If a person says (plainly and specifically) “I hate America” or “I want America to lose in Iraq”, OK, it’s time to question their patriotism.

I haven’t heard Kerry or Murtha do that – another reason I don’t question their patriotism.

Mama Moonbat has done it though – quotes like the second item – sometimes in the form, “I want the freedom fighters to win in Iraq”. She tells us her internal state, or what she wants. By her own statements, she is an Axis Sally type of person, or a traitor.

So I guess I’m saying, question people’s patriotism when you have clear statements of their loyalties, from them. We’re not there with Kerry and it is enough to simply question his awful judgment.

And (typo higher up) “It is an argument you can never prove…”

There is enough to question there alone, without the discussion being sidetracked into imponderables.

At the end of the day, neither you, nor I, nor anybody else has sufficient Godlike knowledge of Kerry’s internal state to question his patriotism validly.

His external behavior MAY indicate true anti-Americanism or lack of patriotism in his heart. Or – It may not. It’s not an argument you can never prove or “win” (even if you presently think otherwise). You only make yourself a hateful windbag, when you try.

And it derails the discussion or dialogue from the argument that you CAN prove – namely, the inappropriateness or destructiveness of specific statements and policy positions of his.

Long story short: Questions of proportionality, suffiency, and overreach all come in. They in turn may create questions about your own propriety and effectiveness.

For starters you could take a stand that no other liberal seems capable of and prove that the war is illegal. What? Kofi Annan said so? Yeah. He’s the same ass clown who swore neither he nor his son had anything to do with Oil For Fools.

Secondly, do you reccommend that we sit back and allow terrorism to happen since you seem to think nothing can be done about it?

#17

Why not question a team killing fu**tard’s patriotism?

But the thing is, I really don’t choose to question his patriotism (and do question his judgment).

Someone once told me that the word “but” is a signal. Everything in a sentence that comes before “but” means “this is what I’m supposed to say” and everything that comes after “but” means “this is how I really feel.” I think of this whenever a liberal says “I support the troops, but they are accomplices in Bush’s illegal war for oil and the freedom fighters have a legitimate right to resistance.”

That’s what troops have told us here in the past. (I did not come up with it.)

Why would it be true? Because if you don’t support their mission, then by definition (of not supporting it), you are basically hoping they don’t succeed.

In war, they’re giving everything human beings can give. The worse they do, the more likely they are to get killed. And the more FALSE questions are raised about their mission, the worse they do.

Note: Constructive questions about their mission, and where America should go once they win – and they ARE winning – is fine. It’s just that the hallucinatory lies of MoveOn.org, and the shocking backstabbing of the current Democrat leadership, aren’t that.

Indeed… what makes Saddam’s court trial legitimate?

Quite frankly, it’s the ability to enforce, that is *force*, that is the ability to force the enforcement of the law is the only thing, really, that legitimizes it. Might makes right. That’s reality.

Can we *win* against terror? Not completely. Terror is a tactic, after all. But we can win against the forces of darkness… if you want to put it that way. It amazes me how small the “illegal war” folks tend to think. Iraq was necessary, and if not Iraq then some other country but Iraq was an excellent choice. To “win” against terror, against the people waging war against the ideology of the West, against freedom and equality and McDonalds, Hollywood and spike heels, it’s necessary to actually *wage* that ideological war. It’s utterly and absolutely necessary to achieve victory in Iraq, which will be expressed by true freedom, self-rule, and prosperity, right smack in the center of the middle east.

And amazingly enough, the nay-sayers are convinced that the People of Iraq, the diverse religious and ethnic groups, tribes, clans, are incapable of doing this and that the US must fail in our attempts to civilize these benighted people.

From the sounds of things the Iraqi people are doing marvelously at adapting to the rather novel concept of a government made up of multiple voices. We will most certainly win this battle in the WOT. And this victory is already having positive effects in the region so dominated by oppressive States. The simple *fact* of the victory will transform what people believe is even possible. Not the least of whom will be those liberals who are *supposed* to be so much about believing in “the people.”

So far they don’t believe Iraqis are capable of entering the modern age. It leads a person to wonder why not.

After Pearl Harbor we didn’t actually have the means of invading Japan. That wasn’t even an option at the time. Nevertheless, you are right, we did concentrate on Germany first.

Since you bring it up, what is Howard Deans’ experience in the military? And no, skiing doesn’t count. At least Bush has SOME experience in the military. Oh, scratch that. Apparently flying military planes in a military reserve doesn’t count for military experience. And if Bush’s lack of experience disqualifies him from making military decisions, then what gave Clinton (who I voted for) the qualifications to lead the military in anything?

I will point out that this country has a proven history of its military serving and bowing to the civilian authority. That this in fact is one of things that our military is rightly proud of. It was a different tradition in other places where the military usually served the King. Or served themselves and made a King. So a lack of military service must never be a disqualification for public office or for a voice of authority.

Do not forget that many of our “founding fathers”, such as John Adams, never fired a shot in the War of Independence.

And that at the conclusion of that war, a number of George Washington’s officers proposed pulling a coup and making him King. When Washington learned of this he immediately quit and rode away in disgust.

The military service argument argument is really one that should not be made. Besides, it’s not as if Dean doesn’t have plenty of other bad qualities to choose from for criticism.

brings the contrasting platforms on the War on Terror in full focus by highlighting the difference between the strategies of the Democrat National Chairman (retreat and defeat) and

I think that to call what the Democratic party is doing in the War on
Terror a “strategy”, gives it more dignity than its worth. They don’t have anything. It’s just white noise punctuated by the occasional loud braying of a donkey or two.

JustAskin, you just revealed how spectacularly ignorant you are. (Look up the word ‘ignorant’ and think about how its definition applies to your comment objectively.)

If The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq cited by V is too taxing for you, consider some shorter resources, such as:

- Fact Sheet: Training Iraqi Security Forces
- Setting the Record Straight: Democrats on an Artificial Timetable in Iraq (which lists a few elements of America’s plan in Iraq by way of rebutting something else).
- Or really any of the President’s speeches on Iraq in the last 2 years.

And if you’d prefer a Democrat’s (a Senator’s) evaluation of the Administration strategy coming from his own first-hand visits to Iraq, see this article.

The open calls for surrender on the part of John Murtha, Howard Dean, and Nancy Pelosi are disgusting, but not surprising. The Democrats act as if defeat in Iraq will be a victory for their party. Their model is Vietnam, a defeat for the United States, but a huge victory for the left. And while the left celebrated their victory, Pol Pot slaughtered millions. But it all worked out well, because Hollywood made a movie about Pol Pot’s genocide and it won three academy awards. And, in the end, isn’t that really the important thing?