Are Democrats Killing Our Troops?

[Bruzilla]

Does anyone else see a correlation between the gradual increasing of anti-Bush/Iraqi War rhetoric being generated by the Democratic presidential candidates and the number and ferrocity of attacks on our troops?

I was thinking back to when Howard Dean was the only one going out and publically calling for end to the war and the removal of our troops. Back then there were virtually no attacks being made on our troops. Then the other Dems started playing catch up with Dean, and the level of attacks against Bush and our being in Iraq began steadily increasing, along with their coverage in the media. During the same period, the attacks on our troops have been steadily increasing alongside the attacks on Bush.

Having spent a lot of time overseas, I know that most people in foreign lands know us only by our media and what they see, hear, and read being reported. Wherever Hussein and his cronies are, you can bet they have TVs tuned into CNN and Sky News, maybe MSNBC and or Fox. I know what I would be thinking if I kept hearing more and more messages saying that the continual loss of servicemen in Iraq are leading people to question whether or not we should be there, or heard that continued attacks could cost Bush re-election. Now, couple that with repeated stories of how a Democratic president would either pull out completely or greatly reduce the number of troops, and I can see why the number of attacks is increasing: the Dems are telling our enemy that if you want to win, here's what you do:

1. Keep killing our troops
2. Get Bush tossed out of office
3. Get me put into office
4. Wait for me to make a "negotiated" peace
5. You're back in business!

 

[Christy]

I fully agree Bru. Many fail to realize war isn't fought just on the battlefield.

 

[Larry Gude]

Not fair...

...but there is certainly an argument to make that some of them are not helping IF it is agreed that a democratic Iraq must emerge. THAT is the question many of the candidates have not faced to date and will not face for as long as they can put it off; what TO DO with Iraq if one opposses the war? Or 'what would you do different if you do support the war'?

The resistance strategy in Iraq is as old as conflict; if you can't beat them, bleed them and maybe they will get tired of it and go away. People like Dean and JFK just make it easier. They are nothing more than predictable foils.

Everybody who had it way better under prior management has motive to engage in this type of fighting, especially those who are at great risk if law and order succeeds. They are dead men unless we quit. Saddam and company had plenty of time, like the hiding of weapons and related programs, to prepare for a drawn out conflict designed to instill doubt.

It is a good thing, in my opinion, that folks here at home are stating their beliefs in public and that their constituents are vocal as well. Best to know where everybody stands before we vote.

So far we are learning that:

Dean still prefers Saddam Hussien alive and well, running Iraq and screw everybody who thinks different.

Kerrey is attempting Slick Willy re-incarnate, trying to have it both ways.

Clark is embarrassing. George B. McClellen at very least was a man of principle.

Al Sharpton proves that communism has lost none of its appeal no matter how much it has failed the world over. He was great last night.

Braun wants to remove the 'men only' sign at the White House...right after somebody makes one it is suppossed.

Kuccinich makes Dukakis sound coherent. I had thought he was some sort of darkhorse but he is a babbling idiot. How did he get this far?

Edwards parents worked for a living, unlike rich people, like him, who presumably just happen to have money. And he has a detailed, concrete, written down plan for everything. Did he tell you his parents worked when he was young?

Gephardt and Leibermann stand up for their vote to use force to get rid of Hussein. They'd just do it differently (better).

Clement Valladingham was a useful foil during our Civil War to make people grieving form the horrors of war face the question; what then if we quit? The "Copperhead' concept of grumbling and second guessing had to face the light of day because of him. He was arrested then dropped off at a Southern pickett line. They didn't want him either.

Valladingham, Dean and Kerrey and their head in the sand ideas are all part of the cost a free people must bear. We don't all agree or see things the same way and that is a good thing.

At the end of the day the question was asked about the Civil War:

Do we finish the job?

Now, Iraq? Some say no.

