Asserting that "the stakes are worth it," Bush told reporters, "It is worth it to help Iraq succeed. It is worth it to have a democracy in the Middle East. It is worth it to show other reformers and people who want to live in a free society what is possible."Here's Harper:
Yup, Bush really said that. The Iraqi war has been worth the billions of dollars, the tens of thousands of deaths. Easy for him to say. As long as somebody else supplies the money and the bodies, this war is well worth it.It's a well-expressed sentiment, and one that's shared by many who opppose the war. The only problem is that it doesn't make a lick of sense.
It’s an excellent investment, as long as you’re investing somebody else’s sons and daughters.
What the hell has Bush ever sacrificed? Nobody even remotely related to Bush (or Cheney or Rove or Wolfowitz) is serving in the military. Bush and his corporate donors aren’t paying for the war. Between the endless tax cuts and the “offshoring” of more and more corporate headquarters to Bermuda or the Cayman Islands, the cost of the Iraqi war is falling on those chumps who work for a living.
Our Great Leader is willing to fight to the last drop of somebody else’s blood.
Does anyone really believe that reliably anti-Bush folks wouldn't take issue with him saying that the war in Iraq has been worth it even if Jenna were a PFC? I don't. And I'm not sure what Harper, et. al. would have Bush do. He's the President of the United States - he can't put on a uniform and grab an M16 from the armorer, nor can he order any of his friends or family to enlist. And the same goes for Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, etc. (As far as Wolfowitz goes, he served his time in Iraq, whether he was in a uniform or not, so I'm not sure he should be lumped in with this group to begin with.)
As for other forms of sacrifice, the fact of the matter is that this president hasn't asked any Americans other than those serving (and their families) to make any sacrifices for this war effort, whether it's the War in Iraq or the Global War on Terror. I would argue that this has been a critical mistake, but given that most Americans these days think paying 50 cents more for a gallon of gas is cause for a revolution, I can't say I'm surprised.
None of this has anything to do with whether the War in Iraq has been worth it: that's a wholly separate issue, or at least it should be. (Although why do I suspect that if liberals supported this war they wouldn't be complaining about Bush's lack of personal sacrifice?) The question here - at least as I understand it - is whether a United States President can morally serve as Commander-in-Chief during a war he is not personally affected by. Prepositional ending aside, the response to that cannot possibly be "no" if the Republic is going to continue having a civilian serve as head of the armed forces.