First, my brother Bill, who died at age 23 while enlisted in the Army, would have turned 50 yesterday.
Second, I was dumbfounded by the following headline in the lead story of Sunday's paper: "Iraq plan sparks foreign-policy fight: Outcome of troop surge likely to shape future elections." Here is the online version if you had not seen the article.
Now, tell me, are there not much more weighty consequences of military actions in Iraq than who gets elected in 2008? You know, things like how many people will be maimed or killed as a result of this policy, how this will effect the economy and quality of life in Iraq and the U.S., how this will effect the behavior of those living in other countries in that region, and what effect this will have on terrorist networks? I am not claiming to know the answers to any of these questions; I am just suggesting that they may be more important than which demopublicans get elected in 2008.
Time and again, it seems that journalists such as Steven Thomma ((McClatchy Newspapers) want to place foreign policy decisions into the same category as plays in a football game. Will the president-quarterback call the foreign policy play that leads to political victory (re-election) for his party? How sick is it to consider politics a type of sport?