November 27, 2005
Not Fooled Again
From the Washington Post:
Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.
Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
Any casual observer who knows anything about the military and who is honest could figure out that the congressional Democrats' recent push to 'get out of Iraq ASAP' is hurting troop morale. Even during peacetime, most American GIs want to feel as though they are making a difference and that the homefront is behind them. During wartime--when those same GIs are under more frequent threat of life and limb--that feeling is amplified a thousand times.
When you have seen some of your buddies have died around you and you're aware that you might be next, what must it feel like to read the Internet and paper publications and find out that the congressmen and women who sent you there are ready to bail out leaving all the good works you've done to be trashed by the likes of the terrorist Zarqawi and his spiritual daddy, bin Laden? What must it feel like to see your countrymen spread rumors that you have used illegal chemical weapons--rumors born of mind-boggling ignorance (of weapons, of intelligence, you name it) in order to dirty your good name?
What must it feel like to know that if you and your comrades aren't allowed to finish the task set before you that the type of men who would put hand grenades inside of toys would have free reign in Iraq?
What must it feel like to know that some of your countrymen want Iraq to be the next Vietnam, want you do become as demoralized as many of our honorable Vietnam veterans became and want peace-loving Iraqis to become the next people to die in droves while the living suffer under the next brutal dictatorship?
That there are people who care more about regaining political power than they care about America's honor, the honor of those who have died defending freedom, the honor of those who still live to defend it and the lives and liberty of a foreign people shouldn't be a surprise, but it is.
However, it's wonderful to know that a large portion of the American public see such people for what they are.
(Thanks to John Cole)
(Cross-posted at Baldilocks)
What really pisses me off is the mantra of the left, "We care about the troops. Bring them HOME."
Bull-fucking-shit. Today's left has NEVER cared one whit about our armed forces. To them, they are nothing but pawns to use in their incessant battle against anything Bush related.
Glad Smif is coming home sober tomorrow.
I can only wish our troops could come home tomorrow from a thoroughly unnecessary and totally unconstitutional war.
I have yet to read a single "constitutional" argument in favor of this silly war. Not a single one. Just ad hominem responses versus anyone who questions the reality. Pretty much like those that defended Johnson in the 60's. Ignore the past, it's deja vu/groundhog day.
Call it the "Bill Murray War." ;-)
Good luck, Rob. You made it through the easiest part--getting off the sauce. I will be rooting for you in the hardest part--staying off.
P.S. Give Dax some credit--he read it all clearly.
Wasn't that JB I saw hanging off a bridge in Iraq awhile back?
Damn. I guess not. Shoulda been. Retard.
Not that too many in the MSM cared much. Just another good story.
"Hang" in there, JB.
Wrong email left. Damn cookies.
It refuses to change.
And still, screw you JB.
Hi jb! Long time no see. Regarding your 'unconstitutional' remark, according to this tally and this one, you're wrong. But thanks for playing. Hope that was non-ad hominem enough for your tastes.
And I too await the new, improved, sober and even more Acidic Man.
And you might want to review this document also (Article I, section 8).
Aren't those goalposts heavy?
jb, my son continues the fight for your RIGHT to blather on like an IDJIT. I'm not as noble. Nor am I as polite as Juliette. Fuck you, "and all."
Thanx for setting him straight, Juliette.
You post has nothing to do with any of "my" rights, which existed long before the Bush family burst on the scene defending Hitler in the 1930's (do a little bit of historical study before you tell someone "fuck you!"), and which NO Iraqui has ever threatened.
That having been said, my grandfather fought in the "war to end all wars" which did nothing of the kind, and only led to WWII. My Dad did the Pacific in WWII, which only managed to Korea, where both of my uncles became POW's, while our country secretly negotiated with the French to take over the mess that became Vietnam, a war and time in which I, and many cousins, fought.
So please, take your pious mouthings and put them more toward educating yourself. If America were acting constitutional in all of this, your son would be home with you. He is NOT fighting for anything that protects you or me, and more than apparently you do, I resent that he is fighting an unconstituional war.
In any case, he is not fighting to protect my freedom, since no Iraqui has ever threatened the freedom of any American.
I hope he comes home safe from this illicit war. A suggestion . . . check with the local high school and see if they offer a basic civics class so you can learn what American law and government is really about--then you won't say such stupid things about subjects you know not.
II read and appreciate what you're saying Juliette but then I read this from an officer on the ground in Ramandi and he isn't bitching about dissent, he's bitching about not having the proper equipment or enough boots on the ground to do the job. They're not even sending the Apaches in, even though they have them available. It seems to me that's what is really demoralizing the troops.
But I don't want to start a big debate over it. My point is everybody does what they think helps the most.
All that aside, I'd like to thank you and the rest of "the wimmin" for filling in while Rob has been away. Thanks to all of you for such interesting and informative posts. You all made the waiting go by really quickly.
JB is the worst kind of moral coward that can be imagined. He is always throwing his half ass, poor written, barely thought out opnions out for public consumption. His narrow semi literate opnion of what is constitutional and what is not constituitional and who is a threat is typical cry baby bullshit. I had to put up with his kind of whining ass, cry baby , won't support anyone bs for 30 years of service. Well he can kiss my veteran ass righht between the cheeks.
