college. (Who was Kresge? A big donor. In fact, the founder of K-Mart!)

  19. I thought everybody at UCSC was too stoned to care about anything except getting stoned.

  20. Of course, someone like Malkin probably believes she’s doing her part by “taking the fight” to “liberals” here at home.

    Yeah…there’s nothing sadder than someone sold on their own bullshit.

    Remind me again why anybody listens to a single word of Malkin’s?

    Tell people what they wanna hear, and they’ll let you get away with anything.

  21. A. If you don’t like war you don’t join up. There is no draft, therefore, nobody is required to put themselves at risk of life or limb.

    B. Anti-War protestors are quite fond silencing anyone who disagrees with them. Last time I checked the 1st Amendment still applied at US Santa Cruz. I heard UCSC finally reinstated grades there (maybe that was Humboldt State).

    C. David is incorrect, the anti-war left has a 40 year history of publicizing nominally and not-so-nominally private information about people they don’t like. From corporate officers to Ronald Ray Gunz home address in Pacific Palisades.

    What if they gave a war and nobody came regards, TWC

  22. Just because someone supports the war doesn’t mean they should fight in it. I’m straight, but support gay marriage. By your reasoning, if I really was serious about my support for gay marriage, I’d marry my best friend Debbie who is also straight.

    Not just a bad analogy. A terrible analogy. For exactly the reason Jennifer mentioned. Fighting for civil rights doesn’t involve putting your life on the line every day (not for the last few decades, at least). You really should think about your comparisons before accusing others of being “adolescent.”

    I’ve always sadly suspected that any physically able young man or woman (especially a single, childless one) who strongly supports a war while refusing to fight in it is a coward. It would actually make me a less cynical person and generally happier if someone could point out the flaw(s) in my thinking.

  23. A. If you don’t like war you don’t join up. There is no draft, therefore, nobody is required to put themselves at risk of life or limb.

    This doesn’t quite apply to guys who signed up for the National Guard on the theory that they’d help their home state in the event of a hurricane, forest fire or other natural disaster, and instead find themselves in Iraq, risking their lives because Malkin is too chickenshit to risk her own for this cause in which she oh-so-strongly believes, but not enough to actually, you know, do anything concrete to help it.

  24. None of the above is to be construed as support for Michelle Malkin or the war.

  25. LOL@the contradiction Kwix mentioned. You’d think having a flag over your mouth would be LESS offensive than having it where a baby could commit an act of congress without warning…

  26. Jennifer, I disagree. The one actual function of the NG or the military is defense, ie, war. You go to basic training, you learn how to kill. They aren’t teaching you how to shoot an M-16 so you can shoot out a forest fire.

    Anyone who thinks otherwise is, with all due respect, naive. All the frills, all the promises of free education, free medical, base housing, dependent care bennies, et al, cannot mask the basic function of the military, which is war and death.

    I don’t disagree that war hawks who won’t fight deserve to be called on the carpet. I’ll freely admit that I don’t want my boy to end up in Iraq. But there is a huge difference between today’s all volunteer military and the one that dragged my friends off to Viet Nam without bothering to ask if that was okay with them. Big Difference.

  27. I’ve always sadly suspected that any physically able young man or woman (especially a single, childless one) who strongly supports a war while refusing to fight in it is a coward.

    I guess that means you see yourself — opposed to the war and therefore not fighting in it — as oh so brave!

  28. What would you die for, Les?

  29. Jennifer, I disagree. The one actual function of the NG or the military is defense

    Defense, yes. Pre-emptive war on false grounds, no. I’m surprised people–especially those who enlisted after 9-11–haven’t tried getting out of the military by arguing that they were done in by bait-and-switch tactics: I enlisted to defend my country from terrorism and/or get Osama Bin Laden, not invade a country which had nothing to do with 9-11.

    Not that any of this applies to chickenshit chickenhawks like Malkin, though. “This cause is worth risking human lives, but not my own–I’m far too busy explaining why we’d’ve lost World War Two if we hadn’t interned citizens of Japanese descent.”

  30. “I’m surprised people–especially those who enlisted after 9-11–haven’t tried getting out of the military by arguing that they were done in by bait-and-switch tactics: I enlisted to defend my country from terrorism and/or get Osama Bin Laden, not invade a country which had nothing to do with 9-11.”

