27 March 2007
3:46 PM
Sean Penn wants to know how, if the President’s daughters support his policy in Iraq, they dare not be in uniform.
Hmmmm.
On his ‘logic’ (I’m being generous) everyone who thinks we’re doing the right thing in Iraq ought to be in uniform. Of course, that won’t leave too many here doing the work that yields the paychecks from which come the tax revenues which will pay for this war, and everything else the federal government does. It won’t leave too many here buying tickets to Sean Penn’s movies, or anyone else’s.
I said I was being generous. Actually, there’s precious little logic in Penn’s remark on that point. How would it really work out if you could not assert your support for an activity unless you could actually participate in that activity? I support Isreal, but I'm not moving there.
Let’s say that there are people in uniform in Iraq, and that they are in uniform because, among other reasons, they support the President’s policy in Iraq. If the fact that the President’s daughters are not in uniform tells against the rightness – from Penn’s perspective – of his Iraq policy doesn’t it stand to reason that anyone in uniform who does support the policy tells in favor of the policy? I bet Penn would say no, and wouldn’t even notice the inconsistency. (That frequently happens with people who mistake their emoting with logical reasoning.) No one who favors the policy, even if he wears a military uniform, counts in favor of the policy, I suppose.
We know that there are people in uniform in Iraq who support the President’s policy. Why is it that those people never, ever count for anything when Penn and his ilk speak against the war? Why is it that the only people who count are those who (a) are in uniform but oppose the Iraq policy, and (b) those who support the policy but are not in uniform? But those who (c) are in uniform and (d) support the policy never, EVER!!!, count for a thing when Penn and his fellow travelers speak against the war. The people who are in uniform and want to be there; the amputees who want to go back – they don’t count.
Sean Penn wants to hear from the President about his daughters. I’d like to hear from Penn about those other people in uniform, whose votes – cast in blood, in many cases – in favor of the policy, never, ever count for him and his friends. People like the Tanker Brothers and friends.
If it is irrelevant to Penn, as it seems to be, that there are people in uniform (and veterans) who support the President’s Iraq policy, then it ought to be equally as irrelevant that the President’s daughters, even if they support the policy, are not.
Hmmmm.
On his ‘logic’ (I’m being generous) everyone who thinks we’re doing the right thing in Iraq ought to be in uniform. Of course, that won’t leave too many here doing the work that yields the paychecks from which come the tax revenues which will pay for this war, and everything else the federal government does. It won’t leave too many here buying tickets to Sean Penn’s movies, or anyone else’s.
I said I was being generous. Actually, there’s precious little logic in Penn’s remark on that point. How would it really work out if you could not assert your support for an activity unless you could actually participate in that activity? I support Isreal, but I'm not moving there.
Let’s say that there are people in uniform in Iraq, and that they are in uniform because, among other reasons, they support the President’s policy in Iraq. If the fact that the President’s daughters are not in uniform tells against the rightness – from Penn’s perspective – of his Iraq policy doesn’t it stand to reason that anyone in uniform who does support the policy tells in favor of the policy? I bet Penn would say no, and wouldn’t even notice the inconsistency. (That frequently happens with people who mistake their emoting with logical reasoning.) No one who favors the policy, even if he wears a military uniform, counts in favor of the policy, I suppose.
We know that there are people in uniform in Iraq who support the President’s policy. Why is it that those people never, ever count for anything when Penn and his ilk speak against the war? Why is it that the only people who count are those who (a) are in uniform but oppose the Iraq policy, and (b) those who support the policy but are not in uniform? But those who (c) are in uniform and (d) support the policy never, EVER!!!, count for a thing when Penn and his fellow travelers speak against the war. The people who are in uniform and want to be there; the amputees who want to go back – they don’t count.
Sean Penn wants to hear from the President about his daughters. I’d like to hear from Penn about those other people in uniform, whose votes – cast in blood, in many cases – in favor of the policy, never, ever count for him and his friends. People like the Tanker Brothers and friends.
If it is irrelevant to Penn, as it seems to be, that there are people in uniform (and veterans) who support the President’s Iraq policy, then it ought to be equally as irrelevant that the President’s daughters, even if they support the policy, are not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- James Frank Solís
- Former soldier (USA). Graduate-level educated. Married 26 years. Texas ex-patriate. Ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(187)
-
▼
March
(17)
- A (long overdue) retraction
- If you’ve ever had any interest in studying the la...
- Shoot the hostage(s)!
- Sean Penn wants to know how, if the President’s da...
- I heard Laura Ingraham and Michael Ledeen admit (d...
- Bagman
- While waiting for the rain to cease, I’m presently...
- I was listening to Laura Ingraham this morning. A...
- A headline Rush Limbaugh would ‘love’
- Here’s something I’ve been researching on and off ...
- If I heard the news at the break correctly the Sen...
- Q writes here a comment on this posting.“The reaso...
- You wouldn’t know it the way some people carry on,...
- A reader emailed me and asked me to explain this, ...
- This is just a little chilling...
- In response to this posting,Lorin writes:If evolut...
- Belief in God as a pre-rational commitment (2)
-
▼
March
(17)
0 comments: