(Hat tip to Rightlane for the graphic)
"There is nothing new under the sun" - Ecclesiastes
The Angry Left and many of the Democrats are dropping the pretense they kept up for a long time of `supporting the troops'. They've decided to sing a new version of the same old hit song they used in Vietnam. And that's appropriate, since many of the people in the forefront of the anti-War movement today were a part of the original version.
Of course, they never really stopped singing this particular tune - just ask one of our wounded warriors who had to put up with Code Pink taunting them while they were recuperating at Walter Reed. It's simply more out in the open these days.
The New York Times ran an amazing ad by MoveOn to `greet' General David Petraeus when he returned from Iraq to report to Congress, which rhymed his name with `betray us' and essentially accused him of lying to Congress, and committing treason.
The Times' owner and publisher Pinch Sultzberger saw to it that MoveOn got a handsomely discounted rate to run this garbage, $65,000 as opposed to a normal rate $118,000.
None of the Democrats now runing for president see fit to condemn the ad. And the ones in Congress essentially endorsed it during their questioning of General Petraeus, essentially calling him a liar to his face...when they weren't calling him an idiot.
Senator Hillary Clinton, the Democrat frontrunner for the nomination was fairly egregious, telling General Petraeus "The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief."
Senator Barack Hussein Obama, that great military strategist wouldn't come right out and say that General Petraeus was a traitor, per se. Nah...Obama thinks General Petraeus is just stoo-pid. "Senator Obama's question is not about General Petraeus's patriotism," said Bill Burton, spokesman for Senator Obama, "It's about his logic. "
Of course, what it all comes down to is that the Democrats, for the most part are invested in America's defeat. And since MoveOn and the rest of the Angry Left are now pretty much calling the shots for the Democrats, they're simply being more open about it.
The number three ranking Democrat in the House, Majority Whip James Clyburn (d-SC) had it exactly right; good news in Iraq `would be a problem' for his party.
After all, if General Petraeus is correct then the Democrats indeed have a serious problem..so the solution, of course is to demonize the messenger rather than to dispute the message.
This is all very valuable, from a standpoint of clarity. No matter how much these people claim to suport the troops and to be qualified to lead America during wartime, no matter how artfully Mrs. Clinton dances and sways from one side to the other, the..umm...truth is out there, as they say.
For some reason,the Bush Administration seems simply unable or unwilling to make this point clearly to the American people,except in halting, ill-delivered speeches that sound unconvincing even as they're being uttered. Fortunately, some of the prospective GOP presidential hopefuls, most notably Rudy Giuliani have been more effective in spotlighting this.It's a shame that no Democrats saw fit to join him.
And it's necessary that this attitude on the part of the Democrats be spotlighted.
The stakes are far too high to have the inmates in control of the asylum just now.
How are you FF?
ReplyDeleteI just had a few thoughts I wanted to share.
The treatment that General Petraeus has received is shameful. He is an honorable man who has given his life to serving our country, and he has my utmost respect.
That being said, I do have a few bones to pick with you.
I think that the phrase "Support Our Troops" has been used by those on the right to silence opposition to the war, the basic premise being that if you don't support the war, then you don't support the troops. This is unfair because it obscures the issue, and only offers an emotional argument (one that can easily be struck down by the way) for the war. I consider real support for the troops to be tangible actions-writing letters, sending care packages, USO tours.
However, I think that this inflated concern for our troops shouldn't even be part of the national debate over Iraq. We shouldn't be basing our actions on what we think is good for our troops, we should be basing them on the right strategy. This could cost more lives than otherwise, but the soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen who volunteer do so knowing the risks. They shouldn't be coddled by opponents of the war, and they should receive more than empty words from those who support the war in Iraq.
Keep in mind that I still support the war in Iraq. Let's consider this an exercise in intellectual honesty, ok?
Nazar
Hi Nazar..I'm fine, thanks for asking.
ReplyDeleteI largely agree with you here. I think you might have missed this:
J O S H U A P U N D I T: I'm tired of `Supporting the troops'
Take it Easy, But Take It!
ff