A Letter from Mosul

[maineman]

you keep believing that. really. Nothing I want more than for republicans to try to convince americans that, even though the average american now believes that the republican party has driven the foreign policy of this nation into the ditch, they really are just too stupid to know that republicans are really smarter than anyone else and this isn't really a ditch at all, but an innovative shortcut.

go for it.

 

[Adam's Apple]

No, they are figuring out how to undermine without being caught in doing that.

Can anyone make the picture any clearer than that?

 

[red states rule]

Irreconcilable positions: support troops, oppose war
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | February 18, 2007

WHAT DOES IT mean to support the troops but oppose the cause they fight for?

No loyal Colts fan rooted for Indianapolis to lose the Super Bowl. No investor buys 100 shares of Google in the hope that Google's stock will tank. No one who applauds firefighters for their courage and education wants a four-alarm blaze to burn out of control.

Yet there is no end of Americans who insist they "support" US troops in Iraq but want the war those troops are fighting to end in defeat. The two positions are irreconcilable. You cannot logically or honorably curse the war as an immoral neocon disaster or a Halliburton oil grab or "a fraud . . . cooked up in Texas," yet bless the troops who are waging it.

But logic and honor haven't stopped members of Congress from trying to square that circle. The nonbinding resolution they debated last week was a flagrant attempt to have it both ways. One of its two clauses professed to "support and protect" the forces serving "bravely and honorably" in Iraq. The other declared that Congress "disapproves" the surge in troops now underway -- a surge that General David Petraeus , the new military commander in Iraq, considers essential.

It was a disgraceful and dishonest resolution, and it must have done wonders for the insurgents' morale. Democrats hardly bothered to disguise that when they say they "support and protect" the troops, what they really intend is to undermine and endanger their mission. The Politico, a new Washington news site, reported Thursday that the strategy of "top House Democrats, working in concert with anti war groups," is to "pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration's options." If they had the courage of their convictions, they would forthrightly defund the war, bring the troops home, and brave the political consequences. Instead they plan a more agonizing and drawn-out defeat -- slowly choking off the war by denying reinforcements, eventually leaving no alternative but retreat.

That is how those who oppose the war "support" the troops -- they "slow-bleed" them dry. Or they declare that the lives laid down by those troops were "wasted," as Senator Barack Obama did last Sunday. Obama later weaseled away from that characterization , but the gaffe had been made. And like most political gaffes, it exposed the speaker's true feelings.

And why wouldn't Obama feel that way? If an American serviceman dies in the course of a war that toppled a monstrous dictatorship, opened the door to decent Arab governance, and has become the central front in the struggle against radical Islam, his death is not in vain. It is the sacrifice of an American hero, the last full measure of devotion given in the cause of freedom. But if he dies in the course of a senseless and illegitimate invasion -- which appears to be Obama's view of Iraq -- then his life was wasted. If that's what you believe, Senator, why not say so?

Obama's is merely the latest in a series of senatorial comments that offer a glimpse of the left's anti military disdain.

Smart people who work hard become successful, John Kerry "joked" last fall, but uneducated sluggards "get stuck in Iraq." Osama bin Laden is beloved by Muslims for "building schools, building roads . . . building day-care facilities," Washington Senator Patty Murray explained in 2002, while Americans only show up to "bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan." Obama's Illinois colleague Dick Durbin took to the Senate floor to equate US military interrogators in Guantanamo Bay with "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags," and similar mass-murderers, such as "Pol Pot or others."

It goes without saying that many Democrats and liberals take a back seat to no one in their admiration and appreciation of the US military. But there is no denying that a notable current of antimilitary hostility runs through the left as well. Examples are endless: ROTC is banned on elite college campuses. San Francisco bars a historic battleship from its port. Signs at antiwar protests urge troops to "shoot their officers." An Ivy League professor prays for "a million Mogadishus." Michael Moore compares Iraqi insurgents who kill Americans to the Minutemen of Revolutionary New England.

America is a free country, but it is not the Michael Moores or the ROTC-banners or the senatorial loudmouths who keep it free. They merely enjoy the freedom that others are prepared to defend with their lives. It is the men and women who volunteer to wear the uniform to whom we owe our liberty. Surely they deserve better than pious claims of "support" from those who are working for their defeat.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is [email protected].

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...ncilable_positions_support_troops_oppose_war/

 

[Gurdari]

Can't someone 'support' troops, yet disagree with their political masters who send them around the world?

What exactly does 'support the troops' mean anyway?
Absolute, carte blanche support no matter what?
Or support of the ideals of the mission?

 

[glockmail]

Can't someone 'support' troops, yet disagree with their political masters who send them around the world?

What exactly does 'support the troops' mean anyway?
Absolute, carte blanche support no matter what?
Or support of the ideals of the mission?

The mission.

 

[maineman]

The mission.

so...regardless of how you felt about the mission that the next democratic president committed troops to - even if you thought it was frighteningly bad foreign policy, you would never voice any dissatisfaction and wave pompoms for a mission you thought was suicidal and foolhardy and totally counterproductive because you wanted to "support the troops"?

can we count on that?

