Many say they do, some of whom support the GWOT and others of whom do not. The leaders of their party certainly say they do, and quite often. There are many Republicans and Independents, and even some Democrat hawks, who question whether they really do but some of this can undoubtedly be chalked up to partisanship. So do Democrats really support the troops or is this a mere political slogan to curry favor with voters? For myself, while various actions of the DNC lead me to question whether their party does in fact “support the troops”, I recognize that there are individual Democrats who indeed do so — including decorated military veterans. They can certainly raise legitimate criticism of Republican mistakes and failures with regards to the military. It is a difficult question to answer and one probably colored so much by one’s own personal biases and ideological preferences that it becomes very difficult to address objectively. Perhaps like beauty it is in the eye of the beholder.
One problem with answering this question in the affirmative, for the party leadership at least, is their catering to and outright courting of extreme Left nutjobs like the Kossacks. We see mainstream Democrat leaders like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, along with arguably non-mainstream leaders such as DNC Chairman Howard Dean, California Senator Barbara Boxer, and retired NATO Commander Wesley Clark, all dutifully make the pilgrimage to the Yearly Kos convention in Las Vegas this weekend. These figures are hardly lightweights but instead represent some of the most influential and powerful leaders of their party. Richardson and Warner are rumored to have presidential ambitions in 2008, while Dean and Clark are former candidates from 2004. Since they have thrown their support in with the Kossacks, one might reasonably ask them whether they also support the extremist lunacy which is a staple of this crowd. Just yesterday the internet was treated to such an example, which by no means is an isolated one (scroll down for Moulitsas’ infamous 2004 “Screw them” comment) at this site:
Those who oppose the war in Iraq but who nonetheless feel compelled to express “support” for “our troops” might reflect that, without those troops, there would be no war. Simply put, if today’s troops would behave only as George II did during his own military service–that is, go AWOL–there would be no one available to prosecute the war.
Press-ganged troops, like any prisoners, deserve support. But none of these troops have been press-ganged. This is not Vietnam. There is no draft. Anyone now in the American armed forces is there because s/he volunteered. True, many of these volunteers have been in some way coerced. But, because they are volunteers, they should be afforded the opportunity to at any time volunteer to opt out.
Those volunteers who remain are advancing what the French journal Liberation has correctly identified as George II’s “theocracy and pathocracy”: “a worldview that is intrinsically paranoid, imbued with visions of the most regressive Crusades, drenched in a frightening symbolism that sees any external opposition as evidence of crime and in which every decision and every action bear the seal of a vengeful divinity.” The metaphysician G. I. Gurdjieff, asked during WWI what soldiers might do if they were to become truly “awake,” replied: “They would drop their rifles and go home to their families.”
These–those leaving, those refusing to go–are those who truly deserve our “support,” who are truly “our troops.”
Perhaps someone should ask at least the honorable Richardson and Warner before they throw their hats into the ring in 2008, if they agree that when Democrats say “we support the troops” there is a quietly whispered caveat which the Kossacks do not seem to be afraid to voice aloud.
Nice quote but why didn’t you also put forth some of the response comments like:
“We think you are very wrong, dangerously wrong in fact. We think that what you are describing is a fantasy that would not and could not work, and for that matter would be utterly immoral to attempt.”
or:
“What utter tripe.”
or:
“It is foolish because it abdicates our responsibility as free citizens of a Republic to choose worthy leadership, for our armed forces and otherwise.”
or:
“There’s a real world out there where actions have consequences. There’s a real world out there where a soldiers personal refusal to fight could mean that his comrades and friends end up dead.”
I could go on but you get the picture. That diary only has 81 comments many of which are negative. Sure there are a few bozos who think it makes sense but I suspect they are in the minority. Plus I seriously doubt that Markos himself would agree. After all, he served in the military and has high regard for it. I suspect that’s more than many pontificating here can say.
It ticks me off, AGJ, that moderately liberal (centrist) Democrats like Richardson and Warner are attending YearlyKos to meet with leftwing bloggers. But I can understand why. Compared to mainstream Democrats, the leftwing activists have a disproportionate impact on the early presidential caucuses and primaries. And, sadly for the country, the leftwing bloggers will have more influence than ever on the Democrat nominating process in 2008.
It’s not all that different at the other extreme. The religious right has a disproportionate impact on key Republican prmaries and that’s why John McCain met with Jerry Falwall and other GOP hopefuls say “YES sir! How high?” when James Dobson, Tony Perkins, et al, tell them to jump.
AGJ – I give you lots of credit for being balanced in your critique, but you haven’t really defined “supporting the troops.” Please do….
