posted on June 21, 2005 03:53:32 PM new
Ain't it the truth
----------------
If Paul Revere were alive today and were making his famous ride to sound the alarm that the enemy was coming, he would be arrested. The American Civil Liberties Union would charge him with violating the separation of church and state because one of the signals would come from a church steeple. In addition, the Council on American/Islamic Relations would call him a racist. No doubt about it, poor Paul wouldn’t recognize his beloved country.
These days, America has a high-ranking Democratic senator claiming that our military “tactics” are no better than those of Nazis and murderous dictators responsible for deaths of millions. His words spread across the Arab world like a wildfire driven by gale-force winds. Arab television translated Senator Durbin’s words and played them repeatedly. Durbin’s statement was printed in Arab newspapers and was given top billing on Islamic websites. The Islamic terrorists must be thanking Allah hourly for men like Durbin. It’s one thing for Islamics to tell their followers how evil America is, but when an American senator tells the Arab world that America is evil, it is a gift of incalculable value to the enemy.
Now, there are American politicians demanding that the enemy be given a timetable for an Islamic victory in Iraq. During World War II, it is very fortunate indeed that the Congress of 1944 didn’t demand that our troops be brought home on June 5 because the war had just gone on too long and casualties were too high.
There is only one reason the leftists in America are so willing to slink out of Iraq and turn over the Middle East to Islamic terrorists: they hate George W. Bush. Don’t be fooled into believing that they care one wit about the military. Leftists loathe the military. An American soldier, to a true progressive leftist, is and always will be nothing more than a “baby killer.”
There can be no denying that parts of Iraq are in turmoil. Car bombings, suicide bombers, assassinations, and beheadings happen all too frequently. The terrorists carrying out these attacks know exactly what they are doing. The terrorists want Iraq for themselves so that they can link with Syria and Iran to become the most powerful force in the Middle East. What terrorists are doing in Iraq is practice for them. They have every intention of coming to America and doing the same thing. Pulling out of Iraq will only expedite those attacks.
If the leftists in America succeed in convincing the American people that the war in Iraq is lost, the Islamic terrorists will be the winners. Iran will possess nuclear weapons and it will use them. Israel will be bombed relentlessly. Anyone believing the United Nations would do something to stop Islam is mistaken. The United Nations is totally cowed by Islam.
Old Europe is almost lost to Islam. Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci has been charged with “inciting religious hatred” in her new book, “The Force of Reason.” Freedom of speech no longer exists in Italy when it concerns exposing the truth about Islam. Humbling the majority of Spanish people was easy, even by Islamic standards. A few well-placed bombs on a train and Islam had complete victory. France is terrified of a terror attack and with President Chirac’s good friend Saddam out of power in Iraq, there is no one to protect Paris.
New Europe is a different story. Those people have dealt with the horror known as Soviet domination. Ask the people who lived behind the Iron Curtain about Soviet gulags. They will be far less prone to cower before Islam.
If Iraq falls into the hands of the Islamic terrorists, there will be an immediate “cleansing” of all Iraqis who dared work with the Americans. The massacres would rival anything Pol Pot did in Cambodia. The bleeding-heart leftists were responsible for the deaths of over a million people in the 1960s and they learned nothing. The hatred for Republicans in general and President Bush in particular has blinded the progressives to the carnage that would follow an American abandonment of Iraq before the fledgling Iraqi government can defend itself against a savage enemy. Once again, those yearning to be free in the Middle East will learn that America is not to be trusted.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation broke up one small terrorist cell here in America. This is a good thing. The bad side of that situation is that terrorists are like fleas: for every one that you see there is one hundred that you do not see.
The alleged terrorists arrested had been trained in methods of planting bombs in hospitals and grocery stores. How many times have Americans been told that Islam never targets civilians? Does anyone believe anymore that Islam tells the truth? Every American is a target. All Americans, young and old, are the enemy. When you have an enemy willing to strap a bomb on his body believing he will be a martyr for Allah, it is foolish to believe that the authorities will be able to divert every attack on our schools, malls, theaters, restaurants, stores, and churches.
All Americans should try to imagine what it would be like to live as the Israelis have lived for over 50 years. A mother sends her child to school only to hear that the bus has been bombed. A father lets his son go to a movie, and sitting next to his son is a suicide bomber. A man on his way to work on the subway never arrives because a cyanide bomb has been released on his car. Anyone who thinks that will never happen here needs to watch tapes of the attack on 9/11. We never thought that would happen here either.
