RE: Spoiled, self-involved, over-pampered brats
"So essentially, the majority of Americans now think that Ms. Sheehan's son died for a mistake."
No, that would be your own corollary. You cannot logically assume that. You can't even assume that most Americans feel we should be out of Iraq. The only conclusion you can make from the (questionable) polling is that Americans feel like we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons.
"That’s not an opinion of the ‘extreme left.’ That’s the opinion of the majority."
Be careful of how much you make of polling. Asking 500 Democrats in San Francisco what they think about the war or the President is not a bellwether.
"Not sure about her role as a ‘willing tool’, but you’re welcome to explain."
The people who are backing Cindy Sheehan's efforts are the usual suspects from the left: MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Code Pink, etc. They are providing her with money and infrastructure with which to carry on her public temper tantrum. Her little charade suits their purpose. She is a willing tool of their agenda.
"...but I’m surrounded by self-professed ‘conservatives,’ complete with ‘Support Our Troops’ magnets on their cars who would be gung-ho about any war the White House decided to cook up."
Drones will be drones. I regularly encounter self-professed liberals who would be opposed to any military action at all, even if Saddam's Republican Guard, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda were all goose-stepping up Main Street, USA.
At least 50% of the people I encounter who self-identify as conservative are actually firmly moderate. Very few subscribe to the libertarian component of conservatism. As I've said before, a better name for the so-called neo-cons would be liberal hawk.
"'Conservatives' such as that are wholly hypocritical, cowardly, and — dare I say it — the pinnacle of elitism: ‘Sure I support the president and his wars… as long as his troops are someone else or someone else’s kids.’"
Have you actually heard any of these self-professed conservatives say something like this? Or is it that you are so deeply conditioned by your political tendencies that you simply assume this to be their attitude? I know of half a dozen neo-cons who profess undying support for the war in Iraq and who have family members proudly serving there. In any case, not all conservatives support the Bush Doctrine. In fact, I would guess most do not.
Nice try at lumping all conservatives into a single mold, though.
An interesting note on this discussion:
In the late 1960's much was made by Democrats on the left of a Republican Congressman who had obtained a military deferral for his son on the strength of his office. The furor was similar to the recent one over Tom DeLay's travel expenses. The result was similar as well. It was subsequently revealed that there were just as many Democrats who had done the same. It was also subsequently revealed that Republican office-holders with children in the military outnumbered Democrats by almost 2 to 1. Rank hath its privilege. People in power have done this throughout history. They will probably continue to do so.
No, that would be your own corollary. You cannot logically assume that. You can't even assume that most Americans feel we should be out of Iraq. The only conclusion you can make from the (questionable) polling is that Americans feel like we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons.
"That’s not an opinion of the ‘extreme left.’ That’s the opinion of the majority."
Be careful of how much you make of polling. Asking 500 Democrats in San Francisco what they think about the war or the President is not a bellwether.
"Not sure about her role as a ‘willing tool’, but you’re welcome to explain."
The people who are backing Cindy Sheehan's efforts are the usual suspects from the left: MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Code Pink, etc. They are providing her with money and infrastructure with which to carry on her public temper tantrum. Her little charade suits their purpose. She is a willing tool of their agenda.
"...but I’m surrounded by self-professed ‘conservatives,’ complete with ‘Support Our Troops’ magnets on their cars who would be gung-ho about any war the White House decided to cook up."
Drones will be drones. I regularly encounter self-professed liberals who would be opposed to any military action at all, even if Saddam's Republican Guard, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda were all goose-stepping up Main Street, USA.
At least 50% of the people I encounter who self-identify as conservative are actually firmly moderate. Very few subscribe to the libertarian component of conservatism. As I've said before, a better name for the so-called neo-cons would be liberal hawk.
"'Conservatives' such as that are wholly hypocritical, cowardly, and — dare I say it — the pinnacle of elitism: ‘Sure I support the president and his wars… as long as his troops are someone else or someone else’s kids.’"
Have you actually heard any of these self-professed conservatives say something like this? Or is it that you are so deeply conditioned by your political tendencies that you simply assume this to be their attitude? I know of half a dozen neo-cons who profess undying support for the war in Iraq and who have family members proudly serving there. In any case, not all conservatives support the Bush Doctrine. In fact, I would guess most do not.
Nice try at lumping all conservatives into a single mold, though.
An interesting note on this discussion:
In the late 1960's much was made by Democrats on the left of a Republican Congressman who had obtained a military deferral for his son on the strength of his office. The furor was similar to the recent one over Tom DeLay's travel expenses. The result was similar as well. It was subsequently revealed that there were just as many Democrats who had done the same. It was also subsequently revealed that Republican office-holders with children in the military outnumbered Democrats by almost 2 to 1. Rank hath its privilege. People in power have done this throughout history. They will probably continue to do so.
posted by Anonymous | 8:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home