Posted on 02/14/2007 2:57:10 PM PST by eeevil conservative
Please spare me the “we support our troops but oppose the war” drivel. Any 2nd grader comprehends the absurdity of the statement. And to the better-educated-than-the average-American members of our military, it essentially tells them that their service to this nation is wrong. How long can one be told “I like you, but I don’t like what you do” and not have it impact one’s morale?
And please spare me the pejorative label that this is “Bush’s war.” This is more than Bush’s war – it is Congress’ war. Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution specifically reserves to Congress the authority to declare war. In 2002, 379 members voted to go to war, and that included Clinton, Kerry, Reid, Murtha, Biden, and so many others now calling for defeat. 71% of our federal legislature voted to authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Those clamoring the loudest now for defeat are the same ones who demanded we liberate the poor defenseless Iraqis. In 2003, Senator Clinton went so far as to justify her vote on the grounds of exhaustive analysis and study. How interesting that just recently she publicly started that if she knew then what she knows now she would not have voted for the war… Huh???
Pardon me Senator, but that cliché is so patently incongruous those same 2nd graders see though it. You, and the other craven members of our Congress have done your best to ensure failure. When the honeymoon of temporary victory was elapsed by the reality of war and the brutal confrontation between democratic ideology and Islam, you surrendered. Since the beginning of the war, our Congress, especially the liberal Democrats, has done it’s best to undermine the military’s ability to successfully prosecute the war. In collusion with the unrelenting main-stream media (MSM) assault on the effort in Iraq, Congress has betrayed our military.
So intent on hurting and disabling the President, members of Congress nodded sagely when the MSM gloried in each American’s death, gleefully blaming Bush for this new Viet Nam. For example, with the merciless and besotted attention given to Abu Ghraib, one would think that the US was beheading its prisoners, a barbarism employed by our enemies. Yet the names of Nicholas Berg, Eugene Armstrong, and Daniel Pearl are mere asterisks in the annals of MSM history while Abu Ghraib is a volume unto itself.
The travesty of our Congress is that it lacks both leadership and backbone. Even as this commentary is written, the Surrender Monkeys have boldly slunk their way into the limelight with a “non-binding” resolution on the Iraq war essentially stating “we’re groveling cowards who would rather have another attack in the US than see victory in Iraq… and it’s a pity we weren’t in Congress when WWII happened, because we’d have made sure we had a good dialogue with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and tried to work through our differences, instead of unilaterally attacking them…”
Where is the courage of conviction? If the amount of time spent on haggling over this resolution is worth the effort, then stand by your conviction, and exchange that piece of over-cooked pasta you call a spine for something made of sterner stuff, and vote to cut off funding for our military. It’s easy to hurl aspersions and castigate the Commander in Chief for the conduct of the war. But you offer no answers, no solutions, other than tuck our tails between our legs and run. You subvert the very men and women you sent to war. Is it any wonder Al Qaeda and every other terrorist organization view America as bin Laden called us – a paper-tiger. A year ago, Army BG Robert Caslen Jr., then the Joint Chiefs Deputy Director for War on Terrorism, recognized and understood that there was a good chance we could lose this war. As he pointed out, research revealed it took an average of nine years to successfully put down an insurrection. Unfortunately, further research also showed that America’s resolve and support begin to wither after about three years. In contrast to today’s America, it took 25 years to defeat Fascism, and even longer to win the Cold War.
Rest assured, the terrorists have a battle plan. As BG Caslen so adroitly states, “Their first goal is to drive America from Iraq and establish Islamic authority in the country. This would give the extremists a base to operate from and would help in their second goal, which is to go after and defeat all neighboring "apostate" states -- Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Turkey, Syria, Iran and Jordan. These countries, terrorist groups have claimed, have abandoned Islamic ideals. The third step is to destroy Israel. The fourth step would be to establish a Caliphate -- a government under a supreme religious ruler -- stretching from Central Asia to the Atlantic.”
When asked if it could happen, BG Caslen answered, "Yes. If we lose our resolve."
Well, General, apparently we have.
Our Congressional leadership would rather focus on elections in 2008 than the security of this nation. Lacking the leadership to understand the gravity of the war in Iraq, the concentric ramifications of defeat, and the ability to communicate it, Congress has buckled under the weight of polling. Instead of courage and direction, we get non-binding resolutions.
Recently Murtha stated that he would not serve in today’s military. I have to say that, in this instance, I agree with him. However, it’s not because I wouldn’t want to serve with the exceptional men and women of our armed forces. Rather, it’s because I do not want my life in the hands of the spineless cheese eating surrender monkeys currently responsible for authorizing and sending our youth to war, as well as defending this nation.
G'Night, Ernest!
Of course, that is the problem. A defeat in Iraq will help spell the end of the all volunteer military and a draftee military will not be as professional and capable as the one we have today.
