I Question
They Are Not Serious. They Are Not Patriotic.
By Erick Posted in Democrats — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I question the seriousness of the Democratic Party. They have been so intent to cut off funding to the troops in Iraq, they passed the bill and then held it for a week so Nancy Pelosi could read it. Or was that to print it on parchment. Their unserious excuses have been all over the map for the past week.
Witness the seriousness of the President who vetoed the bill upon receipt versus the unseriousness of the Congressional Democrats who wanted to time the delivery to the anniversary of President Bush's speech aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, only to deny that today and tell NPR that the timing was a "coincidence."
Witness the seriousness of the Congressional Republicans who attended all the briefings with General Petraeus while the Democrats mischaracterized the General on the floor of the Senate and had no interest in meeting with him.
I question the Democrats' seriousness. I question the Democrats' patriotism too.
Read on . . .
There, I said it. I do question the patriotism of the Democratic leadership -- the same leadership that called our troops Nazis on the floor of the Senate. They say the war is lost and the troops need to get out, but Nancy Pelosi was in no hurry to appoint conferees on their bill. Nancy Pelosi was, however, in a hurry to get to Syria and now Iran to meet with our enemies.
I question Harry Reid's patriotism. He says the war is lost and we need to come home, but he wants to slowly bring the troops home -- slowly bleed them. Does Harry Reid not think the troops still in Iraq next year are as worthy of salvation as those he wants to bring home now? If the war is lost, why not bring them all home now and save them all from further loss unless you view the troops more as pawns than heros.
The Democrats ignore the commanders on the ground. Reid says he does not believe what Petraeus says. Jack Murtha calls our soldiers liars. The forces in Iraq report that failure to pass the supplemental will measurably hurt them; yet the Democrats want to play games.
Russ Feingold repeatedly says Iraq is like Somalia. Osama Bin Laden credits our failure of resolve in Somalia with his impetus to aggressively attack us. The Democrats pass their "slow bleed" plan, their words, not mine, and "hugged each other while . . . smiling" on the floor of the House. Nancy Pelosi, whose party while in Congress mostly backed the war, now claims the war was conducted on false pretenses. She, in effect, accuses the American President of lying to start a war that would kill American troops.
The Democrats say they support the troops, but they have consistently sought since 2002, to undermine the efforts of the troops, the military leadership, the cause, and protective measures the Bush Administration has implemented to keep this nation safe -- from terrorist surveillance to unionization of the Department of Homeland Security to the Patriot Act.
You're damn right I question their patriotism.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Joe Biden Is A Manly Man — Comments (2) »
I Question 37 Comments (0 topical, 37 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
read your own citations. There is no point in that report where "a vast majority" agree on anything.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Is that not the supermajority required for cloture? Maybe super and vast aren't interchangeable, but when was the last time a presidential candidate got 60% of the vote? 1964? It's pretty hard to get 60% of the American people to agree on an issue as serious and politically charged as the decision to continue a war. When it happens, questioning the patriotism of the va--, er, decided, majority seems pretty delusional. Does 60% of America hate America? No, 60% of America has decided that we can't do much more to help the Iraqis, and we certainly aren't helping ourselves by keeping ourselves in a supervisory role over a war that is simply out of our hands.
at no point in that report do 60% of Americans say that they want funding cut off.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
did I say they did. I said 60% of Americans are "in favor of immediately beginning the withdrawal of forces from Iraq or setting a strict deadline for beginning that process." If I were Moe Lane, I would say that I'm thoroughly amused with the conversation you're having with the imaginary quincy.
you would be able to read English and follow a conversation. So it is pretty obvious you aren't Moe.
Read the story and the individual items Erick talks about. Nothing you've said is germane to a single point he's made.
Read your own link at no point does that link say
60% of Americans are in favor of immediately beginning the withdrawal of forces from Iraq or setting a strict deadline for beginning that process."
In fact only 18% favor something like that proposed by the Dems in the defense bill and 33% favor a withdrawal over the next couple of years.
The number of people who think invading Iraq was wrong has dropped 6 points in the last three months of the survey while those thinking it was the right thing to do has increased by 5 points, bringing them to a 45-47 statistical tie. 44% predict the US will succeed in Iraq while 47% predict we will not. Again a tie.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Where does that 18% figure come from? Question 24 is: The Congress is now debating future funding for the way in Iraq. Would you like to see your Congressional representative for FOR or AGAINST a bill that calls for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq to be completed by August of 2008.