America needs to grow up. We are fighting a soulless, ruthless, enemy who does not play by the Marcus of Queensbury rules. It is an enemy that has only one rule: Kill all infidels by any means necessary to ensure that Islam will rule the world. This enemy kills children and claims victory. This enemy executes helpless men whose hands are tied behind their backs and laughs as we agonize over the fact that someone who would butcher an American baby without a thought is suffering in a chilly air-conditioned room. To Islamics, Americans who wring their hands over the treatment of prisoners are weak and a joke.
As terrorists blow up people and the Quran in mosques and imprison and torture Christians all over the Arab world, they must think we are quite insane to beat ourselves to death over Abu Garab and Guantanamo. Islamics use the ridiculous agonizing over prisoner treatment against us. Terrorists don’t have to worry about prisons. They torture and behead their prisoners and move on without a second thought.
The Islamic terrorists are listening to the leftists like Senators Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy and they are laughing. The experts say it is just a matter of time before the attacks start here in America. As usual, the leftists will blame it on George Bush. People like Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Nancy Pelosi won’t blame the terrorists. They will do what their kind always does: blame evil America.
About the Writer: Barbara J. Stock is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events. She has a website at http://www.republicanandproud.com/. Barbara J. receives e-mail at [email protected].
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on June 21, 2005 07:58:33 PM new
GREAT article, bear. And so very, very true.
It's like the ultra-left just doesn't get it at all....like they can't put themselves in the shoes of the Israeli's and ask themselves is THIS what we want for America...or do we fight them in the ME.
I can't believe so many dems are so blinded by their hatred of this President to not be able to see the realities of what this war is all about.
And on ol' durbin....
His words spread across the Arab world like a wildfire driven by gale-force winds. Arab television translated Senator Durbin's words and played them repeatedly. Durbin's statement was printed in Arab newspapers and was given top billing on Islamic websites. The Islamic terrorists must be thanking Allah hourly for men like Durbin. It's one thing for Islamics to tell their followers how evil America is, but when an American senator tells the Arab world that America is evil, it is a gift of incalculable value to the enemy.
I hope the republicans follow through and do something about this 'traitor's' statements. Like REMOVE him from his #2 position in the democratic party. He doesn't deserve to be in high office when he aids and abets our enemies.
He's just like fonda and kerry were....traitors to our country.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 21, 2005 08:55 PM ]
posted on June 21, 2005 09:01:10 PM new
And here's a little tidbit from today's WSJ.
Incidentally, a reader came upon this Durbin press release from Dec. 17, 1998:
I fully support President Clinton and our national security team's decision to take swift action against Saddam Hussein. . . .
"I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad."
"The men and women who are risking their lives in defense of our national and global security deserve nothing less."
posted on June 21, 2005 09:44:15 PM new
An update....appears they finally got through to durbin who fought all week, defending his words....has now seen the light.
All those offended by his statements kept the pressure on and it finally worked.
Sen. Durbin Apologizes for Gitmo Remarks
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Tue Jun 21, 6:09 PM ET
WASHINGTON -
Under fire from Republicans and some fellow Democrats, Sen. Dick Durbin apologized Tuesday for comparing American interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to Nazis and other historically infamous figures.
"Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," the Illinois Democrat said. "To them I extend my heartfelt apologies."
His voice quaking and tears welling in his eyes, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate also apologized to any soldiers who felt insulted by his remarks.
"They're the best. I never, ever intended any disrespect for them," he said.
The apology came a week after Durbin, the Senate minority whip, quoted from an
FBI agent's report describing detainees at the Naval base in a U.S.-controlled portion of Cuba as being chained to the floor without food or water in extreme temperatures.
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings," the senator said June 14.
The comment created a buzz on the Internet and among conservative talk radio hosts, but Durbin initially refused to apologize.
"This administration should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions and authorizing torture techniques that put our troops at risk and make Americans less secure," he said the day after his initial comments.
By last Friday, Durbin was trying to clarify his comments, yet the White House and top Republicans including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist refused to relent. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview scheduled for broadcast Wednesday on Fox News radio's "The Tony Snow Show," tried to equate the comment with actress Jane Fonda calling U.S. soldiers war criminals during a visit to North Vietnam in 1972.
