October 4, 2007

Real Democrats, Unfortunately

In response to the hysterical bedwetting on the Left over Rush Limbaugh's use of the phrase "phony soldiers" to describe people who lie about their service or their experiences in the war theater, my good friend Scott Johnson has started a new contest at Power Line this morning. Titled "Phony Democrats," his post asks readers to contribute quotes from Democratic officeholders that have smeared and besmirched the military and its members directly, rather than using the tortured logic that Media Matters and its propagandist ilk have used to paint Limbaugh as an anti-military demagogue. Scott started out with several examples, and Power Line readers have supplied a few more.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with Scott on his nomenclature. I wish these were phony Democrats, or even unimportant, fringe Democrats. As one reads the list, the reality of the Democratic Party hits one squarely, and that is that their leadership represents the worst of the organization. For instance, while Wes Clark demands that Rush Limbaugh be expelled from Armed Forces Radio, we hear nothing about barring Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from its shows, even though Reid declared the war "lost" five months ago. That kind of defeatism does a lot more damage than anything Rush has to say, and yet Democrats don't seem to mind it.

Reid is entitled to his opinion, and he should be allowed on the air. But how about Dick Durbin, Reid's deputy, who compared camps run by the American military to Nazi death camps and the Soviet gulag? Why hasn't Media Matters demanded Durbin's expulsion from the Senate in their haste to defend the honor of the troops? For that matter, why doesn't the Left demand Hillary Clinton's withdrawal from the presidential race for saying that General David Petraeus required a "willing suspension of disbelief" for his testimony, in effect calling him a liar? Why not call for Barack Obama's resignation from the Senate for claiming that the American military effort in Afghanistan consisted solely of "air-raiding villages and killing civilians," which would constitute war crimes if true?

Why don't they demand a withdrawal from American political life for these statements, none of which require the same kind of rhetorical semantics that the Left has indulged in its holy war against Rush Limbaugh? These are the real Democrats, speaking to their favored constituency. They distrust the military and give credence to every crackpot who claims to have witnessed atrocities by our troops. That's what Rush was exposing, and they don't like it one bit.

All of these people have the right to speak freely. That's the lesson that Media Matters and Wes Clark seem to forget. Real Democrats from a generation ago would have known that. Real Democrats today couldn't care less.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/14248

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Real Democrats, Unfortunately:

» The Weak Dwell On The Bad from Take Our Country Back
The following are excerpts from an excellent account of that which is NOT covered EVER in the Lame Stream Media. [Read More]

» Phony Soldiers, and Other Attacks Against Conservative Talk Radio Hosts from QT Monster's Place
George Soros is on the rampage, out to destroy/impugn conservative talk radio hosts-not only Rush Limbaugh of the pseudo-phone soldier controversy. Conservative talk radio must be increasing in power to warrant all this lefty activism. Powerline is loo... [Read More]

» Pooh Christmas Presents Wall Hanging from Pooh Christmas Presents Wall Hanging
[Read More]

Comments (99)

Posted by Neo | October 4, 2007 9:56 AM

Harry Reid is a Phony Senator.

Posted by GarandFan | October 4, 2007 10:02 AM

"All of these people have the right to speak freely. That's the lesson that Media Matters and Wes Clark seem to forget."

They haven't forgotten, they encourage diverse points of view. Just as long as it coincides with THEIR point of view.

Otherwise you are a racist, a bigot or a homophobe.

Posted by dave rywall | October 4, 2007 10:06 AM

What a load of yippy yappy nonsense.

You just rhymed off a dozen YEAH BUT LOOK WHAT THEY DID!'s like an old man sitting on his porch yelling at the traffic to slow down.

Aren't there more important things for both sides to be outraged about?

Posted by Teresa | October 4, 2007 10:11 AM

Can we add Col. David Hunt to your list? His latest opinion column (Sept. 17) is titled:

"Top Military Officials are a Disgrace to Those They Lead"

He goes on to say, "Our generals are betraying our soldiers … again..."

Oh, wait, he is a Republican and this was printed on FoxNews.com so it must be OK.

(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298203,00.html)

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 10:13 AM

Democrats are beginning to show their true, Marxist-Leninist stripes.

Is there any doubt that the nutroots and lunatic left Democrat base would cheer pograms against Americans who disagree with them?

Democrats have no respect for the principals upon which this country was founded, they have no respected for the Bill of Rights or any other document produced by "white, male, slaveholders" they are utterly disgusted with our history and they hate our present state.

The Democrat base desires a far left revolution and they want to throw those of us who disagree with their vision of utopia, into re-education camps, into gulags and to haul us before red firing squads.

The only thing that keeps them from acting on their lunatic hatred of those of us who do not agree with them, is that they are too lazy and stupid to carry out a revolution.

That's why the left so admires Al Qaeda - because Al Qaeda members do not sit at keyboards in mommy's basement, they act - something the paralyzed lunatics on the left cannot do (other than stage silly and useless protest marches).

Pretending that there is any point in finding common interests with these people is utterly futile.

Democrat politicians, more so than Al Qaeda, are the enemy. Because without Democrat politicians, Al Qaeda has no hope. Democrats have aided and abetted the enemies of American since the end of WWII and this war is no different.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 10:21 AM

Theresa,

Did you even read the article you posted.

The Colonel is pointing out that this war is over lawyered and the rules of engagement are far too restrictive on our soldiers/sailors and airmen.

I tend to agree with the Colonel's sentiment, but in defense of the Generals, from phony scandals like Haditha and to trumped up crap like Abu Grab, the media runs with any chance to heap scorn upon our soldiers, and the Democrats run with any chance to call our troops Nazis and torturers (e.g. Durbin and Murtha).

So perhaps if your precious Democrats relaxed a bit, the Commanders in the field would be more inclined to back our soldiers. It's not Republicans who are calling our troops Nazis, torturers and murderers and calling for they and their COs to be prosecuted and locked up, it's your absolutely worthless Democrats.

Posted by fdcol63 | October 4, 2007 10:25 AM

Don't question their patriotism.

There's no need.

When they see nothing exceptional about being an American and would prefer to be considered "citizens of the world" .....

When they cringe at the thought of waving an American flag ....

When they continually write and say that they abhor and detest the American military, and when they continually equate the American military with the forces of Ghengis Khan and Adolf Hitler ...

And when they continue to blame America first, while excusing the atrocities of our enemies and hampering America's own efforts to defeat our enemies wherever they are ....

We know who's side they're on.

Posted by Teresa | October 4, 2007 10:29 AM

I have to ask why Republicans are such whiners and hate our troops. Just look at these quotes from when we went into Kosovo:

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem."
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton."
-Michael Savage

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

"This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals."
-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."
-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly."
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it."
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

"I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag"
-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)


Do you really want to go down this road?


Posted by habsy | October 4, 2007 10:34 AM

from dave rywall:
"What a load of yippy yappy nonsense.

You just rhymed off a dozen YEAH BUT LOOK WHAT THEY DID!'s like an old man sitting on his porch yelling at the traffic to slow down.


Aren't there more important things for both sides to be outraged about? "

Talk about yippy yappy. My kids always had some sort of deflecting statement when caught in a situation that was clearly wrong, or their character was exposed as less than what was expected of them. Dems react daily the same way. What a bunch of maroons.


Posted by Tim W | October 4, 2007 10:34 AM

The RNC or a right leaning organization needs to put together a commercial called "in their own words...how the Democrats support the troops". This would be a simple commercial of leading democrat’s statements slandering our soldiers, calling them murderers, Nazis, war criminals, etc... It would feature Kennedy, Durbin, Obama, Reid, Kerry, and Murtha for starters with some commentary at the end from soldiers on how their words embolden the enemy and prolong the war. A background shot of the English version of Al Jazeara with the headline: "Leading U.S. senator calls U.S. soldiers Nazis" would be a nice touch during the Durbin comments. The final part would be a voice over saying that the Democrats say they support the troops...but whose? At that point have a U.S. soldier fade to black with an Al Qaeda fighter fading in with Osama laughing maniacally in the background.