 

[Annie]

so...regardless of how you felt about the mission that the next democratic president committed troops to - even if you thought it was frighteningly bad foreign policy, you would never voice any dissatisfaction and wave pompoms for a mission you thought was suicidal and foolhardy and totally counterproductive because you wanted to "support the troops"?

can we count on that?

We do have ways to deal with our dissatisfaction with foreign or domestic affairs, it's called 'being involved.' We all have a right to contact our representatives, numerous times. We can encourage others to do so as well. We can write emails or letters to the newspapers, radio outlets, cable shows. We can work for some representatives and against others.

What should never be done, is to encourage an enemy to believe that our troops' mission(s) are not supported and will be pulled shortly. That is called giving succor to the enemy. That is what Murtha is doing, joined by it appears all of the democratic representatives and at least 17 republicans.

 

[maineman]

We do have ways to deal with our dissatisfaction with foreign or domestic affairs, it's called 'being involved.' We all have a right to contact our representatives, numerous times. We can encourage others to do so as well. We can write emails or letters to the newspapers, radio outlets, cable shows. We can work for some representatives and against others.

What should never be done, is to encourage an enemy to believe that our troops' mission(s) are not supported and will be pulled shortly. That is called giving succor to the enemy. That is what Murtha is doing, joined by it appears all of the democratic representatives and at least 17 republicans.

that is your opinion, kind lady, and you are certainly entitled to it. If I write my congressman and tell him I don't want our troops being poured into the hole of hell in Iraq, I damned sure want him to do everything he can - withhold funding, start impeachment proceedings...whatever it takes to stop the insanity and bring our boys home NOW.

 

[red states rule]

that is your opinion, kind lady, and you are certainly entitled to it. If I write my congressman and tell him I don't want our troops being poured into the hole of hell in Iraq, I damned sure want him to do everything he can - withhold funding, start impeachment proceedings...whatever it takes to stop the insanity and bring our boys home NOW.

The only way for the insanity to stop is for the voters to vote out the Defeatocrats

The terrorists love the Defeatocrats and they thank them daily for their continued support

 

[maineman]

The only way for the insanity to stop is for the voters to vote out the Defeatocrats

The terrorists love the Defeatocrats and they thank them daily for their continued support

it would appear, based upon the results of the november election, that the majority of Americans disagree with you on that point, wouldn't it?

 

[red states rule]

it would appear, based upon the results of the november election, that the majority of Americans disagree with you on that point, wouldn't it?

The defeatocrats have already broken several promisies, and at the rate they are going, the people willsee the Defeatocrats for what they really are

Coward First Class

 

[maineman]

The defeatocrats have already broken several promisies, and at the rate they are going, the people willsee the Defeatocrats for what they really are

Coward First Class

you keep thinking that.

Would you like to bet....say....$500 right now?? I say democrats pick up more seats in congress than they have now and they get the white house. You wanna put your money where your mouth is?

 

[red states rule]

you keep thinking that.

Would you like to bet....say....$500 right now?? I say democrats pick up more seats in congress than they have now and they get the white house. You wanna put your money where your mouth is?

You are on

If I win (which I will) you can donate the money to my local SPCA

 

[maineman]

You are on

If I win (which I will) you can donate the money to my local SPCA

when I win, you can pay me with a money order.

 

[red states rule]

when I win, you can pay me with a money order.

I do love the compassion of libs who tell the rest of us to find a worthy charity to donate to

Much like how libs bellowed how the tax cuts were bad, but they still kept theirs

No matter, I will give you the address off the SPCA on election night as Rudy keeps the White House for the good guys

 

[maineman]

I do love the compassion of libs who tell the rest of us to find a worthy charity to donate to

Much like how libs bellowed how the tax cuts were bad, but they still kept theirs

No matter, I will give you the address off the SPCA on election night as Rudy keeps the White House for the good guys

hey...this is a bet between you and me...when I win, I will decide what to do with MY winnings.

I take in stray dogs and cats.... I do enough for the SPCA already. I'll probably buy a new set of fairway woods with my winnings

 

[red states rule]

hey...this is a bet between you and me...when I win, I will decide what to do with MY winnings.

I take in stray dogs and cats.... I do enough for the SPCA already. I'll probably buy a new set of fairway woods with my winnings

Spoken like a true lib

"Don't do as I do - do as I say"

The only winnings you will have if you layff this bet with a win for Rudy

The Dems do have anyone who can win the Electoral College. Remember we "hicks" vote in huge numbers and if Hillary is your choice, the "hicks" will turn out in record numbers to defeat her

 

[maineman]

Spoken like a true lib

"Don't do as I do - do as I say"

The only winnings you will have if you layff this bet with a win for Rudy

The Dems do have anyone who can win the Electoral College. Remember we "hicks" vote in huge numbers and if Hillary is your choice, the "hicks" will turn out in record numbers to defeat her

are you tapdancing away from our wager before the ink is even dry?

 

[red states rule]

are you tapdancing away from our wager before the ink is even dry?

Hell no. The animals at the shelter will thank you for the cash

 

[maineman]

Hell no. The animals at the shelter will thank you for the cash

as I will thank you...and my liquor cabinet will thank you.