    Maybe that is because the people serving who have actually been to Iraq and Afghanistan know a few things that you don’t.

  31. Kwix,
    Not to mention the fact that the Statue of Liberty is sexualized (well more than the original). The off the shoulder dress is a bit much, doncha think?

  32. To say that the National Guard members just joined up to get an education and help with a local hurricane is a slap in the face to every guard member in the country.

    Even if so, slapping a guy in the face is a hell of a lot better than sending him off to die for a bullshit reason. But this, of course, is far from the original topic, which was: Malkin, and anybody else who supports this war without enlisting in the Army, is a vile hypocrite who will gladly send others off to die while they sit at home writing more-patriotic-than-thou blog posts.

  33. Maybe that is because the people serving who have actually been to Iraq and Afghanistan know a few things that you don’t

    C’mon, John. Who you gonna believe? Someone who?s been there or the omniscient media?

  34. Not that any of this applies to chickenshit chickenhawks like Malkin, though. “This cause is worth risking human lives, but not my own–I’m far too busy explaining why we’d’ve lost World War Two if we hadn’t interned citizens of Japanese descent.”

    They weren’t interned, they were relocated. And that makes all the difference in the world!

  35. Maybe that is because the people serving who have actually been to Iraq and Afghanistan know a few things that you don’t.

    Does this mean that people like Malkin and O’Reilly and those of their ilk should shut up about how everything is going so well over there, since they haven’t seen it for themselves?

  36. Even if so, slapping a guy in the face is a hell of a lot better than sending him off to die for a bullshit reason.

    I see you’re omiscient too! That must really come in handy. How fortunate for both you and those around you.

  37. That’s right Billy Ray.

    Jennifer,

    There are 1000s of people who disagree with you and do take up your challenge and do join up and do go off to be a part of wars that they believe in and are glad that they did. What torks me off about you is that you act like none of us exist. Instead, you paint a picture of poor defenseless morons being sent off to an evil war. That is what I find so insulting.

  38. O’Reilly and those of their ilk should shut up about how everything is going so well over there, since they haven’t seen it for themselves?

    O’Reilly has said repeatedly — repeatedly — that the administration has screwed up the war big-time. He has never said it is going well.

    And here I thought you were omniscient; what a big disappointment.

  39. I guess that means you see yourself — opposed to the war and therefore not fighting in it — as oh so brave!

    That’s a rather reflexive and illogical conclusion to come to. I’ve never considered myself brave (and I’m certainly not young anymore). But then I don’t encourage others to fight wars I refuse to fight myself.

  40. There are 1000s of people who disagree with you and do take up your challenge and do join up and do go off to be a part of wars that they believe in and are glad that they did. What torks me off about you is that you act like none of us exist.

    Yes, and there are people over there who think the war is bullshit and want to come home, and you act like none of them exist. But regardless of how many troops fall into each category, Michelle Mmalkin and the rest of the chickenhawks are hypocrites for demanding that people other than themselves risk death for this cause they believe in so much they’re willing to risk carpal-tunnel syndrome writing blog posts about it.

  41. They weren’t interned, they were relocated. And that makes all the difference in the world!

    Not Really.

    Until his death, I had a good friend who was relocated to a camp near Yellowstone. It had armed guards, concertina wire, and he was locked up for the duration of the war.

    Jesus Chrysler, man, it wasn’t like they moved him into an apartment in Dubuque.

    He was a US citizen, but that didn’t count for much neither.

  42. If I were Michelle Malkin I would refuse to fight, but I would insist that the military allow openly gay people to serve. If you want other people to die for a cause, wouldn’t you prefer that it be people that you don’t really like anyway?

    FWIW, I think that the Drug Enforcement Agency should be sent to Iraq.

  43. What would you die for, Les?

    A good cup of coffee, right about now!

    But seriously folks, the same as most people: my family, my friends, a stranger if I passed a burning house, I guess. Maybe even the Constitution, if I felt like fighting and dying was necessary to preserve it.

    But again, I’m not a brave person by nature and I’d probably soil myself in the process of dying for anything.

  44. What torks me off about you is that you act like none of us exist. Instead, you paint a picture of poor defenseless morons being sent off to an evil war. That is what I find so insulting.

