Overall good guy Phil Carter has a piece up on John McCain’s War College thesis. I’d meant to blog the NYT story, but Carter makes the argument I want to challenge so well that I’d rather talk about his post than directly about McCain’s paper.
Here’s McCain:
“The biggest factor in a man’s ability to perform credibly as a prisoner of war is a strong belief in the correctness of his nation’s foreign policy,” Mr. McCain wrote in a 1974 essay submitted to the National War College and never released to the public. Prisoners who questioned “the legality of the war” were “extremely easy marks for Communist propaganda,” he wrote.
Americans captured after 1968 had proven to be more susceptible to North Vietnamese pressure, he argued, because they “had been exposed to the divisive forces which had come into focus as a result of the antiwar movement in the United States.”
And here’s Carter:
Should we offer our unconditional, unwavering, unquestioning and blind support for the troops — and the administration which sent them into war? Is that our role in the American democratic system? Does “support the troops” literally mean support their mission no matter what? Or is there another way?
I fundamentally disagree with McCain’s thesis and broader argument. Our Constitution gives the ultimate say in matters of war and peace to the people — through their election of the president and Congress and their ability to shape political decisions through popular will. This is an imperfect system, as we have seen in both Vietnam and Iraq. Unpopular wars take a long time to bend to popular opinion. But, it is our system, and our Constitution, and it demands a type of engagement from the people that is the antithesis of what McCain describes.
Carter is right, but he’s also fundamentally wrong (note: see update below).
It’s absolutely the case that our way of life is centered on the right to have our own opinions.
But it’s also absolutely the case that dissent has consequences, and the place where Phil’s wrong is in missing the final step to acknowledging that. Here he comes close to this:
There is a very powerful idea here. In writing about his own survival in Nazi concentration camps, psychologist Viktor Frankl emphasized the importance of “purpose.” In short, he who has a why can endure just about anything. For Frankl, that purpose was living to publish his story and his psychological insights on the camps. McCain argues that his purpose was to support American foreign policy and the containment of Communism — and that knowing this purpose and believing in it was crucial for his survival.
Phil – and the others who publicly oppose the war – need to accept the responsibility for the impact of their positions.
That responsibility may be right and have positive result – if their position against the war and the causes for it is correct. But inextricably tied up in that is the intermediate result…
…which may be that while the question is being decided, their dissent and attack on the “purpose” of those who fight has real and negative consequences. The positive and negative cannot be separated, and those who oppose the war would strengthen the honesty of their positions by acknowledging this. For those who support the war, there is positive and negative just as inextricably tied together to be sure.
Update: Looking at this at the breakfast table, I think that my wording is harsher than my disagreement with Phil supports. I do think that he missed the – essential to me – link connecting the two positions, and I think that ‘missing link’ is one of the lynchpins of my discomfort with the moral position(s) of the antiwar movement. So my point, I think, stands.
But ‘absolutely wrong’ probably wasn’t the best way to put that.
I’m reminded of Tom Junod’s 2004 essay in Esquire, “The Case for George W. Bush, i.e., what if he’s right?”:http://www.mywire.com/pubs/Esquire/2004/08/01/505604?refId=19 which is about Junod’s conflicted reaction to OIF.
Excerpt: “… war is undertaken at the risk of the national soul. The moral certainty that makes war possible is certain only to unleash moral havoc, and moral havoc becomes something the nation has to rise above. We can neither win a war nor save the national soul if all we seek is to remain unsullied—pristine. Anyway, we are well beyond that now. The question is not, and has never been, whether we can fight a war without perpetrating outrages of our own. The question is whether the rightness of the American cause is sufficient not only to justify war but to withstand war’s inevitable outrages. The question is whether—if the cause is right—we are strong enough to make it remain right in the foggy moral battleground of war.”
Carter builds a straw man argument to attack. McCain’s point, as written, is that prisoners who questioned the legality (as opposed to the purpose) of the war were extremely susceptible to enemy propaganda.
There is a world’s worth of difference between thinking that the reason the president sent you to war is wrong, and thinking that the president had no real right to send you.
A logical halfway step there is for the opposition to a war to behave responsibly about throwing around accusations of illegality. It is perfectly possible to oppose the Iraq War without suggesting that the basis for the war was somehow illegal and outside the power of the president, as enabled by Congress.
I agree with, and accept this.
