The Chickenhawk Debate: The Logical Result
I've been thinking about the "Chickenhawk" craze that so many of the less-bright leftyblogs are knotted up about - perhaps too much, since the whole thing (as commenter Marty in the post below correctly notes) is a purely ad hominem argument; they can't fight the pro-war argument, so they attack the proponents.
But as I'm given to putting lipstick on pigs, let's dig a little deeper into the logical end result of the "Chickenhawk" argument.
Hint: You lefties might want to change your tack right...about...now.
From 1940 until 1973, the policy of the United States was that defending this nation was a collective duty of the entire American people. To wit, the government used conscription - "Selective Service", "the Draft" - to populate the military. Every American male citizen above the age of 18 was considered to have a duty to contribute six years of his life to the defense of the United States. That duty was exercised in the form of an option - selection, "the draft" - to randomly select young men for two years' full-time service (and four more usually but not always in the inactive reserve, subject to recall).
The US was founded by people who were afraid of the idea of the standing military - so until the 20th Century, the US military was a tiny cadre that, in wartime, was reinforced by hordes of "Volunteers", troops from the various states. That's why the Civil War was fought by units named the "First Minnesota" and the "Fifty-Fourth Massachussetts"; literally, they were owned by the various states, and given over to federal control during the national emergency. That changed, at least a bit, after the Spanish-American War, when the National Guard was tied more closely into federal control than theretofore - but until 1940, the ideal was that the federal standing army was a small professional organization, supported in an emergency by hordes of volunteers who would serve for the duration, and then go back to their farms and towns. The "Citizen Soldier" was more than an aphorism - it was the ideal handed down by the founding fathers, paranoid as they were about the potential for government abuse of the a professional military.
In 1940, with industrial total war looming, waged by nations levying their entire populations into the war effort, the government policy changed; the idea of the statutory obligation to serve the nation emerged, along with the Selective Service Act to implement it. Millions of men were issued draft numbers, and called into service; the professional military and the National Guard trained them (mostly just well enough to do the job) and formed them into units and sent them overseas; they fought against similar armies from Germany, Italy and Japan. That was the way of industrial total war - the entire society was mobilized to fight for its every survival; the spectre of enemy tanks driving down main street was the motivator (and, in most of Europe including Germany, eventually the reality). It had its upside - World War II was truly America's last national priority, perhaps the last thing America will ever do that had total support of the whole nation (at least in part because everyone's brother, father or son was in the service). The downside? The US military, like any draftee military (and aside from elites like the Airborne and the Marine Corps, who were all volunteers anyway), was not especially well-motivated, was trained just well enough to do the job (most infantrymen learned their trade on the job - those that survived their first week in action) and had the problems an institution will naturally have when one corrals millions of people together by force, who are accustomed to freedom.
After World War II (and Korea), the observed nature of war slowly changed, from huge industrial nation-states throwing their entire efforts into kill-or-be-killed all-out wars, to the proxy wars and terror campaigns of the Cold War. The draft continued - partly as an exercise in social engineering (military service was a key part of racial integration), partly because the military was run by a generation of officers and civilian leaders whose idea of war was formed during World War II, and would not change until they passed from the scene.
Which, eventually, they did, ushered out in the aftermath of Vietnam.
In 1973, at the end of the Vietnam War, the nation's policy doubled back; while there's still a notion of obligation buried somewhere in the ideas behind current policy, the overriding policy is that our nation will have a "professional military" - an idea which goes way beyond the idea of a "volunteer military". A "Professional Military" is a one that treats study of the art of war not as an obligation to ones country that one does for a couple of years of one's life (as it is seen in Switzerland, Israel, Norway and many other countries), but as a profession with its own standards, career path, traditions; as Edwin Luttwak called it, a "Warrior Elite", which is exactly what our founding fathers were afraid of.
American society had grown to the point where "it" felt that it could tolerate a professional warrior elite whose existence was not seen to be incompatible with Democracy. The absence of military coups in the past 32 years might indicate it was a worthy risk.
So: For the past 32 years, the US military has been a professional organization, seeking people who want to voluntarily spend part of their lives (as long a part as they can be persuaded to spend) learning the art of war, rather than a mass of unwilling, coerced people who are taught (with fear of court-martial hanging over their heads) to do the job just well enough.
The military seems to prefer it that way - which is why the military leads the chorus in poo-poohing the idea of returning to the draft.