    Well, at least we can legitimately complain about having to pay for it. 😉

  45. What would you die for, Les?

    To paraphrase Patton, you don’t win wars by dying for your country, you win wars by making the other poor son-of-a-bitch die for his.

    The question isn’t what would you die for. It’s what would you kill for?

  46. There are 1000s of people who disagree with you and do take up your challenge and do join up and do go off to be a part of wars that they believe in and are glad that they did.

    Who’s insulting them, John? Last I checked, the term chickenhawk had nothing to do with those who believe a war is necessary and enlist. It’s those that believe a war is necessary but don’t enlist that are the problem.

  47. FWIW, I think that the Drug Enforcement Agency should be sent to Iraq.

    I would suggest the ATF. They have more experience fighting poorly armed religious fundamentalists.

  48. “The media slandered the Vietnam veterans with the whole, “they were just victims bullshit” and now they are going to slander all of the veterans of my generation. No one in the military is a victim.”

    So it’s worse to call people hapless dupes than willful murderers? Interesting….

  49. Good christ I am sick of people slinging the chickenhawk label. Anyone doing so brands him or her self as arguing in bad faith from a position of utter ignorance.

    Its bad faith because any ad hom argument is bad faith.

    Its bad faith because all namecalling is bad faith.

    Its ignorant because the vast majority of people who live in this country could not join the military under any circumstances due to age and fitness requirements.

    Once you wheel out the chickenhawk label, you’re just masturbating online for the benefit of the likeminded. You certainly don’t have any credibility or persuasiveness to anyone who isn’t just as ignorant and malicious as you have shown yourself to be.

  50. Lets see how scalable the chickenhawk argument is:

    The chickencop:

    anybody else who supports [enforcing laws against rape and murder] without enlisting in the [local police force], is a vile hypocrite who will gladly send others off to die while they sit at home writing more-[law-abiding]-than-thou blog posts.

    Howsabout, the chickentax:

    anybody else who supports [raising taxes to pay for health care] without [voluntarily paying more than they owe in taxes], is a vile hypocrite who will gladly [deprive others of their hard-earned cash] while they sit at home writing more-[humane]-than-thou blog posts.

    Working for you, yet? Not working for me, either.

  51. RC, those are good points. But…

    Once you wheel out the chickenhawk label, you’re just masturbating online for the benefit of the likeminded. You certainly don’t have any credibility or persuasiveness to anyone who isn’t just as ignorant and malicious as you have shown yourself to be.

    Isn’t it legitimate to question the leadership abilities of leaders who have a history of refusing to fight for a war they vocally supported?

    Why isn’t it legitimate to ask a young, physically fit person, “Well, if you feel strongly about this war, if you feel it’s necessary for young men and women and innocent civilians to die, why haven’t you joined the fight?” Doesn’t a young, physically fit individual’s reluctance to fight a war they expect everyone to support give a hint to that person’s actual uncertainty as to the worthiness of the war?

    I’m just asking here, because I do think it’s important to avoid ad hominem attacks for their own sake.

  52. Not to mention the fact that the Statue of Liberty is sexualized (well more than the original). The off the shoulder dress is a bit much, doncha think?
    Don’t know Mo. I have never analyzed MM’s blog for her beliefs on dressing promiscuously or exposing the shoulders. I do know that if the Statue was of Japanese origin she feels that it would have been justifiably ‘relocated’ during WW II. Lucky for her, she’s only French.

  53. Yes, and there are people over there who think the war is bullshit and want to come home, and you act like none of them exist.

    Jennifer –

    There’s not a lot John and I likely agree upon, but this is one. All soliders know all too well one basic fact – they don’t make policy they simply carry it out.

    The complete chaos that would ensue by allowing lawsuits on a supposed “bait & switch” because they disagreed whether the war was one of necessity can not be allowed if any military is to function at a basic level. That’s why the tend to stress discipline and conformity over differences of opinion (This is different than saying they don’t want people capable of making their own decisions because they certainly do – and in the chaos of war they need them to – but they also can’t stand around arguing over the policy itself).

    What about those 1000s that think we should be killing more Iraqs and not less?

    To the article though: Malkin should be dispised by everyone.

  54. “Lucky for her, she’s only French.”

    You mean she’s only “Freedom”, don’t you?