OK, that last part may be a bit harsh and counterproductive but its really not that far off the mark. There is no doubt that the Democratic leadership made a calculated decision to try to lose the war so they can gain politically and are hoping for massive chaos and high body counts come election time. The worst thing possible for them would be for Iraq to stabilize and the U.S. acheive some level of success. The left wants nothing more than a humiliating defeat for America and they will stop at nothing to acheive their goals.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 10:36 AM

Theresa,

Yes, I want to go down this road, because the cut and paste fertilizer you provide here is complete nonsense.

The only quote there that disparages the troops is by that lunatic clown Michael Savage, who is an island unto his insane self. He represents no one.

The rest were attacks on President Clinton. And they are far, far milder than the lies and hatred spread by the absolutely worthless Democrat Congress on a daily basis.

The Democrats have stuck a knife and a target on the back of the troops for pure, partisan political gain.

There's no escaping it and your attempt to equivocate with your cut and paste quotes is a pathetic attempt to divert attention from you Democrat politician's treason against this country.

Posted by Tim W | October 4, 2007 10:47 AM

Teresa,

Every quote you just listed was directed at President Clinton, not the soldiers. Considering that 80% or so were about an exit strategy coupled with the fact that we still have troops there, those comments were spot on. We should all be asking those same questions of President Bush as well. I have no problem critcizing the President assuming its somewhat constructive.

So yeah, lets go there you ignorant slut. Please show me the quotes on the right calling our soldiers murderers, war criminals, terrorists, stupid, torturers, etc..

Posted by Otter | October 4, 2007 10:48 AM

Hey teresa, do you have the slightest clue what the difference is between a soldier who disagrees with policy, and one who isn't even a soldier yet claims to be, never mind witnessing atrocities in a country he was not in at the time?

Posted by Teresa | October 4, 2007 10:56 AM

You guys are complete asses. I have a father who was a Marine and two first cousins who are Army Rangers in Iraq. And I know that the military is good. And I also know that they hate the few bad apples that have undermined the US mission by their actions at Abu Gharaib, and Guantanamo and the rest.

Posted by docjim505 | October 4, 2007 11:02 AM

Teresa,

What Tim W said... right up to the point where he called you a slut.

Tim W, SHAME ON YOU! You're dead right when you point out that Teresa's quotes from Republicans "attacking" the troops are nothing of the sort, but you really blew it when you stooped to that sort of name calling. It's something that I would expect from a liberal troll.

Posted by Otter | October 4, 2007 11:04 AM

Then why do you support phony warriors who demean our troops, teresa? Especially the armchair warriors D-Congress.

Posted by Nate | October 4, 2007 11:08 AM

I have a father who was a Marine and two first cousins who are Army Rangers in Iraq. And I know that the military is good.

Then how in the hell can you keep showing up here defending the very people who have been calling your father and cousins murderers and so on? Pick a friggin line and stand in it lady.

Posted by filistro | October 4, 2007 11:09 AM

doc, I just wanted to say that I think you are an admirable person.

(Annoying, frustrating, boneheaded, opinionated, maddening... but admirable :-)

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 4, 2007 11:10 AM

What a bunch of jerks some of you guys are. You do realize that part of having a cogent argument is the ability to explain it to others without resorting to base insults?

Posted by Nate | October 4, 2007 11:10 AM

And Tim,

Though I agree with every thing that came before it, calling Teresa a slut was over the line.

Posted by Retired LTC | October 4, 2007 11:12 AM

Otter, obviously Rush and his minions can't tell the difference. Or think the rest of us are too stupid to tell.

Don't rely on the transcript that Rush has edited. Listen to the audio. Rush was not talking about McBeth or any other impersonator -- McBeth didn't come up until a later call. No, Rush specifically said the "phony soldiers" (plural) are those who don't want to deploy to Iraq.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | October 4, 2007 11:13 AM

Didn't Bill Clinton, when he started his War of Choice in Kosovo without the approval of the UN (and with the help of Halliburton, to whom he gave no-bid contracts), promise that our troops would be home from there "by Christmas"? Oh, that's right, he just forgot to tell us what year.

By the way, Teresa, Col. Hunt has been a critic of the way we've been fighting the Iraq War for many years, so quoting him now to try and make a point is pretty much wasted time.

Posted by alltheway | October 4, 2007 11:15 AM

"The only thing that keeps them from acting on their lunatic hatred of those of us who do not agree with them, is that they are too lazy and stupid to carry out a revolution".

Fear of knowing they will get they're collective arses kicked is what keeps them from acting..remember we have all the guns!There will be a revoloution soon enough in the streets of America and it will be initiated by infuriated Patriots on the right, not GIRLY MEN on the left!
Just an opinion.

Posted by Teresa | October 4, 2007 11:15 AM

I think this game is ridiculous. For example, the Captain criticizes Obama for supposedly saying, ..."the American military effort in Afghanistan consisted solely of "air-raiding villages and killing civilians." That is a prime example of this sort of stupid, pulling quotes out of context game we are engaging in.

What Obama actually said we that we needed more troops in Afghanastan:

"We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

How is that different in any reasonable way from what General Petraeus is saying about the need for the surge? Petraeus' counterinsurgency argument is that we need enough troops on the ground to gain people's trust, stablize areas, and stay to maintain the peace instead of playing "whack-a-mole." But when Obama says the same thing, it is treason.

(Obama said this, by the way, the same week that Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his concern about the civilian deaths at the hands of the US military during a meeting with President Bush.)

This is the United States and people have a right to express an opinion -- and even criticize the military and the government. That is what makes this a democracy and not a facist regime.

BTW, thank DocJim for taking up for me on the "ignorant slut" comment. My husband esp. appreciates it.

Posted by rbj | October 4, 2007 11:15 AM

Aren't there more important things for both sides to be outraged about?

Absolutely, Dave. So why is Harry Reid writing to Clear Channel to get Rush off the air? To me, that is a threat to the First Amendment, and that is very important.

Posted by Tim W | October 4, 2007 11:21 AM

Teresa,

I am sorry for the juvenile name calling as it was uncalled for and I hope you will accept my apologies. I hereby retract the I.S. comment as it is not relevant to the rest of my post, is disrespectful and wrong. The rest of my post stands

Captain,

I also want to apologize to you as this is your site and I lowered the usual high level of discourse here and let you know that it will not happen again.

docjim505,

Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways. There really was no excuse for what I said to Teresa and I hope she will accept my apology above.

Posted by Teresa | October 4, 2007 11:21 AM

Nate says ...Then how in the hell can you keep showing up here defending the very people who have been calling your father and cousins murderers and so on? Pick a friggin line and stand in it lady.

----------------------------

Because my Dad and cousins will also call fellow soldiers who violate ROEs and put other soldiers lives on the line by doing things like killing innocent civilians murderers too. (And they are all Fox news watching, Bush lovin' Republicans.)

They are not however naive enough to believe that everyone who joins the military is pure as the driven snow and that bad stuff never happens in war.

And they believe that the way to prevent it from happening again is not to sweep it under the rug, but to hold people accountable.

Posted by Captain Ed | October 4, 2007 11:22 AM

Teresa,

The reason I use that Obama quote is because we're not "air raiding villages and killing civilians" as our strategy in Afghanistan. Our military has been very careful and precise. One reason you hear about the mistakes is because there have been so few of them. What Obama said insults the integrity of the commanders and their troops risking their lives to protect villages and civilians.

