Redstate

ads critical of democrats are shameful and disgusting so this doesn't get us very far.  Can't they come up with something new and original?  I guess they are firmly against flag waving but not adverse to medal waving.

Did a Democrat just accuse the RNC of playing politics with the war in Iraq?

Well, "pot calling kettle; pot calling kettle: you're black."

Obviously, there are politics on both sides. War is an extension of politics by other means. I'm certain we would have prefered to simply ask Saddam to stop using WMD, respect his neighbors and the rights of his citizens, and step aside to allow free elections - but that didn't work.

International pressure did not work.

UN resolutions did not work.

Sanctions did not work.

So now we are using the sharp sword of the US military as our last instrument of national power to effect the changes we desired in Iraq.

Regime change in Iraq was the stated policy of the US beginning in 1998. I'm curious to see what alternatives to military force the Democrats suggested between 1998 and 2003.

Now that we have toppled that regime, we are bound - as an occupying force - by the Geneva Conventions to provide security (among many other things) for Iraq until they have both a sovereign government (soon) and the ability to provide their own security.

The Democrats are not only calling for the US to retreat in the face of terrorist opposition - they are calling for us renig on our obligations under the Geneva conventions they cite so often. Reference the 4th Geneva Convention, Article 6 and follow the links from there. We have responsibilities as an occupying force, and we must comply with them.

Now that I have gotten that off my chest. The President is committed to victory in Iraq. My understanding of "victory" is the establishment of a sovereign government which is able to protect itself. The Iraqis are not there on either case, but progress continues. This week's election will satisfy the former - and the continued strength and courage of the US military will assure the latter.

The Democrats - nearly all of whom supported regime change in Iraq and the Iraq war - are merely pandering to public opinion polls hoping to pick up a few seats in 2006. The Democrats had no plan to back up their words in 1998, or any year since. The idea that retreating is somehow a plan for victory is an insult to all Americans and all servicemen (and women) in particular.

Personally, I cheered when I saw the White-flag Howard Dean ad - and the Democrats deserve to reap what they have sown on this matter.

No American wants to see our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines killed. I hope the death of those brave men an women never improves a public opinion poll; I hope America never grows callous to their sacrifices. I firmly believe, however, that no American would accept the finest military in the entire world surrendering in the face of a few thousand criminals and thugs.

The Democrats - and all who side with them in this shameful call for retreat - deserve all the scorn we can heap upon them.

so long as the color is white

That the vast majority of Americans still get their news from TV and newspapers. So how they present this "ad" makes all the difference in the world.

While I think its perfectly fine to run an add simply repeating the very words of your opponent, it unfortunately depends on how the press reports it. Are the Republicans simply replaying the unprincipled words of the Democrats? Or are the Republicans "once again sliming the principled position of the Democrats in support of the troops"?

Unfortunately in the bizarro world of the Democrats and their fellow travelers in the press, the truth is not always in the eye of the beholder.

The way to destroy a lefty is to quote him accurately and get people to realize it is true.

The way to destroy a conservative is misquote him and to get people to believe that false is true.

You're right about where the majority of Americans get their news.  You're wrong about how it's presented by the talking heads.  Case in point:  SwiftVets.

If the ad is something other than direct quotes from your opponent I would agree, but putting Howies face and voice on the screen makes all the difference in the world.  As a matter of fact the talking head trying to spin the ad story makes the story even more powerful.  Back to the SwiftVets.  The media elite attacked them and gave the ads real legs.  Jengis Khan was introduced to a generation that had never heard of him.

The only thing the current GOP ad is missing is Murtha talking about civil war in Iraq and not believing the CIA about civil war in the same breath.  The interesting thing about these kind of ads is the more the people being featured or the talking heads attack the ads or try to change their story, the more legs the story has.  And, the more credibility the story has.

"Perhaps Senator Byrd, who reportedly received the Red Badge of Courage in the Civil War, never mind on which side, will speak next."

At least Senator Byrd put on the uniform, even if it was for a movie or in the Klan, he wore the uniform, dammit! Unlike those chickenhawk Republicans!

to be infallible, I'm not a Democrat politician. I think there is a difference. In the SwiftVets case the press picked up their marching orders from the Kerry campaign and started labeling the SwiftVets as liars. It got a lot of attention and people started looking at it and saying 'how could all these guys be lying about everything.' Add to that the Kerry and the campaign kept waffling every time they turned around.

In this case I think it is possible for the press to 'nuance' this into some sort of Republican attack on a perfectly reasonable Democrat position. For example this morning on FNC they had a Dem and Republican "strategist" on. The Dem immediately launched into some recitation that the President is finally coming around to their position, he went up to Annapolis and basically adopted the Murtha plan for Iraq, blah blah blah. I think many of us saw this coming with the Dems positioning themselves to take credit for any troop reductions regardless of the reasons.

So you think they are going to sell the idea that Bush, out of the blue, turned 180 degrees and adopted the Democratic plan for Iraq?

