Jack F. Twist > writes:

: Uh, what does their sitting in an air-conditioned room, or their
: weight (O'Reilly is actually pretty slender) have to do with the
: merit of their positions Iraq?

> That first part has everything to do with it. If somehow it was
> constitutional to pass a law which requires members of our Executive
> and Legislative branches of government to send their own kids to war
> before anyone else's, it would put an end to military adventurism
> immediately, and forever.

But in fact it isn't that way. Therefore that first part had nothing
to do with it.

Your suggestion reminds me of an old bumper sticker: "What If They Gave
A War And Nobody Came?" In both cases, I'm not sure whether "navel
gazing" or "mental masturbation" is the more appropriate metaphor.


> Mr. Bush and Congress are very adept at sending other people's kids
> to fight and die, but they wouldn't be so quick on the trigger if
> their own kids' lives were at stake.

Speculation.

Do you really believe that the nation's leaders are so small-minded
that they're insensitive to other people's kids being killed and
maimed in wars, or that in the context of formulating national policy,
they'd differentiate between their children and those of others when
it came to placing lives at risk? Do you seriously think that awful
burden wouldn't weigh heavily on _anyone's_ shoulders?

And what about cases where kids of members of the Executive and Leg-
islative branches actually support the war in question? How does that
affect your calculus?

(Didn't you announce your killfiling of me last week, by the way?)



Geoff

--
"Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime
their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening." -- Ann Coulter