This page was last updated on May 21, 2004.

Good company; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 20, 2004.

Do we need more troops in Iraq?  I don’t know.  I do know that many of the same people claiming we need more troops now claimed we needed more troops when we conducted major combat operations during March/April 2003.  They were wrong then; why should I believe them now?  Many war opponents like to remind us of Vietnam.  One of the many things I learned was that excessive political interference can do far more damage than the enemy.

That aside, I have faith that our civilian and military leaders want to win in Iraq, Afghanistan, et cetera.  When President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld say their military commanders will be given what they ask for, I believe them.  If the military asks for more of anything, including troops, I expect their request to be met.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

As in If this be treason, the members of the Times editorial board tell us that the national security opinions of combat veterans cannot be challenged by anyone except other combat veterans.  To hear the Times tell it, you are a “chicken hawk” -- you are in trouble when you have to stoop to name-calling -- if you never served in combat but are in favor of a given military action.  In other words, over 95% of the United States population cannot voice an opinion in favor of military action.

Let’s follow the Times logic to other issues.

• The only persons who can discuss abortion are women who had abortions.  Many feminists claim men should have no opinion with respect to abortion, unless they are pro-abortion, so also excluding the vast majority of women who did not have an abortion is not a big stretch.
• The only persons who can discuss politics are persons who were elected to office.  Many politicians already appear to hold this belief.
• The only persons who can discuss capital punishment are persons who were executed. <g>
• Only teachers can offer opinions with respect to evaluating teacher performance.  Oops, teacher unions already make this claim.
• The only persons who can sit on criminal trial juries are those who have been both criminals and police officers.
• The only persons who can discuss appropriate punishment are convicted criminals.
• Unless you find, produce, and refine crude oil, you cannot complain about gasoline prices.

Assuming the Times editorial board practices what it preaches, each individual board member must have incredible breadth of experience.

I’ll stop there; you get the idea.

Regarding comments from Rep. Tom DeLay and others, here is my take.  They were frustrated that so-called leaders like Murtha were discussing “family business” in public during time of war.  It was completely irresponsible for Murtha to make his public claims when he knew full well the enemy was listening and would be encouraged by his words.  Compared to what Democrats have been saying about President Bush for over three years, DeLay’s comments were tame.

The editorial says, “McCain and Lieberman - wouldn’t that be a great presidential ticket?”  Let me get this straight.  The Times believes the Democrat Party needs a Republican on the Democrat ticket for viability?  That doesn’t say much for Democrat candidates, does it?  Regarding Sen. Joe Lieberman, he was the only Democrat candidate I respected, though I disagreed with his domestic politics.  Democrats, though, thought so little of Lieberman he had to drop out after only two weeks of primaries.  He peaked at 11% in Delaware, with average support somewhere around 5%.  What on earth makes the Times editorial board think Democrats would support a McCain/Lieberman ticket?  It would be a runaway for Bush/Cheney and I suspect Ralph Nader would get more votes than McCain/Lieberman.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.