CNN reporter conflated "pro-military" with "pro-war"
On the December 1 edition of CNN's Live From..., CNN correspondent Deborah Feyerick conflated being "pro-military" with being pro-war while discussing the comments Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) made on October 10, 2002, regarding her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
From the December 1 edition of CNN's Live From...:
CLINTON: Any vote that might lead to war should be hard. But I cast it with conviction.
FEYERICK: That was then. Senator Hillary Clinton, voting to authorize the war in Iraq, positioning herself as a pro-military Democrat.
Feyerick's statement falsely suggests that being "pro-war" and "pro-military" are the same thing -- and that being "anti-war" is the same as being "anti-military."
Media Matters has previously noted that news outlets tended to describe Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) as a "pro-military Democrat," which falsely implies that most Democrats are not "pro-military."
Pro-War = Pro-Military! Because there's nothing the military likes better than being sent off to fight a poorly planned, politically motivated war without the manpower and equipment and leadership they need to prevail.
I personally feel that to be "pro-military" is to recognize the (unfortunate) need for defense against agressors, and respond by providing the best possible deterrent force that is necessary to fulfill that need. Persons who volunteer for this duty deserve the best possible training, housing, equipment, medical care, and professional leadership. They also deserve the best possible opportunities to transfer the skills that they have acquired to later civilian service, including educational opertunities. Should they be killed or wounded, they and their survivors deserve nothing less than the best possible care for themselves and/or support for their dependents (including housing, education, and medical care). Republicans have time after time undermined all of these "pro-military" ideas, and they make this liberal retch.
Conversely, anyone who is "pro-war" is an IDIOT!
Pro-war ?? Those who glorify war , have not been in it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Precisely. Why does it always seem to be the case that military leaders want to find diplomatic solutions to conflicts while politicians want to find military solutions to politics?
Maybe because military leaders know that war is death and destruction, while politicians seem to think it is a convenient way to end an argument.
War is a political tool. It is not "natural" or necessary. It is the direct result of well-thought and planned decisions made by rational bureaucracies in pursuit of their own self-interests. Politicians do not have to fight wars. they warp it to suit their real political agenda. War is a means to OTHER ends.
To be pro-military is to be absolutely opposed to war. For it is the soldiers that bear the highest cost in any conflict. That is why this administration could be considered anti-military, especially if they cherry picked info (giving the benefit of the doubt, but I don't believe they deserve it).