Sunday, January 28, 2007

Kagan Calls out the Politicians - Lefties Demand More Children and Grandchildren

Kagan writes a brilliant piece describing exactly the childishness of the politicians in congress over the Iraq war.

Back in Washington, however, Democratic and Republican members of Congress are looking for a different kind of political solution: the solution to their problems in presidential primaries and elections almost two years off. Resolutions disapproving the troop increase have proliferated on both sides of the aisle. Many of their proponents frankly, even proudly, admit they are responding to the current public mood, as if that is what they were put in office to do. Those who think they were elected sometimes to lead rather than follow seem to be in a minority.

It has nothing to do with victory or the direction in the war on terror. It's all about '08! Right wing nut takes it a step further; you'll want to check out his analysis on Madame Hillary "Evita" Clinton.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York used her time [to question General Patraeus] to make a speech about Iraq policy and did not ask a single question of the man who will be leading the military campaign.

She began by blaming the Iraq crisis on a "Congress [that] was supine under the Republican majority, failing to conduct oversight and demanding accountability, and because the president and his team, particularly the former secretary of defense, refused to adapt to the changing circumstances on the ground."

From that partisan opening, Clinton went on to decry "the failures of the Iraqis to step up and take responsibility for their own future."

Apparently, General Petraeus had a mere four word reply to Hillary's endless harraunge. She followed up with...no futher questions.

Appalling enough that this women (sic), who dreams of becoming America's commander-in-chief, is playing presidential politics while the most important military officer in the United States waits patiently before her. But doesn't she have the responsibility, as a sitting Senator on this prestigous committee, to ask questions of the General regarding policy, tactics, rules of engagement, and results? Or is it understood that her duty to her constituents in New York has been discharged now that she is running for president?

I read the comments on Kagan's column in the Washington Post and, needless to say, they offer nothing new from the left.

I really have no problem with the author*s views as long as he is willing to send his own children and grandchildren to Iraq, that also goes for all the politicians. Don*t rattle your sword then send someone else*s kids to die like in Viet Nam, be a man and join the military like I did. Otherwise you will be relegated to stand on the sideline and quietly watch as we force Congress to do as WE THE PEOPLE ask. Let the Iraq CHIPS fall where they may, when they actually attack us we can mount a proper war and blast them off the face of the earth. We can*t fight them in their own back yard like we tried to do in Viet Nam. Let them come to us like in Pearl Harbor. We do our best fighting when the enemy is not entwined with our troops as in Baghdad. Remember Nagasaki and Heroshima, if I remember correctly they surendered soon after the second bomb.....Gil in Tex

Obviously, the man is sick. He wants us to be hit again and fight on our soil. But something else just struck me today about this lame thinking of the left.

I am so tired of this "send your children and grandchildren" business the left uses as political cover to avoid talking about the real consequences of their positions, as they sit in their dorm room or the local Starbucks. Our soldiers are MEN and WOMEN and should be spoken of with respect. But I think we can use this "children and grandchildren" standard in other policy issues as well.

How about this? All the people who want to pull out should send their children and grandchildren to Iraq after our troops leave. They demand those who support our troops in Iraq send our children and grandchildren; why don't they send their children and grandchildren to serve as human shields when we execute their policy positions of "redeployment" and the guaranteed genocide and bloodletting that will follow?

We should make this a pattern. Any political position the left takes, they should offer up their children and grandchildren. You think the government should confiscate more taxes? You should turn over your children's college fund to the government. You like the estate tax? Then you should turn over everything you own to the government after you die and leave nothing to your children or grandchildren. I mean, how could you possibly advocate for such positions unless you put your own children and grandchildren out there to prove you're serious?

Are you against school vouchers? Then you should be forbidden by law to send your children to private schools. In fact, your children and grandchildren should be forced/bussed to the most violent, run-down public school in the closest city and forced to attend school there.

Do you believe that affirmative action and race quotas are necessary? Then your children and grandchildren should give up their spot at the university to a minority. Your children and grandchildren should also give up any job paying more than minimum wage to a more needy minority.

The argument that people who make decisions about war fighting must have children in the battle is illogical and is an attempt to obfuscate the issue: how to complete the mission. As I've said before, emotion over personal involvement clouds sound judgment. I do not want any politician to cower and put this nation at risk simply because s/he does not want to see his/her children hurt. This is ridiculous. Chelsea Clinton never went to Haiti, Rwanda or Bosnia and you never once heard a Republican demanding that she enlist before Clinton made any military decision (of the one or two he did make).

"Why don't you send your children to fight!" How does this shrill question get us closer to a solution and closer towards victory? It doesn't. Yesterday at the counter-protest, some 30-something guy yelled, "Why aren't you in Iraq if you support this war so much?" I thought about it and looked around at all the college-aged and 20 and 30-something men at the "Peace" rally trying to get laid. I wondered, if they don't support Iraq, but do support getting "the real enemy--bin Laden," then how come they did not sign up and go to Afghanistan? How could they demand action from the president to get bin Laden if they were not over there?

And, of course, what about their children and grandchildren? Speaker Nancy "Mimi" Pelosi said that "the real war on terror is in Afghanistan" (even though bin Laden is in Pakistan). Why aren't they sending them to Afghanistan through the peace corps or USAID? Anyone who complains about why we have not captured bin Laden should be made to explain why they have not signed up to go get bin Laden and why they haven't sent their children or grandchildren to the mountains of Waziristan to get him.

[Thanks to Pat for the pic!]