Nice quote but why didn’t you also put forth some of the response comments
Because then I’d essentially have to reproduce the entire page. A link to the post seemed to be more prudent. There was indeed a spirited exchange between the author of this post and a few commentors (some of it quite good, such as on Jefferson). The author even attempted to ‘clarify’ his original posting:
“I do not believe that the diary states I support only AWOL men, much less that I embrace only a man who would toss down his gun when under fire. It is true that the diary suggests strongly that a man at war should indeed drop his rifle and go home to his family. But, to me, the scene pictured is one between firefights, not in the midst of one. No man under fire can ever reasonably be asked to drop his weapon. When not under fire, the question, I think you would agree, can at least be raised.”
Yeah. Okay.
It also brought out cries of support from other commentors, such as:
“I’ve been wondering how long it would take the tide to turn from the ‘Support our Troops’ mantra to something more like ‘Do What W Did. We will end this war when we speak the truth. Mindless adherence to the ‘Support our Troops’ mantra means more brown-skinned people will die before this disgusting and futile illusion ends.”
“There are lives in the balance – I am a Democrat & feel that it’s important that we have discussions about the personal responsibility of each every fighting person – earlier today I learned about U.S. Army 1st Lieutenant Ehren Watada announcing his intention to disobey what he says are illegal orders to deploy to Iraq. Watada’s courage and integrity are remarkable, and he is worthy of our support.”
[One commentor left no words of their own but posted the lyrics to Universal Soldier which includes the following:]
“He says it’s for the peace of all
He’s the one who must decide
who’s to live and who’s to die
and he never sees the writing on the walls
But without him how would Hitler have
condemned him at Dachau
Without him Caesar would have stood alone
He’s the one who gives his body
as a weapon to a war
and without him all this killing can’t go on
He’s the universal soldier and he
really is to blame”
“‘Do what W did.’ That will end this criminal, futile war next week.”
“after we completely destroy the armed forces life improves on earth for everyone other than the stockholders of Raytheon, Boeing, and Williams International.”
“I feel badly for the troops who, though volunteers, are now caught in a terrible trap. But the valorization of military service sickens me- all the national chauvinism and hysteria that is found just beneath the surface of ‘support our troops’ sentimentality.”
That diary only has 81 comments many of which are negative. Sure there are a few bozos who think it makes sense but I suspect they are in the minority.
Those who posted their disagreement with the author consitute, thus far, about a handful of commentors who left multiple replies. Only a “minority” of Kossacks? Perhaps, perhaps not. Yet such rhetoric as found in this post is a staple of much of the extreme Left nutjob crowd. One of the antiwar crowd who is a darling to the Kossacks, Cindy Sheehan, certainly isn’t hesitant to express this sentiment even more bluntly:
Support the troops? I support only those who are NOT supporting the exploitation of the Iraqi people, and those who do not allow the war profiteers to carry on with their death and destruction all for the sake of an opulent lifestyle. I do not support those who are supporting a criminally insane and treacherous foreign policy. However I, as the mother of a slain soldier, will do anything I can to support all of them by working to shorten their stay in an unwelcoming country, and bring them home from the quagmire that their so- called commander in chief forced them into.
Plus I seriously doubt that Markos himself would agree.
I’m sure publicly he may not, such would be politically stupid beyond measure. Of course this hasn’t stopped him before…
After all, he served in the military and has high regard for it.
Perhaps he does, in his own fashion.
I suspect that’s more than many pontificating here can say.
I think we can safely say that most of the posters here have a high regard for the military. As for having served in the military themselves, I wouldn’t know. I did.
It ticks me off, AGJ, that moderately liberal (centrist) Democrats like Richardson and Warner are attending YearlyKos to meet with leftwing bloggers.
I’m not pleased with it myself. Richardson and Warner are the only two Dems I was keeping an eye on to consider in 2008.
But I can understand why. Compared to mainstream Democrats, the leftwing activists have a disproportionate impact on the early presidential caucuses and primaries. And, sadly for the country, the leftwing bloggers will have more influence than ever on the Democrat nominating process in 2008.
It may be understandable but it doesn’t excuse their courting and catering to them. Their doing so is a legitimate issue in considering their worthiness for high office.
It’s not all that different at the other extreme. The religious right has a disproportionate impact on key Republican prmaries and that’s why John McCain met with Jerry Falwall and other GOP hopefuls say “YES sir! How high?” when James Dobson, Tony Perkins, et al, tell them to jump.
Too true, which again is a legitimate issue in considering their worthiness for high office.
AGJ – I give you lots of credit for being balanced in your critique, but you haven’t really defined “supporting the troops.” Please do….
