Oh my, he did it while I was typing - but directed it elsewhere. Poor hapaboy... He must be devastated. Is there a doctor in the thread?
Typical knee jerk reaction of neocons to run into a corner to hide. They fear words and concepts too, irrespective of the font size.
Sorry, just not persuasive unless you put it in size = 8 at least. We've all seen how large fonts can turn even the crudest simplisms, most inane misreadings, most benumbing repetitions of previously disposed-of canards, and most juvenile insults into devastating weapons of intellectual warfare. In regular size, it's just the usual drivel.
yes, as you said, there are two distinct points: first is the valor of a man sacrificing himself to protect others against what he believes to be a threat - whether armies or floods or burning buildings - only the perverse would label that obscene. second is a soldier dying by whim of pampered chickenhawk politicians living in taxpayer-funded luxury, issuing edicts between rounds of golf and fundraising cocktail receptions. unless absolutely necessary to defend against aggression, this is obscene, whether performed by the current crew, or by clinton, nixon, saddam, Augustus, or anybody else. what commentary on the dead? it is a commentary on the leadership, and its apparent lack of appreciation for the lives being affected by its actions. it is possible that soldiers feel inspired seeing the president shaking a fist at the guerillas. or maybe they are enraged that while they slosh through raw sewage at 120 degrees, avoiding snipers and constant hosility, their leaders are boldly mocking the enemy as they take safaris and ride segways around resort towns. I don't know.
Yes, all Presidents, generals, and other war leaders should be put in solitary confinement for the duration of any conflict, and forced to survive on bread and water. Or maybe they should be forced to commit ritual suicide prior to ordering troops into battle. That would be an EXCELLENT defense policy. And of course, as discussed before, no one who isn't a front-line soldier, hasn't killed, hasn't been wounded, hasn't witnessed the violent deaths of someone close, and hasn't dined for months at a stretch mainly on MREs can be considered qualified to even enunciate an argument on foreign policy. Someday, maybe we'll be able to consult the dead for their advice - since they really are the only ones who could offer it without being thought of as "chickenhawks" (or "anti-American peacenik wimps"). The historical casualty rate among Presidents is higher than among soldiers. That's even more true today than during earlier periods. (It turned out that a pampered taxpeyer-funded war President like Lincoln suffered a 100% casualty rate. Actually, looking back, war Presidents fare very poorly: The ones who aren't assassinated have frequently either died in office or shortly thereafter, partly as a result of the immense physical and spiritual exhaustion they undergo.) For this reason, I always rejected those who called Clinton a coward. No one who stands up as the number one target for every wacko, zealot, and enemy of the free world is a coward. Personally attacking Bush - really, do YOU even think the decision to fight in Iraq was based on a "whim"? - remains the weakest of arguments for or against his war policy. It suggests a complete incapacity to offer persuasive criticisms or viable alternatives. As for the subject of this thread, if Democrats choose to run on THAT, then it'll be a 50-state Bush landslide, barring just the right miracle or catastrophe. Please, excuse me for writing unclearly: What I meant, as you say, was that your are supposing that "Bring 'em on!" shows a lack of concern or sympathy for those who are at risk on the front lines. No, you don't. As one would expect, samplings of opinions from soldiers in Iraq cover a full spectrum - though which part of the spectrum you hear about usually depends on whatever reporter's agenda or theme. I'm sure we can match each other article for article on morale issues pro and con, if we get busy, but basing decisions on how soldier's feel about their duty has never, to my knowledge, been put forward in this country as a good basis for military policy, though maybe that's just because Dennis Kucinich hasn't hit on it yet. Of course, "Bring 'em on" wasn't mainly directed at the soldiers, but at all those who hope or fear that the US might back down before resistance. Do you honestly believe that withdrawing would be a good policy? And you never answered the question on the cartoon: Do you think the "post-war action figure" showed good taste, or even some minimal respectable human decency?
(Gasping for breath, staggering, devastated by Optional's assault) NO! No! No! Not the.....BIG FONTS! (collapses)
The Bush administration is under fire and Saddam and his sons Uday and Qusay have picked up the message. __________________________________________ Interesting take from a foreign news source. Seem SH & sons, having being emboldened by the libs, have stepped up their offensive to retake Baghdad Airport. Three ground to air missles fired at landing or taking off planes over last several days plus six or more ground attacks on road between Baghdad and airport. Looks like the liberals are getting what they have wished for. Military setbacks and soldiers killed to make themselves look good. Anne Coulter may not have had it exactly right but her book (Treason) may prove to be prophetic now. I haven't seen a clear connection in the past, between weakening the administration and encouraging SH, but that is starting to change. If I were a returning home soldier who had had a STA missile fired at me while landing at Baghdad by an emboldened SH, I might want to have a short visit with some of the people encouraging this.