=====
So, all of you who cry "chickenhawk!" when someone who never served supports the war; since the military is voluntary and professional, and you're making an appeal to duty to serve in the military, that logically infers that you support bringing back the draft; the institution that your lefty forebears fought so hard to abolish is the only logical end-result of declaring that to support the war one has a duty to serve. (That, or you abjure the whole notion of defending the nation, and support pacifism to the point of capitulation).
And that draft, naturally, will call you liberals as readily as it will conservatives.
Is that really what all you who are bleating "Chickenhawk" want?
Posted by Mitch at
October 14, 2005 12:11 PM
| TrackBack
I'm just old enough to remember the the controversies during the last few years of the Vietnam War. One of the arguments that the pro-war people would use against people in the pro-peace faction (aka "hippies") was that they were cowards -- that their opposition to the war wasn't based on altruistic principle, but that they just wanted to avoid the danger & disruption of their lives that previous generations had had to endure by service in the military.
Posted by: Terry at October 14, 2005 12:49 PMNow the peaceniks use the same argument against their political opponents, for the same reason. It's a cheapshot. Like other cliche'd arguments it'smeant to shutdown and silence opponents rather than foster debate. It's the equivalent of the argument that no one should listen to peace protesters because they dress weird.
Like the Vietnam War, the current Iraq War will not be won by shoving people into uniform and sending them overseas. The war will be won or lost politically, here in the United States. If today's peaceniks can frame the terms of the debate so that if you are pro-war you cannot speak out unless you are in the military they win, only their point of view is considered legitimate.
So, all of you who cry "chickenhawk!" when someone who never served supports the war; since the military is voluntary and professional, and you're making an appeal to duty to serve in the military, that logically infers that you support bringing back the draft; the institution that your lefty forebears fought so hard to abolish is the only logical end-result of declaring that to support the war one has a duty to serve.
Wow, Mitch, that's an enormous stretch.
There is quite a difference for appealing to war supporters to voluntarily enlist in the military and calling for universal involuntary conscription into the military.
Now, I've never been much into the chickenhawk thing; I'm sure I've used it once or twice, but it's always seemed massively beside the point. There's plenty of evidence that we should never have gone to war in Iraq; there's also conflicting evidence on whether continuing the war serves a purpose. It may. It may not. None of that has anything to do with whether or not Jonah Goldberg joins the military.
However, I will say that the "chickenhawk" epithet does stem from some legitimate anger that so many of the punditocracy are quite sanguine about war, believe it to be quite important--and yet choose not to serve. I do not believe that one has to join the military to support the war--any more than I believe an opponent of the war cannot join. But it is a reasonable point to ask who is dying for our grand adventure in Iraq--and who has better things to do.
Posted by: Jeff Fecke at October 14, 2005 01:51 PM"Wow, Mitch, that's an enormous stretch.
There is quite a difference for appealing to war supporters to voluntarily enlist in the military and calling for universal involuntary conscription into the military. "
No, there really isn't. Since the "chickenhawk"-criers are calling for the military to reshape its view of itself - from a profession to a national duty - then they should be ready for the consequences of that change.
It occurs to me that no tony liberal who utters the word "chickenhawk" had better have his/her kids in private school, by the way, and for exactly the logic you use!
Posted by: mitch at October 14, 2005 01:55 PMJeff Fecke-
"There's plenty of evidence that we should never have gone to war in Iraq; there's also conflicting evidence on whether continuing the war serves a purpose."
Don't you mean 'arguments' rather than 'evidence'? I
Posted by: Terry at October 14, 2005 03:34 PMIf you think this war is A Great Cause, and you know they're having trouble recruiting, and you're fit and able--put up or shut up, sweetheart. It's that simple.
The US military exists to protect the nation--not serve the whim of a king. And yet, the troops are dying because the Chickenhawk-In-Chief wants a "legacy" and because his puppeteers masturbate to PNAC. You still want a Crusade badly enough? Prove it...coward.
Posted by: Happenstance at October 14, 2005 04:25 PMYour review of the history of conscription implies that the U.S. never resorted to it before World War II, but that's just plain wrong. Some states adopted drafts as early as the War of 1812 and even the Revolution, though they were quite limited. The draft was first initiated on a nationwide basis during the Civil War, first (and fairly substantially) by the Confederacy, later (and to a lesser degree) by the Union: in the South, 21 percent of the 1 million soldiers who served were conscripts; in the North, there were 46,000 conscripts and 118,000 substitutes (it was perfectly legal to buy your way out) out of 2.1 million soldiers.
