The war comes home

"The less I say this morning about the despicable men of whom Sen. Webb so justly condemned, and whose actions condemn them, the better." I couldn't agree more, Rod, though it seems you're quick to forget the comment you made Tuesday about the dangers of overly vitriolic speech: you're too busy complaining about the "mendacity" and the "messianic Wilsonianism" of the Bush Administration. Why again did you complain about the Jane Fonda's of the Left protesting Iraq? In what sense is your rhetoric substantively different than theirs? Having recently paved the way to vote for abortionists -- the pro-life cause having reached apparently reached its zenith, right? -- and revealing a consistent agreement with the Left's view of Iraq, that it's a "meat grinder" being orchestrated by a liar, it's clear that you've jumped to liberalism in practice, even if in theory you consider yourself more of a paleoconservative. For all practical purposes, you've proven that Jonah Goldberg was right about you.

moonbats?

Reminds me of being in Church about 2003 and a young lady asks for a prayer for her friend who joined the military and said friend had no intention of ever fighting, why he just wanted the education, and isn't it awful that said friend has to actually go to war for the military he volunteered for. Yes it is sad.

The notion that, if you oppose this Iraq debacle that means you are with the Jane Fonda Left is so wrong. The real conservatives I know want to fight against the jihad and protect our country from jihadists. What are Bush, the war hawks, and the neocons doing? Abroad, they are protecting a tribal, sectarian government with potentially genocidal plans and sharia style government. At home they are allowing CAIR to give sensitivity sessions to the FBI. Islamic immigration remains unchecked, and they haven't a clue about the true nature of Islam.

What on earth is hyperbolic about finding despicable men who sent this country to war on the basis of intelligence cherry-picked to fit the conclusion that the war planners wanted? Jim, men are dying because of the decisions that were made in Washington, and they will continue to die until this thing ends. What is moral about remaining silent about the mendacity of our leaders? What is selfish about calling out the Bush leadership for what they've done? Is Sen. Webb selfish for saying what he said, even though he's got a son fighting in Iraq? I don't think much of your charge.

Bubba, Let me be much less direct than I'd like in hopes of getting past BNet's civility censors this time: What you write is loathsome. Your little Dreher obsession ceased to be amusing months ago. Jim Hale, The morale train done left the station. Repealing the First Amendment to buck up the troops does them no favors. Getting rid of the vipers and worms in Washington might do them some good, as well as GETTING THEM THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ.

"isn't it awful that said friend has to actually go to war for the military he volunteered for. Yes it is sad." Sadder still to die for the petty ego of a man so many here still worship.

Venn, Vinn, and Bubba, Enough about Rod. Let's get down to the business of looking at this top story that Rod has so graciously linked us to. It's quite the story. We've been blaming our intelligence community for selling us WMD that didn't exist, and here we find that the intelligence community didn't sell us anything. A group of people in the Pentagon, who's sole purpose was to manipulate the intelligence, sold it to us. This is what Feith has to say about it. In a telephone interview yesterday, Feith emphasized the inspector general's conclusion that his actions, described in the report as "inappropriate," were not unlawful. "This was not 'alternative intelligence assessment,' " he said. "It was from the start a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community, and in presenting it I was not endorsing its substance." What do you think about that? A guy presents a criticism of the consensus intelligence community which is used to justify an invasion of another country, and all that he can say about it is that he didn't break the law and he never said that he endorsed anything that he said. Aren't you a little outraged? Why are you more outraged with Rod's outrage than with the people at the Pentagon and the higher ups in the administration who orchestrated this whole thing? tv, good news. Glad to hear it. rod, I'll include this family in my hopes.

I looked at that article again. They didn't sell us, as far as we know, the WMD. This article only mentions an Al-Qaeda link.

We have very good friends who have 5 children under the age of 5 (including a set of twins, in case you're wondering). When our friend was pregnant w/#4, he was called up from the Reserves to active duty. He has now decided to be in the Army full-time until retirement (he comes from a long line of active soldiers). It's been most interesting watching them go through all of this. I asked my girl friend if she and her husband discuss their opinions on the President or the war, she said that occasionally she will vent about it to him, but that he will not agree or disagree with her. Kinda like it's an army thing not to criticize your commander-in-chief. She did not tell me her opinions about all of this. I asked her how she wraps her mind around the possibility of him dying over there. She said that she came to the conclusion that there is a time to die (see Eccelsiastes) and that God knows when it is for each of us. She would like him to be w/the family, but if his time to die is there then she's OK with it. Now I can't criticize her coping skills at all and if you're not a believing Christian, what she says is hogwash, I guess, but I appreciate her position.

g-i-i-t-t, Thank goodness your brother is home safe. I would say, give him a big hug and kiss, but I'm sure you have. I am happy for you both.