Thank you. How would *I* define “supporting the troops”? Interesting question, my answer is one I make no claim to being objective on. I give credit to one commentor on this post from the Kossacks who links to a letter which echoes my own view:
“I used to think it was possible to support the troops and be against the war. After reading this letter by Anthony Ippoliti stationed in Iraq, no more. We have to finish the thing. The Zarqawi hit was important, but the most important news of the day was the completion of the Iraqi government. That event puts us in the end game, and everything is on the line.”
David: I would also add that “supporting the troops” to me also includes not always assuming the worst about them which the attitude of the Kossacks regarding the allegations of what happened in Haditha strongly suggests.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – liberals love America the way OJ loved Nicole. (Hat tip – Ms. Coulter)
Here’s a quick hint to the libs who post on this site – and you girls know who you are: the above quotes are the reason why the GOP will retain both the House and Senate this November. Bank on it.
When demoncRATS open their mouths, it’s just the gift that keeps on giving. See also John Kerry, Wellstone funeral, CA 50 race and William Jefferson (D-LA).
Regards,
Peter H.
John, how to tell if one supports the troop? I like this shorthand: if you don’t support the mission, you don’t support the troops.
Despite what the Left tries to do in separating the two, they are immutably linked. I know, that will now open up the commentary for guys like Ian S and raj to offer: MyLai, firebombing of Dresden, Hiroshima etc.
Support the troops? Not if you don’t support the mission. And, frankly, if you’re an American and you don’t support the mission, you’ve failed a simple test of patriotism in my book.
“Support the troops? Not if you don’t support the mission. And, frankly, if you’re an American and you don’t support the mission, you’ve failed a simple test of patriotism in my book.”
Well it looks as if an increasing number of Americans are not patriotic by this definition, as support for this ill conceived war is waning daily–ready here for the cries about the MSM. But your comment is a perfect example of how the far right exist, and insist on existing, in an echo chamber. You say you are open to debate, but debate must take place in parameters set where criticism of the war is not possible or one is deemed by definition “un-patriotic”.
I want the Dhimmicrats to keep on talking, keep on slamming our troops and the war effort, and keep on screaming about Republicans. The more they do, the more voters we’ll get in November.
Actually Brendan, you’re wrong on both points –again.
First, debate on whether to proceed on the WOT (invade Afghanistan to oust the Taliban; invade Iraq to secure regime change) was an appropriate activity for all Americans before the invasion. The debate, dear Brendan, occured in the US Senate and in the UN and in the MSM. Votes were had in the former and subsequent votes on appropriations prove the point that a majority of Senators support the WOT and Iraq, despite what they put out there for consumption by their political base.
When debate was over and decisions were made, Americans fall into line with their elected leaders and CIC to prosecute the war. The ankle-biting debate that’s ensued post Saddam capture is exactly that… ankle biting for partisan political gain at the expense of success in the WOT. It is a grave and serious sin against patriotism, Brendan.
For that, Brendan, and that alone –patriotism is NOT an option of cover for those who seek to blunt our effort in war. Nor is some foggy perception of Free Speech which allows partisan leaders to undercut resolve, undercut our troop morale, undercut our position abroad.
JFKerry tried that tactic when he offered “I’ve spoken with world leaders and they tell me…. blah blah blah”. Lying sack of cheap partisan gainsmanship. Not a patriot no matter how high the fence he climbs to get back those war medals nor how quickly he finally releases his Navy records.
Sorry Brendan, you are perfectly adept at debasing the term patriot until it means nothing, serves a perverted end, and can be worn by those on the Left who indirectly and directly do harm to US interests. The Silent Majority of the last generation allowed your ilk to get away with a gross dereliction of patriotism with VietNam; it ain’t happening again.
On the second point, holding the opinion that one doesn’t like war and would rather not see the US pursue war is not unpatriotic. You deliberately and dishonestly mis-state the point of a lack of support for war with “don’t support the troops”. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
No action –beyond being an unwitting dupe of the Left’s MSM– of an unpatriotic sort has happened in that instance (ie not “liking the war”) but for debating points you’d prefer to lump it in with grossly unpatriotic Democrats who do NOT support the mission nor the troops.
Wrong on the second point, too, Brendan. Nice try to blend support of the troops and mission with downward support of Geo Bush, the prosecution of war and warring actions in general though. For that, you get two demerit points.
I suggest you change your name from Brendan to something more like Brutus –it seems fitting for someone who fails a simple test of patriotism and then lies for the benefit of the Party. How low the Left sinks in its defiance of reason.
#10 – Brendan what are you doing here???
I thought GP was quite a “buffoon”, to you! In which case, i.e., if it’s true, your coming here should be considered pathetic.