And I dare someone to call Teresa a slut again. The next time, I'll ban you off this blog. If you can't win an argument, don't try to ad hominem your way through it here.

UPDATE: Tim, I posted this before I saw your apology. Thank you for that.

Posted by Teresa | October 4, 2007 11:23 AM

Tim -- Apology accepted.

Posted by Teresa | October 4, 2007 11:36 AM

Captain -- I don't think that Obama was saying that was our primary strategy there, but an unfortunate effect of not having enough troops on the ground.

Ilya Somin over at the Voklov Conspiracy was talking about the Clarence Thomas case this morning and said:

...a consequence of the all-too-common assumption that our ideological adversaries are not only wrong but also evil - or at least far more likely to be so than those who agree with us...

I think that applies to this situation as well. We have to start trying to understand one another -- and give each other the benefit of the doubt -- instead of giving into hyper partisanship every time.

Sometimes I think that is the problem with the web, we get people who care more passionately about issues and are more extreme in their views than the average American. We forget that the person who we chat with in the carpool line votes Republican or that our next door nieghbors we like to BBQ with are Democrats. When we sling out accusations that all Democrats are treasonous or that all Republicans are slime than we miss the vast majority of the country who are nice people trying to find a way forward.

And that concludes the Pollyannish portion of my comments today. :)

Posted by Oldsmoblogger | October 4, 2007 11:37 AM

Teresa wrote:

What Obama actually said we that we needed more troops in Afghanastan:

"We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

How is that different in any reasonable way from what General Petraeus is saying about the need for the surge? Petraeus' counterinsurgency argument is that we need enough troops on the ground to gain people's trust, stablize areas, and stay to maintain the peace instead of playing "whack-a-mole." But when Obama says the same thing, it is treason.

Ask and ye shall receive. The clear implication in Obama's statement is that we are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians" because we don't have enough troops there. That's quite a bit different than General Petraeus's statement.

Obama could have said, "We need more troops in Afghanistan because the Taliban is showing signs of resurgence in parts of the country,", or "We need more troops in Afghanistan to provide more effective support for President Karzai's fledgling administration," or any number of constructions that would have suggested he had a ghost of an idea of actual conditions. Instead, he played the baby burner/Jenjis Khan card, and we know why.

A traitor? I dunno, but a tool certainly.

Beyond that, anyone who thinks Obama would actually send more troops to Afghanistan probably ought to put down the bong for a day or two.

Posted by Otter | October 4, 2007 11:37 AM

We have three times as many troops on the ground in Afghanistan, teresa, as we do flying over it- and all of them are doing very good work. If anything, obama's slur was directed against our airmen over there.

And some of those stories about 'killing innocent civilians' are coming from some of the very same lying Phony soldiers you have been defending here today. MacBeth and Beuchamp being prime examples, cheerfully held up by the likes of reid and harkins (another Phony soldier).

Posted by Nate | October 4, 2007 11:45 AM

Because my Dad and cousins will also call fellow soldiers who violate ROEs and put other soldiers lives on the line by doing things like killing innocent civilians murderers too.

They are not however naive enough to believe that everyone who joins the military is pure as the driven snow and that bad stuff never happens in war.

And they believe that the way to prevent it from happening again is not to sweep it under the rug, but to hold people accountable.

So? I doubt anyone here disagrees with any of that, and I think you are sidestepping the point.

What do you think your relatives think of high ranking democratic "leaders" like Murtha for instance, who, when "bad stuff happens" leap at the chance to paint ALL of the military as a bunch of murderers?

What do you think they think of Harry Reid declaring the war is lost, thereby emboldening the enemy they are currently engaged in fighting?!

That constant encouragement to the enemy translates to more dead Americans, possibly even some of your own family, and possibly some of mine. And that is why you see the words "traitor" and "treason" so much. I have a right to express that opinion too.

Posted by Al in St. Lou | October 4, 2007 11:48 AM

For docjim and Nate: "Jane, you ignorant slut!" was a laugh line from SNL in the late seventies. I'm guessing that Tim was alluding to that. The recurring set of skits were a parody of a 60 Minutes segment that was replaced by Andy Rooney. There was a liberal woman and a conservative man giving a [about the length of time Andy gets] debate. When SNL did the parody, Dan Aykroyd's character always began with the line "Jane, you ignorant slut!" (said to Jane Curtin).

Posted by Nate | October 4, 2007 12:04 PM

Al in St. Lou,

Yes it was called Point-Counterpoint. I remember it well. Anyway forgiveness has been asked and received so ... letting it go now.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 12:07 PM

I've been in the Navy for 19 years and I'm a life member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

I didn't leave the Democrats. The Democrats left me.

Believe me, I'd love it if they were on our side. But they aren't.

Rush is my brother. As far as the Congressional Democrats, this quote from the Godfather II fits well:

"You're nothing to me now. You're not a brother, you're not a friend. I don't want to know you or what you do. I don't want to see you at the hotels, I don't want you near my house. When you see our mother, I want to know a day in advance, so I won't be there. You understand?"

"Fear of knowing they will get they're collective arses kicked is what keeps them from acting..."

alltheway - That and their collective laziness. I kid you not, in DC, there are young dirty hippies who stand on street corners, peddling shirts that say "Stop bitchin' and Start a Revolution".

So that's how they plan to take over the country - hawking $11 t-shirts. Good think we have slackers planning the entire thing.

Posted by Ron | October 4, 2007 12:20 PM

Captain:

In the interest of fair play here, you should also be reprimanding Teresa for calling the rest of us here "asses", unless you think that is somehow appropriate. As a long-time commenter here, I am personally offended by it.

Posted by Teresa | October 4, 2007 12:23 PM

Nate says What do you think your relatives think of high ranking democratic "leaders" like Murtha for instance, who, when "bad stuff happens" leap at the chance to paint ALL of the military as a bunch of murderers?"

-----------------------

They think he should have waited to hear all the evidence. But Murtha did not paint ALL of the military as a bunch of murderers, he was reacting to what appeared to have happened at Haditha.

Murtha was a drill seargent at Camp LeJeune. According to his bio, he remained in the Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for service in the Vietnam War, serving from 1966 to 1967, serving as a battalion staff officer (S-2 Intelligence Section), receiving the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He retired from the Reserves as a colonel in 1990, receiving the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.

I hardly think that he hates the military. He has certainly been there "go to" guy on appropriations bills. He talked before all the facts came in. People do that. I think you have to look at his life in total before saying that he "paints the military" all one way or another.


Posted by Captain Ed | October 4, 2007 12:24 PM

Absolutely. Everyone should quit the namecalling.

I will say, however, that I find "slut" and "bitch" particularly demeaning in a way that "asses" doesn't quite reach. They're designed to shut a woman up on the basis of her gender. That's why I object so strongly to the use of those terms.

And don't even try to bring up the "c" word here.

Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | October 4, 2007 12:25 PM

Excellent, you all were lead astray by Teresa. Far off the subject. Teresa, I doubt seriously you Father and cousins shared this sort of information with you. Your dad, because it is not something one talks with a daughter about, and cousins, jusb because. I think you threw them in to make your point. The topic was phony Democrats. Depends on the base point. If JFK is what you use for comparison, yes those are phony democrats. If McGovern is the base point, no. The Democratic party has been taken over by the left. From socialized medicine to teaching American is the fault in schools. The anti Christian bias. These are real Democrats. Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, et al, the whole red bunch.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 12:30 PM

"I hardly think that he (Murtha) hates the military."

He certainly doesn't like them as much as he loves his lunatic Democrat base - which is why he was so quick to echo their scorn and hatred of the Marines.

And his past service makes his action more galling than it does any other Democrat's treason - Rep. Murtha has sold out his buddies for pure partisan gain and that is unforgivable.