59 out of 100 said they wanted their rep to for FOR that measure.
The rest of that 59% favor a compromise (minus the minimal 2% with no answer). Couple that with the 14% of the no's willing to let Bush work with Congress and you have a plurality of the polled population rejecting the hardline antiwar position. Actually, a majority, given all those other nos.
So, what are you going to give up, then? - Seeing as you're calling for the People's will be done, and everything.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I was responding to this line: In fact only 18% favor something like that proposed by the Dems in the defense bill.
The poll makes clear that substantially more than 18% favor what's proposed by the Dems bill. A clear majority favor the bill and want it to be passed. After its made clear that Bush plans to veto it, the pollers ask if people to choose between the hardline position and "working with Bush" for "compromise". That's like asking someone if they want "reform". I'm surprised everyone didn't answer compromise. Moreover, they are only voting for this compromise because they've been told Bush will veto it. The second question isn't asking about what people objectively want themselves, its asking about how to proceed given that what they want isn't obtainable because of a veto.
And finally, I don't even think its fair to add all those who support compromise amongst those who favor the bill, and then ignore those that favor compromise amongst those that don't favor the bill. If you are going to add the 25 who want the bill but favor compromise, you should subtract the 14 who oppose the bill but favor compromise.
provide a policy prescription here? From my first comment to my last, all I tried to do was to argue a point about the public's position on an issue. I see nothing wrong with that.
I just figured that since you were apparently arguing that public opinion should rule the day, you could give us an idea of what concessions should be made by the antiwar faction in order to be in compliance with said opinion.
But since you apparently aren't, there's of course no need.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
buzz off
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I know the definition of patriotism. And it does not include playing games with the lives of American troops and running off the meet with American enemies while refusing to meet with your own President.
several Republicans met with Syria as well. Are they unpatriotic, too? Being unpatriotic and having a different conception of how to conduct yourself on the international arena than the executive of your government are two completely different things, and your attempt to conflate them is intellectually dishonest.
And, just so you know, we've noticed the difference between your confident rhetoric and objective reality. The latter being that the Democratic Party is acting nothing like a confident vanguard of public opinion and everything like a abject bunch of poll-sniffers who had to bribe their way across the budget in order to eke out a bare majority in Congress - and who will be shiving the antiwar movement just about (looking at watch)... now.
But do keep telling us how you're going to win, in the end.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
a lot of Democrats now opposed to our continued presence in Iraq. But saying that their transition from war supporters to war detractors makes them opportunists is a post hoc fallacy. A lot of things happened on the ground in Iraq between the vote to go to war and the recent vote to set a time line for withdrawal. Namely, the failure of WMD to materialize, the failure to find links with al Qaeda, the beginnings of secular violence and the resulting increase in troop deaths, the release of the Iraq Study Group report and the Administration's failure to implement the recommendations, the failure to form an effective government, etc. etc. Like the American people, the Democrats (and Republicans) in Congress who voted to withdraw fall into a number of categories. Some were against the war from the start, either because their foresight was better than most and they predicted many of the problems we would face, because they didn't think war was justified without concrete proof of plans to attack us or links to terrorist groups with plans to attack us, or because they are unrealistically against war as a matter of principle. Some have seen the failures mounting and have concluded that the situation is now beyond our control to affect. All these events had an effect on the American people in the same way that they had an effect on Congress people. I'm sure there are some naked opportunists in the bunch, but the vast majority likely took a hard look at the policy, saw it was failing, and decided to vote to correct it. Like everything in Congress, there was political calculus involved, and the additional appropriations in the bill were in some cases ridiculous (especially since it would be vetoed anyway), but to label everyone who was once opposed to the war but is now against it as an opportunist is just wrong (and doesn't take into account that many citizens with no opportunities to gain from switching "sides" on the issue also changed their minds).
...that you're having with the imaginary Moe Lane in your head. I almost feel privileged to witness it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I tried. If you don't want to respond, that's your prerogative. Or pretty much just your choice, but prerogative sounds cool and legalistic.
