If it's worth it, send Jenna and Barbara

Today Bush said:

So if it’s “worth it” why aren’t Jennas and Barbara going and why don’t you raise taxes to pay for it. Christ I hate that man.

I agree with you. I have often said we wouldn’t be in this mess if he had sons instead of daughters, especially since he couldn’t get them out of active service the way his daddy did for him.

I am very sorry that I no longer respect the Office of President of the United States of America. But I don’t.

Because, counterintuitive as it may sound, raising taxes would actually bring in less money for the war, because it would prevent people from investing that money in the economy.

The same principle is at work with Jenna and Barbara. By heroically choosing to remain stateside, they’ll collect large salaries that could have been used to fund several jobs for lesser people. The people who would have gotten those jobs are now available to join the war in Iraq!

I’m pretty damn sick of this argument.

They aren’t being sent because they didn’t volunteer.

The president can’t be held accountable for his children’s actions, especially their choice of career.

Can he be held accountable? No.

Can we sneer derisively at an upper-class dynastic leader who sends the children of the lower class off to die when he avoided combat in the his generation’s war because of his daddy’s connections and whose children (and those of his peers) will never serve?

You fuckin’ betchya.

I’m sure that the families of many of the dead would not be pleased with your characterization of them as “lower class”. There are a lot of children from middle and upper class families that join up. That’s not even to mention the officers, all of whom have a college degree.

There are many motivations for joining the service. If Jenna and Barbara don’t volunteer, that’s their prerogative. As Commander in Chief, whether you like it or not, if Bush sends troops anywhere he’ll be putting people in harm’s way. That doesn’t change whether it’s righteous or not.

I understand that you want to have another bitchfest about Bush, and you’re more than welcome to, but if you’re honest you’ll hold him to the same standard as others, to wit:

  1. Military service is not a requirement to be the President.

  2. The military is all volunteer, therefore he cannot be held responsible for his kids not being in the military.

  3. Not everybody in the service comes from humble beginnings.

I’ve said my peace. Have at it, chief.

That’s not just counterintuitive, it’s freaking daft! When can I expect to see my portion of our nation’s $300 billion dollar ‘investment’ start to show up in my pocket? Let the squanderers of our nation’s wealth and youth pay for it with their cash, and their children.

If he had sons instead of daughters it wouldn’t make that much of a difference. Unless we had a draft and then the everything else about this war would be different. Parents can’t force their children into the military. Now if the twins themselves were going around saying how important this war is and how we need more troops it’d be a different story.

You are correct. I’m just very tired of seeing death notices. I live very near Fort Benning.

I guess if I thought we were doing some good in Iraq, I wouldn’t be so disheartened about it. Two of my uncles fought in "Nam, and the third in Korea.

I’m sad. I’m so very, very, sad. And I see no end in sight.

Quite right. This was one of the first things that bothered me about Farenheit 911, when Moore kept asking congress members if they would send their kids overseas. Total strawman.

I respectfully disagree with both you and Airman Doors, USAF. If the cause is so great that it is worth spending 100s of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives, then I would expect those who pronote the war to at least be able to convice their children. The fact that so few of the rich and powerful have kids in harm’s way stands in stark contrast to WWII. JFK served in combat, was injured, and lost a brother in the war. George Bush Sr served in combat as did every one of Rooselvelt’s four sons. My father entered the Army at age 35 to serve in WWII.

You are not seeing that same level of sacrifice today. It’s easy to wage war with other people’s money and other people’s children. If it’s so damn important I’d like to see it hit a little closer to home.

How do you know they didn’t try? I’ve no idea if they did try or didn’t; however, your assertion is ridiculous. Their children aren’t children anymore. They’re adults and, as this country has an all volunteer force, it’s 100% up to those adults if they desire to serve or not. There is also the little matter of not everyone being qualified to join the Armed Forces.

That’s all actually irrelevant to whether someone supports the conflict or not.

How do you know it’s not “hitting close to home?” Some people see their country and its citizens as “home.” I’d like to think that the members of Congress and the Administration do so.

I’d like to as well. Unfortunately I see little evidence of it. Just look to the reponse to Katrina.

That’s a whole 'nother kettel of fish, friend. And that kettle’s fishy enough with the municipal and state officials there, too.

No surprise, I’m totally in agreement with the OP on this one.

Airman Doors you stated:

You are quite right. Just as I’m sure that some poor teenage bastard working in a coal mine in West Virginia can be assured that he can get the same cushy jobs his daughters will have throughout their entire lives.
Maybe that poor bastard just might consider joining the military as a way to improve his life because he didn’t choose his parents as well as Jenna and Barbara did.

And there’s certainly nothing unjust or unfair about this. In this country the priveleged and the underpriveleged are treated equally. As Anatole France said “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

I’m pretty strongly opposed to the Iraq war. However, I don’t agree that the fact that Bush’s daughter’s haven’t enlisted somehow makes him hypocritical. (Which is not to say he isn’t hypocritical for other reasons.)

Even if we pretend that Bush has the power to compel his daughters to serve (which he doesn’t), I see no contradiction in Bush saying he thinks the war is important while still not wanting his daughters fighting in it. Perhaps the President thinks (quite reasonably) that U.S. forces would not be significantly better off with Jenna and Barbara on their side than they are without them. If he feels the war can be fought just as well by other people’s kids, how is it hypocritical to say “I think the war is important, but I’m glad my daughters aren’t over there”? (Not that he has actually said anything like that.)

I think teaching math to high schoolers is very important. However, I have not chosen to pursue a career as a high school math teacher. Does this make me a hypocrite? (Someone is going to point out that asking people to go to war is a hell of a lot different than asking people to teach high school. That person is missing the point of this analogy.)

Strawman? a strawman argument is when you assign the opposing side a position that is similar to the real position but easy to defeat, then proceeding to defeat it. I don’t think asking congress members to send their kids overseas fits the definition.

However I do agree that asking congress members to send their kids overseas does little more than reveal very mild hypocrisy. I probably wouldn’t have posted if I haven’t seen a lot of misuse of strawman to mean “vaguely dishonest argument” a lot recently on the board.

I fail to see how it reveals any hypocrisy.

What I meant to say is that I fail to see how it reveals any hypocrisy on the part of the politicians concerned.

If the Bush children did volunteer, there’s still a decent reason why they shouldn’t be sent to Iraq.

They’ve got a huge bullseye painted on them. A solider in iraq is in enough danger without the person sitting next to him in the convoy being a major insurgency target just because of who her father is. A Bush’s contribution to the war, even if she was a very good soldier, would be offset by the extra effort needed to guard her (and by extention her comrades surrounding her). If they did join, they’d almost certainly be assigned outside of Iraq or Afghanistan, and you’d still be bitching.

I’ve been against this war from the begininng, but this argument has no steam.