Will The Democrats Ever Learn To Stop Politicizing Our Troops?
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It used to be that the Democrats just called our troops Nazis on the floor on the Senate. But today, because President Bush is coming up to Capitol Hill, Senator Harry Reid has decided to have a moment of silence for the troops at 2:45 p.m.
So, let me get this straight. After spending two years attacking our troops as nazis, monsters, and human rights violators, then working hard to cut off funding for the troops, as well as leaking American national security initiatives and combat initiatives to undermine the safety of American citizens and soldiers, now Harry Reid wants to have a moment of silence on the floor of the Senate.
I wonder if he'll reflect on how many lives were lost to terrorists re-energized by the Democrats' zeal for surrender and defeat.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | McCain scores another Utah endorsement — Comments (24) »
Will The Democrats Ever Learn To Stop Politicizing Our Troops? 28 Comments (0 topical, 28 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The Democrat's war is with George W Bush, not the men that murdered 3,000 American citizens in cold blood one awful September morning. The Democrats friends and co-conspirators in the media are busy erasing those events from the electorate's collective memories as we speak.
his own constituents are fed up with him...this won't help.
For the record:
harry reid is a scumbag, cares not at all about the Soldiers that fight for HIS freedom so long as they don't serve his needs for political expediency, and needs to be replaced when his term is up.
haystack out
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
It appears you believe democracy makes us look weak.
I'm curious to know what it is you think Bush has been denied by Congress as far as the Iraq/Afghan war are concerned. Thus far, he has received everything he has asked for, no strings attached.
Is your complaint that Congress (including a middling number of Republicans) hasn't clapped loudly enough? Or that Congress has debated whether to hold the administration accountable for its decisions? Or do you believe that intemperate remarks by politicians are really what is fueling terrorism and the insurgency? Maybe the Iraqis planting IEDs and infiltrating the Iraqi security forces are subscribers to the New York Times and Congressional Quarterly.
In a very poor attempt to create a straw man, you missed the fact our republican democracy has in fact startlingly resulted in a Constitutional adherence to persecute this war and formulate policy.
To most observers, this is of course much to the dismay of Democrats who sound very much like the enemy which we fight. After all, that was the point; wasn’t it?
Mr. Reid’s actions are nothing but a distasteful attempt to use our troops as pawns in his anti war campaign. It is a blatant, albeit ineffective and thinly veiled attempt to put some type of confused blame on the President. Trust me; the troops know what’s happening here.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Yet you never EVER hear anyone in the media pose the question.
There is a truth there which is beyond the pale.
Indeed, how many lives have been lost because of the encouragement of terrorist because our media (and Congress) is making us look weak.
How many terrorist have signed up because they see us as being the same "paper tiger" that Bin Laden described us as?
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
It appears you believe democracy makes us look weak.
I'm curious to know what it is you think Bush has been denied by Congress as far as the Iraq/Afghan war are concerned. Thus far, he has received everything he has asked for, no strings attached.
Is your complaint that Congress (including a middling number of Republicans) hasn't clapped loudly enough? Or that Congress has debated whether to hold the administration accountable for its decisions? Or do you believe that intemperate remarks by politicians are really what is fueling terrorism and the insurgency? Maybe the Iraqis planting IEDs and infiltrating the Iraqi security forces are subscribers to the New York Times and Congressional Quarterly.
your post presumes that what is written in those papers doesn't appear in arabic language press or isn't read on VOA arabic service, BBC arabic service, or on al-Hurrah.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
that even if it did appear on those arabic services, it's democratic debate that's fueling terrorists/the insurgency. I believe that if every man, woman and child in America were armed to the teeth and begging for the opportunity to fight today in the middle east, it wouldn't alter one bit the underlying motivations of terrorists/the insurgency in the middle east.
And of course you zeroed in on the sarcastic throwaway line rather than the merits of my response--that paulseale is really complaining democratic debate makes us look weak.
on blatant silliness.
I zeroed in our your cheap shot at a very reasonable and demonstrably provable statement by paulseale by labeling him as being against democracy.
We aren't seeing democratic debate. We are seeing aid and comfort being provided our enemies. When we have one political party with the same objective in Iraq as our enemies it is pretty obvious what is going on.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
before you settled down to an "objectively pro-terrorist" type of argument. paulseale was complaining that debate makes us look weak and like a paper tiger. He wasn't complaining about how this administration has conducted the war, or the military strategies and tactics used, or the funding of the war, or anything other than debate. Debate is the heart of democracy. paulseale was complaining that our democracy makes us weak.
it will be a longer span of time before you are able to comprehend English.