John Murtha: EX-Marine. Nunquam Fidelis.

Posted by Ron | October 4, 2007 12:31 PM

Teresa-

I don't care what Murtha did in his service years. What I do care about is his slandering of our troops at Haditha as cold blooded murderers, killing on an unprovoked basis, when he had no facts (and I do mean facts) to support such statements. Now that the accused have been exonerated, where is the man in him that would see fit to issue them an apology? I'm still waiting.

Posted by docjim505 | October 4, 2007 12:43 PM

Teresa and Tim W;

I'm glad that things have been patched up.

filistro;

You forgot "pompous". ;-)

Teresa: What Obama actually said we that we needed more troops in Afghanastan:

"We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

How is that different in any reasonable way from what General Petraeus is saying about the need for the surge? Petraeus' counterinsurgency argument is that we need enough troops on the ground to gain people's trust, stablize areas, and stay to maintain the peace instead of playing "whack-a-mole." But when Obama says the same thing, it is treason.

Ditto Oldsmoblogger's response. Saying that we need more troops is a perfectly reasonable thing (though I must say that I question the motives of some who make such calls). However, saying that the troops we have are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians" is not only a slur on the military, it is also flat STUPID and shows that he is either grossly ignorant about what our troops do and / or was not exactly thinking clearly when he said it. The only good thing that can be said is that he didn't hem and haw for a few days, then claim it was a "botched joke" like a certain other democrat politician I could name.

Posted by Tim W | October 4, 2007 12:43 PM

Teresa,

Thank you for accepting my apology. There was no excuse for what I said. While we disagree on virtually everything, I will agree to respectfully disagree.

Al,

It does not matter what I was alluding to as it was wrong.

Now that I have been publicly shamed, rebuked by the Captain, received atonement from Teresa, I would like to make the following point. The Democrats have said some truly awful things about our soldiers and have never given them the benefit of the doubt. If a jihadi makes an accusation against a Marine, they almost always take the jihadi’s side of the story. Murtha is a case in point. The investigation was not complete let alone a trial being conducted and he declared the Marines "cold blooded killers" to a world wide audience. This was so wrong in so many ways and was done for political gain. The Democrats leadership has consistently put party interests ahead of American interests solely so they can hurt Bush and the Republicans. They are now in a position where they gain from failure and are hurt by success in Iraq and elsewhere. This was a deliberate strategy and will not be looked kindly upon by history.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 12:47 PM

Another fake Democrat "veteran" alert:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20071003_A_C__mayor__facing_war_questions__goes_AWOL.html

Interesting how you have to weed through almost the entire article to find out that this guy is a Democrat.

I'm sure that would have been the case for a Republican.

At least this guy had the good graces to disappear. Would that his compatriot Democrats in Congress (Tom Harkins for one, who lied about his own record) would follow suit.

Posted by dave rywall | October 4, 2007 12:53 PM

Wow. You guys never stop. What an amazing pile of outraged crap you've all typed in.

Neither side's party ever does any wrong, but when presented with facts that both do the same things, act the same way, and say the same things, you STILL refuse to criticize your own party. Simply amazing.

I don't know how you guys do it -you continue to find new ways to lower the level of dialogue and avoid talking about real issues. There's no high ground for either party - just a bunch of he said she said shit thrown around like the 40 or so comments above this one.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 12:58 PM

dave rywall,

What facts?

Theresa posted quotes where Republican Congress criticized the PRESIDENT.

Meanwhile, Dick Durbin called the TROOPS Nazis. John Murtha called the TROOPS at Haditha murderers. Jon Cary called the TROOPS in Irak stupid. Harry Reid called the war the TROOPS are fighting, lost. Hillary Clinton called the General leading the TROOPS a liar.

I know the left thinks in terms of relativity, but sorry, the Democrats are not going to use their weasel words to shyster lawyer their way out of this one.

BTW - I call it the "Democrat" Party because they are not Democrats, they are committed socialists and communists. Which is why they despise this country and the troops that defend it.

Posted by Nate | October 4, 2007 12:59 PM

He talked before all the facts came in. People do that. I think you have to look at his life in total before saying that he "paints the military" all one way or another.

OK. I would definitely agree that Murtha should have waited to hear all the evidence before he went on TV, during a time of war, and stated that our marines were under so much pressure that they were going into houses and killing innocent women and children "in cold blood". And to be clear I'm not interested in his entire life's work here Teresa, or what "people do". I'm talking about that particular statement, and specifically whether he should have made it.

And I'll note that you did not answer my second question, which was what your relatives in the military thought about Harry Reid declaring the war lost, thereby emboldening the enemy that your relatives are currently engaged in fighting?

Why is that? Is that a hard question to answer?

Maybe you'll like these questions better:

Do you think comments like these examples from Murtha and Reid make it more likely or less likely that the enemy will keep fighting us?

Did statements like that make it more likely or less likely that Iran would expand its operation against us by starting to supply EFP's to the Taliban in Afghanistan (as the Captain alerted us to in another post today)?

Posted by Ron | October 4, 2007 1:01 PM

Dave:

Check out the 4th comment above yours. Tell me please where the "crap" is in that post?

Posted by Teresa | October 4, 2007 1:04 PM

Docjim -- I think again that we need to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. If I say, "I need to go to the grocery store and pick up some steak so that we just don't end up eating cupcakes for dinner tonight," it doesn't mean we would actually be eating cupcakes. When people are speaking informally and we don't see the entire speech or hear their inflection it is hard to determine their actual intent when small quotes are pulled out.

That was what everyone was arguing about with the Bill O'Reilly quotes --- that people were paying attention to the whole tone of the conversation and just pulling out random sentences.

If you look at the entirety of Obama's speeches and talks, I don't see any pattern of hating the military.

------------------------
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says, "I doubt seriously you Father and cousins shared this sort of information with you. Your dad, because it is not something one talks with a daughter about, and cousins, jusb because. I think you threw them in to make your point."

My Dad is 65 and I'm 40. I think he can tell me that bad stuff happens in war and that soldiers should follow ROEs without injuring my delicate girl sensibilities. Now, if he tries to tell me that the Easter Bunny isn't real, I'll really get mad. (You'll be happy to know that he almost passed out when I threatened to put a Hillary/Obama '08 bumpersticker on the back of his truck. :))

Posted by Teresa | October 4, 2007 1:19 PM

Nate says, "And I'll note that you did not answer my second question, which was what your relatives in the military thought about Harry Reid declaring the war lost, thereby emboldening the enemy that your relatives are currently engaged in fighting?

Why is that? Is that a hard question to answer?

Maybe you'll like these questions better:

Do you think comments like these examples from Murtha and Reid make it more likely or less likely that the enemy will keep fighting us?

Did statements like that make it more likely or less likely that Iran would expand its operation against us by starting to supply EFP's to the Taliban in Afghanistan (as the Captain alerted us to in another post today)?
-------------------------

Let me take your questions one by one:

1) I never talked to my cousins about the Harry Reid thing in particular. I don't remember my Dad saying anything about it either. I'm sure they did not like it, but being Rangers and all they aren't a bunch of crybabies who worry a whole lot about things like that.

2)I don't have any insight into the workings of the Taliban or AQI, but I doubt that what Harry Reid has to say one way or the other effects them. And, if words are so powerful, they should have laid down arms when they saw the "Mission Accomplished" banner, shouldn't they?

3)I think Iran is playing a lot of games in the region, but since Iran is a mainly Shiite country and the Taliban is a radical Sunni organization I am skeptical of claims that Iran will suddenly start arming the Taliban. I think Iran is a very complex country with a lot of different competing groups that we don't understand.