On Tuesday, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley — a fellow Democrat — added his voice to the chorus of criticism, saying, "I think it's a disgrace to say that any man or woman in the military would act like that."
Durbin said in his apology: "I made reference to Nazis, to Soviets, and other repressive regimes. Mr. President, I've come to understand that's a very poor choice of words."
~~~~~~~~~~
Well...an apology finally offered...AFTER the damage has already been done...and our enemies use HIS words to gain support for their cause....and our soldiers suffer because of it. Thanks, senator durbin...NOT!!!
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 22, 2005 10:12:10 AM new
The thing I find funniest about the neverending "extend an olive branch" or "open a dialogue" liberal routine is that can anyone remember when this has ever worked??? I mean, the US can "make a deal' with Canada, but somehow the Munich Conference didn't work, Yalta didn't work, VietNam peace treaty didn't work.
I think the last time this might have worked was Pope Leo's deal with Attila.
So now we have feet on the ground in the MidEast.
Progress in Palestine (just a coincidence)
Syria out of Lebanon (just a coincidence)
Libya admitting guilt (just a coincidence)
Iranian freedom riots (just a coincidence)
In light of the benefits any left winger worth his salt has to try to shift focus:
XXXX DEAD!!!!!!!!
TORTURE!!!!!!!!!
GULAG!!!!!!!!!
The same thing that makes them delusional in terms of comprehending history inevitably leads them to not understand why they fail:
While their message is carried by Western Europe, who would have gladly started to learn Russian as a less painful alternative to not having American protection, Eastern Europe and the average American generally laughs at the ultra left, because to paraphrase Joe Lieberman: They've seen torture, they've seen gulags, and putting panties on somebody's head is not torture.
Everybody refers to much of the military as "right wing". The reason is, being on the scene provides much better prospective than some left-wing wordsmith tying from his SOHO loft. They know the best negotiation with child killers is a 50cal sniper rifle.
While the left whack pack sits by the fireplace reading Voltaire and Thoreau and dreaming of the communal storehouse where everyone stores their grain and only takes what they need, I'll go out and buy a better lock for my shed and reflect on the real world of the last 10000 years.
posted on June 22, 2005 03:48:39 PM new"I call on those who question the motives of the president and his national security advisors to join with the rest of America in presenting a united front to our enemies abroad."
Which President was it that gave arms to Iraq to fight a war against Iran?
How soon we forget that it was Reagan and Bush Sr. that did this. It is nice to know that one administration helped this dictator.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on June 22, 2005 07:56:05 PM newA great idea it was too!
I suppose it was a good idea that Saddam further used the weapons he got from the US to invade Kuwait.
If it was such a great idea, why not give Iran some weapons and they can go to war against Iraq now.
No wonder why you still support Bush. You wouldn't know a good idea if bit you in the rear.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on June 22, 2005 08:50:47 PM newStupid, it IS the original document
Craw, the idiot that released the documments has admitted he BURNED the originals (stamped TOP SECRET) after he retyped them.
But I forgot, you believed Ran Rather too, didn't you.
Are Downing Street memos authentic or elaborate hoax?
Blogs question credibility of reporter who typed copies, destroyed originals
Are the highly publicized Downing Street memos authentic government documents that show the Bush administration lied about pre-war intelligence on weapons of mass destruction?
Or are they part of an elaborate hoax – akin to CBS's infamous National Guard memos on George W. Bush's military service?
Many of the same blogs that successfully challenged Dan Rather's documents are now questioning whether the Downing Street memos are for real.
With Times of London reporter Michael Smith admitting the memos he used in his stories are not originals, but copies he retyped, the controversy seems to be reaching a fever pitch.
"Until tonight ... no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London," said CaptainsQuartersBlog, one of the sites behind the Rather scandal. "That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies.
The eight memos – all labeled "secret" or "confidential" – were first obtained by Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told the Associated Press he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals. The AP showed the documents to an unnamed senior British official who said they "appeared authentic."
"Readers of this site should recall this set of circumstances from last year," reported CaptainsQuartersBlog. "The Killian memos at the center of CBS' 60 Minutes Wednesday report on George Bush' National Guard service supposedly went through the same laundry service as the Downing Street Memos. Bill Burkett, once he'd been outed as the source of the now-disgraced Killian memos, claimed that a woman named Lucy Ramirez provided them to him -- but that he made copies and burned the originals to protect her identity or that of her source."
