Election 2016: Mitt Isn’t Ready to Call It Quits
The old, lame, and tired argument about how those who advocate war should enlist has been brought up again, this time by the leftie blogosophere’s favorite blowhard Glenn Greenwald. John Hawkins counters GG’s argument here with a suggestion of his own:
If he doesn’t think you can back the President on a surge without participating, then the reverse should be true. Since Greenwald wants us to surrender to the insurgents in Iraq, he should be over there acting as human shield for a member of the sectarian death squads. Heck, if you add in all his sock puppets, Greenwald could act as a human shield for 4 or 5 terrorists and neck cutters.
If people like Greenwald don’t like the idea of a surge, there is certainly an argument that can be made against it. It’s not sustainable. It encourage the Iraqis to rely on our troops instead of doing things for themselves. It will likely increase casualties and costs. If we “surge” and nothing comes of it, it could boost the morale of the enemy. Unlike Greenwald’s lame “chickenhawk” argument, at least those are legitimate criticisms of a surge.
Well said, and in a lot less words than Mr. Sock-puppet himself (read more about that here).