I realize that, although I believe (and have since 1991) that the ouster of Saddam Hussein and his cohorts was vital and that the ultimate outcome of the invasion of Iraq will be positive, obviously anyone who advocates a course such as this must realize that it’s going to have significant negative consequences. I hope that the benefits ultimately outweigh them. The situation has been the same for many 20th century wars I can think of – they all involves choices which, when made, resulted in many people dieing, much destruction, but in many cases, the cause was right and the outcome was positive. One could make the argument that the outcome in Vietnam was the worst of all possibilities – the blood and treasure was expended for ultimately no gain. I won’t discuss why it panned out that way, except to say that I think it could have been different. So in a sense, it’s the interaction of the pro- and anti- factions which can result in a spectrum of outcomes.
_Carter builds a straw man argument to attack. McCain’s point, as written, is that prisoners who questioned the legality (as opposed to the purpose) of the war were extremely susceptible to enemy propaganda._
Not exactly a strawman, he had other points as well. Skip to page 34 of the PDF to find out where it came from, but it is scattered in other places.
bq. they ‘had been exposed to the divisive forces which had come into focus as a result of the antiwar movement in the United States.’
and
bq. He also writes about the importance of national unity and universal support for the troops, which he suggests are necessary bedrocks for the morale of men and women in combat. (Particularly those in the crucible of a POW camp, where faith in one’s cause matters so much.) He singles out war protesters and critics for undermining the will of the troops and hurting their ability to persevere.
The first is a quote, the second a fairly accurate summarization. It is more than just the legality.
_It is perfectly possible to oppose the Iraq War without suggesting that the basis for the war was somehow illegal and outside the power of the president, as enabled by Congress._
and, from AL’s post at the start
_their dissent and attack on the “purpose” of those who fight has real and negative consequences. The positive and negative cannot be separated, and those who oppose the war would strengthen the honesty of their positions by acknowledging this._
Let me get this straight. You want a large number of people who oppose the war for any dozens of reasons, to say that their negative consequences of their actions might include making it harder to conduct the war – in other words, to hurt the troops?
Yes, I can see that going over well in this modern style of reasonable debate. Hold on, I’m being distracted by a post that Obama hates xxxx again. The Bible? The Flag? Apple Pie? I’ll be back…
The positive and negative from those who give unwavering support does not approach this, even though the negative side has a much more dramatic real cost.
Dang, left one thing out:
Let’s say that “this is a bit of a joke”:http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080614/wl_mcclatchy/2966268, though Obama wins, and does start to withdraw. Do we then say that the people who are actively denouncing him for things real and imagined should say the same?
bq. “I fundamentally disagree with McCain’s thesis”
bq. “The biggest factor in a man’s ability to perform credibly as a prisoner of war is a strong belief in the correctness of his nation’s foreign policy”
Based on his vast experience as a POW?
Let me get this straight. You want a large number of people who oppose the war for any dozens of reasons, to say that their negative consequences of their actions might include making it harder to conduct the war – in other words, to hurt the troops?
Yes, I can see that going over well in this modern style of reasonable debate.
True, it’ll be a chilly day in hell before most opponents of OIF are that honest with themselves, let alone anyone else. They’ll just quickly try to change the subject, say to something like ‘posts critical of Obama’ …
Hold on, I’m being distracted by a post that Obama hates xxxx again. The Bible? The Flag? Apple Pie?
Well lookee there.
Let’s say that this is a bit of a joke, though Obama wins, and does start to withdraw. Do we then say that the people who are actively denouncing him for things real and imagined should say the same?
Which is relevant to the question of ‘does opposition to OIF hurt troop morale’ how, exactly?
_Well lookee there._
That is a criticism of what politics currently is in reference to modern debate, especially in regards to what is currently ‘hurting’ anything. My apologies, I thought people would get that.
_Which is relevant to the question of ‘does opposition to OIF hurt troop morale’ how, exactly?_
Opposition to the current military strategy is the question, and is reflected both in INTEL DUMP and this post. Not a single war, but dissent from national policy for that war. If the direction of the war is altered by the next president, and there is dissent from that, than that dissent would also have some impact.
bq. _”Phil – and the others who publicly oppose the war – need to accept the responsibility for the impact of their positions.”_
OK.
bq. “That responsibility may be right and have positive result – if their position against the war and the causes for it is correct. But inextricably tied up in that is the intermediate result…”
I don’t know about that.
bq. _”…which may be that while the question is being decided, their dissent and attack on the “purpose” of those who fight has real and negative consequences.”_
If it’s just a “may be” it’s not “inextricably bound” is it?
