It seems to me that the Democrats are missing a grand opportunity to unite over an Iraqi exit strategy that ALL Democrats should be able to support from Congressman Murtha to Senator Lieberman. So, what is the most logical policy around which all Democrats should be able to agree on? Let the Iraqi people vote on whether they want us there, want us out within 12 months, and/or want us to have permanent bases there. A "blue" thumb down is they don't want us; a "red" thumb up if they do. Isn't that what Bush's "democracy" for Iraq is all about? How could Bush oppose that policy if his true goal is democracy there? Wouldn't a Democratic proposal to allow the Iraqi people decide whether they want us ther, or not, put Bush on the defensive (particularly if his motives and goals are different from his stated ones), while taking away the "cut and run" Republican accusations against the Democrats? If the Iraqi people say, go, then we should, "Go." We wouldn't be "cutting and running," but meerly following the "will" of the people. And,if, instead, they say they want us there, doesn't that kind of vote undercut at least part of the reason d'etre of the so-called insurgency? I think that all Democrats should be able to agree on this suggestion. Any takers for this approach?

The fact that so many conservatives get upset about the chickenhawk label is proof that it hits them hard where it hurts. Jean Schmidt, my U.S. rep here in Ohio who infamously called Murtha a coward, nearly lost to Iraq vet Paul Hackett because he effectively used the chickenhawk label on her. Remember, this all happened in a highly Republican district.

Democrats need to start hitting Republicans hard. We now know this is a better strategy than playing "the better man" or waiting for the media to sort things out. It's sad that we've come to name calling, but the Repugs have really brought it on themselves at this point. Let lose the cannons of war, as far as I'm concerned.

The Democrats haven't made the case that remaining in Iraq threatens national security. Perhaps we would really see some exploding heads on the Republican side of the aisle if that issue was raised. If we don't stop the Chinese at Taiwan, we'll be fighting them in Santa Barbara. That we might be fighting WWIII in the Middle East is an empty headed idea, but then the Neocons told Bush that Iran was the problem, and Heritage, which pursued and prosecuted Clinton, posts studies about the Communist threat in Asia. Bush chooses to fight in Iraq. On the long list it is his most impeachable offense, but the circumstances which would cause his removal are too frightening to mention.

Cosmos mentioned that we shouldn't demand that only veterans be allowed to comment on military affairs, citing FDR and LBJ.

Something of a straw man argument. It's not the basis of observing chickenhawks.

A quick aside: FDR was facing Nazi Germany gobbling Europe and Imperial Japan gobbling up Asia. Textbook case of "clear and present danger." LBJ, had it not been for Conservatives' shallacking the Democrats over "losing China" would have vastly prefered to invest in America. It's not as though either leaders were enthusiastic proponents of involving the US militarily.

To be considered a chickenhawk, you need to be advocating involving US militarily, on a preferred basis (over economic or diplomatic ones), in a careless fashion (no exit strategy, ignoring cautious advice, using fabricated (or ever-shifting) rationales...), when other options remain on the table (no "preimptive wars").

And, most importantly, when it was the neck of them or theirs (Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Limbaugh, Rumsfeld, Gramm, the Bush twins, Prescott Bush...), they conveniently found alternatives. In short, they follow the "Let's you and him fight" policy.

You can be a civilian and comment or effect policy. You can be a veteran and do the same. You can't (or shouldn't) be the first to suggest that someone else sends their kids to be churned up, disfigured or killed unless it's the last resort. And people that have been in combat intuitively understand this.

Cosmos, I hope you realize we all want the best for our troops. We're all on the same side in this regard. We think the most supreme act a country to do is to ask our citizens to DIE for us, or to have their children die. A nation - at least a good nation - should only ask this at the last resort, under the strictest of rationales. Right?

If you look into your heart, can you say that this was approach was followed?

It stands to reason that if peace were actually to succeed in the world, one day there would be no leaders or followers who have any combat experience.

Until then, I would prefer that my political leaders to have the same life-changing personal experiences of combat as those who he/she sends off to die or be maimed.

I don't give a crap about Bush flying jets over Texas, or Rummy's limp-ass career as a flight instructor. It's insulting to combat veterans to hear some REMF try to equate his service with theirs.

It's vile beyond comprehension that anyone who has fought and bled for this country could be called a coward and a traitor for using his Constitutional right to speak, a right that he helped uphold with his blood and courage.

Hey Cosmo, the issue is that the ones most furvent in their support for the wars of choice that the Bushies have jumped into are "think tank" warriors, and have no idea what war is about. Colin Powell was the most reluctant of the Bush cabinet to jump into this mess in term 1 and he was the only one who had "smelled the powder". I suspect that active service gives one a perspective that think tank warriors don't have.

As well, the think tank warriors had plenty of opportunity to step up to the plate in their time and didn't. This fact, along with their desire to jump into the frey with the lives of others, when they are well past their prime, makes their positions on going to war completely immoral.

Where was Bush during Vietnam? Will Bush's daughters sign up now?

Where was Cheney during Vietnam? Will Cheney's daughter sign up now?

How many members of congress who voted for the war in Iraq and have children of miltary age, have children that are in the military?

Is it any wonder that some of the most principled opposition the think tank warriors shinanigans in Iraq have come from the likes of Murtha and Cleland?

These guys need to get off their fat asses and out of their corner offices and stop playing with the lives of young Americans as if they were mere chess pieces.