{Empty title} | The Nation

The journalist accepts the gift of the timetable as though it were Holy Communion that he receives. The reader remains free either to believe or not to believe that the journalist is perfectly innocent and residing in a state of grace.

The people of the US deliberated, for one whole year, the pros and cons of prosecuting a war against Iraqis. If one can deliberate the act of protecting oneself, one must not be in very much danger.

When members of Congress would like to go to war but are unable to distinguish between what is evidence in favor of war and what is only a hole in ground, Congress needs to get the opinion of that person who would be doing the fighting in the proposed war, and doing it "on the ground." Such evidence was "confidential"? Labeled "Eyes Only"? Here's the most cherished, secret and damning evidence of all: the belief, on the part of all the members of Congress, that those who are willing to die for them can't be trusted.

It was always the only choice of anyone who'd never served in his nation's military to vote no on war against Iraq. Such a vote would represent the following reasoning: I volunteered to remain ignorant of what being a soldier means. I passed up the chance to know even the first thing about soldiering, about protecting myself and to say nothing of protecting my country. I cannot make subject to my ignorance anyone, especially anyone who has volunteered to know. Better I should die. Better I should die the way I am. Best of all: to trust those who, I see now, have always known what was right.