This war was initiated based on the administration's published foreign policy of preemption. Saddam Hussein hated us because of his defeat in Kuwait. If he was left on his own it was only a matter of time before he would reconstitute his military capability. He was determined to strike back at us if he had the chance. The international resolve to continue to sanctions was weakening and could not be maintained for much longer. The administration had only this one opportunity to do something about Hussein and thereby prevent a future threat from materializing. The administration also saw the strategic benefit of putting a democracy between Syria and Iran. I believe they also decided, and rightly so, that something rather drastic was needed to bring about democratic change in the Middle East.
I agree the administration made mistakes using intelligence reports inappropriately during the run up to the war. However, it seems that many want to pretend that when those reports were shown to be inaccurate this somehow proves Hussein was an innocent bystander who we just went and clobbered. This is far from the truth. I suggest the whiners and complainers grow up a little and realize we cannot leave the field to Al Qaeda so we no choice but to finish what we started.
I think the truth is that many of my fellow American could care less about the lack of freedom and the government oppression in the Middle East. We have supported terrible regimes in the past, Hussein’s among the worst, because the goal was stability and cheap oil. The current legitimacy that the militant extremists enjoy in parts of the region is the result. We can not win this struggle without bringing democratic rule to the Middle East. The efforts in Iraq are critical to our future security.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I missed the part that says the majority of Americans are even qualified to dictate foreign policy. I thought that is why, among many reasons, we elect a president. The greatest fallacy about the job of the President is that he is a representative of the people. Sure, we vote for him, but Congressmen are the true representatives. The president is an enforcer under the law of what he deems to be in the best interests of the United States. In reality, the president is not a politician. He is a caretaker. And the nature of our system allows the American people to say "you're not helping us" or “you’re doing more harm than good” every four years but only then. Congress made the laws that have allowed the president to operate his campaign to what he believes is protecting the United States. Where does Congress have the audacity to be an enforcer of its own laws? If the president acts outside the realm of his powers, then let the courts decide his proper role.
More substantively, what is in the best interests of the United States? What would happen if we withdrew from Iraq? The consequences of yielding to essentially a terrorist propaganda machine undermine any future military endeavor necessary to protect our nation. Will we have the stamina for a much tougher, more costly battle against an adversary like Iran? Just because the end is not in sight doesn't necessitate that we abandon it. The recourse for which is simply too terrible to withstand. In the short-term, maybe the war is a waste of time, resources, and lives; maybe our "position in the world" is jeopardized. In the long-term, though, we stand to worsen our position if we tuck tail and run away now.
In truth, our evaluations of the president's performance do not matter outside of election season. A president has three deterrents to making bad decisions: not getting re-elected, having a bad legacy, and having a conscience (note: not all deterrents are characteristic of all presidents). I have news for the American people: you may hate the man, but you elected him. If you want a whole new set of foreign policies, go vote for Hillary in the next election. But stop pretending like we, the Congress, or anyone else for that matter has any say in what the president is or is not allowed to do as long as it is legal.
Truly, I am seriously concerned that realism and pragmatism are dead if we are so naive to believe that the United States won't walk away from this conflict intimidated and more vulnerable than ever.
because I never made the mistake of assuming the possessed it.
I was on a college campus, in an ROTC detachment, during the last part of the Vietnam War. I saw the way the Democrats toadied to Daniel Ortega and undermined the legitimate government of El Salvador. I saw the way they fought Reagan at every turn in his struggle against the Soviet Union.
I've never harbored the delusion that they would not sell us out for $20 and a bottle Ripple.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Senator Reid and the Democrats are using our troops as pawns for political purposes.
They hold the supplemental bill hostage by putting a time line on it, knowing that President Bush was going to veto it. They do not support our troops.
If they supported our troops, they would send a clean bill to the President to sign.
To the Democrats it is politics pure and simple.
Senator Reid made the comment after they put the timetable on the supplemental, that they were going to pick up seats as a result of this bill. The Democrats are supporting the terrorists.
The Democrat party leadership (Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Gene Taylor and Jim Marshall excepted) have knowingly allowed a bad image of them and their party to develop.
An image of a party that is willing to say whatever is necessary to placate their activists (9/11 truthers, Kossacks and Hamshters in their parents' basements, Raging Grannies), even if it makes us seem irresolute and wishy-washy to those overseas.
