"You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of checks and balances [at ‘60 Minutes’] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing.”
I hate this trite formulation of opposition to US military involvement. "Don't go to war unless you send your own son or daughter." We have a voluntary military. Nobody sends anybody to war - my son is 20 and if he wants a career as a warrior, it's really his choice.
Personally I think we are see far greater misery and suffering in Syria, Libya, Nigeria and Iraq than we would had there been a more pronounced application of force months or years ago. On the other hand, I think restraint has been appropriate in Ukraine. The point is it isn't a simple analysis, and Rather's melodramatic formulation is simplistic and irrelevant (just like him).
While Dan is a blowhard like most on air and blog talent, he raises a good point though buried in his unctuous melodrama. The US military is a lot more than a tool to be deployed. The volunteer nature is irrelevant (in fact that makes it more scary to have all the gung-ho types controlling the weapons)
Okay, since you only can talk if you have skin in the game, we also only let the military vote on our foreign policy. Or better yet, only let the military vote at all. And of course, if you get welfare, you're not allowed to vote.
Etc, etc.
Rather is a fool, but it's sad to see anyone agreeing with his tiresome demagoguery.
The President has two daughters, neither of whom are planning to join the army, so it shouldn't be his call as to what we should be doing militarily. If you want to say it's his Constitutional power, well then, since we've got a democracy and a republic, it's also the power of citizens to have opinions on this issues as well, since he has to answer to them.
4 Comments:
I hate this trite formulation of opposition to US military involvement. "Don't go to war unless you send your own son or daughter." We have a voluntary military. Nobody sends anybody to war - my son is 20 and if he wants a career as a warrior, it's really his choice.
Personally I think we are see far greater misery and suffering in Syria, Libya,
Nigeria and Iraq than we would had there been a more pronounced application of force months or years ago. On the other hand, I think restraint has been appropriate in Ukraine. The point is it isn't a simple analysis, and Rather's melodramatic formulation is simplistic and irrelevant (just like him).
While Dan is a blowhard like most on air and blog talent, he raises a good point though buried in his unctuous melodrama. The US military is a lot more than a tool to be deployed. The volunteer nature is irrelevant (in fact that makes it more scary to have all the gung-ho types controlling the weapons)
Okay, since you only can talk if you have skin in the game, we also only let the military vote on our foreign policy. Or better yet, only let the military vote at all. And of course, if you get welfare, you're not allowed to vote.
Etc, etc.
Rather is a fool, but it's sad to see anyone agreeing with his tiresome demagoguery.
The President has two daughters, neither of whom are planning to join the army, so it shouldn't be his call as to what we should be doing militarily. If you want to say it's his Constitutional power, well then, since we've got a democracy and a republic, it's also the power of citizens to have opinions on this issues as well, since he has to answer to them.
Post a Comment
<< Home