Posted on 05/21/2006 10:13:18 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
Nevada Sen. John Ensign says Democratic leaders who criticize the Iraq war are aiding the terrorists and hampering the war effort.
"Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy - let me tell you, I say this without reservation - they have hurt our military, they have emboldened the enemy," Ensign told Republicans gathered for the state party convention on Saturday.
"They're fighting for the freedom of speech, they're fighting for the right to protest, they're fighting for all those things. But when we are at war, especially the leaders in this country need to be very, very careful of what they say and what they do," Ensign said.
The first-term senator is up for re-election in November. His previous stump speeches have not attacked Democratic critics of the war so directly. When asked which comments from House Minority Leader Pelosi, D-Calif., or Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he felt were inappropriate, Ensign said Pelosi had called evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq "lies."
"You don't think that doesn't embolden the enemy?" he said.
Ensign said he would not extend his criticism to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who once called President George Bush a "loser," because "Harry and I have an agreement not to criticize each other."
Ensign suggested war critics should lie about their opposition. In comments to reporters, the Las Vegas Republican quoted what he said was a line from comedian and talk show host Dennis Miller: "I happened to believe in what we're doing over there. But if I didn't, I'd lie."
Nevada Democratic Party spokeswoman Kirsten Searer said Ensign's remarks are an attempt to compensate for "a war that has had one failure after another."
"They would have fewer questions about the war if they were doing a better job of running it," she said.
At last reporting, Ensign had a war chest six times as large as his Democratic opponent, Las Vegas investment consultant Jack Carter, and he has a healthy lead in the polls.
Ensign said he recognized that some Americans were losing support for the war, which he attributed to "instant gratification culture."
He also used his speech to 135 Republican activists, about half of whom came from rural Nevada, to outline his position on immigration.
Ensign said he supported a sending National Guard troops to the border and a three-year guest worker program for immigrants willing to assimilate, learn English and pay taxes.
He said he didn't blame immigrants for wanting to cross the border to seek a better life in the U.S.
"I'd probably do the same thing," he told reporters.
Whenever our elected leaders fail to speak with one voice on matters of national security, we appear weaker and our enemies are more likely to strike.
Therefore, leaders who fail to support our overseas efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are making future wars more likely. Opposition leaders, like Joe Lieberman, who support our efforts make future wars less likely.
Labeling such talk treason, while accurate, is a difficult charge to prove. It looks like overreaching and actually helps scum like Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, & Murtha. Perhaps we should describe it as a "bad idea" for the reasons outlined above.
No, we're not saying they don't have the "right" to say it. We just believe, for the reasons listed above, that showing a divided front to potential enemies makes war more likely and will result in thousands or millions of unnecessary deaths. This show bad judgement on their part and makes the current crop of Democrat leaders poor potential stewards of our nation's safety.
Sorry, buddy - if that's your take then you are dead wrong.
If you think they're saying things out of carelessness, then you haven't been paying attention.
Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, et al, are VERY CAREFUL about what they say.
Kennedys get away with murder.
Exactly, so to them what is a little treason, nothing!
Yes, well stated.
The principle has been lost - on one side - that the opposition party supports the foreign policy of the president. Demanding cooperation from the president and then denouncing him and telling every possible lie to benefit the jihad is beyond treason. It is treason dressed up in the costume of free speech.
I agree with your technical definition. I wonder how long our country can survive with these suicidal tendencies and the spineless, get-along-go-along tactics of the GOP.
Good for Senator Ensign! He's joining Senator Sessions as one of the very few bright lights in the senate. Which isn't difficult in that cesspool, but I'll take it where I can find it.
That's the real problem - the Congressional Republicans blowing in the wind like reeds. Many have abandoned the concept of leadership. They believe their primary job is to get reelected and the best way to do that is pandering. If the polls say the war is becoming unpopular then they start wimping out or stabbing the President in the back (cough, Hagel, cough). McCain, to his credit, has not done this.
This is reminiscent of Clinton's "steering by the wake". The polls determined the policy, not the responsibilities of the office. Gee, I should kill Osama but someone may accuse me of "wagging the dog" so I better not.
Too bad you have Reid. But, at least you have one. Here in homo-WA state, we have two liberal slime balls in Can'twell and Osama Mama Patty Murray.
Well, maybe the "half a loaf" thingie applies here, but Ensign should bend that 'agreement' a bit.
This is exactly what needs to be said by our President and every patriotic citizen of our country.
None dare call it treason only as long as none dare call it treason.
"Ensign said he would not extend his criticism to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who once called President George Bush a "loser," because "Harry and I have an agreement not to criticize each other."
I always said Ensign was Harry Reid's But Boy. Sorry John but daddy will have to buy another business for you after the election.
So Reid can say and do anything and all and he's immune to criticism?
Looney.
Apparently it's okay to aid the enemy, as long as you have an 'agreement' with this guy, like Harry.
Kennedy and Pelosi will never agree their speech aids and abets the enemy because the GOP is their enemy. That's who they think of, not the terrorists. The just flat out refuse to look beyond their political positions and consider the options the rest of us have to live with.
So basically what you are saying is that Pol Pot was really not that bad?
You know, during the Civil War, there were a group of northern Democrats who actively worked against the Union cause. They thought that the war was being fought solely at the urging of Abolitionists, and desparately wanted Lincoln removed from office and hanged. Some of them plotted to free Confederate prisoners from POW camps, and some even accepted funding from the Confederacy. Sound familiar? These people were called Copperheads, after a deadly snake that strikes with no warning. I think we need to have a label for folks like Kennedy, Pelose, Reid, Turban, etc. I'm putting Copperheads on the table for this purpose. Comments?
This should be repeated daily.
