Well, maybe ONE post now… 🙂
I’d like to see it pointed out more often and much louder that most of the people pushing for this war are people who found something better to do when VietNam was going on (click here and here), while so many of the people against it were in combat or very close to it, or at least in the military.
I’ve been thinking about comments I have heard about those Representatives who went to Iraq to try to prevent a war – Rep. Jim McDermott, Rep. Mike Thompson and Rep. David Bonior. The right-wing drumbeat I’ve heard repeated all over the place was that these three were “still stuck on protesting against the VietNam war.” I heard this repeated from several sources, so I figure it must have been the official focus-group-tested Republican talking points handed out by the Heritage Foundation (or someone similar).
But those guys WENT TO VietNam! And the people mocking them as “protesters” DIDN’T! How do they get away with it, without being called on it, dragged into the street and tarred & feathered by the veterans? And how do military veterans justify their continued support for these Republican clowns? At what point do they say, “Wait a minute, I went to VietNam, these guys didn’t, these guys are all rich and acting like they are war heros, why am I voting for them”?
It’s an interesting problem of persuasion. How do you neutralize the politics of you being a chickenhawk, and your opponents being war heros – Bush vs McCain – or at least being VietNam veterans – Bush vs Gore? One way appears to be with enough loud bluster. Another way appears to be to make sure that no one involved in the debate has a child who would have to actually fight the war you’re starting.