Just Another Day

"Any idiot can handle a crisis, it's day to day living that wears you out." - Chekhov

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

As A Point of Clarification

I have been (pa)trolling over at Polipundit the last few weeks and recently got engaged with someone that the wingnuts there hailed as their saviour and someone who would put me in my place. Needless to say he wasn't much to speak of and couldn't respond to my comments, instead spouting off his line of thinking repeatedly, when not descending into the usual rhetoric found there about how, as an expat, I am a "visceral anti-American." Anyway, the conversation went into why a group of chicken hawks have or have not the credibility to send our military into conflict. Now, generally, I would agree with him that it is the argument in question that counts rather than the person behind the argument. However, I also believe that the credibility of the person making the argument counts and the chicken hawks in the Bush administration, those that I define as not having served when the nation called in a combat with which they agreed was just, don't have that credibility when it comes to this war in Iraq. Beyond the litany of lies that got us into this folly in Iraq (and elections don't make the obfuscations or the administration somehow magically exhonerated) is the argument in question. When someone had the chance to serve, in this case Vietnam for these chicken hawks, in a war they thought was the right one and one which obviously needed more warm bodies, they decided to show their yellow bellys (Cheney, the king of government teat sucking, said he had "other priorities"; Bush told a Houston newspaper, in 1994, that he wasn't going to shoot out his eardrum or run to Canada so he "signed up" for TANG - and, upon entry, he checked a box specifically refusing overseas duty - then proceeded to not complete his commitment; I don't know what Wolfowitz' excuse was). Those are the three that I used as examples; there are more. So, what right do they have to send our troops into a war that is, at the very best, contentious because of the litany of justifications that even previous to the war were doubted by many and one which was not considered worth the cost by many (prior) and most (recently, I am guessing until they sheepishly believed the hype that the elections made the war just). Any thoughts?