It's interesting that PejmanPundit and Dr. Weevil are so completely into wanting to send the folks at WBW to IRAQ to be "human shields".
I have seen some interesting discussions here in the Blogosphere in the last few months with respect to the whole "ChickenHawk" debate. I have to admit that I have contributed some to the discussion and that I really do feel that there is a double standard being put forth by the right in the discussion, to wit: it's ok to be for it (the WAR), as long as you chant the correct amount of patriotic rhetorical nonsense in sync with the Administration. Am I the only one who has noticed, or has the administration changed the rationale for invading Iraq from "the removal of the Evil-doer Saddam" to prosecution Saddams' regime for harboring terrorists to the excuse du jour...
OK, so I procrastinated, shoot me...not really, OK? After listening to Dubya's speech today and all the attendant sound bites (bytes?). I am disturbed by the amount of obvious prevarication by the administration about the impending Battle...We are now going to fight a war by marketing strategy. Does that mean that all the market research firms who contributed the least to the Bush Election Effort will be in the first wave into Baghdad? This is coming from the selling of the "message" last weekend on the Sunday Talking Head Shows and from Andy Card's comment about August not being the best time to "introduce a new product". Excuse me?
War is a Product? Do you have end aisle displays? Can I use my Kroger Plus Card to get a discount on the battle or skirmish of my choice? If I contribute to the RNCC, can I have a hill or objective named after me? "that's it Troops, we have to take Objective/Hill Jo Fish by 0900 so they can lay down a barrage of Willie-Pete"