I don't. There may be a sucker born every minute, but there have only been 1.5 million minutes since the war started. That's not enough to swing anything in a country of 300 million.

"....An insincere show of grief...". Unrepudiated by him are his fellow Democrat Senators characterizations  of the troops as "terrorist" baby-killer descendants of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.  Pleasing to their radical base is the fact that when ambiguously claiming to "support the troops", Democrats do not identify who they are referring to. Who they do support is clearly indicated by the accusations made about them by Senators Durbin and Kerrey.

Of course he and Akaka are, it was just rhetorical.

Check it out.

What is Hawiian for that special Boer word we all know?

Are any Democrats patriotic Americans?  Any elected Democrats, I mean, or are they all professional rhetoric parsers and 'identity' politicians who rouse one group against another?

There are no elected Democrats who are patriots.

It's as simple as that.

On the tucker show on msnbc they were discussing the ad, they showed the whole thing to start off. But they showed the silent version (the quotes were printed next to the speakers face, I think the only sound was backround music)and it was on a TV screen behind tucker, at an angle so it was hard to read the words. It also looked like the print was dimmed so it was even harder to read. I have only seen the ad at the GOP site once, so I don't know how the wording appeared, but I believe the quotes by Kerry, Dean, etc. were audible.

Now, it may be I am skeptical of the MSM or a kwazy, paranoid  conservative, but I surmized that they didn't want to give the ad anymore exposure than they had to. I don't know if they altered it, there may be a few versions, but I wouldn't put it past them.

Dems are seen as weak on defending this country.  That is their Achilles heel. They know it, we know it and that is why this ad is so effective -- trumpetting what they repeatedly say everyday.

The other part I like about the ad:  It points out that our soldiers hear these Dem politicians and our enemies use these same clips to support their cause.  Hard to wear the "patriotic" and "I support the troops" mantle when their actual words are in that light.  

I wonder what he thinks the original statements were. Maybe someone should ask him.

He was willing to sell out for a chance at the big time in 2000. It is amazing how your positions can change overnight when it is most convenient.

that our most dangerous enemies, enemies of the American way of life, of freedom and liberty are not Islamofacists.

They are the Democratic Party and the ownerns/managers/editors of the main stream media.

I don't think they are and I'm not saying they will sell it. What I am saying is that they will try and try very hard. The Dems are already weaseling into the "see Bush is doing what we told him he should do" and the press is playing along.

I think that the inate good sense of the American people will see through it, but that doesn't mean they aren't goint to try. Afterall, what else have they got?

You can count them on the fingers of one hand.

nobody, D or R, is on any of my fingers.  

But, they must be lightweights if they can all fit on the fingers of somebody's hand.

... it's simply BDS.  The Democrats will do anything, anything, so save the country from the damaging policies of GWB -- even destroy it.

begins as The United States of. The America they love is one that would have no state lines, or even national borders that would likely emerge more quickly from the ashes of a military defeat, they imagine.

From GOP Bloggers, an update:

"Senator [Lindsey] Graham expressed the sentiment that the ad is inappropriate and should be taken down. He echoed Albright's assertion that it questions the patriotism of Democrats."

sigh

Back in Italy as the war was drawing to a close, Inouye displayed "extraordinary heroism" on April 21, 1945, near San Terenzo as he led his platoon through "formidable resistance" to capture a key ridge. His Medal of Honor Citation states in part: "With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a sniper's bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions."

I think anyone who talks about white flags and Daniel Inouye is shaming themselves.  

I don't see how military service to our country or wounds in battle or Purple Hearts are particularly relevant to one's patriotism.

Patriotism is patriotism. You know it when you see it. You either are or you aren't.

Simple as that.

that he hold the Medal of Honor precludes and question of his personal heroism and bravery. That being said, the Medal does not confer on the holder any special claim to intelligence or comprehension of reality.

Senator Inouye is due all the respect and honor due a holder of the Medal. He is not entitled to his own set of facts or truth. The Senator is playing politics and in this case is fair game for criticism.

We would know he was never a hero, just a guy with prejudice against Germans and Italians who got a chance to use his personal vices for the good of the country.  

Given that in 1945 Lt. Inouye was a brave soldier, it doesn't make him a wise statesman nor does it mean that he is not an pro-aboriginal racist.  

Once he was brave, now he pits American against American based on the birth of their grandparents.  He ought to be ashamed.

of the American people is what I based my comment on.

This thread reminded me of a Churchill quote, so I dug it up:

      "Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

    You can't argue with genius, boys. Democrats and Republicans both need to realize we've been up against bigger and badder enemies than insurgents. Sometimes we've won (WWII) and sometimes we've faced disappointment(do I need to spell it out?). Point is, we need a PLAN that works or we will continue to be slaves to uncontrollable events. I'm sure that Bush has a plan, I'm just worried that he once again only consulted his cronies in coming up with it. He needs to get Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell in his office stat and get some good advice.