Give me a war that is winnable, you Dick!

The point of my post was to call out the common tactic of using Webb's (and others') status as a hero to bolster one's argument. Unless the topic under discussion is courage in the face of severe adversity it is wrong to cite heroism as a rhetorical embellishment.

The Webb amendment is good legislation based solely on the merit of what it proposes to do. Why does labeling Webb as a war hero make Glenn's argument, in this case, stronger? In my view, it doesn't.

(1) The idea that Webb's FISA vote - which I hate as much as anyone -- somehow means he is no longer a "war hero" is just absurd. If Person X runs through enemy fire in order to save their wounded comrades and then, the next month, steals from their mother, they're still a "war hero." They may also be a theif and a scoundrel, but it doesn't eliminate their status as hero.

(2) There is only one reason I included Webb's status as 'war hero' here. It is NOT, as you suggest, simply to glorify him because, in this particualar case, I agree with him. My post actually isn't even about supporting his bill.

It is true, as I've argued many times, that all Americans - those who served and those who haven't -- have the right and even obligation to form opinions about whether we ought to go to war. And I reject the idea that there is something inherently wrong about advocating a war without serving in it (the vast, vast majority of the country did that with Afghanistan, and with the 1991 Persian Gulf War, for instance).

But when it comes to arguments about how much strain troops can endure in combat, one's experience in war is absolutely relevant to whether the argument should be given more weight. THAT is why it is relevant TO THIS ISSUE that Webb is a war hero - because the issue here requires a knowledge of war and the strain it puts on troops, and Webb is someone who, due to his experiences, has particular credibility.

And that's true regardless of his FISA vote or whether he did other bad things in his life.

"...and having the moral right to say it" - is not a very good argument, IMO.

Stalin's son Yakov, for example, was a soldier in the WWII, he was captured by the Nazis, they offered to swap him for general Paulus, but Stalin rejected the offer saying: 'soldier is not worth a general' (or something to that effect). Yakov died in Nazi concentration camps. So, does this mean that Stalin had the moral right to play with lives of other people? I don't think so.

Every argument Kagan makes can be examined on the merits of the argument itself. The fact that Kagan is fat and a chickenhawk is worth a comment, but not a post.

My friend is in the 13th month of what was supposed to be a 12 month tour. He is physically, emotionally, and mentally exhausted, and worried that he'll never stop feeling that way, even after he finally returns home. The idea that Fred Kagan is demanding further sacrifices from him and his men makes me ill.

What's missing is some insight from the resident chickenhawk and cheerleader for Bush's War scooter242.As I recall,scooter confessed to missing VietNam because the draft ended(and apparently no one told him he was allowed to volunteer).

I've also magnanimously volunteered to finance a vacation to Iraq for scooter,provided he spends it touring the non-GreenZone portions of Baghdad,sans bodyguard,but with an American flag flying,all so he could report to us first hand the many good things he wants to convince us are happening there.If I remember correctly,his reason for declining my generous offer was that he was 'too smart to get shot at'.

Scooter is Kagan or Kristol with a double-digit IQ.

Have you people no shame? You probably think being opposed by democrats is a badge of honor. It's what keep you going through this scam, isn't it? It's what keeps you from admitting your complicity in sending thousands to their senseless deaths, isn't it?

If you didn't hate the democrats as a guiding light in your life, you'd be nothing. As it is, you are less than nothing.

... and childish touch for Glenn to say "so and so typed such and such." It's a nice, passive-aggressive and typically petulant touch that we've come to expect from him.

Just say they "typed" something and, in a passive way, imply no thought was put into it.

Some of us who have served in uniform see Webb for what he is: a showboater. Always was, always will be. Was during the Reagan administration, is now.

A key objection to Webb's bill, though, is that it puts Congress in the position of running the military, a job the Constitution clearly gives to the president. (Gee, you'd think a "constitutional lawyer" who also types for a blog would recognize that.) I'm not talking about the formulation of regulations and laws governing the military; I'm talking about the day-to-day running of the thing. Get 535 sticky fingers on that and chaos is the inevitable result.

Yeah, it's be nice to fix the brutal deployment schedule. But Marines had brutal deployment schedules well before 9/11, as did the Navy. People still volunteered for it.

So, keep typing away, Glenn. I need a good laugh now and then.

PS. So, how's that request to embed with the military going? Remember, no whining once the bullets are flying.

Every argument Kagan makes can be examined on the merits of the argument itself. The fact that Kagan is fat and a chickenhawk is worth a comment, but not a post.

-- abbbb1

Reading comprehension seems to be one of your weak points. Kagan's "arguments" have been examined on their merits. The fact that he is a fat chickenhawk is not mentioned in Glenn's post, and is only mentioned as a sideline fact in the comment posts.