I found it illustrative that hot on the heels of Dean or someone railing on about the unimaginable horrors of 300 soldiers dying in Iraq so far Kuccinich goofed and said 300 people hade been murdered in Detroit in the last month. It was like someone had just been talking about drops in a bucket, Iraq, like it was the end of the world and then somebody dumps a bucket, mass murder in Detroit.

Nobody flinched because most people wouldn't be surprised if it was 300 per month.

Kuccinich was corrected later: 'only' 35 people had been murdered in Detroit in September. About the same as a war zone, Iraq...Huh? He then quoted chapter and verse about the 17,000 who had been murdered in Detroit since 1970 whatever.

THEN, they launched into how what Detroit needs is...more money! yeah! All the while making off hand comments about how Iraq and our people in uniform...don't.

When somebodys child dies overseas or losses a job at home it is brain dead simple to say "If I was in charge that would not have happened".

At the end of the night it became obvious why the debate was only on Fox: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. The left has no interest at all in the nation as a whole finding out how empty those eight suits and a skirt really are.

That alone, hearing what they have to say, will end up saving US lives in the long run.

 

[SamSpade]

I'm thoroughly disgusted by any remark that translates into "Our troops are being attacked? Run away!". What do these guys think the military *does*?

They must have us confused with the French.

 

[tlatchaw]

I also agree. I would also put forward that because this war is being fought from shadow orginizations and not national powers, that this is one war we cannot afford to lose or even bring to a draw. If these people that hate the USA so much are left with anything at all, they will regroup, train up another batch of zealots and come back after our kids!

It's gonna be nearly impossible to pick our the bad guys, however, and a scorched earth policy plays right into their hands. I know the Dems want to get it over with and move on, but the world changed on 9-11. Moving on might happen, getting over it probably won't. That's why the verse I quote as my signnature means so much to me.

 

[Bruzilla]

I hate to disagree with your Larry, but I think the Dems are a lot more than predictable foils. I think there's a definate cause and effect pattern going on here. The ner-do-wells in Iraq have only one chance of winning, and that's to get Bush out of office. I would be they think that way because of all the coverage the Dems are getting, and most of that coverage deals with what they'll do in Iraq if they get into office. The attacks on our troops began in earnest when Dean was getting the ink for saying he would pull out, and they've increased right along side the attacks on Bush. That's gotta be more than a coincidence.

 

[Larry Gude]

OK...

...in terms of a day to day tactics and overall strategy that the bad guys are saying 'Hey! Dean and Kerry the Flip Flopping Fop represent a growing popular will in the US to get out of Iraq, therefore we step up operations!'. There is zero doubt in my mind that this is the case.

So, I do agree that in that sense Howard Dean is 'killing' US service people.

I just don't think the argument is fair. Dean is not pulling the trigger and he is not welding rocket launchers to pick up truck trailers and setting egg timers. The media may bear more fault in trying to report this Junk Yard Wars desperation as 'growing sophistication'. Let me know when an armored division of the Republican Guard flanks us out of Tikrit.

Howard Dean represents a portion of our fellow voting Americans who under the guise of caring for these same service people so loath George W. Bush that the death of a soldier is cause for us to quit and come home because, to them, that would hurt that which they hate, the President.

Ain't it great when the left all of a sudden cares about nothing more than the well being of our service people?

In my opinion Iraq is an easy case. The UN resolutions, the inspectors reports, the Clinton administrations position on Saddam (nevermind their actions or lack there of) and simple common sense add up to action unless Hussein falls in. He had plenty of time to get right with the world, contrary to the 'rush to war' nim wits.

Once that decision is made, (thank you Sen. Kerry and Edwards) it would be better to take the position that any US death is reason to get on with the job even more so.

However, there is that "Copperhead' constituency and the version of reality necessary to appeal to it.

In our representative republic it is fundamental that dissent is allowed a voice. I also think it is a duty that these voices be heard in public and voted on. If the majority of US citizens want us out of Iraq now, then we will elect Dean because of where he stands or Edwards or JFK because of where they say they stand at any given moment.

