That's all Kagan generates! He ought to know paperwork isn't such a difficult task.

Skin Game Blues

This is an example of what I mean. This man is not a physically beautiful specimen in the opinion of most folks, I suppose. But the Kagans, because of their repulsive attitudes, they repulse me.

This man that I am linking too, I see him as a nice looking man. That is because of the personality that he seems to have, the person that he seems to carry around inside of him. He is a joy to watch.

http://tinyurl.com/2l2pqz

Fred Kagan regards soldiers as disposable, and exist only for the purpose of dying for the greater glory of the almighty Bush and the profits of offense, er, defense industries.

Bush has promised to leave the lot of them in Iraq to die unless he gets all the funding he wants for his military adventurism, no strings attached. Some of us have pointed out that Bush has been holding 160,000 Americans hostage in Iraq, and that he's been getting away with murder and blackmail for years.

When they say "support the troops", what they mean is "support military imperialism or the troops get it." They could actually care less about the troops.

Pretty good scam, huh? What's amazing is that millions of Americans really are gullible enough to fall for it, over and over again.

Cheney: "Suckers!"

Dubya: "I haven't lost. I still have soldiers left."

"While Webb's vote on FISA was bad.... I trust Jim Webb and Russ Feingold a lot more than I do HRC(or any Republican .. including Lincoln Chaffee)".

--This Machine Kills Fascists

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. Webb's status as a parent with a son on active duty is far more relevant to the issue addressed by the amendment than anything he did thirty five years ago in Viet Nam. Additionally, Webb's experience leading men in combat should be sufficient to counter the Kagans' lack of military service in the argument Glenn makes.

The main difference between the use of this rhetorical device and that employed by the Petraeus cult is volume. The rightwing is much more effective at amplifying their message.

Further, I am disturbed by those who seem to think that exemplary performance in combat automatically implies superiority in other aspects of an individual's life. There are any number of extraordinary soldiers/sailors/marines who have gone on to lead less than admirable lives (e.g., Duke Cunningham).

To be clear, I am not equating Webb's behavior to Cunningham's. I am saying that Webb's violation of his oath to defend the Constitution has done far more damage to our political heritage than all of his many years of public service have done to foster it. As such, in my mind his hero status is negated and rendered completely irrelevant.

This does not in any way suggest that Webb is incapable of doing legislative good in the future. Just avoid the hero bullshit.

Where are the democrats to tar and feather these guys, use them as examples of the vile nature of conservatism? Oh, that's right, the democrats are choosing their words so carefully to avoid insulting the tender sensibilities of the moderates.

As long as democrats are content to leave the gloves on and pelt their opponents with Nerf balls instead of firebombs they'll never gain firm control. We need to get UGLY and fast.

With all due respect...

Nothing's wrong with venting frustration, but this post is kinda weak. Really. Fat faces, chickenhawks?

I didn't make a single comment about their physical appearance. If the words "fat faces" popped into your head as part of the argument, blame yourself, not met. I used their official photographs from the AEI and Washington Post website.

Fred Kagan would've been just as wrong if he looked like Wesley Snipes and served in the delta force for the last 30 years.

His physical appearance is not relevant to this argument, which is why only you -- but not me -- raised it.

But his lack of service plainly is. There is something particularly inappropriate about someone who has never served in war and thus cannot fathom the strain it puts on people to be so dismissive of the need for extended breaks from multiple tours of duty. If he had been a war veteran, the argument would have been grounded in more than mere disdain.

I hope this kinda rhetoric is not going to become a permanent feature here.

Again, the "rhetoric" you are complaining about exists only in your head, which you're using to attribute to me thigngs I didn't say. Nonetheless, I have written many, many times before about the personality types who are warmongers and how the relationship between their personality attributes and their twisted policies. I will definitely continue to do so.

If troops want more time at home, Kagan says, there is an easy way to achieve that: "win the war we're fighting."

How can these people get away with saying things like this? How could you insult the troops any harsher or question their service any more? Have the troops been lazing around, sun-bathing in Iraq the past 4 years?

"Win the war"? Give 'em a goal and they'll get it done just as they've done with every other objective set for them. But, to keep re-defining the mission, moving the goal posts, failing to eqip them, and providing no political leadership, then blaming them for not having won the war already is just unconscionable.

How can they get away with this? And, go after moveon.org at the same time?

We are now a completely duped nation. The scoundrels have the floor and control the debate entirely.