Weekly Standard 's Implicit Slam Of Slackers Bush/Cheney/Gingrich, Etc.

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:15:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

From Glenn Greenwald. Irony writ large:

This week's issue of The Weekly Standard features a cover story by Hugh Hewitt blogger Dean Barnett. Entitled "The 9/11 Generation," it argues that America's current youthful generation is courageous and noble because it has answered the call of military service, in contrast to the cowardly Vietnam era baby boomers who chose protest instead. . . . The crux of Barnett's homage to what he calls the "9/11 Generation" is expressed as follows:
In the 1960s, history called the Baby Boomers. They didn't answer the phone.
To begin with, while Barnett contrasts two significant groups of the Vietnam era -- those who bravely volunteered for combat and/or who were drafted (Jim Webb and John McCain and Chuck Hagel and John Kerry) and those who protested the war -- he revealingly whitewashes from history the other major group, the most ignoble one, the one which happens to include virtually all of the individuals who lead Barnett's political movement: namely, those who claimed to support the war but did everything possible to evade military service, sending their fellow citizens off to die instead in a war they urged.

(Emphasis supplied.) I dunno. Barnett may have wanted to not slam them but the retort is so obvious that one wonders how he could not anticipate it.

< The Funding Power Belongs Exclusively To The Congress | Poll: Hillary's Lead Widens, Dems Believe She Can Win >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Weekly Standard 's Implicit Slam Of Slackers Bush/Cheney/Gingrich, Etc. | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

then and now (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by beal on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:28:39 PM EST

I am always amazed at the stereotype of the sixties-seventies into Pro and anti war (strong vs. weak). For most people it was a journey from being pro-war to anti-war. Most initially supported the war because we were fighting the expansion of communism/Soviet Union. Being against the war was then seen as unpatriotic. As people saw what was being done in their name, they began to oppose the war. Coming out against the war was a difficult thing to do in many communities. Only later (72-73) was it accepted and did it become the cool or easy thing to do. Going to the peace marches in Washington in 69 was courageous. Not mentioned in the stereotype was the very real harassment faced by the marchers (from people who were pro war and from the police who felt it was personal). Most of all, I remember talking to the Vietnam veterans who were at these marches about their journey from being for the war and in many cases volunteering, to being against it. Lost in all of the stereotypes is the fact that there was courage on both sides and that these vets were very special people. I had hoped that Kerry would have been elected and that his story could be a catalyst for recognition of these heroes and the tough choices they faced. But the stupid mime of strong vs. weak and the nonsense that if we had stayed longer we would have won seems to have taken hold. Nothing could be further from the truth- As we are seeing played out again with the lives of our children.

manys and et al (1.00 / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 04:09:08 PM EST

Those who support the war but do not entertain the possibility of enlisting need to be identified and called out.

And why would that be?

Are you saying that to discuss a war, or be for a war it is necessary that you must have served, or be in process of joining the military?

That would exclude quite a group, including an ex-Demo Pres named Clinton and every Demo or Repub current candidate, plus ex-Pres Reagan, FDR and others and a huge number of current and past members of Congress.

IOW Greenwald and Barnett are wrong to try and classify, just as I think you wrong to try and establish bench marks for being for the war.

I mean, what would be next? You can't be against the war unless you have marched in a major protest?

And if you claim that requirement about the war, what about other things?

Education?? Can't talk unless you are an ex, current or in training??

BTW - Before you respond, please note that I served for 10 years, and that I have commented many times in favor of Universal Military Service.

NOTE: Don't jump on the UMS comment. I'm just establishing a base for my above comments.

beal writes:

But the stupid mime of strong vs. weak and the nonsense that if we had stayed longer we would have won seems to have taken hold

I think a more accurate statement is that those who supported the war believe that if we had used the proper resouraces we would have not had to stay. It would have been over quickly.

I also think that this true in Iraq, but for similar, but not identical reasons.

Note (1.00 / 0) (#13)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:22:28 PM EST

In my statement re "excluded," I should have noted that it excluded all of the candidates that have a reasonable chance.

Sadly, I do not believe that McCain does. And that is a pity. I hope I am wrong.


stupidity is no excuse (none / 0) (#10)
by Sailor on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:23:35 PM EST

No, and for the last time, you are a hypocrite if you 'support the war' but have better things to do than fight it.

People who think the war was a mistake just have the obligation to say it loud and proud, not to fight it.


sailor (none / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:52:38 PM EST

As previously stated I served my 10 years in Naval Aviation. When those who claim to hate the war but love the troops serve their turn, come back and chat.

In the meantime I refer you to my comment that Universal Military Service is my solution to this argument. Put everyone in the same pot and then everyone can know what it is they are talking about.


: bawk, bawk, bawk (none / 0) (#14)
by Sailor on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:49:05 PM EST

As previously stated I served my 10 years in Naval Aviation.
Yet never volunteered for vietnam.

When those who claim to hate the war but love the troops serve their turn, come back and chat.
when chickenhawks like you who love war but hate the troops actually serve in a war come back and chat.

Call this the Gabriel Malor Post (none / 0) (#1)
by Dadler on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:21:02 PM EST

Nothing worse than those of fighting age, like Gabe, who yap about how important this war is, but then make empty excuses for why they can't go FIGHT their war ("I'm in law school", "I can't quit my job", etc). If they simply said, "I'm too frightened to go", then I might have a little respect. Instead, they mumble and equivocate and prove themselves dishonest and cowardly to the core.

: percolating (none / 0) (#4)
by manys on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 02:26:48 PM EST

Since Max Blumenthal's latest last week, a concept has been coming together in my mind. In order to counter the "Against the war, against the troops," talking point, I'm trying to cultivate a concept of "For the war, against the troops." The chickenhawk tag has outlived its usefulness and is a little too obviously contentious. Those who support the war but do not entertain the possibility of enlisting need to be identified and called out.

In the sixties and in 2001 (none / 0) (#3)
by jondee on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:45:44 PM EST

reality, wisdom and common decency called the Right who answered with "But...How will the market respond?"

: Another classic zinger from jondee.... (none / 0) (#7)
by kdog on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 02:54:52 PM EST

you should write for Letterman bro...lol

John Kerry, and many others, were in (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 02:49:50 PM EST

Vietnam and also protested the war.

"Sure, I drink a lot, ... (none / 0) (#6)
by chemoelectric on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 02:51:04 PM EST

... but I can control it."

Extend that to chickenhawk opinions about war and you have a Bushist.

The Max Blumenthal video Greenwald points to also is good.

DA (none / 0) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:09:29 PM EST

I don't think that an AssT Sec of the Navy qualifies as serving in the military.

And in fact, when Clinton tried to invoke the Soldier and Sailors relief act to dodge the Paula Jones law suit that did not work.

Indeed, the separation of the civil and military is an important part of of our republic.

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,

As an appointee, FDR was a member of the Civilian...

Sailor's Law (none / 0) (#15)
by Sailor on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:50:56 PM EST

the index of desperation in the square of the amount of times they invoke clinton or kennedy.

p.s. you're off topic again.


You have no law (1.00 / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:08:12 AM EST

I confess though that you are amusing from time to time with such claims. But can't you please keep up?

Do you think that those who read the thread can't figure out that I answered DA's comment, which came from my comment to manys???


: OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by Sailor on Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 12:30:04 AM EST

and you still have nothing but personal attacks.
And they will probably be deleted. Just like when you lied and said only 12 of your previous posts had been deleted in all your Alzheimer years here at TL.
Golly, I guess you just forgot that you have had 28 posts deleted in the last 6 days.
et al Is he lying ... or just confused?