The dim-wits support for the terrorists not only hurts the troops morale (Vietnam Vet) it is getting hundreds of people killed unneccessarly (including several American soldiers) by making the enemy think they can win by just holding out and slaughtering more people. Idiots like Murtha (who may not have been a coward, but is now a dottering old fool) make the cowardly statements that are immediately picked up by the terrorists news, NYT, LAT, CBS, NBC, ABC and the Communist News Network, (CNN) and the terrorist take that as a sign of winning and kill more American soldiers to support those making the cowardly statements.
Been there and seen it happen in the past, but idiots never learn from history.
I appreciate the fact that you come from a politically liberal tradition that chooses to redefine the constitution to fit your opinion from day to day . . .
It is no longer Dems versus the GOP . . . that is very, very old hat. If America will survive, it will be "original intent" Constitutionalists versus everyone else.
And if you understood that, you would not be taking me to task.
Again--go read your old 9th grade Civics textbooks. Never to old to re-learn.
Smif--glad you are back. Glad you are well, too.
"The dim-wits support for the terrorists not only hurts the troops morale (Vietnam Vet) it is getting hundreds of people killed unneccessarly (including several American soldiers) by making the enemy think they can win by just holding out and slaughtering more people. Idiots like Murtha (who may not have been a coward, but is now a dottering old fool) make the cowardly statements that are immediately picked up by the terrorists news, NYT, LAT, CBS, NBC, ABC and the Communist News Network, (CNN) and the terrorist take that as a sign of winning and kill more American soldiers to support those making the cowardly statements.
Been there and seen it happen in the past, but idiots never learn from history."
Posted by: scrapiron on November 28, 2005 12:46 PM
That is pretty damn pathetic calling a 37-year decorated marine war veteran an idiot and a dottering old fool for questioning a failed foreign policy. To say that it is his words and not the lies, and actions of a bunch of draft-dodging chickenhawk policy makers that are getting our brave, young American soldiers killed in Iraq is literally insane. Guys like you will obviously stand by the corrupt party of political leaders in power no matter how many men have to die as a result of their pathetic failures. That is what I see as truly unpatriotic.
Must everyone add the standard disclaimer " I Murtha's service, blah, blah?" Okay. I respect Murtha's service. However, that doesn't exempt him from criticism or questioning of his motives.
If he wanted to be worshipped as a war hero without being subject to scrutiny, he should have stayed out of congress and gone home to sit in his rocking chair.
Since he didn't do that, he's fair game.
Murtha is not your debate . . . as in his military service, so now in politics--he went to the front lines without reservation. Your argument is with Robert, and it is his point that is the most telling.
Murtha's service does lend his word very much credibility, since more than most, he is able to discern an obvious military quagmire.
So he said so. Some agree, some disagree, and fact is--every opinion is fair game--including the opinions of those who shucked and jived the pre-war intel to do this "war."
And this opinion, too. :-)
I've only been to your site a few times, but I've enjoyed it. I wish you well on your recovery and your new life.
Now, this jb character needs a little straightening out.
You claim Iraq is a "totally unconstitutional war." Last time I checked the Supremes had not ruled to that effect. Since Marbury vs. Madison (rightly or wrongly), they say what's unconstitutional, not you.
I prefered a declared war, but we didn't get one, or in Korea, Vietnam, or Desert Storm. Not an excuse, but the fecklessness of our politicians has extended this tradition back over 50 years.
You say "Iraq never threatened nor attacked us." Gulf War I was an attack not only on Kuwait, but a precursor to a take-over of Saudi Arabia and the domination of oil production policy. That was a direct attack on the industrialized world of which the U.S. is the major player. It was an attack on the U. S. economy, thus the U.S.
Your gushing that the "Bush family burst on the scene defending Hitler in the 1930's" sounds like that was their sole purpose in life. And do you mean to imply that the Bush family had and/or has Nazi sympathies??
Regarding the French and Vietnam, Eisenhower refused to bail them out in the 50's; it was Kennedy who involved us in the 60's after the French had effectively disengaged.
We do need to get back to the original intent of the founders (see, we can agree on something), and we may be moving in that direction. But to ignore the current state of constitutional law is to ignore reality. We can work to change that. Its kind of like Rob was a couple of months ago; he's getting better. What are you going to do?
To address your response relatively in order--
That the Robes have not leaped out and declared the war unconstitutional is prolly due to 1) No one submitted a case; and 2) the silly War Powers Act was allowed to slide by decades ago, giving Congress an out from their duty of declaring war, and handing it over to the executive branch. That is unconstitutional no matter what. It renders the intent of the separation of powers moot--and that IS unconstitutional.
Kuwait was slant-drilling into Iraq's reserves, and April Gillespie shrugged it off back then when Iraq wondered if they could attack, so they attacked to stop Kuwait from stealing its oil--just as we would do. Except then, as now, the oil barons didn't take kindly to those who actually owned the oil pretending they had a say over the oil. You also didn't mention the very real factor that Saddam was transferring from the dollar to the more sound Euro--something W could not tolerate. As to Saddam attacking Kuwait being an attack on the entire industrialized world . . . that is more than a bit of over-reach, dude.
Prescott Bush did what he did, and was even fined by the US for doing what he did. Go check it out--don't twist what I said. Profit is the first order in the Bush family, the source of which is secondary. Just matters of fact.
Eisenhower DID take over French Indo-China in 1954 . . . Kennedy and Johnson ramped matters upward, but the simple fact remains that we took matters over in '54 under Dwight D. Eisenhower.
As to original intent . . . I am already there--waiting for the rest of you "conservatives" to come home.