A party unwilling to weigh the impact of their words and public actions, and temper them accordingly so they don't complicate matters for those overtaxed souls fighting the PR war on our nation's behalf overseas. You know---the soldiers walking the streets of Iraq, trying to convince Iraqis that Americans are not quitters or fools or silly. (I'll admit... with images of Raging Grannies now on the world airwaves, the "silly" ship might already have sailed. With nitwits like the Grannies, it's gonna be hard to assure Iraqis that America can produce "elders" worth listening to.)
A party that's more that willing to criticize, but cold and calculating enough to refuse to offer realistic action alternatives in Iraq, all so they can avoid blame. Or, as Rahm Emmanuel so coldly commented to David Ignatius, "pick up the pieces" when it's all over.
A party indifferent to the warnings raised by many. Warnings that an image of America as irresolute, as unwilling to show courage and determination in the face of adversity, will dishearten our allies, invigorate our foes and make it more likely that jihadhis and terrorists will see America as an easy mark worth targeting.
I can't help but think that the Dems have convinced themselves that, even if things turn out horribly in Iraq, it's not their problem because...it's all Bush's war. Hence, they don't seem too concerned with the impact of the things they do and the words they say. And, if our overstretched Army and Marine Corps have to do staff gymnastics to cover funding holes and keep preplanned training from being derailed...well, sucks to be them, eh?
IMO, there are two explanations for that kind of behavior and attitude:
- These people are stupid, stupid, stupid.
- These people are actually a bit slimy.
I'll give the Dem leadership the benefit of the doubt and assert that they're just dumb. Heck, given what they've done since they took over Congress, there's plenty of evidence to support that conclusion.
There is a special kind of gutlessness in today's Democrat party leadership and elite.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I'd like to add about the Dems:
1. When the American people cry out "No New Taxes" - the Dems do not listen
2. When the American people say "Close our bloody borders and get the illegals out of here" - the Dems turn a deaf ear
3. When the American people bellow "Do something about Social Security and Medicaire so my kids have a chance" - the Dems turn their backs
4. When the American people scream "Millions of abortions in this Country is disgraceful" - the Dems bury their heads in the sand
But all of a sudden...in 2007, the Dems want a U.S. Surrender in Iraq ....why? "Because we have heard the American people! It's the message they sent us in 2006!"
There is absolutely nothing, repeat...nothing, about the behavior, rhetoric or actions of the congressional democrats that could be construed, in any possible shape, form or fashion, as patriotic.
When they present a serious plan of action to combat global terrorism and a comprehensive strategy for victory in Iraq, the total list of patriotic actions by congressional democrats will grow to (2) two. At which time, I'll reconsider my prior statement, but not necessarily my skepticism.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
I can respect a difference in opinion. But, patriotism isn’t just about opinion. It’s about actions. The Liberals in Congress, the MSM and other entertainment vehicles must be judged by their actions, as well as, their opinions. When these people go overseas and bash America, when they call American soldiers mercenaries, when they advocate for the assassination of elected leaders, their actions tell me they do not love this country. Their actions show me and their opinions inform me of the contempt they have for this nation. As their disrespect becomes a badge, and their hatred so vitriolic that it defies the boundaries of common decency, then yes, I too question their desire, their love, and their patriotism for this country.
R.J.
and some reasonable level of discretion inhibit me from adding my opinion of the leadership of the Democratic Party.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
somedays I hate the no profanity rule, but I did sneak a "damn" in there. ;)
This whole situation has forced steam out of my ears for the last month. I do not and can not understand how Harry Reid can say the war is lost and then advocate a "slow bleed." If he TRULY believes the war is lost, then he should be shouting from the hilltops that the troops should be brought home NOW. Instead, he would rather use the soldiers whose lives are on the line as pawns for his own political posturing. Nancy Pelosi twiddles her thumbs and waits til the last day to read her "very important" bill while our military awaits funding to perform necessary operations. I AM INFURIATED. However, I no longer question their patriotism - their words and actions serve as evidence enough that they have none.
really the profanity rule. More like a whole rash federal laws. And I just hate it when the alphabet soup shows up at my door.
