I'm sure the Repubs love him keeping their base stirred up.

But I think that we have a huge number of middle class citizens in the military, both active, active reserve and National Guard.

And no where did I say Damon shouldn't speak.

What he did was spout a talking point of the Left re the Bush daughters. That was neither original or especially intelligent. But, consider the source and you won't be surprised.

The issue becomes, if the country agrees to go to war, a point Damon makes, then would the Left, support a draft? And if service by all is important, will the Left support Universal Militry Service?

Is it a case of a rich man's war, a poor man's fight? Outside of Senator Johnson's son, how many congressmen have sons and daughters fighting this war?  

Any honest response would have to concede the the burden is not shared equally. (Note to would be swiftboaters, that doesn't mean that some or most or even all of those who are serving aren't patriotic so don't even start).  

FDR's sons served. TR's children served. TR lost a child in WWI. LBJ's son in law served. Between Jeb and George, the Bush's have 4 children capable of serving (5 if you coun't Noelle Bush). None are sacrficing for the cause. And Jeb is member of PNAc so it is fair to count his offspring in this.

The fallout isn't going to be pretty, but Americans need to know whose idea this was, who abused the intelligence and who lied to the American people. The Iraq fiasco wasn't an accident.

BTW ppj is not a reliable source for anything. Serve? Most likely, if he did serve, it was slop straight from the kitchen.

Let's see now. Obviously ppj has a mind like a steel cage. Nothing gets in or out. The ability to reason and draw from indirect experience is unavailable to him.  Since he has never had experience giving birth, been a judge, a policeman, a senator, a lawyer, an executioner, a
religious scholar, a muslim, and thousands of other things his opinion is not valid by his own silly rule.

What do these people have in common?

Answers

1. the first group are leftwing Democrats according to the GOP. They all served.

2. The second group are all rightwing Republicans. They didn't.

Enlisted in the Marines, has done a year in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Don't assume.  Makes an ass outta u and me.  But mostly u.

It's an issue that means nothing ultimately, since we're talking KIDS here.  Most kids are reflections of their parents, even if they don't think they are.  So why would it surprise anyone that the children of parents who are more blindly and enthusiastically hawkish and who don't look at militarism with anything approaching the critical POV they do all things they perceive as "liberal", why would it be a surprise that these kids might join up at a higher rate?  Ascribing to this some kind of better brand of parenting or thinking or higher level of patriotism or anything is just empty nonsense.  Every family is different, every individual is, and we are talking KIDS here, who tend to be reflections of their parents, even when they don't think they are.  

In fact, it's blue state/liberal folks whose kids don't volunteer

The fact is that the Dem party is made up of a lot of working class folks, folks who have seen the jobs shipped overseas by bush, their college grants cut by bush, and, at least before the war, had little other choice except to join the military to get a college education.

This Thread is Not about PPJ (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 17, 2006 at 11:36:22 AM EST
Can we please not let Jim hijack the thread to being about him or his service or Democrats service in other wars? The topic is Matt Damon suggesting the Bush Twins should serve.
Non-service by people who oppose the war have nothing to do with this.  It's about people who support the war and their or their families' service or non-service.

Face it, you demonstrated that you sometimes read too fast and couldn't connect the "this time of year" in 1944 with the Battle of the Bulge."

So you rattled off a couple hundred ill chosen words based upon a mistake.

Apparently the terrorists also have entire corporations that are ready to step into the Iraq oil business and making themselves Midas-like rich by selling the oil from the wells they seize, with the oil-worker force they have standing ready to pump oil into their awaiting supertankers, and crisscrossing the world to display their ability to dominate financial markets as well.

The neocons will now, in fact, tell you that terrorists are readying missiles to launch first-strike weapons into outer space to shoot down our surveillance satellites so that we won't see their vast navy approaching our shores or the two-pronged land attack by their hugh armies coming in by way of  storming the northern and southern borders of America.

This all sounds really stupid until you analyze just what the maladministration and its supporters are actually saying.

Think of the quotes:

Fighting them there so we don't wind up fighting them here.
If we leave Iraq now the terrorists will follow us to our shores.
Terrorism is as great a threat to us as our enemies of WWII.
Iraq is on the front-lines in a "battle of civilizations".
Can't let all that oil and oil money fall into terrorists hands.
America WILL vigorously defend our space assets and see no need for a treaty to prevent weapons in space.

As for your point about them being targets, that didn't seem to be a problem for units where FDR's or TR's children served. As I noted before, TR actually lost a son in combat in WWI. Its not like the Bush Twins are going to be wearing jerseys with Jenna Bush or Barbara Bush inscribed in large letters upon their backs.