Posted by Nate | October 4, 2007 1:28 PM

Teresa,

Wow, what a bold stand you just made.

So, just to be really clear, you have absolutely no opinion on whether the statements by leading Democrats to which we have been referring, either help our efforts to win the war, or hurt our efforts to win the war?

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 1:28 PM

Theresa,

"but I doubt that what Harry Reid has to say one way or the other effects them"

Yes, when one of the most senior, powerful politicians in America says "the war is lost", I'm sure that has absolutely no effect on our enemies at all. Doesn't encourage them to buck up and fight another day, as opposed to going back to the goat herd.

So conversely, if Bin Laden were to put out a tape tomorrow that said, "the war against the infidel is lost", do you believe it would have no effect on the morale of our troops? Or the morale at home?

As far as the "Mission Accomplished" lie the left has spread, that banner was on my ARG when we returned from our Med Cruise (off the coast of Bosnia).

I guess that was just a big joke too? That we were proud that we accomplished our mission and that we were arriving home safe to our families?

Posted by Carol Herman | October 4, 2007 1:37 PM

Here's what's interesting to me: NO ONE DISCUSSES WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE IF KERRY WON.

In other words? Losers go home.

We don't see that with the BOnkeys, ONLY BECAUSE they behave as if they've won some recent elections. NO. They have not.

And, BDS wouldn't be called an illness; if it didn't affect people's thinking skills.

That the Bonkeys look leaderless? Well, for me the whole affirmative action crowd comes up weak in the leadership department.

So, I don't take Congress, for instance, very seriously, anymore.

It's possible that back in 1994, when Newt "shut down congress," people were actually glad.

The less they work, the better off we all are.

And, soon they're exiting for their October "break." So they can acclimate to the sun setting faster?

Given that the routines are so old, now, it's a wonder new material hasn't sprung forward. But those who are in defeatist mode, won't be giving you an inch of new stuff. Just same old. Same old.

Plus a lot of wishful thinking going on with the Ma & Pa Kettle Show. For example. Back in the days when LBJ led the senate. And, boy did he ever get men to comply! Nobody called him "ding-y." That wasn't the reputation you got from the Majority Leader's senate reputation.

So, what's happened?

Seems the Bonkeys have some sort of a problem. Without any ability to call in for reinforcements. They're just out there. Exposed.

To put it mildly, most Americans are NOT amused.

As to Iraqis, they've had to fight off the Saud's wealth. The recalcitrance of the Sunni's. AND, the incompetence of MALIKI!

Do they worry about Bonkey "talking points?"

I have a feeling that in foreign countries, these days, the Bonkey's and their pronouncements, are taken with lots of grains of salt.

Oh, in the world of "Polly-anna-isms" ... here's a thought: Most Americans know well that congress critters IMPEDE PROGRESS. And, that America owes its wealth to technology. And, the giants of industry. Like it or not, it feels our bread baskets.

And, while Captain Ed hates the term "sluts and whores" ... other than hanging a red light up on the dome of Congress ... I cannot clue you in any better than how sex actually works in the swamp of DC.

Getting elected? It probably has to do more with whom you go to bed with ... than anything to do with talent. It actually matches hollywood, for those who dream big and land in the gutter.

As to the MAINSTREAM, those who come here spouting "party talking points," haven't moved or changed the debate whatsoever.

We're all unique individuals. Period.

Not swayed by the junk the Bonkeys are doing.

And, even less swayed by Hillary trying to enter the presidential race. Married to a man she doesn't have sex with really does not make her qualified.

Wondering why she isn't running as Rodham ... ya know what? She can run as snow white. And, I still don't give a rat's patooti.

Most senators, in my estimation, are just over-inflated gas bags.

And, there's nothing new, here, about any of the talking points that get blathered over and over again, each day.

To those that think Rush Limbaugh can be "ousted." Are even unfamiliar with how hard it was for C-BS to oust their idiot, Dan Rather Blather.

While Rush can provide AD REVENUE. (Not dependent on George Soros' funds, either.) Real live listeners.

Just like Don Imus.

And, guess what? Imus is set to return, as well.

And, Matt Drudge (who gave up his Sunday nights), appears to be poised to enter DAYTIME radio.

Maybe, the Bonkeys will just teach the standard operating procedure? Put your fingers in your ears, and say la, la, la.

I wish I could show ya how this is all just free publicity to Rush.

And, the Majority claimed by Ding-y Harry? With one of his seats filled by a stroke victim, who hasn't yet been allowed to recuperate in his senate chair?

Thin margins in business CAN KILL YA!

For starters, you have to know something about profits; before you can jiggle that one past me.

Posted by Oldsmoblogger | October 4, 2007 1:37 PM

Teresa, I heard the audio. I heard his inflection, and I stand by what I said. In any case, there's a difference between "cupcakes for supper" and "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians." The former is an exaggeration for effect--we're all of us familiar with stuff like that. The latter is a suggestion by implication that our armed forces indiscriminately kill civilians.

If it was merely an exaggeration for effect on Obama's part (the best spin one can put on it), it was poorly considered, and speaks to the senator's fitness for the Oval Office.

Considering how well it fit with the broader "US forces indiscriminately target civilians" meme one hears from places like CNN, though, I don't believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I believe he was trying to have his cake (cupcake?) and eat it too, pretending to be hawkish on Afghanistan (another trial balloon we've seen from the left over the last year) while simultaneously tipping a wink to the sizable portion of the Democrat base who believe American soldiers are baby burners.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 2:04 PM

"I heard the audio. I heard his inflection, and I stand by what I said."

Seems to me, there should probably not be a hint of a question regarding whether your Presidential candidate implied that US troops are indiscriminately bombing civilians, but then again, that's just the kind of candidate I would look for.

Some people might prefer a candidate who may not have (or, well may have) pretty much compared the US Air Force to the Luftwaffe over London.

Ah, but who can really tell? It's better to give Borat the benefit of the doubt, isn't it? I mean, that's what really counts. That way, he can lawyer his way out of it.

Posted by MattHelm | October 4, 2007 2:12 PM

When I first registered to vote years ago, I registered as a Democrat. I was proud to belong to the party of FDR, Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Scoop Jackson. These were men who loved and cared about their country. Yes, there were disagreements--frequently strong disagreements--with equally patriotic men and women on the Republican party, but at the end of the day, Democrats and Republicans could work together to resolve whatever issues needed resolving. When the Democratic party was highjacked by the McGovernite wing in 1972, once could see the writing on the wall--especially once the old party leadership mentioned above began to die and retire to be replaced by members of the "Spoiled Generation". Now, the Democratic Party has become a party of mostly immature children throwing temper tantrums--immature children in positions of power. The New Left, following the guidelines of Marcuse, is now doing its best to stifle any form of conservative expression in its effort to support "tolerance"--tolerance for its ideas and beliefs only, of course. And, it is doing so in the manner of an obnoxious child--by smearing, lying, and throwing childish temper tantrums. Several months ago, I decided I could no longer support a party so myopic and with leadership so petty and childish. Diana West is right--we've infantilized ourself to an especially dangerous degree in an especially dangerous world. We better grow up--and soon.

Posted by Teresa | October 4, 2007 2:15 PM

Nate & NoDonkey -- If you think that what Harry Reid said was so bad, then what about all the quotes from Tom Delay like this one about Kosovo:

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

Maybe he doesn't use the phrase "we've lost", but it is pretty clear that is what he is saying and only one month into it -- not four 1/2 years later. Did that statement and the others criticizing our actions in Kosovo harm our efforts there?