And in World War I, conscription really boomed. Almost 24 million men registered for the draft in 1917 and 1918, and 2.8 million of them were drafted, making draftees a sizable majority of the 3.5 million-man WWI army.
More here:
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_019500_conscription.htm
Posted by: Lurker at October 14, 2005 05:07 PMWell I consider myself a liberal and I support a draft.
Posted by: Dan at October 14, 2005 06:26 PMWant to know why? Wel personally I think the war in Iraq will be over about a week after a draft is announced. Suddenly all those chickenhawks such as yourself will be liable for military service and your support for the war will collapse.
Weasel Dick - er, "Happenstance"
"put up or shut up, sweetheart. It's that simple."
Put this up, you gabbling moron: I'm 42. Unless I happen to have a skill the military REALLY needs, they don't want me. Sweetheart.
"You still want a Crusade badly enough? Prove it...coward."
Um, yeah. That means a lot, coming from someone who doesn't have the seeds to post his name.
You kiss your sister with that mouth?
Go flog your pathetic little pecker and pollute someone else's comment section, you worthless little chipmumk.
Posted by: mitch at October 14, 2005 06:27 PMWhen you call the chickenhawk argument an ad hominem, I think you're missing the point.
It may seem like one (being that it can be expressed in a single word), but it's really an argument that attempts to illustrate that many who claim to support the war in fact do not.
Posted by: Brian at October 14, 2005 06:49 PM"Wel personally I think the war in Iraq will be over about a week after a draft is announced."
A draft won't happen; the GOP would be tossed to the curb for the next 20 years. The Bush administration don't have their heads *that* far up their asses...yet.
Posted by: Tim at October 14, 2005 09:16 PMShear profundity.
Posted by: Eracus at October 14, 2005 09:37 PMMy take:
Posted by: Eric Beltt at October 14, 2005 10:14 PMhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/belt0033/204875.html
Not supporting the war is now been equal to terrorism or - GASP! - Communism. No excitement in being a seeker of peace, I guess. And we have become a thrill-seeking society, haven't we?
Posted by: Teena at October 14, 2005 11:18 PMI am so looking forward to the release of the movie, "Good Night and Good Luck." It should be quite revealing to those willing to "see." For those who still believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11, don't bother to go. You might as well stay home and post on shotinthedark.
Teena-
Posted by: Terry at October 14, 2005 11:29 PMI think 'not supporting the war' equates to not wanting us to win, same as any other war. Enjoy your martyr's fantasy. People other than yourself are trying to keep religious fascists from determining the future of mankind. If you can't contribute, kindly step aside.
This phrase tells you all you need to know about Teena (and her fellow travelers-aka "war protesters"):
...."or - GASP! - Communism."
Posted by: Colleen at October 14, 2005 11:51 PMTeena,
You had an assignment. You were supposed to come back with an example of a dictator desposed, or a people liberated from a dictator, by "peacemaking".
Do you have this yet?
Posted by: mitch at October 15, 2005 12:56 AMMarcos?
If you extend it to "repressive regimes" and not just dictators, the list of states is quite long, but I suppose if I mentioned Melosovich, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, ...something about an Orange revolution? Russian coup attempt, Russia before the Bolshevicks seized control ... Taiwan, South Korea, India, decolonization (those last two don't really count though), Iran, initially, before the Mullahs took control, oh, and there are probably some South American or Latin American countries to add to the list ... Georgia? Lebanon. Anyways, mentioning them, those would all probably have special circumstances and won't count.
I'm probably wrong on about half of these, but its still an impressive list.
Oh, and Franco is still dead.
Posted by: Bill Haverberg at October 15, 2005 02:21 AMOh my--I pissed the little bitch off!
They ARE taking 42-year-olds, so go sign up. If you're such a vital tool in The War of Ideas (*snark*) I'm sure they can teach you to do something in Iraq. It'll make a man out of you.
And yeah, I don't post my info because I'm not a big fan of spam. But I do have six years of military service under my belt and I can tell you this: the vets and active-duty military are growing increasingly tired of you gutless-wonder keyboard warriors, with your brave mouths and yellow backs.
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/2005/10/military-response.html
So by all means--keep popping your yap off.
Posted by: Happenstance at October 15, 2005 03:15 AMHapp, I suspect you're a "last call SEAL". Not sure what it is, but the read I get off you is that you were never even as close to the military as I was.