Or not.

We have, as we should, civilian controlled military and these kinds of disagreements potentially make a tough job even more hazardous to those who have the character to serve. It is a tough lump to swallow at times when behavior that would get you shot in any other nation in history is a right and duty in the US.

I think Gephardt and Leiberman understand this and are men who share my values. That is why they are discussed in terms of being 'electable'.

I think Kerry is a disgrace and Edwards an immature child. Clark is just plain embarrassing.

I think Dean is a man of conviction, like Dick and Joe, which I respect but I don't think he could be any more wrong and I give no more credit for being wrong in this case than I do for people who admit they can't read and don't care to learn.

Kuccinich is the type of man nations are founded on. Nations like Switzerland.

US military personel are deployed around the world in what I believe are efforts to pre-empt World War III. Terrorism was becoming a veiled world wide policy. This work will come at a cost which will be far less than if we do not act; anarchy. If they, we, are succesful, then capitalism and democracy will allow every single human being on the planet the opportunity to see his fellow man as neighbor, not sworn enemy.

And those who fought against it can live with it and any death they may or may not have contributed to is our burden as a nation.

Nobody else does that because nobody else is us.

How 'bout that?

 

[Bruzilla]

I agree with you that as Americans we have a right to voice protest or dissent. What bothers me is that we're at war at the moment, and I think some different social rules should be in effect. What would have happened if the Wendell Wilkie in 1940 had run on the promise to suspend aid to Great Britain or to leave Hitler to do whatever he wanted in Europe, or whatever Japan wanted to do in China? What if in 1944 Thomas Dewey had said "If I get elected I'll propose terms to Japan and Germany because I don't want any more of our kids killed in the Ardennes or in Kamikaze attacks?" Now suppose that the media access that now exists was available back then... do you think that Japanese would have stepped up the Kamikaze attacks or that the Germans would have stopped fighting as soon?

When you're at war you shouldn't be constantly telling what they need to do in order to win.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah...

...you got a point so help me understand how we do that, get people to stop pulling the rhetorical trigger on their fellow citizen, the one ensuring their right to ##### and pewl with blood.

I mean the mind set is just intellectual concrete. back in '91 during the campaign Larry King had a guest on trying to put down Clinton and King points out, with a straight face, that Hussein had recently commented that he thought Clinton would make a good president over Bush.

Larry King wants to discuss the merit of Saddam Husseins support for Bill Clinton.

"Dr. Dean, how would the world be a better place if Saddam had never lost power?"

"Good question, Larry...you see..."

 

[jlabsher]

Democrats killing our troops. Yeah, they sent them to battle in the first place right?

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by jlabsher
Democrats killing our troops. Yeah, they sent them to battle in the first place right?

Sure did. Without their votes the President wouldn't of had the authority that they gave him.

 

[jlabsher]

Oh sorry, I forgot that they saw the same bogus CIA intel that Powell and Bush did.

 

[RangerJohn]

Well having just come back from Iraq and Liberia with the Iwo Jima ARG I saw first hand how 95% of those in those countries are awfully darned glad that we came. Any country that has been brutally repressed for years without end will explode like a pressure cooker with the valve clogged. Stuff is going to get on everything. Iraq has no practical experience with participatory government, and the Liberians hosed it up pretty well when they did give it a go.
What a lot of the talking heads have forgotten is that there were a lot of Nazi's in Germany who kept up the fight after the 3rd Reich surrendered. Finding old Japanese holdouts lost in Pacific Islands, waiting for relief from Tojo and Emperor Hirohito is a legend that has happened a few times. Making changes of monumental proportions does not happen overnight. It has taken Russia 12 years since the demise of the Soviet Union to just piece together a rudimentary democratic-republican government.....had President Bush 41 taken out Saddam in 1991, we would still be on peacekeeping operations there...the difference being that we would be closer to the end than we are now.