Oldsmoblogger -- Obama is right about one thing. We need to stop fighting the culture wars of the 1960's. There is no "sizable portion of Democrats who believe American soldiers are baby burners." The Democrats that I know around here are teachers, librarians, social workers, and others who are worried about US security, health care, and other things that Republican are worried about. They just have different ideas on how to solve those problems. There are a few extremists in both parties. They do not represent the norm.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 2:22 PM

"Maybe he doesn't use the phrase "we've lost", but it is pretty clear that is what he is saying and only one month into it"

Oh please, what he's saying here is not that we've lost, but that we don't have a coherent plan, shared with Congress. That's not even in the same ballpark as "we've lost".

Not having a plan Congress can follow early on in a mission is not a troop demoralizer and it doesn't encourage the enemy.

Besides, John Kerry talked his entire 2004 campaign about the administration not having a "plan", and it was pretty much the mildest criticism he had.

Saying "this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything" like Reid did, encourages our enemies. You can put lipstick on Harry, here, but he still is what he is - swine.

Posted by Dawn | October 4, 2007 2:25 PM

Obama's statements have led to his total loss of credibility with me.

I don't have an opinion about whether he hates the military I do however conclude that he is vastly inexperienced to ever be considered as POTUS at this point.

He'd have to change his whole attitude, switch parties, grow up and face reality to even come into consideration.

Posted by Tim W | October 4, 2007 2:29 PM

What the Democrats do not seem to comprehend is that the insurgents, terrorists, jihadis, etc.. monitor our political discussions and our media probably more than we do and adjust their tactics and strategy accordingly. Every attack is made for our media and aimed at Congress and the American people. They know they can't defeat us militarily but they can defeat us politically (see Vietnam) and they have almost done so. That why statements like Reid's "the war is lost" are so wrong and harmful. It’s wrong both factually based on events on the ground and wrong morally because it gives our enemies hope. If you’re an insurgent are you more or less likely to keep on fighting upon hearing those words?

The main reason that the Sunnis have flipped to our side is the realization that after Bush won approval for the Surge, there was no hope of a military victory. They realized that we were not going to run away as the Democrats insisted so they better cut a deal with us. The deal is they will help us kill Al Qaeda and in return we will keep the Shiite death squads off them and get them the best deal they can get in Baghdad. Will it work? I don’t know but I give it much better odds of success than the Democrats "guaranteed defeat for political victory" plan.

Words matter and when Durbin calls our troops Nazis, Murtha calls them murderers and Reid says the war is lost they are broadcast worldwide in a matter of minutes and do American interests irreparable harm. Same goes for the phony solders spreading lies about American atrocities. Comments like these fuel anti Americanism, add recruits for the insurgency and get Americans killed. Unfortunately, Democrats don’t seem to have a problem with that as long as they hurt Bush and the Republicans.

Posted by Christoph | October 4, 2007 2:34 PM

The real democrats from a generation ago who supported the Fairness Doctrine would have known better?

Ed, are you smoking crack?

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 2:49 PM

"Democrats "guaranteed defeat for political victory" plan."

That's a gem.

Since so many quotes are thrown around here, are there any quotes by Congressional Democrats talking about wanting to win the war?

I mean, since we've been at war since 2003, how many Democrats have opined about how wonderful it would be to, well, win?

This is supposed to be the party of miracles, hope, idealism and wonder, right?

Seems that the all of those things kind of go out the window when it comes to Iraq. Why exactly is that?

Do they really think people should exist under the conditions Saddam had them under? Would they like to live under those conditions?

The President gets questions that the left would like him asked, every time he speaks.

Why is it Congressional Democrats never have to answer questions from those of us who don't agree with them?

I've written to my two Democrat reps. - Jim Moran and Jim Webb - and they seem to never answer.

Moran and Webb can't be contacted by phone.

But Webb and Moran hold "town meetings" where, shockingly enough - no one but hard core Democrats attend. I guess those of us who don't agree with Democrats, aren't part of the town.

Posted by Tim W | October 4, 2007 3:27 PM

Nodonkey,

I may be wrong but as far as I can tell the only Democrat to publicly call for victory was kicked out of the Democratic party for his heresy. That would be Joe Lieberman, who is now a pariah in the Democratic Party. Unbelievable!

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 3:39 PM

Tim W,

Well, I'm sure Theresa will tell us that it really makes no difference if one of the two major political parties in America has made it crystal clear they have no interest in fighting or winning the war in Iraq.

Just like if the Democrat united with Republicans in their resolve to fight the war to the end, to win and to give Iraq a better future, that that would have no effect whatsoever on the enemy's plans or resolve.

You see, everything exists in a vacuum - including the hearts and minds of Congressional Democrats. I believe the brand is "Hoover".

Posted by Dave | October 4, 2007 3:44 PM

they should be called "phony democrats" instead of "phony Democrats". They are real representatives of the current Democratic party, but no friend of democracy or a democratic republic.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | October 4, 2007 3:50 PM

NoDonkey said

"As far as the "Mission Accomplished" lie the left has spread, that banner was on my ARG when we returned from our Med Cruise (off the coast of Bosnia).

I guess that was just a big joke too? That we were proud that we accomplished our mission and that we were arriving home safe to our families?"

Goebbels would be proud of how that whole "Mission Accomplished" urban legend was masterfully spread by his disciples in the DNC. And even prouder when he realized how many allegedly intelligent people fell for it.

Those banners have been flown on every ship returning from a successful mission or deployment for many decades, even when it's something as boring as counting icebergs off Newfoundland (which my Dad did in the Coast Guard in the early 1960s).

I'm sure our leftist readers here would be surprised to find out that Bill Clinton staged 4, count 'em 4, aircraft carrier photo ops as "Commander in Chief". He even liked one of the carriers so much, he staged 2 photo ops on it.

Posted by Nate | October 4, 2007 3:59 PM

Teresa,

Maybe he doesn't use the phrase "we've lost", but it is pretty clear that is what he is saying and only one month into it -- not four 1/2 years later. Did that statement and the others criticizing our actions in Kosovo harm our efforts there?

Answering a question with a question? Are we getting close to your own an inconvenient truth?

Plus, you're comparing apples to zebras here. This was merely early criticism of Clinton for not having a plan, and it also had the peculiar virtue of being true. Most and maybe all of what you posted above was from early '99. You want to criticize Bush for not having the right plan going into Iraq? Go for it. I agree, and it's totally legitimate.

But that is an altogether different type of criticism than the endless stream of vitriol we've had spewing from the left for years and years. I could go find the quotes, but gad, even you should be willing to admit that.

Also, al Qaeda is a vastly different enemy from the one we faced in Kosovo, and this war is a vastly different war, where the enemy listens carefully and uses our words (and media) against us in their own propaganda campaign. Their stated goal is to outlast the American paper tiger, and every time a democrat opens their stupid yap the enemy gets another morale boost toward that aim.

But, unlike you Teresa, I will answer the lame and cowardly apples to Zebras question you have posited to avoid the Democrat's inconvenient truth. I'm just going to concede your tiny little point so that we can perhaps get on to a much larger truth.

Did statements such as those you posted harm the war effort in Kosovo? My answer is yes. To some unknown but infinitely small degree, the few enemies who listened to those above comments were probably emboldened a little as our planes flew over and dropped bombs on their heads.

Now, have the courage to admit that the Democrats are emboldening the enemy as well, and have been doing it for years on end. And have the intellectual honesty to admit that in this war, in this time, against this enemy, it has been one hell of a lot more detrimental.

And though I doubt you'll ever get there, if you can somehow find the courage to admit all that perhaps then you can ponder whether people like Harry Reid, Jack Murtha and the rest of you should have known better.

Posted by iowavette | October 4, 2007 4:00 PM

Please stop bringing up Harkin. Honest to dog, I did not vote for that individual. His comments about Rush sent my normally uninterested husband straight to his PC, congress.org, to send a strong letter of protest. The fact that Harkin would allow himself to be filmed saying those words when he himself had pumped up his military record during an election run must be viewed as a failed intelligence test. At the end of the day, he is a plaintiff's attorney. Why the good people of this state re-elect him deserves investigation.