“Actually Brendan, you’re wrong on both points –again.”
Actually you have not disproved a single point I made and saying I am wrong does not prove it either. Support for the war, and the CIC or “that good man” are both declining. You may not like this fact but it remains a fact. All I said was that your equation with not supporting the war with being un-patriotic is a pretty disturbing view of civil liberties,
a position you only make more disturbing with your oblique reference to the “foggy” First Amendment. Are you really suggesting that citizens not be allowed to speak out against the war?
Your reference to sin is confusing. We are talking about civil society and debates about public policy. What does sin have to do with anything other than to help you engage in overheated rhetoric?
“it seems fitting for someone who fails a simple test of patriotism and then lies for the benefit of the Party. How low the Left sinks in its defiance of reason.”
Yes and we have always been at war with Oceania!
What Watada did was not brave or courageous. In a free society where the military is deliberately in submission to the civilian, elected, government it’s downright dangerous.
Do the Kossaks want a military that decides what orders it will follow and which elected President it will serve? Two thirds of the military vote Republican (if not three-fourths) but that military obeys the orders of whomever wins, even if they didn’t vote for him or her. Suppose in 2008 the military ENDORSES a cadidate? Suppose in 2008 they make a statement about who they will obey and who they will not obey?
As for supporting the troops… Pat Dollard (www.patdollard.com) has a (non-worksafe) music video that some might enjoy.
Anyhow, it’s not that a person has to think the war is a good thing, they just have to want our guys to WIN. Not want them home… not want them to lose and come home… not view them as happless victims who need to be saved…
On the website Hollywood Interrupted (I think I’ve got that right) one of the commenters after seeing Dollard’s video proclaimed that he, personally, would be guilty for every single young man who viewed that video and went down to a recruiter and signed up and then got killed. (The same sort of thinking behind the Godsmack – Jay Babcock confrontation I’ve got linked on my blog somewhere.)
It is not *supportive* to portray our soldiers as victims or as neo-con tools or as too brain damaged at birth to make their own decions in the face of a rock and roll song or an angry video.
It’s important that our soldiers do NOT feel the need to make a personal moral decision about war. The decision that they make is to serve and to trust, or at least pawn off the moral responsibility on, the civilian leadership for decisions to go to war or not go to war. Their responsibility is to fight the best they can according to the rules they must follow and to WIN… that is to accomplish each mission they are given.
To support them means to support the mission they are given. Want them to win.
To support them is to admit that they are thinking human beings who were not manipulated into the life they lead by horrible recruiters, Godsmack, or a video by Pat Dollard.
#13 P.S. – As long as I came here – my $.02 for the record:
Patriotism = love of country, and judging anybody’s internal state is a near-impossible thing to do. So, with most lefties, NO, I don’t question their patriotism. (Only their judgment.)
Of course, if they themselves announce they want the other side to win – like Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan – that’s different. At that point, I still haven’t questioned their patriotism: They have.
For lefties who won’t go as far as them: It’s just a fact that you DON’T support the troops, if you don’t support their mission. They’re risking life and limb out there, to accomplish a certain mission – for you. When you walk around with your “peace” or “anti-war” signs (actually “pro the other side”), you actively encourage the terrorists and Baathist diehards (who are known to continualliy monitor our media) to hang on longer. That, in turn, costs our guys’ lives and limbs.
Someone asked for a definition of “supporting the troops”.
It could certainly include positive actions, like giving them actual material support as Dan has asked, or writing them encouraging notes online, or a lot of things. BUT – that’s not for everyone.
There is a certain easier, minimum baseline of support that we should all be giving; easy because it is defined by things we DON’T do:
– Don’t gleefully heap mud on the troops.
– Don’t sit by idly while others do it.
– Knowing that our enemies have been trained to lie, don’t pre-judge Haditha-type stories before the Marines have investigated (or convicted) their own guys.
– Don’t join so-called “peace” demonstrations, or carry so-called “peace” signs (which, again, are really pro-the-other-side and pro-increasing-the-injuries-to-our-troops).
I hope that’s a good starting definition. And AGJ: since the Democrats routinely violate all of the above – No, the Democrats don’t support the troops!!!
#14 – Actually, Brendan, you still need to see and answer #13 before anyone should take you seriously in this place.
#12 writes: “patriotism is NOT an option of cover for those who seek to blunt our effort in war. Nor is some foggy perception of Free Speech which allows partisan leaders to undercut resolve, undercut our troop morale, undercut our position abroad.”
