What was liberal LA Times Columnist, Joel Stein, thinking when he admitted recently in his article, "Warriors & Wussies", what conservatives have been saying all along - that you can't say you support the troops and be against the war? Did he not know the ammunition he would be placing in their hands when he said:
"I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on....But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition....But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam."
While there are no words to describe how egregious (conspicuously bad or offensive, blatant or ridiculous to an extraordinary degree, outrageously bad or reprehensible) Stein's comments are, at least they're honest, more honest than the great majority of liberals who say they support the troops but not the war in Iraq.
This wasn't always the case. Following the attacks of 9/11 and prior to the campaigning of the 2004 elections, liberals were saying the same things about Saddem Hussein as conservatives were. Even if they changed their position on the war, for whatever reason, they need to be intellectually honest about what it means to 'support our troops.' For the record, remember? ...
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" - From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter, July 18, 2002.
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." - Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." - Robert Byrd, October 2002.
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." - Wesley Clark, September 26, 2002.
Read rest of article.
4Comment
No comments:
Post a Comment