It took a long time, but I finally figured out that in some instances, discretion is the better part of valor.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Shameful, cretinous, loutish behavior at the worst possible time. It seems impossible to conclude that the conduct of the congressional Democrats will not cost lives of American soldiers -- REAL patriots, many of whom volunteered for the military since 9/11, in the full knowledge of the risks.
And nearly as bad are (1) the contemptible and cravenly leftist press which provides constant cover for them, (2) a large segment of the American public which is too lazy to look past an obviously partisan media representation of national politics, and (3) the apologists in the blogosphere -- who justify shameful behavior and attempt to persuade others.
Not patriotic.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Remember 1972. Thje anti-war movment's heyday? George McGovern, according to the polls, would be elected by the American people tired of the Vietnam War. Instead, Richard Nixon, with all his baggage, got the sixty percent of the vote and carried 49 states.
There were, in 1972 as well as now, people who were disatisified with the conduct of the president and the way that the war was being run. However, their disatisfaction was that they thought that Nixon, then, and Bush, now, were not doing enough to win. Faced, in 1972, with either Nixon or McGovern, the swing 20% of the voters went with Nixon.
You seem to pride yourself on your "realism" and your ability to see through cant to the truth about facts on the ground. So let me ask you:
1. If the number of "American citizens" opposed to the war is overwhelmingly large and growing, why are there no equally large and growing anti-war demonstrations to illustrate this? You have claimed anti-war feeling is growing in the public in both numbers and intensity. Where is your proof of this, in terms of actual physical numbers of people, rather than polls?
In fact, the numbers in attendance at these anti-American rallies have been declining steadily. When was the last one you noticed, and what was the attendance? The last one here in DC was equalled or surpassed in numbers by a patriotic rally. The answer of course, is that there is no large and growing mass of anti-war Americans. It's been so unsuccessful as a tool of the unpatriotic left that they have largely (though quietly) abandoned it in favor of targeted actions involving very small numbers of people, disrupting Conngressional hearings, picketing Walter Reed(I suppose you think that is patriotic and defensible!) and, of course relying more and more on their shills in the media and their stooges in the Defeatocrat Party.
2. You Portray the Democrat Party as a serious political party, exercising thoughtful leadership after (presumably) agonizing reappraisal and analysis, rather than as opportunistic, defeatist panderers eager to eploit their country's defeat. Well, in your lengthy screeds (and please --drop the leftwing talking points -- we're all familiar with them) you fail to mention the unseemly and bizarre demonstration by the Defeatocrats in both houses after the vote. How do you explain the end-zone antics, the high fives, the cheering and whooping and the generally disgraceful exhibition these clowns put on. Rightly excoriated by John McCain in his great VMI speech, these antics stripped away the mask of seriousness and revealed the absolute glee and happiness at the thought of our country's defeat. Serious, thoughtful political leaders would have greeted this vote with somber, thoughtful words on the sadness of this event and the dangers that lay ahead.
But that's not what happened, is it? Juvenile hijinks and irresponsible cheerleading reveal that today's Democrat party is a worthy seccessor of the Democrat party of the Civil War era, when they were also called traitors (rightly so).
The polls reflect national unhappiness over the course of the war. It would be unwise to read more into them than that.
is what longwalker hinted at - There is a block of people who were always against it and always will be, and there is a block who are for it but figure if we're not going to go full bore after military victory we might as well get the heck out. IOW the Dems create a sefl-fulfilling prophecy - make it impossible to win by putting too many restrictions and then blame Bush for losing.
Patriotism
Function: noun
love for or devotion to one's country
I thought you'd need a definition, Erick, based on the above diatribe. The Democratic Congress and their leadership, as well as a vast majority of the American people have concluded that the Iraq troop presence has run past the point of being strategically advantageous to our position in the world, or that staying in Iraq will not aid the Iraqis in building a democracy but only aid in the recruitment of terrorists, or that the situation has been run so incompetently as to have sabotaged any chances there once were of success. Whatever the reason, a portion of the country that is roughly 60% and growing is in favor of immediately beginning the withdrawal of forces from Iraq or setting a strict deadline for beginning that process. This group includes a growing number of veterans of the actual conflict itself, as well as many former members of the armed forces. It's pretty sad and inappropriate to see the "patriotism" card played when anyone who even comes close to going down the "chickenhawk" trail is immediately banned from this site.