That seems to be implying that dissent against the war should not be allowed and is not protected by the “foggy” 1st Amendment. Coupled with other remarks that people should not attend anti-war demonstrations, suggests at least that some of the commentors here believe that dissent should be criminalized. If people here really believe that I think they should spell it out a bit more and say specifically what should and should not be allowable dissent and what precisely you suggest be done with those you deem to have crossed some line.
As for supporting the troops… Pat Dollard (www.patdollard.com) has a (non-worksafe) music video that some might enjoy.
This looks good and reminds me of Gunner Palace. When this becomes available I’d like to see the whole film.
That seems to be implying that dissent against the war should not be allowed and is not protected by the “foggy” 1st Amendment. Coupled with other remarks that people should not attend anti-war demonstrations, suggests at least that some of the commentors here believe that dissent should be criminalized.
Not that I saw. There is a large difference between saying something is immoral, “un-American”, or whatever adjective you wish to employ, and that it is criminal. No, antiwar protestors are for the most part protected by the First Amendment in their dissent. I do not have to agree with them or like them, but I’ll be the first to say that they have free speech just like the rest of us do. of course if they step over the line from dissent into sedition or even treason, a la Hanoi Jane, that’s another matter entirely. Frankly, every one of the “human shields” that went over to Iraq prior to the invasion should be arrested and put on trial for starters.
Oh and here’s the latest from Kossacks, showing that they have no concept of who the enemy is let alone what flies around in their twisted little brains. One wonders just how many examples of suicide bombings one has to raise to show “Califlander” how ridiculous her “parsing” of Rear Admiral Harris’ comments is.
“…suggests at least that some of the commentors here believe that dissent should be criminalized…”
A typical Leftie bullshit leap. I, for one, suggested nothing of the kind.
Anti-war demonstrations can be STUPID and WRONG and WORK AGAINST THE LIVES OF THE TROOPS, all of which they are, without being criminal. In America, you have the right to spit on the troops and work politically against their lives and their survival, if you are so incredibly dumb and wrong as to want that.
Not sure if I saw the following link already on GP… “If you don’t support the mission, you don’t support the troops” and the manner in which that costs lives, from the mouth of someone on the ground: http://www.acorn-online.com/news/publish/article_7107.shtml
Not sure if I saw the following link already on GP… “If you don’t support the mission, you don’t support the troops” and the manner in which that costs lives, from the mouth of someone on the ground: http://www.acorn-online.com/news/publish/article_7107.shtml
Beat you to it. Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! 🙂
Ah, but you see, in t’other thread I beat you on linking Hitchens 😉
Ah, but you see, in t’other thread I beat you on linking Hitchens
Ah but you see, you did so without the panache and style I contributed. It’s all in the presentation my friend. 😉
Dems and liberals can’t say what they mean, and must be dishonest about what the believe. Guns…after getting hammered in elections where they were perceived as pro criminal…they had to moderate and say things like “we dont hate guns just the bullets”. Or it’s the uncontrolled gun shows that we ‘re against. Religion…. “we do not hate Christians, some of our best friends are Christians.” They say they are for religion when it means handing out stuff to people who need it.
The Military…we love the guys but not what they are doing. If they were honest about what they believed…like Moore, Striesand, Mahr, Air America, daily kos…theyd become a third party in America.
Some of you are a little quick to use a broad brush to condemn Democrats.
A number of prominent Democrats supported going into Iraq and continue to support that war (even if some, from time to time, are critical of how the Bush team has conducted the war). Senator Joe Lieberman, for example, has been so supportive of the war he’s fighting for his political life in his party’s primary.
Trace-
A “moderate Democrat” is becoming as scarce as a “moderate Muslim” in the context of the War on Terror.
#28 – Trace – I know all about Lieberman, having supported him for President in (early 2004). Your comment pretty much answers itself: Not only has he been pretty darn scarce lately in standing up for the troops, it because… “he’s fighting for his political life in his party’s primary”. That last bit (your words) should tell you everything you need to know about today’s Democrats.
P.S. And Hillary, after having voted for the war 3 years ago – where is she today, in standing up for the troops? G-o-n-e. Not a peep out of her (that I am presently aware of) to condemn Murtha’s disgraceful pre-judgment of the Haditha story.
“A typical Leftie bullshit leap. I, for one, suggested nothing of the kind.”
Did you read my original comment or as GP might say, “can you COMPREHEND”? I did not accuse you of anything. I pointed out, quite reasonably, (and without any reference to you) that references questioning the patriotism of those openly opposed to the war combined with support for statements about the foggy 1st amendment (comment #12) suggest that people might be in favor of outlawing such activity. Moreover, in respect to anti-war demonstrations the 1st Amendment is hardly “foggy”. Such activity goes to the core of what is protected.