As much as I’d like to whale on the peaceniks and defeatists for another round or two, this all strikes me as academic in the current conflict.
American servicemen captured by the terrorists will likely be murdered. Their propaganda value will lie in their taped beheadings, and nothing they do to resist or not resist post-capture will matter unless you count escape attempts prior to said scheduled ritual murders.
McCain’s writings on the subject dates from another conflict, where the expected enemy had more… nuanced notions of propaganda-fodder.
I don’t know, maybe it’ll be more important when Iran’s turn comes around. The British naval capture last year seemed to show that the mullahs had a more Soviet approach to POW abuse than the approach the head-choppers favor.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what topic Barack Obama wrote his thesis on?
Do OIF opponents owe any loyalty to the concept of accepting the results of the democratic process? I.e., support the troops not because you agree with the mission but because our representative government decided on that action? Would it be equivalent for people opposed to welfare to harass and disparage social workers, disrupting their hiring and work places?
Annoying Old Guy,
Are you arguing that dissent should be frowned upon in a democracy? That once the majority has ruled either directly or via elected officials everyone should then support the collectively-made decision because it was a collectively-made decision?
#12 from Annoying Old Guy:
bq. _”Do OIF opponents owe any loyalty to the concept of accepting the results of the democratic process?”_
Sure. But the “any” there means “some” – it does not mean “total, to the point of extinguishing a right to think and speak plainly on matters of public importance”.
Only asking for “any” loyalty doesn’t require you to make much of an argument. But it also doesn’t get you very far.
If what you want is enough loyalty that those who oppose the war will be morally obliged to say that the aim for which the war is being fought is a good one even though really they think the opposite, you have to argue not for “any” loyalty but for _that_ much loyalty. If you have an argument that will do that, great. But do you?
#12 from Annoying Old Guy:
bq. _” I.e., support the troops not because you agree with the mission but because our representative government decided on that action?”_
That’s a strange sentence. It starts with the troops and looks like it should finish with something about the troops, but it diverts to “that action”.
Support for our troops is morally appropriate because they are _our troops_. It’s a matter of loyalty and has nothing to do with the correctness of the mission.
Support for a specific action might follow from thinking it’s right, or that it’s wrong but democratically legitimate, or for other reasons, such as thinking it’s wrong but fortunate.
(That would be equivalent to a hasty, careless chess move that gives away a knight, but which is rescued by the opponent’s decision to top it with a mistaken queen sacrifice. The move was incorrect, but fortunate. As long as the opponent gets a say in war, such things are possible.)
This need have little to do with support for the troops.
It’s possible to despise the troops, and nevertheless hope that they bring about a result you cherish. For example, a dedicated Communist might have despised sailors from capitalist countries, but also hoped that convoys of war aid to Stalin’s Soviet Union would get through.
Or a fervent anti-Communist in the same scenario might have offered up daily prayers for the safe return of Western Allied sailors, but still have felt that we ought not to be sending war materials to any Reds.
#12 from Annoying Old Guy:
bq. _”Would it be equivalent for people opposed to welfare to harass and disparage social workers, disrupting their hiring and work places?”_
Would _what_ be equivalent?
Living here in the People’s Republic of Madison, amongst the vast sea of Impeach for Peace and other bumper stickers, my thoughts run in this direction.
The minute the subject strays in the direction of any kind of communitarian response with regard to Iraq or the broader GWOT, there is this notion lurking in the background that we are going to roll the clock back to the 1950s, where Joe McCarthy was a dangerous yet popular figure, where we kept Hollywood Blacklists and shunned our neighbors for not being vigorously anti-Communist.
I am not talking about reinstating blacklists and Red Scares and loyalty oaths and any of that. I am simply talking about free people sticking together in a spirit of shared values and exhibiting some measure of communitarian spirit in facing a common enemy.
The catch phrase of WW-II was, “don’t you know, there is a war going on.” WW-II had its volunteers, those who answered the call of the draft, and even its share of shirkers, but by and large there was a notion there was indeed a war going on, and even the shirkers looked after their narrow interest of keeping themselves away from the front lines without putting anti-Roosevelt bumper stuckers on their gas-rationed cars.