And they're *talking* about taking 42 year olds, the last I checked, and in any case my knee was a problem the *last* time I tried to enlist.
You know perfectly well that you don't have to get spammed by leaving a real name.
Try sticking with things you know about. It may mean you never write anything again. Too bad.
Posted by: mitch at October 15, 2005 08:50 AMAn independents three cents...
People can disagree. Some people think invading Iraq was the best course of action and others (I) disagree.
I'll no more stand for a pro-war person being called a chicken-hawk then I will stand for an anti-war person being told they should leave the country as both are cheap arguments.
As it stands I've personally heard the "leave the country" argument FAR too often to have ANY sympathy whatsoever for the right.
There is an element on the right that uses the "leave the country" argument for just about damn near every issue.
For these obnoxious name-callers I wholeheartedly approve of the use of Chickenhawk, especially the young punks still living off of their parents largese yet hurling insults at middle adged people like me that are driving the economy.
I'm about as invested in the society as you can be with house, kids, college, career etc. and for someone to tell me I should "leave the country" because my opinion differs from theirs is about as close to fighting words as insulting my wife.
After years of work, and taxes, and raising kids, and participating, after all this time I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me I'm not entitled to my opinion.
Posted by: name at October 15, 2005 10:20 AMWhat a longwinded and pointless rant.
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2005/10/mitch-berg-from-whine-in-dark-has.html
Posted by: Eva Young at October 16, 2005 01:28 AMAnd Eva knows all about long-winded and pointless.
LF
Posted by: LearnedFoot at October 16, 2005 06:50 AMHappenstance,
Really? You speak for all of us?
I was a cavalry scout in the first Gulf War, and a platoon sergeant in Kosovo. The only people I wanted in the shit with me were people who belonged there. People who had a hard-on not only to be Army, but be cav, and best of all, be scouts.
So where did you serve, Happenstance? I don't knock REMFs (or lesser, non-Army people), because serving is serving, and not everyone can be the elite of the elite, the cavalry. But I have a hunch you were a REMF or worse, navy or air farce, because I'll tell you two things: One, people who have been in the shit don't brag about it and hold the fact that they were not in the shit against civilians. And two, You don't speak for me. And of the guys I served with, I doubt you speak for more than one or two in ten.
If you were in the service for six years, good on ya bro, but quit pretending to speak for us all. And if you were not, and like Mitch I meet all kinds of Last Call SEALs and Liquid Rangers and Closing Time Marines when I go to bars, they're usually the ones talking the loudest about everything they did in the military while the real vets just keep quiet and enjoy the civvy life, then kindly stop.
(To all my navy and air farce brothers in arms - just yanking your chains. We must unite against the common enemy. No, not the jarheads, the terrorists.).
Posted by: T Schmidt at October 16, 2005 11:35 AMI assume this will really annoy Blogger Berg and his most learned footliness:
[Link to grossly off-topic and, frankly, dumb post excised. Mind your blog manners, people!]
[Also, entire text of off-topic post, which was reproduced verbatim from another blog, also excised. I pick the topics on my blog, thanks]
EY: Eat your hearts out....
BTW, I'm interested in finding other bloggers who are interested in a blogger trade org - not an echo chamber and blogroll - but rather an org that has regular meetings, shares tips and tricks - kind of like a computer user group.
If anyone is interested, please email me at lloydletta@gmail.com.
[Mitch adds: Again, off-topic, but whatever. A blog trade group; sure makes me pucker up with anticipation!]
Posted by: Eva Young at October 16, 2005 07:35 PMEat my heart out?
Sorry, Eva. I've gotten into PIM, too.
The MOB and, to some extent, Drunk Depressed Democrats - er, Drinking Liberally, sorry Rew :-) - already are blog trade groups.
By the way, the MOB is MUCH more than an echo chamber or blogroll, your whiny sour grapes aside.
Wow - you're a whiner with no sense of humor! Whodathunkit!
Posted by: mitch at October 16, 2005 07:51 PMBy the bye, Eva, two minor points:
To "eat" my "heart out", I'd have to pay any attention to your antics, and place any value on them and the publicity they get you. I don't. If you want to think it matters in my life - a very pleasantly crowded place! - knock yourself out, but it's a bit of a delusion. Sorry if that pops your bubble. (On a a related subject; if I mention a subject, and you don't crow "Mitch is having a meltdown", do I really exist?)