Debate may be the heart of democracy but making common cause with the enemies of one's nation is not. paulseale was not complaining, he was merely stating a fact.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
and speaking of comprehending English, paulseale never stated any fact--he merely posed rhetorical questions. Perhaps you read paulseale's post to impliedly assert that debate makes us look weak? It appears you agree.
what words mean before you use them. Especially "fern" words like "ad hominem."
Observing that you didn't comprehend what was written is merely fact not ad hominem.
I never say or imply that debate makes us look weak. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I say quite clearly (again we go back to the reading comprehension issue) that when you find yourself taking the same position as our enemies are taking you are no longer engaged in debate.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I've seen endless debates on this site boil down to arguments over definitions. The fact is, your line that "it will be a longer span of time before you are able to comprehend English" did not address the merits of any position I had put forth, nor did it constitute an attempt to clarify any previous point. Rather, it was a personal attack on me, based on what you believe to be an inability to comprehend English.
And once again, you roost on the argument that disagreeing with the administration vis-a-vis Iraq makes one ipso facto pro-terrorist/pro-insurgent. Pithy bumpersticker fodder, I suppose, but unmistakable evidence of an exceptionally weak mind.
this is all meaningful if you live in a world where definitions mean nothing and actions are devoid of consequences. In actual reality such positions are a lot less than useful.
Going again to the whole issue of your unfamiliarity with English:
And once again, you roost on the argument that disagreeing with the administration vis-a-vis Iraq makes one ipso facto pro-terrorist/pro-insurgent.
Actually no one has said anything of the kind... except you.
As to weak minds I'll have to trust that your experience in possessing one makes you a good judge.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
The posting rules for redstate.com are as follows:
....
No personal attacks
But since you're Streiff, you can make all the personal attacks you want--I can't read, I can't grasp English, I can't comprehend, etc., etc. That's OK--I know you're not used to debating the merits of your positions, operating in this Redstate echo chamber. Personal attacks are really your only weapon against opponents.
You said:
"We aren't seeing democratic debate. We are seeing aid and comfort being provided our enemies. When we have one political party with the same objective in Iraq as our enemies it is pretty obvious what is going on."
If that isn't saying that Democrats are objectively pro-terrorist/pro-insurgent, I'd love for you to clarify exactly what it does say. Because I've yet to hear an elected Democrat say that he or she has the same objective in Iraq as our enemies.
I'd probably cut my own throat.
When you make a point instead of publicly and repeatedly beclowning yourself I'll be glad to debate it.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Nasty nasty. You just refuse to engage in debate--you just get nasty. If it makes you feel better about watching the Republiclan party drive this country straight into the ground, I suppose nasty rejoinders is what you have for comfort.
...how is what the Democrat Party is saying demonstrably different than what the terrorists and their supporters are saying?
I have been told over and over again how Democrats are patriotic and want America to win, and they want the terrorists to lose, but once you get away from that statement of position, everything else that is being said is the same.
How is that not giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Ignoring that it is giving aid and comfort does not make it not so.
but that is how I see it.
"Wubbies World" aka: Brian; MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
is that people assume you're simply politicizing things when you point out that perhaps one of the reasons that morale is subpar at times is the fact that soldiers do not know whether or not the sacrifices they make will be mooted by a Congressional edict. The same people who whine about how we shouldn't be there then (literally) telling soldiers about to leave not to worry about the politics of it all.
Just imagine what the terrorist would think if we as a nation presented a united front. I think they would run for the hills because they would know that they would not win.
Here is old Dr. Johnson's spin on these trappings in Congress from the time of our Founding Fathers - of course old Sam was on the otherside - literally and figuratively.
"A man sometimes starts up a patriot, only by disseminating discontent, and propagating reports of secret influence, of dangerous counsels, of violated rights, and encroaching usurpation. This practice is no certain note of patriotism. To instigate the populace with rage beyond the provocation, is to suspend publick happiness, if not to destroy it. He is no lover of his country, that unnecessarily disturbs its peace. Few errours and few faults of government, can justify an appeal to the rabble; who ought not to judge of what they cannot understand, and whose opinions are not propagated by reason, but caught by contagion."
We teachers need to do better for our students and their parents, but most of all for our country.
Pat Hickey
Once there was a time when Democrats at least knew how to sound serious about terrorism and Iraq's support of it in particular:
When it came time to cash the check their mouths wrote they didn't.
Anyone besides me think Al's gone out of warranty ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
opportunity to politicize everything! They see advantage in everything. As for Reid, reflect(?), NO, reflection or contrition are not coexistent partners with HYPOCRISY!
”Summum ius summa iniuria” (More law, less justice) - Cicero
each and every morning for our troops, why don't you try that Harry you little man.