The blog asked: Why would a reporter do such a thing? While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication -- and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible.
"This, in fact, could very well be another case of 'fake but accurate.' where documents get created after the fact to support preconceived notions about what happened in the past," said the blog. "One fact certainly stands out -- Michael Smith cannot authenticate the copies. And absent that authentication, they lose their value as evidence of anything."
The blog goes on to suggest that even if the memos could be authenticated, "they're still meaningless." That they simply do not contain any smoking-gun evidence of lies by the Bush administration or the British government of Tony Blair.
The admission by Smith that he destroyed the originals to the AP was not the first comment he made on the matter. Another blog site, Raw Story, says Smith told its interviewer: "I was given them last September while still on the [Daily] Telegraph. I was given very strict orders from the lawyers as to how to handle them. I first photocopied them to ensure they were on our paper and returned the originals, which were on government paper and therefore government property, to the source."
Interestingly, it was bloggers who first brought the Downing Street memos to the attention of the world. The Sunday Times of London first wrote about the memos in May. It is the transcript of a Downing Street meeting from July 2002. In the memo, "C", the head of MI6, said that based on meetings in Washington there had been a shift in attitude and that "military action was now seen as inevitable." President Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein from power and would do so "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo said.
But the U.S. press was not quick to pick up on the revelations. Bloggers in the UK and the U.S. kept hammering on the content.
Then, last week, Democratic members of Congress got into the act – holding an unofficial hearing on Capitol Hill to draw attention to the memos. In a jammed room in the basement of the Capitol, Representative John Conyers Jr., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, presided as witnesses asserted they vindicated their view that Bush made the decision to topple former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein long before he has admitted.
There were calls for impeachment at the hearing.
The White House maintains that Bush decided to invade Iraq only after Secretary of State Colin Powell made the administration's case in a lengthy presentation to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003. His argument focused on intelligence demonstrating that Iraq had illicit weapons. No weapons, however, have been found.
Asked about the memo last week, Bush said, "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
posted on June 22, 2005 09:43:51 PM new
Calling Democrats Islam's best friends is every bit as stupid as calling Bush a Nazi. This country is hopelessly divided I'm afraid.
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on June 23, 2005 04:46:09 PM newAmerican aid was in logistics and planning. We provided the Iraqis with satellite intel and helped revise their battle plans, not tanks and aircraft
Wrong. The US gave Iraq helicopters which were then used in the invasion.
Of course not, It would be stupid just like it was back in 1980 under Reagan.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
Speaking in a ballroom just a few miles north of ground zero, Karl Rove said the Democratic party did not understand the consequences of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said Wednesday night.
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."
Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, spoke at the state Conservative Party's annual dinner. He praised the conservative movement's success, calling it "the guiding philosophy for the White House, the Senate, the House."
Rove said the Democratic Party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks.
"Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies."
Rove also denounced Sen. Dick Durbin's comments comparing interrogation at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to the methods of Nazis and other repressive regimes. He said the statements have been broadcast throughout the Middle East, putting American troops in greater danger. Durbin has since apologized for the remarks.
"No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals," Rove said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And that appears to me to be the case in EACH and EVERY time the US is attacked. The liberals side with our enemies....make excuses for them....blame America and not our enemies....and it continues today, sadly.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 23, 2005 06:49:08 PM new
Oh linduh even YOU couldn't be stupid enough to believe that crap dribbling off Rove's lips.
He certainly insulted the hell out liberal/Democrat troops that are fighting in Iraq....what a slap in THEIR faces.
""Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our enemies."
Yes, a little more understanding of the enemy is key in defeating them....obviously since the slaughter CONTINUES in Iraq...the conservatives didn't understand the enemy too well and more and more people are dying because of it.
I thought bush wanted to be known as the great uniter....why does he let his henchman insult half the population. It will backfire
posted on June 23, 2005 07:10:59 PM new
One must understand their enemies in order to defeat them. Know them by heart and then it's easier to take them out. It works on all levels as one goes through life and a good leader should recognize this.