As for Murtha’s disgraceful pre-judgment of the Haditha story, sorry you appear to be wrong there, yet again. All reliable information suggests that civilians including children were murdered in cold blood. No contrary evidence has been presented. I’ll grant you that is reasonable to criticize those who generalize from this incident to all soldiers, but to cover your eyes and pretend it did not happen is Right Wing Derangement Syndrome, (RWDS)—–since people here are qualified to offer psychiatric diagnosis I thought I would add my own.
Here’s what one soldier thinks of this.
Brendan the new Brutus, in the final analysis, you’re still wrong on both counts; if you don’t get it –reread my comments because it’s clear to me you won’t ever get it. You simply don’t understand honor, duty, patriotism, country, nor the importance of supporting the mission/troops. I wouldn’t expect you too, either; those are not values in your life nor conduct.
You fail to comprehend there is a fundamental difference between polls which accurately (go look the word up since you don’t know what it means) measure the general American public’s anxiety over the course of the WOT in Iraq and disingenious, dishonest, disloyal commentary from the Left and most Democrats about “supporting the troops BUT NOT supporting the mission”. I know there were Democrats who voted to prosecute the WOT-Iraq; they voted for it before they spoke against it (sounds a little Kerry-ish, eh?) If polling indicated the majority of Americans supported the war’s prosecution, they’d be leaving Iraq alone and focusing on Katrina, Part Deux.
Patriotism isn’t something you get to put on and take off as the political winds suit your interests. It’s like truth. It’s like honor. It’s like duty. Smear or abuse it once, you don’t get to wear it again. How simple is that… it was the core issue in the 2004 race, Brendan the new Brutus. Kerry thought he could act with impunity and wrap himself in his faded (but still not released) war record and get away with it –hoping that the majority of Americans (clearly the majority of Democrats) would side with him that VietNam was bad, our troops disserved our country and that opposing it was right.
He was uniquely unpatriotic for a Democrat when he used his naval service to open the Democrat Convention with “reporting for duty” line. He, like many unpatriotic men, has no shame. Shame-honor; see the relationship?
Is the conduct of people like Sen Kennedy on the Senate floor celebrating Abu Ghraib Day unpatriotic? You bet: he demeans our military morale for cheap partisan gain.
Is the conduct of people like Moore, Sheehan, Soros, the Left Hollywood Cabal, the DemocratUnderground, Daily Kos and others working to undercut the troops and the mission unpatriotic? You bet: for the same reasons I noted above. Others here may not see it that way, but it is the little ankle-biting actions of a few sowing the seeds of discontent that ruin public support and injure troop morale.
The point of this post and others is to discuss how Democrats and the Left –along with selective coverage of untoward events in Iraq– intend to directly harm the Administration, the mission, and indirectly the troops’ morale while undercutting public support here and abroad.
Look to how the LATimes jumped to use the phrase “Pentagon Papers” in THIS war in order to harken back to the excesses of the 1960s… and dusted off Daniel Ellsberg for the connections to ring “true”. MyLai my ass.
Yeah, Brendan the new Brutus, speaking against the mission for the purpose of undermining public support for the war, undermining troop morale, or to use elements of the war’s prosecution for cheap partisan gain is unpatriotic.
The effort of people like Babs Boxer, seeking a Dec 31st troop withdrawl from Iraq, does undercut the mission. It does undercut the troops. It does harm public support of the WOT-Iraq.
For you to fail to understand that puts you in the same camp as most of the Daily Kossacks, the Democrat UnderGround ragers, and our enemies abroad seeking to discredit the Free World’s attempt to bring democracy to Iraq.
If you don’t support the mission, you can’t hold that you support the troops. It just doesn’t work that way unless your ass in safely located in an easy chair stateside.
“No contrary evidence has been presented.”
It’s starting to come out now. Slowly. The military (unlike Congresspersons) won’t comment on an investigation that is not complete. They GET the notion that because of their individual positions that anything said will be taken as an “official” statement. The latest reports that I’ve seen is that the initial “they were killed in the explosion” report was not an accurate representation of the initial report from the Marines involved… but any report at any level, any statement, is considered pure scripture. The solution is to not make any until they’ve got the final version.
Hey, look what happened when they did a little bit of unofficial breifing of Congress members? Oh SURE they’re going to run right out there and do it some more.
The lack of counter information is proof of nothing. Yet the reporters push for denials and statements despite the fact that the military big-wig has explained repeatedly that he can’t comment until the investigation is complete. I suppose they are used to Congresspersons who feel free to spout of speculation and opinion without ever being held accountable for what they’ve said in the past.