Insult to injury, I'm a native Nevadan. One ponders from under which rock Harry Reid emerged.

Posted by Teresa | October 4, 2007 4:05 PM

I hate to rain on your parade, but the Mission Accomplished banner was both made and hung by the White House:

"Asked at a news conference whether the "Mission Accomplished" banner had been prematurely boastful, the president backed away from it, saying it had been put up by the sailors and airmen of the Lincoln to celebrate their homecoming after toppling Saddam's regime.

Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech." http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,8816,536170,00.html


----------------
Nate --

Sorry, but I don't think either Tom Delay or Harry Reid have much effect on what foriegn jihadists or fighters think. And I worry more about things what things like torture and secret prisons do to feul anti-Americanism in the world than what one senator or congressman has to say.

Posted by Nate | October 4, 2007 4:09 PM

Teresa,

That's such a cop out. You are a coward.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 4:52 PM

Theresa,

The idiot reporter for Time couldn't even get the most basic facts correct, in the story you cited.

Does Time magazine employ editors? Or journalists who know anything at all about the military? Or who can actually use the Internet? Or does their entire budget go towards lies about the President?

"The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting."

Soldier aren't assigned to Navy ships. Sailors are. Occasionally Marines. No soldiers. Soldiers are Army. Not Navy. Is that complicated?

"saying it had been put up by the sailors and airmen"

At least the idiot reporter mentioned sailors, as they, well make up the crew of Navy ships.

"Airmen" are Air Force. Again, there are no "airmen" assigned to Navy ships. Sailors perhaps have a rating reflecting their assignment to deck operations (e.g. AB - Aviation Boatswain's Mate), but they are not "airmen".

When our Amphibious Readiness Group (the USS Pensacola, the USS Ponce and the USS Saipan) returned from our Med mission in 1993, we had a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

This is a longtime tradition. I don't believe Time Magazine for a second.

I find it hard to believe you come from a military family when you so readily swallow utter bilge like this.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | October 4, 2007 4:53 PM

Sorry, Teresa-I don't consider an op-ed column in TIME as evidence that the leftwing version of this story is a "fact", expecially when the person who wrote it immediately quotes Wesley Clark. Dickerson is also a former NY Times writer, which immediately raises red flags as to his bias against the evil Bush. TIME has degenerated into a left-wing laughingstock. They're so bad now that their magazine is skinnier than Twiggy. No ad revenue, y'know?

I did a Google search, and the only other references to Dickerson's version of this story come from the usual leftist suspects like commondreams. I did not find any independent verification from major mainstream media news sources. Even See-BS news seemed to pooh-pooh it, which was surprising.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 4:58 PM

Teresa,

If you were considering the purchase of a Ford automobile, would you still buy it if the Chief Operating Officer said, "We are not producing very good cars."

So are you riding around in a Taurus?

Posted by Del Dolemonte | October 4, 2007 5:10 PM

Teresa also said:

"Sorry, but I don't think either Tom Delay or Harry Reid have much effect on what foriegn jihadists or fighters think"

LOL! What out-of-town-relative were you visiting when bin Laden released his pro Kerry campaign video the week before the 2004 elections? He quoted just as many Democrat talking points then as he did in one of his 2007 videos just a couple of months ago.

Posted by Nate | October 4, 2007 5:14 PM

Teresa,

One last thing today. You said ...

"Sorry, but I don't think either Tom Delay or Harry Reid have much effect on what foriegn jihadists or fighters think."

And so then from your weak logic follows the conclusion that our politicians can say whatever the hell they want, no matter untrue or slanderous, with no accountability whatsoever, because the enemy doesn't care what we say anyway.

To which I reply with one final quote...

People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning.

-- Osama Bin Laden, Sept 2007.

Nah, the enemy doesn't listen to us at all. Teresa you are a coward AND a useful tool of Bin Laden himself.

The captain said it perfectly. You are real democrats, unfortunately.

Posted by Gene Smith | October 4, 2007 5:23 PM

Who cares what Weasley Clarke has to say? He's a nobody! He was a stalking horse for Hitlery Clinton in 2004 and has been shilling for her ever since.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 5:42 PM

Rush's E-mail today:

"If only Democrats would be as focused and passionate about destroying America's real enemies as they are about attacking Rush."

And to that I had - And also our President.

Has any nation ever had to fight a war with Democrat politician -like scum, dragging anchor?

It's a tribute to our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen, that they haven't all given up in disgust, given the laughable "leadership" provided by the absolutely worthless Democrat Party.

But we'll press on. Much to the dismay of Democrat political strategists.

Posted by Don | October 4, 2007 6:40 PM

"The only quote there that disparages the troops is by that lunatic clown Michael Savage, who is an island unto his insane self. He represents no one."

It is also possible Savage was referring to UN troops, not Americans. IIRC, UN Peacekeepers were involved with sex slavery in Kosovo as well as Africa. I'd want to know the context on the quote before savaging Savage.

Posted by unclesmrgol | October 4, 2007 6:57 PM

Teresa,

Yes, let's go down this road.

Every quote you've put up is bad. Unpatriotic. Uncalled for.

Don't you agree?


Posted by ck | October 4, 2007 7:16 PM

Rush's comment:
" LIMBAUGH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. They can't even -- if -- the next guy that calls here, I'm gonna ask him: Why should we pull -- what is the imperative for pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out? They can't -- I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "Well, we just gotta bring the troops home."

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --

LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

LIMBAUGH: They joined to be in Iraq. They joined --"

--------------------------------
The guy all the right wingers are trying to say Rush was talking about wasn't brought up until 2 minutes after this exchange. Rush was more than obviously NOT talking about one individual.

If you were one of the people complaining about the MoveOn ad (which I believe a majority on this blog were), then you are being a hypocrite for trying to let this slide...

Personally I don't care what Rush said or moveon. It's their opinion, and it doesn't change the way we fight or the strategy we're using or anything. So let them say what they will...

It does irritate me when people lie to a large number of people --- But the phony soldier and the betray us comments were not lies -- just opinions.

Posted by Teresa | October 4, 2007 8:03 PM

Nate -- You claim that Harry Reid and I are encouraging Bin Laden with our statements. I'd ask you to consider that Bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 before Harry Reid said anything. Before we went into Iraq.

Somehow I can't bring myself to believe that a man who is so evil that he could kill 3,000 innocent people really cares whether he gets "encouragement" from me or Harry Reid.
-------------------------------------

Unclesmergol -- You say all the comments -- Republican and Democrat -- are bad. I say that last time I looked we still had freedom of speech in this country and that part of the Bill of Rights was the freedom to petition our government. Which means that the role of congress is to criticize executive policies that they think are foolish. My guess is that if Hillary becomes president, plenty of Republican senators will feel free to criticize her foriegn policy. And, if they think she is wrong, more power to them.

Posted by James | October 4, 2007 8:11 PM

ck has a good take on this.

Ed's last paragraph undermines his central thought as to what he wanted to get across.

The problem occurs at the first and second sentences and how they couple together.

ie, "All of these people have the right to speak freely. That's the lesson that Media Matters and Wes Clark seem to forget."

The second sentence should have read:

"That's the lesson that Ed Morrissey, Congress, Media Matters, Wes Clark and others who debate free speech content seem to forget."

The right to "speak freely" means "content of speech" and "the act of speaking" are two separate matters. That's the whole idea behind free speech. Say what you will, even if it outrages me, but speak freely; That's America.

Ed should have added something about MoveOn.org to his post to make the message more robust.

