Posted on 05/16/2007 9:18:38 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
A renowned professor and prominent critic of the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq has now lost his son to the war. Lt. Andrew Bacevich, Jr. was killed by a suicide bomber on Sunday.
A local Boston station reports that the younger Bacevich's captain said in an e-mail to the family that he was killed by a suicide bomber in a white sedan his unit had stopped on a main highway south of Samarra.
The DoD's official release of the incident reported on Monday that, "1st Lt. Andrew J. Bacevich, 27, of Walpole, Mass., died May 13 in Balad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his unit during combat patrol operations in Salah Ad Din Province, Iraq."
Andrew Bacevich, professor of International Relations at Boston University, has a long list of publications supporting his self-label of conservative, but he became disillusioned by what he viewed as an overreliance on military power driving foreign policy choices by "conservative" neocons of the Bush Administration.
In a conversation discussing his latest book, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, Bacevich responded to a question asking if the neocons "believed too deeply in the hype of American hyperpower?," with the interviewer clarifying, "Ruling groups, even while manipulating others, often seem to almost hypnotically convince themselves as well."
That's why I myself tend not to buy into the charge that Bush and others blatantly lied us into this war. I think they believed most of what they claimed.
(Excerpt) Read more at iraqslogger.com ...
They have a treasonous attitude.
Having a treasonous attitude doesn't mean they have actually committed specific acts of treason - just as a husband who fantasizes about cheating on his wife may not actually engage in an adulterous liaison.
Their hands may be clean, but their hearts aren't.
It's not surprising that you lack counterarguments as well as class.
A counterargument to your absurd comparison to Benedict Arnold? Calling you a douche is much more accurate and classy than calling that man a traitor for having a different opinion on how to proceed. Go away loser.
On several different counts Mr. Bacevich has earned the right to believe what he wants. Of course, in a free country he doesn’t even need to earn it, but he has. I’m willing to bet that he has given more of his life to serving this country than you. So, please STFU.
May his smile live on in the hearts of all good people.
and what a smile it was....
The poster I was responding to intimated that a person's opinions are automatically beyond reproach as long as they have served in the military.
A reference to Benedict Arnold is sufficient to prove the hollowness of that position.
Calling you a douche is much more accurate and classy than calling that man a traitor for having a different opinion on how to proceed.
Calling me that was indeed classless, as is your putting words in my mouth.
Go away loser.
Oh yes, your majesty. Right away.
He is, of course, entitled to his absurdly defeatist opinions no matter what he has or hasn't done.
No one disputes that.
You seem to equate the censuring of his opinions with censoring them.
I’m willing to bet that he has given more of his life to serving this country than you. So, please STFU.
Of course, your highness. Immediately.
“The poster I was responding to intimated that a person’s opinions are automatically beyond reproach as long as they have served in the military.”
I did no such thing. You may have inferred that. I did not imply that.
You wrote “God definitely chose the better Bacevich for himself.” I merely pointed out that the Colonel was a soldier. You made up the rest in your own mind.
Then I apologize for my misinterpretation of your post. Thank you for your great courtesy.
“Thank you for your great courtesy.”
You’re right, that was unnecessary. Please accept my apology.
This is why, even with 60-70 percent of Americans wanting out of Iraq, the anti-war kooks will never have a real following. They can't stop shouting long enough for anyone to understand their point.
It was an honest assertion that the Iraqi people wanted to be free and most Iraqis would fight for that freedom. It is disingenuous to claim that this was a delusion from the start.
It's possible to have honest delusions.
So anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't believe in anything? Anyone not willing to commit to this war for the next decade is a chicken and a traitor?
This thing is nearly done, thank goodness. Bush will be remembered with Woodrow Wilson, and Rumsfeld with McNamara.
Did you feel the same way about anyone who questioned our need to be in Kosovo?
Oh, that’s a good argument for the war — Clintoon supported it. /sarcasm.
To my knowledge we never deployed any ground units in Kosovo.
Did I miss something?
Oh, and just to be clear, I think taking down Milosevic’s infrastructure was the right thing to do.
Accepted before it was offered. I got way ahead of myself first.
So it is only treasonous for a person to question the wiseness of a military action if there are ground troops involved? Great mental gymnastics there.
Journalists act like Bush invented the idea when in fact it has been U.S. law and policy since 1998.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.