I'll say it because I believe it: George W. Bush is a despicable man.

watsy, Max, Thanks :) Rod, keep your chin up.

Eric, you're setting up a straw man here. I would expect any service member to follow lawful orders, even if he disagreed with them. The duty of a soldier to follow a lawful command has nothing to do with whether or not that soldier agrees or disagrees with the war or its strategy, or whether or not he loves or loathes his leaders. So it's just not true that I'm insulting the soldiers by expressing my anger and distrust of Bush, Rumsfeld, Feith et alia. Do you seriously believe that the hundreds of analysts, intelligence officers, and pentagon brass involved in delivering a presidential brief could have their work co-opted by some backroom cabal bent on domination of the middle east for non-justifiable reasons? Yes. If the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense tells you to do something, and it's not illegal, your job is to salute and execute the policy. Do you really think that they should have, or would have, staged an open rebellion against their commanders? Eric, I have military sources, and their views and experiences have not been consonant with your own. Also, did you read "Fiasco." Lots of on the record military sources there quite critical of the leadership.

Rod, Apparently you do not know the role of intelligence analysts - especially at the senior levels. Their duty is NOT to follow orders blindly - their duty is to act as a trusted advisor and challenge assumptions in order to give an accurate assessment of the threat. To do otherwise can get them demoted or worse. If their leadership choose to ignore their recommendation, so be it - they must comply, but no officer worth his salt (or with any self-respect) would tailor a brief simply to be a lickspittle. I never advocated rebellion, Rod, I advocated honor. To assume that these men and women are brave enough to confront bullets, but not to confront fallacy is where I believe you have denigated our Armed Services. Rod, you are showing your ignorance of the military establishment and obviously inserting your ill-formed opinion in as fact. For the third time, will you take me up on my challenge? You may have your 'sources' but are they wide-ranging, are they diverse, are they informed? Or are they simply a small like-minded group who have bolstered and affirmed your suspicions because they're simply birds of a feather? If that's the case Rod, then you and your trusted advisors are guilty of the same foible you accuse the administration of. So, which is it? Words or action? I will leave this to your conscience as all I've asked is that you seek out the thoughts of those you claim to speak on behalf of. I surmise you will find yourself a small minority in the midst of a very well informed, thoughtful, and determined majority who think other than you. You have nothing to prove to me - you only have truth (and I admit, validation of your own opinion) to discover for yourself. Respectfully and signing off, Eric

Rod, There's something in our national temprament that makes us undertake our wars as high moral crusades. "War to end war"..."...fighting for mom, apple pie and the little girl next door"..."that freedom shall not perish from this earth". "...to bring freedum n' demmacracy to the middle east". Conservatives of the old breed have always rolled their eyes at such holy gassifying, They pretty much see the world as a lowlife bar where brawls and blooshed are the daily menu. Like it not, this joint is all there is, so might as well get used to it. That means it's best to win every bar fight, always. Just, unjust, well-intentioned or sordid, wisely begun or not , it doesn't matter. The choice is between clobberer or clobberee. Always has been, always will. I don't know to what extent you partake of this dismal view of war and peace, but to us who do, everything you say, Rod, is perfectly true but completely irrevelant. Clobberer or clobberee. If you care to, I'd be interested in hearing how you'd frame your argument to those companions on the right who think it does come down to this.

Mr Dreher, it will be hard to have someone you know over there, but I think you will learn a lot. You've carefully measured the facts and have come to your conclusions. Now is the time for truth to be a little less objective for you. Keep in touch with your friend. He'll have access to e-mail, but whether or not he has time to e-mail you, ask him to send you his address as soon as he has one. Send him real letters. You don't need to say much, just some inspirational or biblical quotes that have touched you recently, some pictures of green fields and tropical beaches to decorate his trailer or tent with, and maybe some silly anecdotes about life back home, and offer your support. Offer to send him odd items he can't get at the tiny Shopettes there. Send coffee. If he doesn't drink it, I guarantee you there are plenty of folks around him who can't make it through the long watches of night without it;). Be willing to listen to what he has to say. But always try to be encouraging in your response. Real mail means the world when you are deployed. It brought me close to tears a time or two.