  55. Heather,

    Several other people have already pointed out how bad your analogy was, so I don’t feel the need to pile on.

    I think that it is way past time for the able bodied enlistment age assholes like Malkin that support the war from their comfortable living rooms to put up or shut up, it is easy to support a war that you don’t have to fight. Malkin is a coward that expects others to die for a cause that she is not willing to risk her own life for.

  56. I’ve always sadly suspected that any physically able young man or woman (especially a single, childless one) who strongly supports a war while refusing to fight in it is a coward.

    Dude, WTF? So married breeders are more valuable as human beings than unmarried childless/childfree singles? You’ll let a married, able-bodied, insufferably flag-waving chickenhawk poster off the hook because his sperm works? *gag* Contrary to folk wisdom here, buddy, unmarried and childfree people have family too. Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rummy, Feith, et al are none of them single or childless, and I’d sure as hell send them off to Iraq first.

    There are 1000s of people who disagree with you and do take up your challenge and do join up and do go off to be a part of wars that they believe in and are glad that they did.

    Sure there are. They’re just not part of the 72% of the troops who believe we should get out of Iraq.

  57. I’d join the reserves today if not for the goddamn Bush Adventure in Iraq.

    Does that make me a coward? I think it makes me extremely principled…see, I don’t mind killing, dying, or being maimed, but not for the Iraq war. No sir.

    Afghanistan, I could handle going over there.

  58. Bad analogy–supporting gay marriage is not the same thing as supporting a cause that will require other people to put themselves at risk of death or dismemberment.

    That’s right. I forgot that being perceived as gay guarantees one’s safety.

    And I have a low opinion of anyone who says “This cause is worth having people sacrifice their lives, but not mine. Let other people die for the cause I support; I’m too busy blogging about it.”

    I see. So how do you like being a cop? Or are you a firefighter? Or maybe a Coast Guard rescue helicopter pilot? Or perhaps you just project your low self-opinion because you’re bored?

  59. You’ll let a married, able-bodied, insufferably flag-waving chickenhawk poster off the hook because his sperm works? *gag*

    Grab a glass of water before you choke. I’m in no position to let anyone off any hook, I only meant that I could understand why a married person with children wouldn’t want to go fight, even in a war they believed in.

  60. So how do you like being a cop? Or are you a firefighter? Or maybe a Coast Guard rescue helicopter pilot?

    Is there a debate about whether or not cops should be on the street? Is there a debate about whether firefighters or Coast Guard rescue helicopters should be performing their duties? Are there shortages of these people preventing these necessary jobs from being done? How is this analogy relevent?

  61. I forgot that being perceived as gay guarantees one’s safety.

    No one implied this. It’s been suggested that fighting a war is significantly more dangerous than fighting for civil rights (or even being gay).

    Making up things no one has implied is a sure fire way to lose an argument.

  62. Why isn’t it legitimate to ask a young, physically fit person, “Well, if you feel strongly about this war, if you feel it’s necessary for young men and women and innocent civilians to die, why haven’t you joined the fight?

    For the same reason it isn’t legitimate to demand of lawyers why they aren’t becoming nurses, or of librarians why they aren’t programmers. It’s not so much that it’s illegitimate as that it’s nonsensical.

  63. So I should take seriously the exhortations of someone on the high morality of vegetarianism while they are shoveling steak into their mouths?

  64. So I should take seriously the exhortations of someone on the high morality of vegetarianism while they are shoveling steak into their mouths?

    I was under the perhaps misguided impression that citizens in a democracy are allowed to have opinions and support or criticize their country going to war, regardless of military service.

    Apparently now everyone considers some “Starship Troopers” model of civic participation more appealing.

  65. I was under the perhaps misguided impression that citizens in a democracy are allowed to have opinions and support or criticize their country going to war, regardless of military service.

    I don’t know what’s been said here to give you the impression that people shouldn’t be allowed to support or criticize the military.

    We’re merely discussing the factors that would increase or decrease one’s tendency to take that opinion seriously. What’s that saying, “Opinions are like, uh, nose hairs” or something?

    Apparently now everyone considers some “Starship Troopers” model of civic participation more appealing.