Don’t you know it, there is a war going on. Slashdot, I guess mainly young people and biased towards young men, was in high moral dudgeon about the “security theatre” of TSA.
In WW-II, the British would parachute agents into Occupied France, most of them young women. Their life expectancy was not very long, and many died horridly painful deaths at the hands of the enemy. The British learned to advise these agents to go over what they had on them very carefully — a London theatre stub in the pocket or something with a fabric label could be instant death.
One of these agents was a young woman of Middle Eastern royalty named Noor Inayat Khan — Churchill knew of her as “Madeleine”. Born in Moscow, her loyalty was to her adopted France, and she died that way — Google and read the story.
We have Noor Khan on one hand, and we have a bunch of whiny geeks on Slashdot who can’t even do the geek thing in support of the current war effort of going through their pockets and personal effects, having plastic bags to hold keys, and have their ID at the ready to go through airport security. We have a pretty young blue-blood woman, willing to parachute into Occupied France and certain death, and then we have a bunch of geek guys who can’t even go through their pocket contents in support of the war effort, griping about “security theatre.”
The folks with their cute bumper stickers are no different than the people who park their cars in the left lane, drive the speed limit, and block other traffic. You know, one is in the right to drive the speed limit, just as one is in the right to oppose the war for the long litany of reasons, forgetting that citizenship as with driving is fundamentally a social activity that works best when people work socially and cooperatively in furthering the interests of that society.
Don’t be a sheeple, think for yourself, protest is the highest form of patriotism, make known your opinions on the War in the most vociferous way, knowing that the enemy is killing our soldiers Over There, not with any expectation that taking the life of any of our soldiers has the least military significance in how wars are fought for the past 4000 years, but that it will feed back into more earnest expressions of war protest on our home front. Go ahead, park yourself in the left lane at the speed limit, your opinion that the speed limit must be observed is more important than those yahoos lined up behind you who want to speed and waste gas for reasons you cannot fathom.
mark;
Not dissent, but active opposition to the implementation of policy. I do think that to a limited extent that yes, people should support the decision because to do otherwise undermines the basis of having a democracy. See next paragraph.
Mr. Blue;
Sorry, that was poorly typed. A classic example of what I was thinking of would be the Code Pink protests in Berkeley. There’s a line, admittedly a bit gray in places, between politically opposing a opposing (e.g., supporting a candidate who would withdraw the troops from Iraq) and opposing the implementation of policy (e.g., blockading a Marine recruitment center).
More subtly, and relating to the original post, should there be some reticence, an extra care about scrupulousness, before disparaging such policy? As Mr. Milenkovic notes, it is interesting how any suggestion that people not engage in all out bitter partisan battle is equated with suppression of any dissent. That makes it difficult to discuss the subject, which may well be the point.
Is war different, more significant, in this regard than my example, welfare policy? My concern is that if such decisions are seen as not having any legitimacy by those who lose the vote, it wears away at that which keeps us a society instead of a battling collection of gangs. E.g., I see a political opponent of the invasion as qualitatively different from someone who claims Bush is a war criminal for winning the political struggle.
#16 from Annoying Old Guy:
bq. _”A classic example of what I was thinking of would be the Code Pink protests in Berkeley. There’s a line, admittedly a bit gray in places, between politically opposing a opposing (e.g., supporting a candidate who would withdraw the troops from Iraq) and opposing the implementation of policy (e.g., blockading a Marine recruitment center).”_
Now I get you, and I agree with you on this.
#16 from Annoying Old Guy:
bq. _”More subtly, and relating to the original post, should there be some reticence, an extra care about scrupulousness, before disparaging such policy?”_
I agree with that too.
But even after you’ve been a bit more scrupulous than you would have been otherwise, what you have to say may be blunt.
I think building up Islamic states is a bad idea.
If someone asks, _does that mean you’re saying our soldiers are risking their lives for nothing?_ then I can change the topic for a while from the aim of the missions they are about in Afghanistan and Iraq to attrition and the value of shooting international jihadists wherever they are, but when we get back on topic, the furthest I can go in the direction of tact is to say _don’t ask questions you are bound not to like the answers to_.
It’s asking too much to demand that people agree with the “why” of our mission, when the “why” seems to be all wrong, on the ground that questioning the purpose of our military efforts inextricably / _merely maybe_ harms the troops.
