|
|
|
September 03, 2004
Republican wretched refuse!
Rarely I have never seen the left so obsessed with the importance of military service! It's refreshing, really, because so often one associates their sort of politics with an anti-military mindset. Let's start with a quote from Kerry: We all saw the anger and distortion of the Republican Convention. For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as Commander-in-chief. We’ll, here’s my answer. I’m not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.I'm wondering, just who are these questioners of commitment who "refused" to serve? Surely he doesn't mean the Swift Boat veterans? I mean, he might not like them, but it's a bit tough to argue they refused to serve. This web site gives a pretty good idea of what's on Kerry's mind, and I for one was shocked by some of the details about those who had refused: Bush: no combat, got dad's helpNow, whether or not anyone served in the military is not my business. Unless, I suppose, they put it at issue. But I don't think the military background (or lack thereof) of those who question Kerry's service or fitness to command is logically any more relevant to their right to criticize Kerry than it would be if they praised him. Discussion of someone else's military service -- particularly a veteran who wants to command the entire military -- doesn't put one's own service at issue, any more than questioning the war itself. The chickenhawk argument is miserable failure, as many have pointed out, because it presupposes such a connection, and, more ominously, is based on a very misguided, Orwellian assumption that only those who have served in the military should have the right to support the country's wars. Might as well say that only cops should have the right to opinions on law enforcement! I don't think it's my job to get into defending anybody, but the Desert Storm angle particularly intrigues me. Sean Hannity and Joe Scarborough are accused of "avoiding" Desert Storm, although there was no draft, and military service was a privilege, not a right. How did they avoid service? The same way I "avoided" becoming an astronaut? For that matter, didn't they also avoid service in Bosnia and Haiti? Under the circumstances, I think it's fair to ask an analogous question: How many of the angry peacehawks actually served in the Peace Corps? I'd like to know. I think it's only fair that if you demand that peace be waged, you should have waged it yourself! But don't ask me! I was never qualified for military service. Does that make me a refusenik? MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds, I see that Bush's lead is now in the double digits. Yes, but how many of those polled actually served in the military? These polls are dishonest. Unless they are restricted only to those who can show they've actually served (or are presently serving) in the military, I don't think anyone should pay attention to them. Besides, I think the shift in numbers may represent a backlash against the demonstrators. And a fake backlash; I'm beginning to see clear evidence that many of those demonstrators were a bunch of agents provocateur for Bush! Surely, Bush knew! posted by Eric on 09.03.04 at 03:29 PM
Comments
If you didn't vote for Bob Dole in 1996, you have no right to complain about draft dodgers, AWOL, or chickenhawks. Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Elder) the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · September 4, 2004 01:51 AM Oh, and, by the way, that "chickenhawk" argument automatically disenfranchises nearly all women, who were not drafted and did not serve in the overwhelming majority of our nation's wars. In other words: misogynist. Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato the Elder) the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete · September 4, 2004 01:53 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
What's even funnier about "refused to serve" is that at the time Bush signed up for the ANG, the unit he ended up with was fighting in Vietnam.
It's more or less dumb luck (unless Bush Sr. was somehow able to, as a mere congresscritter, somehow get an entire unit pulled out of combat) that our current President never got deployed to Vietnam, from what I can tell.
Admitting that, of course, rather undercuts the entire argument. (But, then, it's not an argument that Democrats have actually taken seriously at any other time other than this election cycle, and are unlikely to ever take seriously again, until it's convenient.)