Murtha is trusted by many and no matter what finally happens his words will be the version they believe. He will never be held accountable. If, in the end, the investigation finds that this was something less that cold-blooded murder and the execution style killing of children begging for their lives, those “believers” will still believe.
Because Murtha supports the troops by using the authority of his office to publically declare Marines guilty… and he wouldn’t *do* that without *proof*, right?
And they may be guilty. But if we find out that it wasn’t a cold-blooded slaughter watch for Murtha’s public apology and support for the military justice system.
It won’t happen.
Synova, if crimes are not proven in a military court, Murtha should be made to resign and forfeit his military badges/medals on the east steps of the US Capitol. Then he should have his assed kicked down Constitution Avenue by a group of Boy Scouts who can understand the premise of patriotism better than that “15 minutes of fame” windbag.
And Brendan the new Brutus can hold a towel to capture the ex-Congressman’s tears and sweat for the new museum of Anti-War Patriots and Human Shields Memorial that Pres. Hillary Clinton will have installed next to the VN War Memorial.
Murtha could make Kennedy or Boxer look like patriots.
#32 – Brendan –
First – #13 is still unanswered. Answer it like a man.
Second – if you want to accuse Michigan-Matt of wanting to criminalize dissent, say it. If, instead, you are going to cast vague aspersions, expect to get answers where I call bullshit on the vagueness – and, in noting my own role or views, where I say things like “I, FOR ONE” as I clearly did in #22. Comprehend that, OK?
Note that in #32 you do it again. You attempt to plant the snarky vague suggestion, “PEOPLE might be in favor of outlawing…” I call bullshit.
As for your statement:
“As for [Haditha] you appear to be wrong there, yet again. All reliable information suggests that civilians including children were murdered in cold blood.”
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong answer.
_Time_ magazine is slowly backing away from its Haditha story – one correction at a time. Their sources for the story are slowly unravelling. It hasn’t gotten to 100% yet, but – look for more to come.
Moreover, Brendan: Haven’t you heard of a little thing called America? As in, “innocent until proven guilty”?
You KNOW (or you yourself admit) that you have only heard one side of the story as yet. You KNOW there are always 2 sides to every such story. Why would you, like Murtha, so disgracefully pre-judge the matter?
It turns out that (1) the accused Marines were attacked (not working in cold blood); (2) the accused Marines have deserved reputations for steadiness and professionalism; (3) their accusers are essentially partisan, or provable liars in some cases; (4) the “rules of engagement” are crucially important to evaluating the case and may clear the Marines’ good names in the end – once we know their side of the story, that is!
You said: “No contrary evidence has been presented. ”
Indeed. And did it ever occur to you, Brendan, that that would be an excellent reason for you to NOT PRE-JUDGE the Haditha story? As in: Not judge it UNTIL the contrary evidence (the other side’s story) has been aired? Did that cross your mind for a second, before now????????????????
#37 – Matt –
Murtha should be made to resign and forfeit his military badges/medals regardless of whether Marines are convicted of anything.
Murtha disgracefully pre-judged the matter for opportunistic political gain. Whether, or which, Marines turn out to be guilty (or none at all) won’t change that.
But another option, of course, is to help Diane Irey turn Murtha out of office. (Vets go here.)
Correction to #39: Let’s leave it as “Murtha should be made to resign, or voted out of office.” I hereby un-do my reference to Murtha’s medals (that I had quoted from Matt).
#38, “First – #13 is still unanswered. Answer it like a man.” Question from 13: “Brendan what are you doing here???”
How macho–“answer like a man”–is that from a John Wayne movie?
But more on point, why do I owe you an explanation as to why I visit a public weblog? But, I’ll answer anyhow. I am here to test your patience for rational debate. I do not deny that my politics are to the left and I disagree with almost everything posted here. But the site claims they want debate and yet almost every comment I make, the response is not debate but instead you, and others, resort to childish tantrums (“fucktard”, “libtard”, “Brutus”, “moonbat” etc. Or you respond with longwinded platitudes about patriotism-see above, patriotism: It’s like Truth. It’s like honor. It’s like duty.” I am sorry that is not an argument–it is a speech and not an especially effective one. Except for one occasion, I do not feel I have been rude or nasty and yet I get attacked. I will admit, it is a bit of fun to watch you all talk about wanting debate and see the reaction.
As for Haditha, well we have to wait and see. It still appears that most reliable information suggests that this was murder. Citing as proof, as you do, The Mudville Gazette–“the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him”–(love the loyal wife part) does not inspire confidence on where you get your information.
Then I say again, Brendan: WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?
If your words are true – If, in fact, the people on this site are as horrible as you claim – AND if you, by contrast, are worthwhile and rational – then you would have no conceivable reason for sticking around.
