It's too bad the German & Japanese people didn't do that. Oh right, when they disagreed with govermental policy, they were jailed and murdered. Thank God our country is about freedom of expression, no matter how unpopular.

Stein can't be stupid enough to say something like that without knowing all the idiot republicons will use it to justify their "dissent equals treason" rhetoric.

You cons have become very scary people.

You have made it common place to associate legitimate, domestic, political dissent with treasonous acts.

Talk about cowardly.

A few years ago, I overheard a demonstrator at a Washington, DC rally remark to his associates that saying one is "pro-troops but anti-war is like saying one is anti-rape but pro-rapist." It's not shocking to hear such utterances at...

You suggest that there will be greater moral ambiguity, because we are not defending our own soil.

How would you characterize what happened on 9-11? Or December 7th? Would either constitute an attack on US soil?

If so, would retaliation that goes beyond our own borders represent still a morally ambiguous situation?

Presuming that it was alright to strike back, having been attacked, it is interesting that, in the interview with Hewitt, Stein says that he was opposed to the invasion of Afghanistan as well.

One suspects, based on this "logic" of his, that Stein probably opposed Guadalcanal, Tarawa, and Iwo Jima, as part of the effort to retaliate against Japan.

One can argue about moral ambiguity regarding Iraq. But when striking back against Osama in Afghanistan is of uncertain morality, I can't help but conclude that Stein is really saying that any counter-attack is questionable.

Yet, at the same time, in his column Stein considers those who got to go to Kosovo "lucky," because then you're fighting genocide, as opposed to supporting imperialism, although in the interview, he admits to not actually knowing enough about the situation in Kosovo to know whether they should come home or not. Not exactly principled opposition to US imperialism or the use of force.

No sooner did we make our last post then we saw this delightful fisking on Blackfive. There is little the Posse can add in terms of righteous indignation or expressions of contempt. Instead, we offer a contrast. We are reminded

Where I differ from Stein is in believing what they are doing is immoral. I do NOT believe that. I believe that what they are doing is a supremely moral endeavor. And so, unlike Stein, I honor them for their service, not because they are dupes, not because they are impoverished lackeys of an imperial government, but because they are independent moral entities, fully capable of making moral choices. And they have made the moral choice to fight against evil. For that, they deserve honor.

So I guess that fundamentally, I agree with Stein's argument. What we disagree on is his premises. If you grant him his premises, then his argument is sound. But it is his premises which are evil masquerading as good.

But I think his underlying point was a good one. In fact, it is the same point that has been made so often by those who truly do support the troops and their efforts in this war. That point being that you cannot be simultaneously anti-war and pro-soldier. They are mutually exclusive positions. And I think Stein's goal was to chide his fellow travelers for their dishonesty. The bashing of the troops was just collateral damage, not the target.

At least he is being honest. At least he understands the logical and moral contradictions involved in the dubious slogan of "Support the Troops, Bring them Home Now." So kudos to Stein for admitting to and exposing what thinking people have always known. The anti-War factions are not supporters of the troops. They never have been. Their claims were always a political ploy to try to overcome their weak position in the American polity.

The biggest problem in debating leftists is their inherent dishonesty, not only to others, but also to themselves. Maybe Stein's article will encourage others to also become more forthright in their positions. Then, at least, we could have an honest debate.

Are you suggesting the death penalty or exile? I'm against both.

'if a Dem pol really thinks the war is going terribly and will end in failure, exactly how is he supposed to express his opinion? '

IMHO they can express it anyway they want but why do they feel compelled to lie about supporting the troops?

In case you've been incommunicado for the last 24 hours, here's a roundup of reaction to yesterday's charming Los Angeles Times op ed column by Joel Stein.

A couple of excerpts:

I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult op...

drop him a line - i'm sure he'd love to hear from the other side.

further read Hugh Hewitt's interview with this twit - flays and butterflys him, he does.

I think he makes a pretty good point, actually: we're never going to have to fend off an invasion into our nation. The upshot is that any military action we do engage in will be far more morally ambiguous than that cut-and-dried situation.