    Hardly. We’re discussing whether or not a person who is young and able bodied and supports a war (which they believe is to defend the U.S.) should be taken seriously if that person avoids serving in that war. No one has suggested that you have to have served to have ANY opinion, only that if you’ve AVOIDED serving when you could have served in a war you support or supported, what does that say about your opinion?

    If you believe that a war is just, that the U.S. is under threat and war is necessary to protect it, and if you’re young and fit, why wouldn’t you join the effort? If you avoid service, why shouldn’t a person be skeptical of your enthusiasm for the war?

  66. I’m with RC Dean on this one. The chickenhawk meme is not an argument, it’s a cheap ad hominem. It’s not intended to facilitate debate, its intended to shut it down (the irony of people against a war suggesting only those in the military are somehow worthy to talk about it is pretty delicious, however).

    Perhaps people aren’t in the military for the simple reason they don’t like the lifestyle, and wouldn’t be in it even if there were no war going on, nor one on a distant horizon. I wasn’t interested in it back when I was of prime military age, but then, neither was I interested in law, or medicine, or running for office. And I have no intention of allowing that choice to shut me out of commenting on the legal system, health care, or congresscritters, much less warfighting.

    Is there a debate about whether or not cops should be on the street?

    Perhaps none about if they should be on the street, but certainly plenty of observations made on these very pages about what they ought to be doing there. Not so different from the military in Iraq, IMO.

  67. (the irony of people against a war suggesting only those in the military are somehow worthy to talk about it is pretty delicious, however).

    I’m seeing a lot of this misrepresentation of the argument. Nobody here has said or suggested this, so you must be tasting something else. Again, what’s being suggested is that the opinions regarding war from those who are or have been in a position to fight for one they support, but have avoided doing so, are suspect.

    It’s not about if you can have an opinion, we’re discussing the value of that opinion.

    That said, I do think I’m reconsidering my position.

    Here’s an analogy I thought of 10 minutes ago on the toilet, where I do my best soul-searching. If a fit twenty-one year old vigorously supports the War on Drugs and the DEA in all its actions but doesn’t want to be a cop or a DEA agent, does that mean his/her opinions on the matter are less valuable? I don’t suppose so. It’s the opinions themselves that matter and deserve scrutiny. Everything else, in terms of the argument at hand, is static.

    Maybe why the issue elicits such emotion (in me, at least) is because of the severity of war, by its very nature. I believe that most people look at war in far too casual a manner. I think it’s the worst thing one group of people can do to another and should be used as a last resort, in self-defense. So when I see it argued for dishonestly and executed incompetently, it becomes intensely frustrating.

    That frustration makes it easy to latch on to what might seem relevant (that most of the architects and many of the fervent supporters of the war avoided it in their personal lives while wishing it on others), but really isn’t.

    Why we go to war and how it’s executed should matter, not the personal decisions of those arguing the matter. That does make sense to me.

    Now…let us never speak of it again!

  68. “John’s” email address – which includes the suffix “@mail2iraq” – doesn’t work. He’s a poseur, pretending to be in the service. How revolting.

  69. Again, what’s being suggested is that the opinions regarding war from those who are or have been in a position to fight for one they support, but have avoided doing so, are suspect.

    When I say “suggest” I don’t mean overtly. And I don’t think the commenters doing it actually seriously mean only military people get to have an opinion. But it is the direction their remarks lead toward, whether they want them to or not, and part of the reason that meme[1] is a bad one.

    It’s the opinions themselves that matter and deserve scrutiny. Everything else, in terms of the argument at hand, is static.

    Yes. Precisely.

    [1] I suppose a moratorium on the word “meme” is on order, but I don’t feel like digging up a suitable substitute at the moment.

  70. Why on earth would anybody lie about military service?

  71. [1] I suppose a moratorium on the word “meme” is on order, but I don’t feel like digging up a suitable substitute at the moment.

    I just like the sound of it.

    …meme…mmmmmmeeeemmmmmme…..

  72. I have no respect for the scum on this board that hate people in the military. I have even less respect to the scum that threw racial epithets at Ms. Malkin.

    What have they proven? That they are cowards and racists.

    Who cares about these wing-nuts anyway? In 10 years California will belong to Mexico – I’m sure the Mexicans will support those that throw rocks at the military. They will ove you so much you’ll all wind up in a Mexican prison.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.