Like Robert Hunter wrote for the Dead...."what a long, strange trip it is..." and this is going to be both long and strange...but when a democratic and responsive government does take hold in Iraq, watch the dominos (Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Iran, Bahrain, etc) fall!

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by jlabsher
Oh sorry, I forgot that they saw the same bogus CIA intel that Powell and Bush did.

Yeah - but while they both saw the same intel, *somehow* BUSH and POWELL lied but the Dems in Congress did NOT. Interesting, huh?

 

[Larry Gude]

As has been...

...pointed out...

Democrats killing our troops. Yeah, they sent them to battle in the first place right?

...they voted for it as well, so, yeah, in that sense they have 'blood on their hands' to. More importantly, they share the responsibility along with the President to act in the best interest of the nation.

But as I have argued, they are no more pulling the actual trigger than is W or the UN. Saddam Hussein is the one person responsible for the violence.

I find it encouraging that Kerry is changing his stance again and now more vigorously supporting Leibermans position: "The war is the right thing to do and I (your name here) would do it better than President Bush." THAT is a valid, intelligent argument to make to the American people. Now tell us how. Kerry gets lost again at this point delving back into running for President of France.

Dean represents a part of the population that wants to turn back the clock and impose some other way to get Hussein to comply with the UN.

 

[ceo_pte]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
Does anyone else see a correlation between the gradual increasing of anti-Bush/Iraqi War rhetoric being generated by the Democratic presidential candidates and the number and ferrocity of attacks on our troops?

I was thinking back to when Howard Dean was the only one going out and publically calling for end to the war and the removal of our troops. Back then there were virtually no attacks being made on our troops. Then the other Dems started playing catch up with Dean, and the level of attacks against Bush and our being in Iraq began steadily increasing, along with their coverage in the media. During the same period, the attacks on our troops have been steadily increasing alongside the attacks on Bush.

Having spent a lot of time overseas, I know that most people in foreign lands know us only by our media and what they see, hear, and read being reported. Wherever Hussein and his cronies are, you can bet they have TVs tuned into CNN and Sky News, maybe MSNBC and or Fox. I know what I would be thinking if I kept hearing more and more messages saying that the continual loss of servicemen in Iraq are leading people to question whether or not we should be there, or heard that continued attacks could cost Bush re-election. Now, couple that with repeated stories of how a Democratic president would either pull out completely or greatly reduce the number of troops, and I can see why the number of attacks is increasing: the Dems are telling our enemy that if you want to win, here's what you do:

1. Keep killing our troops
2. Get Bush tossed out of office
3. Get me put into office
4. Wait for me to make a "negotiated" peace
5. You're back in business!

I must say I AGREE... I AM 1000% BEHIND OUR PRESIDENT... He is a man that stands for what is right, not neccesarily what's popular and thank God that he has the balls to stand...

 

[Bruzilla]

What bothers me is that everytime some less-than-favorable news comes out of Iraq, you've got Dems lining up at the microphones making more less-than-helpful comments. Lately it's been Daschle trying to manage goverment through the microphone. If guys like Daschle have a problem with what the President is doing, why can't they hike their a$$es down to the White House and have a talk with Bush, or Cheney, or the person they have the problem with. Why do they always have to air out every issue that they have over the airwaves or through the press? My guess is because their issues are really just political boat rocking and not ways to do things better.

Even worse, these guys never come to the microphone and say anything positive about the guys and gals doing the fighting. Bush isn't sitting on the phone in the Oval Office giving field orders. That's all done about 20 levels below him, so when the Dems are bashing Bush they're really bashing the troops. Now, sometimes that bashing might be warranted, but it would be nice if the Dems would come out and say something good about what the troops are doing and not just give some generic BS statement about how "I support our troops." But then I guess saying anything good about what's going on in Iraq is seen as helping Bush, so they won't say it.