Hiding behind the "anti-war" label

"Over the last five years, the resurgent radical left has found empowerment in the Democratic Party through what the political scribes antiseptically call the 'Internet grass roots.' When hawkish Sen. Joe Lieberman lost by four points in the Democratic primary in Connecticut to ultraliberal millionaire Ned Lamont, the media credited this hard left with the upset. In truth, however, the liberal media themselves were a major part of the equation.

They refused to label Ned Lamont what he is: a charter member of the far left. They wouldn't even call him a liberal. They simply called him 'antiwar.' It was used ad infinitum, as mushy a term as there is, if you think about it.

What exactly does it to mean to be 'antiwar'? If liberals cluck in disgust at the label 'pro-life' -- that it's a preposterous label because no one's 'anti-life' -- then isn't 'antiwar' an equally meaningless label, since no one this side of Attila the Hun is uniformly 'pro-war'? If the media are to be consistent, shouldn't they call the people who favor war in certain circumstances to be 'pro-choice' on military action?" More...