Also, Eva? Your self-serving lack of ethics is showing yet again. Your comment is grossly off-topic.
Posted by: mitch at October 16, 2005 09:32 PMThe problem with the word "chickenhawk" is that it carries such an evil emotional connotation, it instantly ends discussions. It's not an intellectual argument to advance a logical position against a particular war, it's an anti-personnel bomb throw to end a particular conversation.
Calling someone a Chickenhawk in a military discussion has a similar effect to saying that since Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in a recent Supreme Court opinion that Black people ought to have a little extra help, a little "affirmative action" for maybe another 25 years, just until they have the same opportunities as everybody else, that means she's a Nigger-Lover.
Whoa, that stopped the conversation cold.
As it was intended to. That's the kind of word it is - a conversation-stopper. N-L says nothing about the merits of affirmative action, it's employed to smear the character and reputation of the person advocating affirmative action with such an emotion-laden charge that further advocacy of affirmative action is impossible.
In the same way that using the N-L slur instantly ends intelligent conversations about strategies for improving race relations, using the Chickenhawk slur instantly ends intelligent conversations about strategies for defending the nation, formerly against communist world domination, now against Islamic terror.
That's precisely what the phrase "ad hominem" means - it means "against the person." You're a bad person, so therefore your arguments are unpersuasive. Which is why an "ad hominem" argument is recognized as a logical fallacy.
I didn't serve in the military, for whatever reason. But I advocate the use of military force against terrorists in the Middle East. I suppose that makes me a bad man. Maybe even a hypocrite.
But it doesn't invalidate my intellectual analysis of the best strategy for defending this nation against global Islamic terror. Calling me a chickenhawk doesn't mean I'm wrong. It means the name-caller is too weak or too scared to engage me in a mental battle of ideas.
Which makes the name-caller, what, a chicken-dove?
.
Posted by: nathan bissonette at October 17, 2005 08:48 AMHow many of you on the right have told someone that didn't agree with you about something that they should "leave America".
Come on...raise your hands.
And acknowledge that "leave america" is a cheap (and MUCH overused) argument and you shouldn't boohoo when an equally cheap argument is thrown back in your face.
Maybe the Chicken-hawk phrase will make some of the more obnoxious people consider what they are saying and how they are saying it and tone down their nonesense.
We're all pretty much part of the same socio-economic class, taxpayers, citizens...and I think we can all manage to respect each other even though our opinions differ.
Posted by: name at October 17, 2005 10:53 AM"How many of you on the right have told someone that didn't agree with you about something that they should "leave America".
"Come on...raise your hands. "
Faulty comparison, at least in my case.
It had nothing to do with not agreeing with me. But in discussions with people who believe the US is the *worst possible place* on earth, destroying the planet, actively starving the poor - absurd BS by any rational standard - I've asked if they might not be happier in North Korea or Cuba, sure.
"And acknowledge that "leave america" is a cheap (and MUCH overused) argument and you shouldn't boohoo when an equally cheap argument is thrown back in your face."
Strawman; I've never suggested emigration to someone who didn't actively disparage, and seem genuinely miserable to be living in, the US. They are perfectly able to change their surroundings; I am not able to join the military.
"Maybe the Chicken-hawk phrase will make some of the more obnoxious people consider what they are saying and how they are saying it and tone down their nonesense."
Where "obnoxious" = "disagree with me".
Look - it's not just cheap. It is a diversion from the actual argument at hand; it's an ploy to try to trump a rational argument with an appeal to a knee-jerk emotional response. It's an attempt to silence via emotional reaction an argument that one can't win with logic and fact.
"We're all pretty much part of the same socio-economic class, taxpayers, citizens...and I think we can all manage to respect each other even though our opinions differ."
Well, this blog is all about respecting dissent, so I'm not sure exactly what you're after, here. I'm thoroughly respectful of everyone who deserves it.
(Cue Eva, who will copy and paste an entire thread in which I insulted someone who'd been crassly insulting me. Like I said - I respect everyone who deserves it).
Posted by: mitch at October 17, 2005 11:17 AMI'm thoroughly respectful of everyone who deserves it. "Where deserves it" = agrees with you.
By obnoxious I mean one man that would tell another man he should leave the country because they disagree. There's sill room enough in America.
I didn't say YOU...but if you're raising your hand and self identifying...
It seems like you're confessing that you use that cheap argument when people (in your opinion) deserved it. Stop.