#16 from Annoying Old Guy:
bq. _”Is war different, more significant, in this regard than my example, welfare policy?”_
It is. And even if it was only as significant, that would be enough to say that you should no more interfere with military recruitment than you should interfere with people getting their checks.
#16 from Annoying Old Guy:
bq. _”My concern is that if such decisions are seen as not having any legitimacy by those who lose the vote, it wears away at that which keeps us a society instead of a battling collection of gangs. E.g., I see a political opponent of the invasion as qualitatively different from someone who claims Bush is a war criminal for winning the political struggle.”_
I see an important difference too. I try to be on the right side of it.
But Armed Liberal wasn’t just asking for a bit more calm and charity in how one expresses opposition to the “why” of the wars. His issue was whether one was opposing the “why” of the wars at all. If you are, you are trying to take away something fundamental that the troops need to endure their struggle. It doesn’t follow from what Armed Liberal was saying that taking away from the troops something vital to them _politely_ would be OK.
He says that those who object to the “why” for which sacrifices are being made must cop to negative consequences of that.
OK. Negative results are a possibility.
Here’s another possibility. It applies to me, and to people like Diane West, who has a Town Hall column, and to others whose words count for immeasurably more than mine. We support the troops, we want them to be celebrated and successful and come home safely, but we also think that the cause for which our war is being thought is worthless. We think that what we need is a defensive strategy against Islam, sharia and jihad, and not an aggressive strategy of promoting universal freedom by doing nation-building in states that take Islam as a source of law.
It may be that by talking about what needs to be done, we’ll do our soldiers no harm but instead provide answers (for when in time people are willing to listen to them) on what we need to do about a serious threat.
Why should I believe Armed Liberal, when he lists the consequences of articulating a case that we need to approach the jihad wars differently (and, like, oppose jihad and the increase of the religion that inextricably promotes it) and the consequence that he points to is a “may be” of “hurts the troops” and nothing else?
Why would I not take seriously what I and other people whose opinions count much more than mine say, that we are simply calling attention to the nature of the threat, and what has to be done to meet it?
If, during the Cold War, it had been our policy to advance freedom aggressively by building up states that took the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital as sources of law (we would have lost, and) would it simply have been hurting the troops to say that we should not be doing that, and that promoting “moderate, mainstream” Communism was not the solution we needed?
bq. the cause for which our war is being thought
Mr Blue: should that be “fought” rather than “thought”?
bq. (we would have lost, and)
Not sure I follow that part. Typo?
Yes, that should have been “fought” not “thought”.
I don’t see how (we would have lost, and) is confusing. If we had fought the cold war on the basis that “Communism is an ideology of peace” and by a policy of promoting moderate, mainstream Communism as the only cure for the radical kind, we must have lost.
Of course, anyone who denied the wisdom of the policy of nation-building in states that constitutionally took the Communist Manifesto as a source of law would also fall foul of Armed Liberal’s call to refrain from undercutting the purpose that sustains the troops.
I don’t think that objecting to a policy of building up our enemies is harming the troops. I think it’s necessary.
I was able to read and interpret what you wrote; it’s a slightly atypical formulation, running a conjunction across a close-paren, so it gave me a moment of pause and I wondered if something got lost in your “cut” buffer.
Not criticizing (or even criticising 🙂 ), just asking.
Obviously that usage failed in its task: I didn’t communicate my meaning without causing puzzlement. I’ll drop it.
I have seen it used by others, and it didn’t bother me, so I thought it was fine. But I’m not trying to communicate only with myself and the few other people who don’t find that device awkward.
Well, what’s funny is that people put “and” at the start of parenthetical comments all the time and nobody blinks. Maybe it’s just me… Let’s return to our muttons. I’m much more interested in AL’s response to your substantive points than in this nattering. 🙂
Anyway, I maintain that Armed Liberal’s latest idea asks too little and too much.
I think Annoying Old Guy is on the mark in asking for a bit of extra care, a bit of extra scrupulousness, in debating the worth on military missions, if you are on the side that does not think the mission is good. The restraint is one-sided, but it’s reasonable to exercise a bit of unilateral restraint when discussing missions that friendly armed forces are taking casualties over. That restraint can be a way to show solidarity with the soldiers, which is a good thing. And you still get to make a case for what you really think.
