I just didn't make my point clear enough, I guess, Jim.
When going to war was still a "jump ball," then was the appropriate time to voice reasoned dissent. I have no problem with that.
When the war has become fait accompli, there's absolutely no way that opposition to it can prevent it. I don't mean to say that those who opposed it when it was still a "jump ball" should turn around and support it -- all I'm saying is that the opposition that theoretically could've averted it, before, has become of no positive value to anyone except the enemy and his supporters -- of whom, regrettably, we have so many feeding fat on our grub at our home tables. They had their nay say, which didn't carry -- so there's no way now that their opposition to the war can win them anything that their opposition implicitly continues to propose. Arguing against war that has already begun and is vigorously under way can not possibly prevent it from becoming a reality. All it can do (and does) is encourage the enemy while it discourages our own warriors. The clear motive of demeaning and discrediting our leaders does no one on our side any good. The alternative to vitriolic personal attack and condemnation doesn't have to suddenly become approval -- a still tongue in a closed mouth is a pretty good alternative when nothing that tongue can say stands any chance of producing a positive or desirable effect.
There's a Hell of a difference between honest pacifists and those who simply hate the Americans who are dealing with the threats of war, despotism, and terrorism.
