[To begin with a side note, on the television right now is an interview with the actor Mickey Rourke, and I must say he looks very different and sounds like he has been to the far corners and back again a few times. The appearance is a bit disconcerting but the message seems compelling. I will be interested in learning more about what life has taught this man.]
In response to John Climacus' final inflammatory post, we received a comment from the individual Hub of the Universe, to which I will be privileged to reply in John's absence. It's probably better that John took his leave before this interchange could take place, although after reading the background I would guess diving into it would have made Climacus' week.
Here is Hub's reply:
I promised myself I would not rise to take the bait. Or that, if I did, I would limit myself to a short retort in keeping with the spirit (and seriousness) of your next-to-last paragraph -- along the lines of, Nah, Nah, Nah, Hope you die, Hope your house burns down. Like the blogger, this poster has burned out in the blogosphere. I have better things to do with my time than respond to screeds, or so I thought. But I have been drinking, and since the Chimpmaster has weighed in, I'll rapidly add:
Yeah, w won -- Duh -- but by the smallest margin ever of any president seeking a second term, while a war (he launched) was underway, against a candidate who had promised (responsibly) to raise taxes. Yes, w's opponents made unprecedented efforts to unseat him, but those were more than matched by his team. Lovely stuff like the Smearboat and getting hold of church membership registries to solicit cash and votes. Oh, and by the way, have you checked w's poll ratings lately?
Iraq - mission accomplished! It will be 5 to 10 years at least before we can assess whether our efforts will bring any measure of lasting stability and progress to that country, without keeping us permanently embroiled in that country. One can only hope for that result, and if it transpires, w will deserve the credit. But even if it does there remains the question of the cost, which the champions of the war always ignore, as they continue to wipe the egg of No WMDs off their faces. Ask yourself whether you would have been willing to sacrifice your own life or the life of your child for Iraq - don't lie, don't conflate Iraq with Afghanistan, and don't link to Newsmax, the Moonie Times, Malkin or other nutjob sources. Of course, that's not the only question that counts, but it's a relevant one, particularly in the case of an elective war -- unless, that is, you think (as the Bushes do) that wars were meant to be fought by other people's children.
Yeah, he won. But people also favor Madonna, Celine Dion, Danielle Steele, and Tom Clancy, and I remain part of the minority that doesn't. Proudly. You take w and Reagan. I'll take FDR and Clinton - anyday.
You forgot a sentence -- at the end of your next-to-last paragraph, add: Now is the time on Sprockets when we dance.
As one who supported President George W. Bush's re-election unabashedly, I think I can nevertheless respond objectively because my support was not so much for Bush the man, but for Bush the GOP candidate; i.e., the only choice besides John Kerry. I was not very impressed with Kerry, nor am I much impressed with the Democratic Party leadership; therefore my support was only going to go in one direction.
On the questions of how fairly President Bush's team fought or how comprehensively President Bush influenced the 'thinking' electorate, I will just echo your 'duh' comment and say that's the way it's done. You know that, of course. I don't recall thinking at any point that the Democrats were 'fighting the good fight' and the Republicans were the guys in black hats.
I think the central message of the next to last paragraph of Climacus' post was that Bush's election for a second term was an end in itself. Simple point and, you are saying, maybe a silly point, but for more than a few people it denoted the culmination of a significant effort which can never be undone. Maybe the only response is 'hope your house burns down.' Point taken.
You offer that if the final historic judgment is that Iraq (and presumably Afghanistan, Syria, and/or any of the other sand-weathered, hookah-smoking populaces of the Middle East) turns out better for the furtherance of world peace because of the initiatives of George W. Bush, you will give Bush the credit. Good.
Your question about the 'cost,' however, strikes me as your key argument, the one that motivates the other points. 'Ask yourself whether you would have been willing to sacrifice your own life or the life of your child for Iraq.' Good question....but:
The answer to the Michael-Moore-question is, first, 'It's a stupid question.' (Sorry for the redundancy).
We don't will to 'sacrifice' our children, because they have to be 18 years of age and make their own decisions to enter the armed forces. The entire spectre of parents signing their children up for service and earmarking them for war is a chimera - it hasn't happened for many, many generations in this country. That is a sick joke, almost like Mr. Moore is challenging us to shoot our kids in the head and say 'I'm glad I killed my child, because Iraqis are voting.' It assumes the result in order to prejudge the cause.
The sacrifice of anyone's life is hypothetical until it occurs - it's the same as saying 'Would you be willing to sacrifice your child for a poorly marked highway intersection.' You know this is ridiculous, of course. I'd let them drive, but I'm not 'willing to sacrifice' them. Let's take that notion off the table, then, ok?
The real question on that note is: 'How would you feel if your child enlisted in the Army or Marines to fight in Iraq?' The answer is: 'Infinitely serious, and sober, and supportive.' If I had kids, male or female, I would not want them to die - in a war or otherwise.
But when I bid the hypothetical offspring adieu to graduate school in a major city, or a trip to a foreign country, or a highway cruise with friends to a concert in some distant part of the U.S., I am taking a calculated risk. I could attempt to stop them, or let them go ahead. As most parents of older teenagers know, you tend to let them go ahead because in the end you really don't have much of a choice. Whenever they leave home, they may not come back, but you have to let them leave anyway.
If I had children (and I can speak with some authority on this because among the wee ones among my nieces and nephews are some I count as very close to my children) I'd be quite focused by the news they were enlisting. I would not jump up and down cheering and waving the flag. Internally, I'd rue the day. Anyone who didn't would be a shallow person.
But I'd say 'Go get'em, sister. Go kick some ass. It's the most important thing you can do with your life. Fighting these bastards is what it is all about. Use all the intelligence and skill you have and come back alive.'
You also ask whether I would be willing to sacrifice my own life 'for Iraq.' Would I be willing to risk it? Yes. Would I be willing to sacrifice it? No.
Sacrificing my life would be the last option, and one I'd never admit before it was done. Going in with the acknowledgement 'I'd be willing to sacrifice' would be the same as going into an athletic contest saying 'I'd be willing to lose.'
UPDATE: I forgot to add that I hope the President continues to have absolutely no concern for his approval numbers in the polls. If he hasn't accomplished anything within the next year his party will likely get trounced in the mid-term elections; but even so, a second term is the ideal opportunity to do what you think is right regardless of what the masses (or, rather, the mass media) think about it.
As a closing note, perhaps at least between ourselves we can say we have aired the differences, most of which will remain (but at least in the context of a better understanding of our respective viewpoints), but which should not be a source of hard feelings. Climacus is duty-bound to stay away until the anger subsides; my role has always been more of the irreverent than the inflammary (and we hope poking fun will never be considered out of bounds); and the good Dr. Turner is only here when the Forum needs a compensatory dose of long-winded tediousness to balance out the froth.
We apologize for stirring up unhealthy passions. The purpose here is not to make the world a crankier place, but only to provide an outlet for those already so inclined.