Osama and others are probably happy that Bush has lasted so long... he's not a difficult man to understand and it's been fairly easy for the insurgency to rapidly grow. 'Staying the course' is not a strategy when it comes to a war like this.
posted on June 26, 2005 03:05:39 PM new
Ain't it true! My son, a soldier in Irag, would like me to ask the Democrats one question: "Who's side are you ON? If you don't feel you can support our efforts, then can you at least stop encouraging the enemy?"
posted on June 26, 2005 03:40:26 PM new
cnd1cent..I am sick of hearing this kind of broad generalization about Democrats. This ugly tactic of bunching all Democrats in one big bundle and calling them Anti-American, Anti-war, Islam's Best Friends etc..
Are you so ignorant as to believe that only republicans are over in Iraq, fighting and putting their lives on the line?
I too have family fighting right now in Iraq, I have two nephews and a dear friend there and all three are registered Democrats.. so please in future before you defile all Democrats think before you speak. Those who are fighting this war are from both political parties as are those who oppose the war.
So please send my heart felt best wishes to your Son and let him know that we are praying for his safe return.. and please remind him that the fellow next to him, fighting along side with him may just be that Democrat that he has said supports the enemy.
posted on June 26, 2005 05:12:58 PM new
cnd1cent - I agree with you 100%. My son has said the same thing. And I've posted articles here from other soldiers who said exactly that. Our military leaders are saying the same thing.
-----------------------
When this President said, "You're either with us or against us" ...I don't believe at that time he ever envisioned it would be so many in the democratic party that would be working against us...our troops...our efforts to fight terrorism. Or that their leaders would be accusing/blaming our military like they have been doing.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 26, 2005 05:45:08 PM new
Lindak it is people like you who are spreading hatred within our Country.
You continue to name Democrats as the enemy, traitor, or friend to the enemy.
Your son may have fought for our country.. and you have every right to be proud of him for doing so.. but you continue to insult the thousands of men and women who continue to fight for our country today who happen to be Democrats.
This is a vile prejudice on your part and if you choose to defile all Democrats with your hatred and prejudice it only serves to show everyone here who reads your posts how Un-American you really are.
You sound like you would prefer something other than a Democracy.. after all, you continue to slur anyone with the label of traitor, who happens to have a different political affiliation than your own..
if you persist on showing your extreme hatred toward your fellow Americans because they use their rights under Democracy and our constitution to voice their opposing opinions.. then I can only come to the conclusion that you would prefer not to live in a Democracy at all but rather under a dictatorship?
As I said to cnd1cent..Republicans are not the only ones fighting for our country today in Iraq..democrats are fighting right along side with them..and for you to insinuate that they are friends of the enemy shows how ignorant you really are.
posted on June 26, 2005 06:38:56 PM new
maggie - you can say anything you'd like about me and it doesn't matter one bit. I know where I stand, I know what I think and feel and I, along with millions of other American's can easily see how the democratic party leaders and many far-left dems are doing harm to our fighting soldiers. I don't care if they dems or republicans. The actions/words of those who constantly work against our efforts in this war on terrorism....
ARE ANTI-American in my opinion. They are doing exactly what the far-left, flower children, peace-at-any-cost, anti-war jokers did during VN. They're aiding and abetting our enemies.
I seriously doubt that you would find any dem soldier who would support helen's comment about 'admitting defeat and running' to be IN support of their missions. And that's what the far left HAS been doing since before this war started.
To me there's a HUGE difference between not support a war....speaking out about your lack of support ...but when our soldiers are committed BY OUR CONGRESS...and sent off to war...then the ball game changes and all of us should be supporting them....NOT ACCUSING THEM OF EVERYTHING any wacko leftie throws their way.
NOT the constant criticism that the left brings down on them.
That type of behavior supports NO SOLDIER...be they dem, republicans, independents, etc. NO SOLDIER. But it sure does give encouragement to our enemies.....just like al-jazzera used old durbins comments about their actions...comparing them to Nazi's. etc.
You seriously see THAT as supporting our troops? IF you do....then you're not supportive of them either, imo.
