Bill Kristol, the New York Times' 65-pound eight-year-old linebacker, is at it again with a column, or something vaguely resembling one, about that MoveOn ad where a mother tells John McCain that she won't sacrifice her baby on the altar of his hundred-year plan for Iraq. Here are Kristol's objections.
Now it might be pedantic to point out that John McCain isn�t counting on Alex to serve in Iraq, because little Alex will only be 9 years old when President McCain leaves office after two terms.
The word you're looking for isn't "pedantic," it's "idiotic." Does Kristol really think a president can't establish policy that will continue to have an effect decades after he leaves office?
And it might be picky to remark that when McCain was asked whether U.S. troops might have to remain in Iraq for as long as 50 years, he replied, �Maybe 100� � explaining, �As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it�s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world. ...�
In other words, McCain is open to an extended military presence in Iraq, similar to ones we�ve had in Germany, Japan or Kuwait. He does not wish for, nor does he anticipate, a 100-year war in Iraq.
Not "picky," "desperate." Germany and Japan are not "volatile parts of the world." And it will be many decades before Iraq is remotely like Kuwait (where we've only had permanent bases for about 15 years, and how has that worked out?) in terms of either stability or geopolitical significance -- and thanks to the Bush-McCain foreign policy, Kuwait may head in the direction of Iraq, rather than the other way around.
Andrew Sullivan has made short work of this objection already. "McCain's position is that he'd be fine with stationing American troops in fifty permanent bases in the middle of Mesopotamia for the next century or more. The woman in the ad is perfectly entitled to believe that such troops would not be in the same position as troops in South Korea or Germany."
So, why, I wondered after first seeing the MoveOn ad, did I find it so ... creepy? I was having trouble putting my finder on just why until I came across a post by a mother of a soldier recently deployed in Iraq, at the Web site BlueStarChronicles.com
First of all putting my finder on?! I apologize for ever having called Bill Kristol a hack, since the man has come up with a phrase that has apparently has been used only twice before in all recorded history. And don't tell me about the proximity of the D and G keys. I prefer to believe the man is a poet than a poor typist.
But more importantly...
Remember when the New York Times held its op-ed columnists to higher standards than wingnut blogs. I'm shocked Kristol didn't go all the way and accuse Alex's mother of being an actress and suggest that Obama is a secret Muslim. (Kristol lifted his pedantic argument from this site too.)
In the United States, individuals can choose to serve in the military or not. The choice not to serve should carry no taint, nor should it be viewed with the least prejudice. If Alex chooses to pursue other opportunities, he won�t be criticized by John McCain or anyone else.
Except that McCain's only memorable line from the GOP primaries was attacking the dirty hippies at Woodstock who avoided service while he was in Nam.
The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve � and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past.
And the sole responsibility of others.
Forget that what Alex's mother is obviously trying to say is that she doesn't want anyone's son slaughtered on McCain's altar. The rich irony here has to do with the fact that virtually no one among Kirstol's neocon shock troops cohorts has ever volunteered to serve, or encouraged their sons or daughter to. [Update: I'm informed that Michael Ledeen has two sons in the Marines; the exception that proves the rule]. No wonder he threw in that line about not criticizing people for "pursuing other opportunities." I'm not disagreeing with him about that. I'm just pointing out that Bill Kristol and his pals, no less than Alex's mother, expect other people's children to bear responsibility for them. The difference is that Kristol deceitfully pushed an immoral foreign policy that has so far caused the deaths of more than 4,000 of those children. How is that less selfish and disdainful?
