Replies

"Obviously, ignoring the war we were embroiled in for the past 12 years isn't saving any lives right now."

This statement has too much spin for me, especially that we were "embroiled" in war for the last 12 years. I think the Iraqi people previously chose to allow Saddam to embroil them.

And the word "ignoring." I don't think many Americans ignored Saddam, nor do I think they perceived that the U.S. continued to be "at war" after the first engagement, but I certainly have no handy reference for you to look it up.

And I sure don't believe the war was "brought to" us. Some people in the U.S. might benefit by having an increased sense of safety, perhaps. Others will benefit by fat pockets. Sorry, life has taught me to be skeptical about government spin on government motives--any government.

And an on-point quote one of my favorite Republican presidents of all time regarding the Dixie Chicks' supreme lack of judgment:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt speaking against Wilson's crackdown on dissent after the U.S. entered WWI.

I still believe that many Americans feel they can support the troops and not support the war. One military father explained it in effect as follows:

I would try to prevent my son from getting into a car with a drunk driver. If he did get into a car with that drunk driver, I would still try to stop the car.

I would try to prevent my son from getting into a car with a drunk driver. If he did get into a car with that drunk driver, I would still try to stop the car.

You advocate stopping it by throwing someone elses kid under it.

I don't ask people to stand by their president and nation right or wrong. Standing by him when he is right is good enough.

BTW, don't try to pull any 'chickenhawk' arguments on me. I am a soldier, I just haven't been deployed in this....