> The left should be able to separate those two issues. Don't you think
> the
> kids who are willing to go off to possibly die because they think it's
> the
> way to serve their friends and communities deserve respect? We can
> argue
> that the politicians sending them there are liars promoting the war
> based
> on false pretenses, but that's doesn't retroactively discredit the
> moral
> intentions of the soldiers willing to sacrifice themselves.
What the Sam Hill does this have to do with Kerry public proclaiming on numerous occasions that he is going to continue the war? That's the problem -- not his symbolism. Forget the symbols -- concentrate on his actual proclaimed war policy.
What happened to the concept that the best way to honor the kids in uniform is to stop a useless war in which they are getting maimed and killed and bring them home as soon as possible?
Of course, they are only following orders, and we should morn them when they die, as we should the Iraqis who are being killed. The damn war has to stop! And Kerry will not say so.
However, as many people have pointed out, it is what happens in Iraq itself which will determine what will happen with Kerry's, and Bush's, Iraq policy. If the U.S.-supported provisional government is near collapse, as Fisk and others have been warning, they will both have to go to their Plans B. Let's hope that Kerry's Plan B is to give up Iraq as a lost cause, as finally happened in the case of Vietnam. If his plan is to keep on fighting no matter what, he'll be the equivalent of Nixon -- slaughtering more and more soldiers and civilians on both sides, for no conceivable purpose. Hard to believe, but as far as we can tell from his public statements, that's exactly what he intends to do.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax