Hypocrisy at its most subtle. Insidious, as it does undermine troop morale. I always liken it to saying that you are a Saint Louis Cardinals fan (for example), but hope they don‘t win any games - and don‘t even particularly care for the game of baseball itself.
Now, we have such leftist luminaries as John Kerry who says you must be a moron if they send you to Iraq - he said something along the lines of if you don‘t stay in school and become educated (indoctrinated - but that‘s another topic for another time), you‘ll be sent to Iraq. I must be OK, as I‘ve only been to Afghanistan at this point. In fact, at the time of the remark ("joke" according to Kerry), I "joked" with my friends that he wasn‘t referring to me or any others who have served in the ‘stan. We must be smart :)
The most recent clown to make a disgusting remark was Barack Hussein "Osama" Obama. He said lives lost in the war in Iraq were for nothing - cheapening the ultimate sacrifice that countless of my comrades (brothers and sisters in arms) have made since this country was founded and forged in blood. And this political neophtye dares to run for the position of Commander-in-Chief? God help us if this buffoon wins. Here's what he said, exactly, in case you wanna know:
The Illinois senator told a crowd in Iowa: "We now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."
What would be wasted is your vote if you vote for this fraud.
Hilary Rodham Klinton is another dandy one - her and her ‘husband‘ Bill have made no secret of their disdain and loathing of the military. Bill would rather get blow jobs under the desk in the Oral Office rather than do anything about Osama Bin Laden, the first World Trade Center bombing, U.S. Embassy bombings overseas, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole (where several brave sailors lost their lives).
I did get a phone call from one of those conservative PACs last week. They did have the funniest 'poll' question ever. The girl, who had a sexy voice, also assured me this was the only question she would ask: "Did you get a sinking, twisted feeling in the pit of your stomach last week when Hilary Klinton decided to throw her hat into the presidential ring?" I busted up laughing and choked out an 'of course!' I didn't give any money to these people (they were promoting Dick Morris's book on the Clintons if you gave a certain amount). It was too early in the presidential race, I told her. (I also wasn't happy that it was 2045 - almost 2100 when she called - only friends and family should call that late, really). The question really was funny, though, although Bilary running for president, unfortunately, is not.
Now, I am not just another lock-step Republican - I am a conservative and a patriot-with-a-brain. Granted, I can count the number of Dems I have voted for in my life on one hand (they were pro-life and were running unopposed in the local elections - I did vote for Dukakis in 1988 - but don‘t tell anyone) :)
I am just putting this out there so hopefully some who planned on voting for any of these imbeciles will think twice before they weaken our Defense Department, and therefore, our beloved United States of America - which is still (thank GOD) not spelled like this: AMERIKA....
It doesn't help that the politicos (on both sides) and the media don't let us do our job in the war. They micromanage and make us conform to the 'rules of engagement' (terrorists don't follow that, just like they don't follow the Geneva Convention - which they didn't sign anyway). As I've said before, at least the prisoners we take still have heads on them when we are through with them. Don't get me started on the purported 'abuses' at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.
Anyway, there has been countless other gaffes from liberals of every stripe - too many to be recounted here. Don‘t let those libs or the biased main-stream liberal media explain it away as a joke or a ‘mis-speak‘ - these people are professional speakers and are doing just that - speaking their minds. They didn‘t mis-speak at all - they are just letting us know what they really think, and what a lot of people out there really think. They don‘t support the troops and they never have. I can‘t tell you what this did to my morale and psyche during my recent year-long vacation in Afghanistan. Don‘t be fooled. I‘m not.
8 comments:
Respectfully, I disagree with some of what you have to say here...
I do think it is possible and rational (logical even) to hold the positions simultaneously of support for the troops and non-support of the war policy. I think your analogy is a bit off. It sets a preconditioned stereotype that disagreeing with 'the war' somehow means you want America to be defeated.
A truer analogy along your lines would be. "I love the Cardinals, but I don't like how they are being managed" "I love Albert Pujols, but I don't think he should play second base"
I agree both the Kerry and Obama statements were horrible. (Although I think Obama's is a matter of semantic ineptitude...insert the word 'sacrifced' for 'wasted' and the idea is the same but less harsh). What I believe him to be saying is that the policy of the Bush administration has cost the nation the lives of thousands of its best and brightest in a failed policy. Had he said that it would have been better.
I would also disagree with you that President Clinton did 'nothing' in response to those terrorist.
In 93, following the revelation that Iraq had helped sponsor an assassination plot against former President Bush, Clinton ordered strikes against Iraqi intelligence and military targets in Iraq.
In response the embassy bombings Clinton launched cruise missile attacks in Afghanistan and the Sudan targeting the last two known locations of bin Landen's network and training grounds. These strikes were hailed by Republican congressional leaders (like Gingrich and Helms).
I do agree that there was a lackluster response to the Cole bombing and many critics have pointed to that as one of the chief failings of the Clinton presidency vis-a-vis bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Another area where I disagree with you is the idea that somehow a Democratic controlled Congress will somehow weaken the Defense Department.
In point of fact the only way in which, in my opinion, Republican congresses have strengthened the DoD is only in its purse (and much of that is contracted out to private firms).
In very real terms, where the DoD suffers most if from an infrastructional dysfunction. And no where is that more clearly seen that in the way the Bush Administration treated dissenting military heirarchy in the lead up to the Iraq invasion, and the subsequent mismanagement of the post-Saddam occupation.
Fundamentally it comes to this...Republican administration are great at waging a war, acheiving a military victory, what they lack is the conviction for adequate nation building.
The GOP has long turned its nose up at the idea of 'nation building' including our current president during the 2000 debates. However invading and overthrowing a nation-state requires a follow-up rebuilding process. A certain wing of the party still has no stomach for it. They choose not to listen to wise military men like General Powell who says 'when you break it, bought it' This has been one of the chief disasters on this president's watch.
Now where we agree, at least in principle is when it comes to Afghanistan being a forgotten war. I agree with you completely, however BOTH sides of the political divide the far left and the far right share in this. The right conflated the two, to attempt to tie al-Qaeda and Iraq, and did such a sucessful job at it, that the anti-war people on the left went along with the prescription- thus is Iraq is a mistake and a horror, so must Afghanistan.
In reality, what the Bush administration did right was launch the invasion of Afghanistan. What it did wrong after that was draw troop strength from Afghanistan before the job was clsoe to being finished. It put all its internation muscle (what considerable allies it had for the mission in Afghanistan) into a retreat when he suddenly drew Iraq into the mix.
NATO was thus robbed of its potential additional support because boots on the ground weren't coming as fast because back home our allies were having to defend (or break with) their chief ally the US over the new Iraq invasion plan.
Where we stand today?
We've lost ground in Afghanistan, not necessarily in the physical sense but in the emotional sense. Rather than 'staying the course' in Afghanistan, rebuilding the infrastructure fully so that pockets of Taliban could not appeal to war ravaged and poverty stricken peoples and foment additional resistance to the foreign troops. In Iraq we have a raging sectarian civil war that is now targeting Iraqis and American soldiers blindly. Neither of these errors can be laid at the feet of any Democrat. This is/was/will be the legacy of the Bush-Cheney administration. Their failures and they should be held accountable for them.
For me, I've stopped debating the preconditions for the war in IRaq because at this point it is pointless. And I do have worries that too much of an early withdrawal of troops will do nothing to stem the tide of brutal slaughter. But I'm unconvinced that a 20,000 troop surge will do anything either to alleviate American or Iraqi deaths. I'm unconvinced because this administration has not once proved to me it is competent. It only admitted mistakes in the last days of the campaign and after the GOP lost both houses of Congress (which clearly indicates that the American people seek some change).
I don't trust the Iranians or the Syrians, but I don't trust the North Koreans either and we've made a deal with them. Why??
Because ultimately Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be won by force. They can be dominated by force, they can be occupies by force...but the sort of change needed to bring stability and long-term peace can only come through a diplomatic (outside) and political (inside) solution.
I'm glad for this exchange...mostly because you are safe and able to exchange your thoughts with me.
And once again, thank you Patrick for your service to our country!
on an unrelated note...here's a link to a post with that drink concoction and the picture :)
http://stamant.org/tgif/2007/02/for-patrick-and-others-who-inquired.html
Wow - thanks for the response(s), Ron - I think your first one is longer than my blog post. You make some valid and excellent points - but I must point out I don't really believe Iraq was a mistake, especially in the sense that would be saying that people are dying for a mistake. To say there were no WMDs or terror organizations in Iraq is just wrong. Of course, a WMD can be as small as the chemical weapons discovered there (small vials) or as large as a nuclear warhead - there are a lot of weapons that can cause mass destruction that are various sizes. I know from people that have been there - what they've seen personally. At any rate, Saddam was a butcher and a tyrant and needed to go.
Anyway - I actually only came here this morning to post a picture on this blog - but once someone comments, it's too late to edit.
The picture is on my MySpace version of this blog post - it won't let me put the html code in this comment for some reason.
I'm glad I am home safe, too :) I hope to not be blogging/flickring from Iraq r Iran soon ...
Now I'll go check the link to that drink (I am a poet and didn't know it ...) :)
OK I just came back and it let me edit it and put the photo in there - I've been on the net since 1991 but sometimes I feel really dumb :(
Courtesy of factcheck.org (and numerous other sources)
Supporters of President Bush and the war in Iraq often quote Abraham Lincoln as saying members of Congress who act to damage military morale in wartime "are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."
Republican candidate Diana Irey used the "quote" recently in her campaign against Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, and it has appeared thousands of times on the Internet, in newspaper articles and letters to the editor, and in Republican speeches.
But Lincoln never said that. The conservative author who touched off the misquotation frenzy, J. Michael Waller, concedes that the words are his, not Lincoln's. Waller says he never meant to put quote marks around them, and blames an editor for the mistake and the failure to correct it. We also note other serious historical errors in the Waller article containing the bogus quote.
Update Aug. 26: Candidate Irey retracted the quote and apologized hours after this article appeared.
That should clear up any misconception about that attributed Lincoln quote...
On the topic of the invasion: I was actually a supporter of the invasion and even though there were no WMDs I still believe removing Hussein was the right thing to do. My problem, to set the record straight, is with the way the Bush administration handled the post-invasion policy. I also, however, have problems with the use of faulty intelligence, which we now know according to almost all sources was 'cherry-picked' by the administration to bolster their case. In short, they underwent what I'd calling framing a guilty man. They believed (perhaps rightly or wrongly we'll never know) that the only way the public would support the war was with the threat of an imminent WMD attack...I think in retrospect the administration was cynical of the American people.
(btw the new blogger *supposedly* is supposed to be more user friendly making it easier to post pictures...I just write the code myself and don't use their plug-in so I don't know personally...Flickr's blog interface stuff is really good though if you haven't checked it out)
Well hello.
Too tired, sick, disillusioned to leave a worthy comment, but wanted to let you know I was here and read both you and Ron.
I can tell that you're angry.
I can tell you're sick of words and theories and crave leadership from those who have actually seen reality face-to-face. I don't believe either side of politics has a champion who fits that bill.
I believe both sides are corrupted by the greedy, offering up show ponies each election to distract us, give us false hope.
There is no honor any more.
Because we allow it.
It's up to the everyday man/woman to create the example.
That's my new belief.
I will not allow myself to become corrupted.
I will help soldiers when I can.
I will hate war.
I will raise my children to respect others.
One day at a time.
Ange-
Thanks for stopping by and for your always-wise words. You help keep me grounded and it seems like forever since we've emailed or anything - I miss that and need that. My adjustment to coming back hasn't been easy. I hate war, too, as I think most soldiers truly do. Since I have seen it first-hand, I probably hate it even more now. I know you and Tom will raise Jack and Pickles (and any others who may come along) to be the greatest of people. I think your concise analysis of the candidates foisted upon the American sheeple by the two millionaire-led parties was spot on. I hope you get well soon and write soon. My best to Tom and the kids, as usual - I feel safe writing you here even though this should be in an email - I know I don't get much traffic here :)
Ron-
Thanks again for stopping by - I must point out that even though Lincoln apparently didn't say those words, those words still bear some consideration no matter who said them. It's like one of my favorite quotes from Sir Winston Churchill that is widely believed that he never said, which is the one along the lines of, "A 20 year old who isn't a liberal has no heart, and a 40 year old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain." Whether he said it or not, it does make one think :)
I also never could get that link to the drink picture to work. Did you put it on Flickr?
Patrick, all the drinking pictures should be on Flickr in the Toast to you group set...
Churchill's quote, which I've read many times before, does have some resonance to be sure...I've grown more 'conservative' as I've gotten older to be sure, but I think that is a semantic debate. There's the liberalism that I grew up with and there's the current strain that calls itself 'liberalism' but is not. How anyone can be against free speech and call themselves 'liberal' confounds me (I'm talking about the PC crowd here).
The issue I have with the concept your espousing is that I think it is passionate but not rational (not that I can blame you for it either given your intimate and complex relationship to warfare).
But the current administration's rhetoric when it comes to how they are dealing with the 'war on terror' at times makes me shudder.
An example:
I've been watching this great Frontline series on the issue of the protection of press sources from the government in leak investigations (it's a multipart series on the PBS show).
Last night's episode dealt with the government's attack on the New York Times following the Times printing the revelations about the CIA secret prisons, and other 'classified' disclosures.
The President gave a speech in which he attacked the Times for printing the story on the CIA secret prisons as (paraphrasing) 'an attack on liberty' and 'disgusting'.
Here's how I look at things:
What to me, is more a threat to liberty, freedom and democracy...the US government secretly detaining alleged terrorists, engaging in probable torture, keeping so-called 'shadow prisoners' in foreign countries; or the printing of such information? I come down on the former being the bigger threat.
Then there was an interview with Vice President Cheney where he talked about having to defend our liberty from the terrorists etc. Several conservative Congressmen spoke about al-Qaeda despsing our freedom and using our open society against us.
But my question is: Is the answer to suddenly systematically erode those liberties in an effort to protect them? It's circular logic (or illogic as the case may be) to think that way.
If we say, we don't have to abide by Geneva Convention rules because our enemy is not a signatory to those rules and doesn't abide by them...how do we then separate ourselves from them morally? How can we be keepers of the flame of liberty and shine that light to the world, if when pressed (granted at collosal measures) we cannot show that 'freedom' IS superior to 'tyranny'?
To be sure, these are complex questions with perhaps no right or wrong answer...and as such they at least merit free, honest and open debate.
Post a Comment