Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I should add this: I am not one who thinks that we need to supress the Kennedy-speak. My only point was, Sam phrased his objection as if the free-speech issue were the only pertinent issue to be discussed. I disagree, and think that there has to be an acknowledgment that such speech has historically, demonstrably, been of great comfort and motivation to enemies in similar circumstances. That factor needs to be considered in the mix.
|
I am willing to consider any evidence that it matters to those fighting us in Iraq. So far, all we have is tired analogies to Viet Nam.
And you're really ducking the question when you say that "factor" needs to be "considered." How? What do you do with it? What more do you need to know? Just saying it needs to be "considered" sounds like nothing more than a pretext for trolls like Johnson to beat up people like Kerry for political purposes. If you really think that such speech is going to make a dispositive difference for our military efforts, isn't there a patriotic duty for everyone to shut up until the war is over? If not, why not? And if not, why shouldn't Johnson shut up?