Many of us certainly would have supported the war had the administration been straight with us.
As far as I'm concerned the American people were maniplated into backing the invasion of Iraq (at least I fell for it), the occupation was bungled, and there is just no plan for extricating ourselves from this mess.
I'm confident in the factual case for point one, while points two and three are opinion and conjecture. None of what I just said adds up to = "hates America".
If anything it adds up to hates political manipulation and incompetence.
But said argument has gotton the "leave America because you hate it" several times.
I think people get so upset because deep down they realize they were/are obnoxiously manipulated and they don't like being reminded of the fact.
In any case, all could end well in the middle east (if we don't end up with a gigantic Islamic theocracy).
So if you happen to hear me taking my elected officials to task for what they do with my taxdollars, and the lives of my kids...don't interrupt me, or call me names, or tell me to leave the country. They don't need any help...they have all the surrogates they need.
Just, stand aside and be thankful that some people still demand their elected officials are accountable to the people.
Posted by: name at October 17, 2005 02:05 PM"I'm thoroughly respectful of everyone who deserves it. "Where deserves it" = agrees with you."
Bzzzzzt!
Thank you for trying. We have some lovely parting gifts.
No, Namester; I am supremely respectful of civil dissent; look over a couple weeks' worth of threads and notice the debate with PB, Doug (there are three Dougs who comment regularly, actually, but one usually disagrees with me).
No, "deserves respect" = "doesn't act like a jagoff". Snide little insults (almost invariably anonymous), personal attacks, etc - for those I feel no compulsion to act respectful. I've only banned two people from this blog, ever - and neither was for disagreeing with me.
"By obnoxious I mean one man that would tell another man he should leave the country because they disagree. There's sill room enough in America."
I not only have never done that, I don't know anyone who has.
"I didn't say YOU...but if you're raising your hand and self identifying..."
Asked and answered.
"It seems like you're confessing that you use that cheap argument when people (in your opinion) deserved it. Stop. "
Oh, my, I'm sorry. Would you like to vet the rest of my posts before I publish, perhaps?
"Many of us certainly would have supported the war had the administration been straight with us."
Which they were, lefty cant aside.
"As far as I'm concerned the American people were maniplated into backing the invasion of Iraq (at least I fell for it), the occupation was bungled, and there is just no plan for extricating ourselves from this mess."
In order: Untrue, partly true, and irrelevant; the only "extrication" is victory.
"So if you happen to hear me taking my elected officials to task for what they do with my taxdollars, and the lives of my kids...don't interrupt me, or call me names, or tell me to leave the country. They don't need any help...they have all the surrogates they need."
Er...ok?
"Just, stand aside and be thankful that some people still demand their elected officials are accountable to the people."
Your thanks are gratefully accepted.
Posted by: mitch at October 17, 2005 02:55 PMLefty cant??? Errrr, No.
Here's the thing...you need to forget the left / right paradigm.
It makes you vulnerable to manipulation.
Right wing info = truth
Left wing info = false
Jeez isn't that convient for those on the right that are TELLING you that right=true left=false.
Come on! We're grown men here not kids. We can look at the information and figure out for ourselves what's BS.
Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, Wolfy, et al said in the run up to the war that Sadaam HAD WMD's, he INTENDED to use them against the United States, and that he had links with OSB. None of that turned out to be true. Reams of information has come out showing that not only was it not true but that they manipulated intellegence to justify invasion.
You can opine all day long that ultimatly invading Iraq was a good thing, I might agree with you to some degree.
It doesn't change the fact that this was a war that the Administration always WANTED to do, so they trumped up excuses to make it happen.
They basicly slapped the American people in the face and told us that they will do, what they want, when they want, and if they want our opinion they'll give it to us (literally!).
Now by looking at the defecit I realize the right must have lost their accounting books...
but I still have mine and I put "Optional" trumped up war in one column vs. hundreds of billions spent and thousands dead in the other column and it doesn't add up in my book.
So I throw the BS flag and take the issue up with my elected officials.
But hey, I hope it all works out well in the end and the result justifies the costs.
Posted by: name at October 18, 2005 08:16 AMtrans sex photo fat trans weight belly diet monkeys
Posted by: Iotoualhk at October 10, 2006 01:26 AMhorse and human sex free horse sex pictures
Posted by: Xltaul at October 30, 2006 07:29 AMbdsm sex stories bdsm art drawing
Posted by: Zusvpngduaa at October 30, 2006 01:30 PM