Shhhhhh ... you might give us away.

That boilerplate stuff about our leaders 'not having been in war' or 'not sending troops in with enough body armor' is just so old and unserious, sorry to say.

First of all, the 'chickenhawk' argument (I know, you didn't use the word, but the implication is there), is just silly.

Quick … what's the commonality between John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, and FDR?

None fought in battle. Do they then qualify as 'chickenhawks' for God's sake?

Second, the lack-of-body-armor argument is simply ridiculous -- while there were instances of some soldiers not having all the body armor available, it was not an overall condition (what is the difference between an event and a trend again?).

Too extrapolate that into an indictment of the Bush Administration is completely unserious in my view.

In addition, the comparison between WWII, where we were attacked by a nation state (and then chose to focus our initial efforts on their allies in North Africa, not the Pacific), is totally different than 9/11, where we were attacked by a non-nation state.

In sum, those arguments are just so much knee-jerk nonsense.

I disagree with much of what you write, and find that you either misunderstand, or falsely conflate different issues.

1) The first person who was critical of you was not questioning the validity of your opinion on the war by asking if you had military experience, they were questioning your military background and therefore your knowledge of how the troops were equipped.

Considering what you wrote, I thought it was a fair comment.

2) Abraham Lincoln served about 90 days put together in militias for the Black Hawk War, and never saw any action (he himself mocked his time there). Bush served for much longer (notwithstanding all the criticism of his service) and also saw no action. Yet, somehow Bush is a chickenhawk, and Lincoln isn’t. And of course you make no mention of my other examples of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or FDR – all people who supported wars, but didn’t serve in conflicts.

I think your argument is more a function of your disagreement with the war and Bush’s policies than anything else.

3) Contrary to what you assert, our troops are indeed superbly equipped; the questions over body armor weren’t that they didn’t have any, as you seem to indicate, they’re over whether soldiers and Marines had the most up-to-date stuff (body armor was, and probably still is, being tweaked, in order to make it more effective); your argument on the Humvees’ armor is likewise similarly constructed.

The situation of what is happening (or not happening) at Walter Reed’s outpatient care facilities is indeed outrageous – but again, I ask: Was this an event or a trend?

You seem to categorize it as a trend, using it back up your belief that the Bush Administration is cynical in its support of the troops.

I think you do the same regarding body armor and Humvees

I disagree with that analysis.

4) In an attempt to defend your comments on WWII as a response to what someone else wrote, you again, I think, falsely conflate different issues.

The previous poster was making a point on judging a conflict by its funding, and used WWII in that context, with the direct threat to the mainland as his definition for whether it was worth the expense.

You then wrote:

“As for WWII, please understand the following distinction: The Axis attacked the US, so the US defended itself. Al Quaeda attacked us, so we attack...Iraq??? Where is the sense in that?”

Was has that to do with the previous poster’s point about judging a conflict by how much money was expended?

Nothing, I would argue.

Anyway, I stand by my assertion that what you wrote is simply a knee-jerk reaction, and yes, I think it is unserious criticism.

Sorry, not buying the whole "Those are the major points, and they are indisputable" line.

Just not even close to being true.