Matt Margolis of Blogs For Bush has this up on his website, entitled "Yeah, I'll Go To Iraq when..." Matt, good work.
Every now and then we get comments like "Since you support Bush and his war, why don't you go volunteer to fight in Iraq?" In other words, anyone who supports the war in Iraq should be fighting in it. So, let's look at the logic here and apply it back to those people who are urging all supporters of the war in Iraq to fight in it. I wonder how many of them support the war in Afghanistan, and if they do, why don't they volunteer to fight there. The simple answer is that liberals think that Republicans/conservatives should have to put their money where their mouths are, but they don't. How many of these liberals who opposed the war from the beginning went over to Iraq to become Human Shields?
I support the war in Iraq. I thought military intervention was the right thing to do even when the entire Clinton administration and the Democratic Party were all advocating it in the late 1990s. Does that mean I should go to Iraq just because I support it? Tell ya what, I'll go to Iraq and fight after the following happens:
When every single liberal who thinks global warming is a serious threat either gives up their car or drives a hybrid.
When every single liberal who supports the war in Afghanistan volunteers to fight over there.
When every single liberal who thinks perjurers should serve time demands that Bill Clinton share the same fate.
When every single liberal who opposes tax cuts voluntarily gives the government a bigger cut of their paychecks
When every single rich liberal who says the rich should pay their fair share of taxes takes their money out of foreign tax shelters.
When every single liberal who attacks the rights of Americans to own guns give up their own.
When every single liberal who claims they want to get rid of corruption give equal attention to corruption in the Democratic Party.
When every single liberal who believes in gay marriage marries someone of the same gender, regardless of whether they're homosexual or not.
When every single liberal who said they'd leave the country if George W. Bush was elected (or reelected) actually leaves.
When every single liberal blogger who supports the so-called Fairness Doctrine voluntarily presents both sides of an issue on their blog with no editorializing.
When every single liberal who thinks affirmative action and quotas aren't discriminatory voluntarily gives up their job or acceptance in their top choice school for a minority in the name of diversity.
You get the idea? If my support for the war in Iraq means I should go volunteer to fight over there, then every single liberal who supports any of the above things should be willing to lead by example and show their support for that issue in the manner in which I described.
I'll volunteer to fight in Iraq when that happens.
UPDATE: I would also add that any liberal who calls Bush an idiot should apply to, get accepted into, and graduate from Yale and Harvard Business School.
when I originally posted Matt's piece, I made some hasty comments about the reaction that Matt received. I want to revisit those comments and clarify them a bit.
If you go here, you'll read the comments that many of the Leftys throw at Matt in response. Most of them challenge the validity/benefit of the of the decision to oust Saddam, call Matt names and so forth. They're missing Matt's point entirely.
Matt is simply pointing out the double standard that the Left has with regards to those of us always supported and continue to support the mission there. The Left can say that, if you are not in the military and support the mission, then you are somehow a hypocrite (chickenhawk is the term du jour). The Left then goes on to demand society does "x" when they refrain from doing "x" themselves. Pointing out this hypocrisy what's Matt's mission and he does it well. His intention wasn't to defend the operation. His intention was to tell the Left who make the "if you don't serve you should be quiet" to quit with the hypocrisy. That's it.