And Congress should be shot for voting on anything that disrupts the flow of free speech.

I don't care what MoveOn or Limbaugh said; America is a place where you have the right to say it.

As for content, time will tell who was right; if they were right at all.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 8:16 PM

"Which means that the role of congress is to criticize executive policies that they think are foolish."

How is Reid lying about us losing the war, criticizing executive policy?

And another part of free speech is that we are permitted to criticize members of Congress for the stupid lies they try and spread.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | October 4, 2007 9:33 PM

Teresa says:

"My guess is that if Hillary becomes president, plenty of Republican senators will feel free to criticize her foriegn policy. And, if they think she is wrong, more power to them."

This one is a keeper.

Posted by chas | October 4, 2007 9:50 PM

how about we compare lists? the military causes, charities, etc that rush supports against dingy harry's?

in the end the final arbiters will be the soldiers. ask them if they thought rush was smearing them. ask them who they feel supports them more, reid or rush? the media will never do this cause they know the answer already.

so you libs spin, twist and distort rush's words as much as you like. in the end the soldiers know who has their back and who doesn't.

Posted by chas | October 4, 2007 9:59 PM

when will the dems finally learn the lessons of vietnam? general giap and others have written how the anti-war movement raised morale and kept them fighting even though they had gotten their asses kicked!

no, a responsible senator does not criticized foreign policy when that criticism is used by the enemy, emboldens them and puts american soldiers in harm's way. they keep their mouths shut, put country before party and try to win! all those dem resolutions and not one mentioned trying to win the war.

if the dems wanna criticize bush's trade policies have at it! but not a war that they voted for and that is currently being fought. the enemy is taking their speeches and printig and spewing the dem talking points in propaganda videos. its traitorous what they are doing.

Posted by ck | October 4, 2007 11:30 PM

So if we are in a war that we think is a major mistake, that we got into based on wrong "facts", a war that is creating more terrorists every day, and the leaders we currently have are trying to spin it so that it's a good thing --- what do we do chas? Just sit here and wait until enough of our troops are dead and then talk about how bad of an idea it was?

Our ability to discuss what is working and what is not working makes us the country that everyone wants to come to.

Posted by chas | October 4, 2007 11:38 PM

how about we defeat the enemy first? or do dems not admit we are facing an enemy now? what good comes from us throwing in the towel? how will that make the world or our country a better place? as for creating more terrorists, nope, killing more terrorists is what its doing. giving them a rally point to gather to make it easier. thinking they wouldve left us alone if we hadnt invaded iraq is ignorant thinking.

Posted by unclesmrgol | October 4, 2007 11:54 PM

Teresa,

So why did you post them if you thought they were fine?

People post things they either agree with or disagree with, things about which they have opinions.

I've never heard of someone posting something about which they were neutral. Until now.

Posted by ck | October 5, 2007 12:34 AM

chas - maybe you aren't listening -
We ARE CREATING more problems than we initially had by being in Iraq. We ARE CREATING more terrorists that were never there in the first place. We are fighting the enemy that we created through our incompetence. And what's your answer?
To just not talk about it until it's over? When it's over, it will be way too late... Fix the problems when you see them. Talk about the problems when you see them.

You think all we are doing is killing new terrorists? That somehow they were born a terrorist and we are just now exposing them? BS! Pain, oppression, lies and all that good stuff CREATES terrorists... they aren't born that way -
Think about it chas - If a foreign country dropped bombs in your neighborhood and killed members of your family, would you fight against them? If your answer is yes, then you just became a terrorist according to whichever country was occupying us. think about it


The terrorists, or whoever else wants to see our demise, are not gaining tons of momentum because congress is debating the war efforts. If they were really that fragile, then we would have beat them a few years ago... Talking is NOT A BAD THING!!

Posted by Rose | October 5, 2007 1:02 AM

Posted by NoDonkey | October 4, 2007 10:21 AM

Theresa,

Did you even read the article you posted.

The Colonel is pointing out that this war is over lawyered and the rules of engagement are far too restrictive on our soldiers/sailors and airmen.

I tend to agree with the Colonel's sentiment, but in defense of the Generals, from phony scandals like Haditha and to trumped up crap like Abu Grab, the media runs with any chance to heap scorn upon our soldiers, and the Democrats run with any chance to call our troops Nazis and torturers (e.g. Durbin and Murtha).

So perhaps if your precious Democrats relaxed a bit, the Commanders in the field would be more inclined to back our soldiers. It's not Republicans who are calling our troops Nazis, torturers and murderers and calling for they and their COs to be prosecuted and locked up, it's your absolutely worthless Democrats.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

And THAT is the LIVING TRUTH! AMEN!!!

Posted by Rose | October 5, 2007 1:09 AM

Posted by Teresa | October 4, 2007 10:29 AM

...
Do you really want to go down this road?
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Oh, absolutely!

Most assuredly.

Posted by Nate | October 5, 2007 9:11 AM

Teresa said,

Nate -- You claim that Harry Reid and I are encouraging Bin Laden with our statements. I'd ask you to consider that Bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 before Harry Reid said anything.

No Teresa. I did not claim just that. You are being dishonest again, trying to narrow the issue down to just Bin Laden because you are a coward who can't answer a simple question. We're not just talking about Bin Laden here. We're talking about all the jihadis and others who are fighting our troops and hoping that our resolve is weakening. Bin Laden is just one hero of our many enemies.

I only quoted Bin Laden to you to show that your claim that the enemy doesn't listen to us is a damned lie. The fact that Bin Laden has added Democratic talking points to his propaganda arsenal proves your previous point totally wrong.

The fact is Democrats are encouraging the enemy so much they have begun to count you as an ally. You can't hide from that so now you are trying to say it doesn't matter.

Because, again, you are a coward. Just another "real Democrat" who will neither admit nor take responsibility for the consequences of your foolish actions.

Posted by SoldiersMom | October 5, 2007 9:17 AM

Well, I've come a little late to this thread, but it's been a doozy. From the Tim W., I.S. comment (gulp) to Docs shaming and CE threat of banning to Tim's redemption (btw, your parents raised you well), it's been a good morning's read.

As for Tereasa's "Sorry, but I don't think either Tom Delay or Harry Reid have much effect on what foriegn jihadists or fighters think" comment, heard a caller on Rush yesterday with a great quote "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining." That's what the Dems are trying to do here, pissing on their Country and attempting to convince us all that it's just rain. Unless you're a liberal where 2+2=7, the rational people in this Country know when they're being pissed on.

Posted by NoDonkey | October 5, 2007 10:36 AM

"The fact is Democrats are encouraging the enemy so much they have begun to count you as an ally."

Al Qaeda has most obviously read from the North Vietnamese book on using counterinsurgency tactics along with propaganda, topped off by useful idiots in the US (i.e. Democrats), to run of the US military.

The left is living in utter and complete denial of pretty much everything related to reality, including this.

Posted by chas | October 5, 2007 6:03 PM

ck - my is answer is that you are wrong. our actions arent creating more terrorists. if you think what the US is doing in Iraq is the tipping point that drives a person to join a terrorist organization, so be it. i dont think it is.

Posted by ck | October 5, 2007 8:01 PM

Have you looked at any numbers chas? Have you seen the reports? Haven't you noticed terrorism increasing ever since we started fighting? Check it out if you really care about whether you are right or not

Posted by chas | October 6, 2007 12:09 AM

ck - whats the slogan? come fight the great satan and die? no, dont think so. but if we bail on iraq it will be we beat 2 super powers and then you will a real rise in terrorist recruiting.

and btw no, i havent seen any numbers. do you have some? i'd be interested in that. it seems when the MSM does break down and print stories about recovered AQI documents its mostly them crying about how hard a time they are having.

Post a comment