Armed Liberal’s latest idea doesn’t warrant that. From the perspective of getting through an ordeal, the way Viktor Frankl talked about it, with a “why” that can overpower any “how”, it’s irrelevant whether you say “yes” or “no” to that saving purpose politely. Confirmation of and follow through on or else rejection of the saving purpose is everything.
So skipping right past a potential demand for moderation in expression, we get to a demand for fundamental assent, not on the basis of truth, but for yet another emotive reason.
Before, we’ve had a variety of appeals. The one that stuck in my mind was that we not sum up Islam the way we would a small, cash-strapped religion that acted similarly, because if you do that you’re inviting too terrible a war to contemplate. In essence: ignore facts and logic, and be guided by fear.
Now we’ve got another appeal: assent, confirm that the mission is a good one, or you hurt the soldiers.
Again, the appeal is not to truth but to emotion. And again it has a grimly paradoxical quality. The more you ignore a real enemy force the more dangerous it gets, further supporting the irrational case for denial; and the more soldiers are wounded and killed on a mission you consider to be bad, the more forceful the emotive, irrational case becomes for saying what the poor soldiers allegedly may need said, and for not saying the opposite, which would further hurt them.
This is not much better than “say you believe in the mission or Baby Jesus will cry”.
To go along with these sorts of arguments is too much to ask.
Take off your shoes at the airport or a lot of sexy female agents will die?!
You couldn’t ask for a better example of the magical thinking that’s pervaded the pro-war crowd since the beginning. Maybe X-raying everybody’s shoes really does cut down on terror, but if not, performing it as some sort of anti-terror ritual isn’t going to stop terrorists any more than sacrificing virgins to the Smallpox Gods stopped smallpox.
After 9/11 Bush had a 92 percent approval rating. That didn’t drop to 29 percent because of Madison, Wisconsin, but because his choices of how to fight the war on terror were generally mistaken. (OTOH, if you were a Halliburton shareholder, life was good.)
War is a force that gives us meaning.
Just caught up on this thread, stuff is happinging in the outside world, I absolutely owe a substantive response – give me till tonight, please?
A.L.
Armed Liberal, you owe nothing, and take all the time you want.
On the Internet, silence does not mean “yes you are right, I was wrong, my silence proves I have no argument.” It means “I have a life.”
[quote]Take off your shoes at the airport or a lot of sexy female agents will die?![/quote]
I spoke of one female agent who made one kind of ultimate sacrifice (“Madeleine”), and history speaks of another one of Churchill’s sexy female agents he called “Cynthia”, who made that other kind of ultimate sacrifice for King and Country to get a Vichy French official to blab. And no, it didn’t involve waterboarding or being threatened by vicious dogs.
The whole tone of the discussion suggests the lack of seriousness in our society and how much ground we have lost since the Greatest Generation. The airport security measures are sneered at as “security theatre.”
If one had the ounce of energy to enter “Madeleine” into a Google search, one would quickly find out that Ms. Khan kept notes, which was a Bad Thing, because after her betrayal and capture, even though she held out against interrogation, the Germans used those notes and call signs and codes to lure three more agents to their deaths. You could say that the Prosper network was “secret agent theatre” as it probably got more agents killed than it produced in the way of useful intelligence to the British.
I never said that failing to cooperate with airport security would cause women agents to die, and the notion that any form of social cooperation in furtherance of the war effort is so abhorent that one is driven to the tortured connections of logic to suggest this indicates how far we have sunk in 60 years.
I was simply pointing out that there was a time when women, on “our” side, volunteered to undertake the risk of being not only combatants, but “illegal” combatants that the Germans had every right to execute under Geneval Protocols. They volunteered as French patriots, they carried out their missions, and they are honored as heroes. They are honored for the process they participated in, not any results they did or did not achieve. What I am describing was once called “glory”, but the fact that I am explaining this is further evidence of our decline.
On the other hand, you have Slashdot, where a group of military age young men are hyperventilating that asking them to take their shoes off at a check point is on the slippery slope to offering them the choice of a short life on the front lines of combat or a somewhat longer life in an internment camp.
As to the 29 percent George W Bush approval rating, the man said at the outset that he had a certain amount of political capital, and that he was willing to spend it to do what he judged worthy of doing. And spend it he did. Of the remaining 61 percent, 30.5 percent are on the left demanding impeachment over actions deemed wrongly taken to fight a foreign enemy, and the remaining 30.5 percent are on the right, mad that he hasn’t invaded Iran.