During his 1971 lying testimony before Congress, Kerry raised the question, "How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Obama said that the 3000 lives lost in Iraq were a "waste." It took the military more than 15 years to recover from Vietnam. It will take much longer to recover from what is going on now in Congress on Iraq. It is a disgrace.
Today, Bush made excuses for what the Dems are doing. He said that they were just as patriotic as him even though they didn't support the mission. We need some Reps to call a spade a spade. The Dems are aiding and abetting the enemy by this resolution, non-binding or not. It signals to the enemy that the US objective is not victory but withdrawal. It bolsters the enemy's flagging morale and increases the level of violence including making the American military an even greater target since the enemy knows that we are casualty averse. What is going on is a disgrace and we don't have a CIC who will condemn it. Pitiful.
Thank you so much....
Ping for TOONS above thanks to Gritty.
That's great
That's great
"Recently Murtha stated that he would not serve in today’s military."
Yes, the Marines are looking for a few GOOD MEN. He would fail that requirement on two counts. He might qualify for the cowrds' brigade...their motto is "Swarmy of One Ton."
What I said: "He said that they were just as patriotic as him even though they didn't support the mission."
From the transcript of the President's press conference:
Q: Mr. President, it seems pretty clear where this Iraq vote in the House is headed.
BUSH: Yes.
Q: Your press secretary has said repeatedly that members of Congress ought to watch what they say and be concerned about the message that they're sending to our enemy.
I'm wondering: Do you believe that a vote of disapproval of your policy emboldens the enemy?
Does it undermine your ability to carry out your policies there?
And, also, what are you doing to persuade the Democratic leadership in Congress not to restrict your ability to spend money in Iraq?
BUSH: Yes, thanks.
A couple of points _ one, that I understand the Congress is going to express their opinion, and it's very clear where the Democrats are, and some Republicans. I know that. They didn't like the decision I made.
By the way, that doesn't mean that I think that they're, you know, not good, honorable citizens of the country. They just have a different opinion.
I considered some of their opinions and felt like it would not lead to a country that could govern itself and sustain itself and be an ally in the war on terror, one.
Secondly, my hope, however, is that this nonbinding resolution doesn't try to turn into a binding policy that prevents our troops from doing that which I have asked them to do.
That's why I keep reminding people _ on the one hand, you vote for David Petraeus in a unanimous way; and on the other hand, you say that you're not going to fund the strategy that he thought was necessary to do his job, a strategy he testified to in front of the Senate.
I am going to make it very clear to the members of Congress starting now that, you know, and they need to fund our troops and they need to make sure we have the flexibility necessary to get the job done.
Secondly, I find it interesting that there is a declaration about a plan that they have not given a chance to work. Again, I understand. I understand.
Q: Do you have to support the war to support the warrior? I mean, if you're one of those Americans that thinks you've made a terrible mistake that's destined to end badly, what do you do? If they speak out, are they, by definition, undermining the troops?
BUSH: No, she actually asked the enemy, not the troops.
But I'll be glad to answer your question. No, I don't think so at all. I think you can be against my decision and support the troops, absolutely. But the proof will be whether or not you provide them the money necessary to do the mission.
And I said early in my comment _ my answer to her was that _ somebody who doesn't agree with my policy is just as patriotic a person as I am.
And, you know, your question is, you know, valid. I mean, can somebody say, We disagree with your tactics or strategy, but we support the military ? Absolutely. Sure.
The President had an opportunity, I daresay an obligation, to point out that such a resolution would be aiding and abetting the enemy and undermine the morale of the troops. How can you ask someone to put their life on the line and have the House of Representatives pass a resolution that opposes an increase in troop levels and rebukes the President's [CIC] actions?
I would like to send white flags for the new committee chairs, though.
Patriotic can mean a lot of things
And I stand by mine.
Patriotic can mean a lot of things
Positively Clintonian. It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
Patriotic can mean a lot of things
Positively Clintonian. It depends on what the meaning of "is" is
Bush But I'll be glad to answer your question. No, I don't think so at all. I think you can be against my decision and support the troops, absolutely. But the proof will be whether or not you provide them the money necessary to do the mission.
My reference, accessible to you, for patriot is Online Etymology Dictionary.
In this country you can speak out against the government
If you don't support the mission, I don't see how you can support the troops by approving a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that opposes an increase in troop levels and rebukes the President's [CIC] actions calling them a mistake.
I am sure that Daniel Ellsberg felt he was being patriotic by disclosing classified information to stop the war. As Samuel Johnson said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
There are even limits to free speech, e.g., you can't incite riots or advocate the violent overthrow of the government. Regardless, you can speak out but you should also be aware that there are consequences for what you say, especially if you are a member of Congress. I am not advocating or suggesting that criticism of the government should be abridged.
OR COWARD
WHITE FLAGS, ANYONE?
As Pogo said, "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.