I agree it is looney but it seems more like a gentleman's agreement to me. I'm sure its standard operating procedure. I live in NJ, one of the dirtiest political states in the Union and they all make nice. It seems to me that Ensign's revealing the presence of his agreement with Harry to the public is in itself a little bit of a middle finger salute to dingy harry. At no point did Ensign say he agreed with Harry's position and I bet Harry WILL get back at him somehow.
I'm just thrilled to see somebody stand up and start calling the members of the so-called loyal opposition out on their BS. They've gotten away with it for too darn long.
Their traitorous remarks embolden the enemy and they sow doubt in the mind of those more interested in their own activities of daily living than geopolitics. All you have to do is listen to the messages from AQ. Heck, OBL, Zawahiri and Zarkman's most recent communications could ALL have been taken from a DNC talking points memo. It's disgusting.
/rant off. Thanks for letting me vent. Cheers - Dinah
'Nevada Democratic Party spokeswoman Kirsten Searer said Ensign's remarks are an attempt to compensate for "a war that has had one failure after another." '
No doubt, Kirsten would prefer that GWB prosecutes a war like the Rapist did in Kosovo, after deciding to bypass the Useless Nations. Klintoon dropped high level bombs, guaranteed to kill indiscriminately, and of course the NY Slimes, the LA Sublimes and the other very, very fair media said not one word about deaths on the nightly noose. Kirsten should just kiss my Hillary and go away.
"What about Vietnam? They said that America would disappear if Vietnam was not dealt with but we are still here. In fact, America is going to be doing big business with Vietnam very soon if not already. Ships go there and nothing happened after the troops were pulled out. They had a quick squirmish with Cambodia that lasted a time and now there is peace within that region. I am not for pulling out troops, but lets not use crazy scenarios of what could happen. If we pull out, there might be some problems for Iraq for a bit and then the country will be come exactly like Vietnam and is that a bad thing really?"
===
You're joking, right? In 1975, the total population of N + S Vietnam was about 60 million. The victorious, glamorous, all-caring Socialist government (commie bastidges) proceeded to kill 3 million of those and put vast numbers beyond that into re-education camps (Thank you U.S. congressional Democrats for withdrawing funding).
I've spent a lot of time in VN and will attest that all of this is true. You clearly haven't been in a communist country. Virtually everyone (about 98%)in VN wants to get out because living in a Communist country and being ruled by Communists is a living hell. The only ones who don't want to get out are, guess who, the Commies who are sucking the blood out of the 98%.
Don't believe it Naps? Go there and spend a month in Hanoi. You'll know, propaganda speakers on most corners, mounted on 14 foot high poles, government issue news assaulting the populace. Sounds like the DNC, doesn't it? My guess is YOU'd think it was a pretty good place.
"On a larger scale, such talk kills more than the troops in Iraq.
Our defense is based on deterrence, the notion that you don't want to start a fight with the U.S.
That defense has been substantially weakened by our betrayal of South Vietnam and, over the last 25 years, by our non-responses to multiple terrorist provocations.
Osama Bin Laden viewed Blackhawk Down as proof that we were a paper tiger. He overruled his more sanguine subordinates who wanted to keep the conflict with us low-intensity. Our weak responses invited his attack. Appeasement does not work.
Saddam also believed this. The Iraqi Perspectives Project showed he thought the US would invade southern Iraq and stop once we took a couple dozen casualties because that was all we could stomach.
Even in WWII, Japan attacked us because they believed we were weak and decadent. Yammomoto knew better but was overruled.
Whenever our elected leaders fail to speak with one voice on matters of national security, we appear weaker and our enemies are more likely to strike.
Therefore, leaders who fail to support our overseas efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are making future wars more likely. Opposition leaders, like Joe Lieberman, who support our efforts make future wars less likely.
Labeling such talk treason, while accurate, is a difficult charge to prove. It looks like overreaching and actually helps scum like Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, & Murtha. Perhaps we should describe it as a "bad idea" for the reasons outlined above.
No, we're not saying they don't have the "right" to say it. We just believe, for the reasons listed above, that showing a divided front to potential enemies makes war more likely and will result in thousands or millions of unnecessary deaths. This show bad judgement on their part and makes the current crop of Democrat leaders poor potential stewards of our nation's safety."
===
Nothing new in any of this. The U.S. cooperated in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, allowing the Mullahs to seize power. Along with political power, they seized our Embassy in Tehran and a lot of hostages.
The Mullah's released the hostages on..the.. DAY..that..Republican..Reagan..assumed power from Dildo Democrat Jammah Cahtah! Similar signs of adult behavior showed up when GWB replaced BJ.
No doubt, there are numerous, strong analogies between the Copperheads of the Civil War and what passes for leadership in the modern day Democrat Party.
The reptilian Copperhead evokes appropriate pejorative imagery. Copperheads hid under cover in 1864, like snakes in tall grass, within societies with patriotic sounding names such as Order of the Sons of Liberty. Similarly, Marxists in 2006 hide their true identity and purpose in groups with names such as People For the American Way.
History judged the Copperheads very harshly from the perspective of the Union. Copperheads were on the wrong side of history and morality in condoning the abhorrent practice of slavery just as some leftists perpetuate the evil of radical Islam today.
Most Northerners were convinced that the Copperheads prolonged the bloody war by encouraging the South to continue fighting in hopes the North would cut their losses and abandon the struggle. I believe history will judge the enablers and appeasers of terrorists among the Democrats just as harshly.
In a historical and functional sense, Copperhead is a very fitting term for Democrats today who have crossed over the line from political dissent into sedition or treason. The only problem I have with using the term Copperhead is that it requires more explanation than most are willing to absorb in order to have maximum impact.
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.