It's NOT that I don't think people have a 'right' to speak out. It's that I can see the harm it brings to our soldiers on the ground. I can see it 'busts' their moral. And I too, can call those actions exactly as I see them.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on June 26, 2005 08:15:37 PM new
maggiemuggins...By posting that my son fights alongside registered Democrats indicates to me that you made the mistake of assuming my son is a registered Republican! Soldiers are not Democrats or Republicans, they are brave men and women who went to war believing Americans were united in their determination to show the bad guys everywhere that we are a MIGHTY force to be reckoned with. They observed the flag waving and cheering as the first troups rolled into Irag and were proud to be doing what it appeared all Americans wanted. Now they are increasingly broken hearted to find the new has worn off and a percentage of America no longer cares how the world views our forces or our strength as a nation. Why must quibbling political American leaders make speaches to the world that make us look like weaklings who are about ready to give up the fight (speaches used by Islamic leaders to bolster the determination of the terrorists to carry on their death and destruction), when those politicians should be shouting that we are AMERICANS....we are tough...and you better get back in your hole or we're gonna get ya!
posted on June 26, 2005 09:00:46 PM newI am sick of hearing this kind of broad generalization about Democrats. This ugly tactic of bunching all Democrats in one big bundle and calling them Anti-American, Anti-war, Islam's Best Friends etc.
Well if everyone is saying it, there must be some truth to it.
I worked an out of town gun show last weekend. Sold a Browning shotgun to a 25 year old Army 1st Lt that has been back from Iraq for less than a month. I shook his hand and thanked him for his sacrifice and the hardships he and his men had to endure in Iraq.
His reply to me was that serving in Iraq was the easy part of being in the service, the hard part was trying to understanding how so many articles are in the newspapers ctiticizing what we are doing in Iraq.
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on June 26, 2005 09:07:27 PM new
Lindak.. I have read your last post on this thread several times and I want you to know that I do understand your perspective on this topic. And I might add that I agree with you on certain points.
As I mentioned before, I have family members and a good friend fighting in Iraq right now and I had the opportunity to talk to two of them recently while one was home on leave and the other was getting ready to ship out..and I thanked them whole heartedly for their service to our country and wished them safe keeping..
I wouldn't have dreamed of diminishing their honor by voicing my objections to this war..although as you know my personal feelings are that I vehemently oppose this war and am not happy with our present government in power..
I understand the point you make when you say that our military is doing the job they were told to do and regardless of politics, they are following orders and should be respected and appreciated. Again, I have no argument with that..
What I would like you to try and understand or at least give some thought to is how those of us who oppose this war and didn't vote for this President must feel..
I'm not asking you to change your position but to just imagine for a moment the rock and a hard place, we who oppose this war and by we, I'm including both Democrats and Republicans..while we have family, son's, daughters, niece or nephew, husband or wife etc..fighting and putting their lives on the line for a war we are not in favor of but at the same time have only love.. and honor every
one of our military...
So when you say that it is impossible for one to support the military if one doesn't support the war.. I have to disagree. I honer our troops..for doing their job.
Let me ask you this.. do you believe the millions who oppose the war should shut their mouths and swallow their objection?
How would you handle this situation? Am I correct in surmising that you believe once a party is in power and decisions have been made, that there should never be protests or any form of disagreement? Or is this only in the case of a war? I'm not trying to be belligerent, I honestly would like to know how you think liberals or democrats should be handling this situation. Maggie
posted on June 26, 2005 09:25:51 PM new
cnd1cent..I believe it was You who brought Party Politics into the discussion by your opening statement :My son, a soldier in Irag, would like me to ask the Democrats one question: "Who's side are you ON? If you don't feel you can support our efforts, then can you at least stop encouraging the enemy?"
I simply wanted to point out how unfair that statement was, considering that Democrats are fighting along side of your son. So to bunch all Democrats as encouraging the enemy or being on the side of the enemy, is out of line...and an ignorant statement..imo
posted on June 26, 2005 10:18:32 PM new
Maggie, when you said, "I have read your last post on this thread several times and I want you to know that I do understand your perspective on this topic. And I might add that I agree with you on certain points." Even though I am not the one you asked, I thought you were interested in a legit debate and was preparing to give you a serious answer to your question, "I'm not trying to be belligerent, I honestly would like to know how you think liberals or democrats should be handling this situation." Then I read your next two posts. First you called me ignorant, then you said my son was ignorant, and then that Bear is stupid, so in fact you ARE trying to be belligerent. Hard to take your point of view seriously when you obviously feel anyone who you believe has a different point of view is just lacking in intelligence. You might note that at no time did I say I supported Bush or the war. What I said was those leaders who make those speaches need to be made aware that their words are being used to encourage the enemy, and that it makes it easier for them to recruit insurgents. And we all know insurgents are trying to kill innocent people too, not just your friend or my son.
