My cousin is currently in Baghdad. So please spare me the self-righteous assessment of my words. I understand that sacrifice.
You point is that those in power are less inclined to use military force if they or someone they love is placed in harms way. Maybe that's true. However, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon didn't go to Vietnam, Carter didn't go to Iran, Reagan didn't go to Lebanon, Bush Sr. didn't go to Iraq, Clinton didn't go to Bosnia, and Bush isn't going to Baghdad.
Granted, that doesn't include previous service, such as Kennedy's or Bush Sr's time in the armed forces. However, you've predicated the justification of this war on whether the Commander-in-Chief takes a proactive role like Teddy Roosevelt, except in lieu of San Juan Hill, Bush would have to drive a Bradley up into Fallujah.
With nothing on the line except political considerations, judiciousness often goes out the window.
I find this hard to believe. Bush's party and his reputation have suffered immensely because of the Middle Eastern conflicts. Whether or not you or I agree on this, the judiciousness of this conflict is predicated on the Commander-in-Chief's duty to protect the United States.
Irregardless, this discussion has ventured off of the original point from AppleOnYa, which is that Babs Boxer made a particularly reprehensible comment that transcends the political arena. Similarly, I noted that her matriarchal assertions seem to be ironic, since last time I checked, both Ms. Boxer and her party support infanticide.
