"Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: ``I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent.'' So lesson one, this is the only justification for going to war. -- Democratic nominee John Kerry, in his acceptance speech
This is exactly the wrong approach. Firstly our military is not composed of children, the Dem attempt to portray them as victims is insulting to a professional, highly trained, motivated volunteer, military and the memory of all who came before; do these men and women look like childen? Does this sound like child's play? This meme is not only distasteful, it thrives on ignorance and smacks of elitist bigotry.
Secondly our military is not in need of protection. THEY are OUR protectors.
Kerry's position advertises a weakness of purpose; that Kerry will equivocate as he balances political expediency in the face of a perceived threat. He demands hard proof in a shape-shifting world of shadowy terrorists and rouge regimes.
It's a promise Kerry cannot keep and he knows he cannot, which makes it more than just another empty campaign promise, it's a lie that endangers us all; for terrorists will take him at his word. You can take that to the bank.
Lileks put it best:
Next time he (Kerry) needs hard proof, like a smoking crater in New York.Posted by feste at July 30, 2004 10:04 AM | TrackBackMake that another smoking crater in New York.
I couldn't agree more. Well said, my friend. It's freakin insulting.
Posted by: Paul at July 30, 2004 11:50 AMOur military is composed of human beings, no ? They can be killed, no ? Then why send them to fight a war that has nothing to do with terrorism ? If you believe so strongly in going off to get killed in a pointless war, why don't you enlist ?
Also, using the attack on NYC as justification for attacking Iraq was and is pathetic. No WMDs. No terrorists. No legitimate threats to U.S. interests. Strangely enough, Iraq sits on one of the largest reserves of oil in the world. Hmmm...
Posted by: David at August 6, 2004 11:43 AMThe old chickenhawk gambit, hey?
I have only two words to say in rebuttal: Bill Clinton.
Following your weak logic: why aren't we invading Venezuela?
Posted by: feste at August 6, 2004 07:12 PM