Get it? Something’s off. Either your words about how horrible and worthless and awful are the comments & people here are not true… or… you (Brendan) are pathetic for coming here. Which?
I must also note the fact that you are the master name-caller and, in that very clear example, you called Bruce personal names while he had refrained.
Yet now you want us to believe YOU are the victim of name-calling and “impatience” here. Whatever! LOL 🙂 Way to take responsibility for your insults of others, dude!
As for Haditha: I gave five distinct citations from four separate sources, all of whom know way more than you.
(another small correction – make that five sources, period – the last one I gave in #38 really comes down to The Washington Post.)
“WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?”
Calarato, writing in capital letters as if that makes a nonsensical statement sensical is the equivalent of raising your voice when talking to a deaf person–it is dumb. I already told you why–to have political discussions with people I don’t agree with. .
And YOU DON’T DISCUSS. You insult. Examples above.
Either discuss, or insult. Impossible to do both.
When you choose the path of insult: don’t expect people to not notice. You’re sending out a giant signal at that point, “Insult me back – That’s what I’m really here for, even if I can’t admit it.” Take some responsibility for it.
If you choose the path of discussion: don’t respond to people who you feel have chosen the path of insult. You’re here to discuss (at that point), right? or?
Whether or not you admit it, you are here for one or the other. Decide.
And YOU DON’T DISCUSS. You insult. Examples given above.
Do one or the other. Impossible to do both.
When you choose the path of insult: don’t expect people to not notice. You’re sending out a giant signal at that point, “Insult me back – That’s the game I’m here for, even if I can’t admit it.” Take some responsibility for it.
If you choose discussion: then just don’t respond to people who you feel are on an ‘insult’ path. You’re here to discuss, right? Or?
Whether or not you admit it, you are here for one or the other. Decide.
This is for future reference. I’m done with you now, in this thread.
Calarato, I hope vets and patriots overwhelmingly support Diane Irey. Because of your suggestion and some research, I did make a $$$ to her effort toward victory.
Brendan the Brutus likes to taunt, likes to inflame and incite because in the world of Democrat Party Victimhood best practices, he learned early on that when his side can’t win on policy or debate… try to make your opponent angry so they’ll hopefully lose their cool, misstate something minor and then you can throw it back in their face… and declare victory.
It’s why 2/3rds of American voters mistakenly believe Sen Harry Reid leads the Senate… he’s the playmaker of that manuever. It’s incredible how shallow the Left has become; it’s a segment of the political system that men like Sen Phil Hart or Speaker Carl Albert or Scoop Jackson or Abe Fortas would not recognize today.
It’s the Party of Just Do No
#41 Being a military member (or his loyal wife) is not one single tiny bit more prejudicial than being a member of the community that planted a bomb to blow up US Marines. Yet information from a military member is automatically suspect and information from absolutely partisan locals is “reliable.”
Hello, Brendan! You there? If you’re a “troop supporter” why do you automatically distrust the point of view of military members?
And if you look at that web site and others such as Blackfive.net closely you’ll see that they, and very few if any, of their commentors are claiming the Marines are innocent. They don’t know. They are merely giving them the benefit of the doubt. The only thing you could possibly criticize them for is a failure to pre-judge.
Go back and follow up on Uncle Jimbo’s posts. The man taught close quarters combat… he might *maybe* just know what he’s talking about.
Or you could listen to Murtha…
As for Haditha, well we have to wait and see. It still appears that most reliable information suggests that this was murder. Citing as proof, as you do, The Mudville Gazette–”the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him”–(love the loyal wife part) does not inspire confidence on where you get your information.
What “reliable information”? The reports of media outlets like The New York Times? TIME magazine? CBS News? Do we really need to revisit the number of scandals and times of botched-reporting each one of these outlets have been involved in? Gimme a break. The Mudville Gazette and most blogs do not pretend to be journalists. They link to media articles and voice their opinions, that’s all. Fact of the matter is that there IS some backtracking from initial media reports on Haditha. How far this will go only time will tell. And you failed to answer the question: what of the maxim “innocent until proven guilty”? There is an important ending to that: “in a court of law” — not public opinion nor the media. Maybe these Marines are guilty, I do not know, but thus far there has NOT been evidence presented which is overwhelming in my mind. We shall see once the investigation is completed along with if it goes to trial.
Are Democrats ever held accountable for prejudging legal cases in public. They are government employees for the most part. Rove’s not guilty and how many of them declared the marines gulty in Haditha before knowing all the facts? If a republican is accused of wrong doing, well it must be true. If the military is accused, of course they must be guilty. Why? because both in their minds are evil. Simple.