So Barone shrank from saying “the Democrats are being unpatriotic”? I won’t.
Listen, Senators Reid, Rockefeller, former Sen. Edwards, Sen. Kerry and your rhetorical allies: I have known many patriots. My son, fighting in Iraq, is a patriot. And you, sirs, are no patriots. You are actively betraying my son and his comrades. You are giving comfort to the enemy.
Have you no shame? No, I think not.
Rev. Donald Sensing, MAJ USA (ret.)
13 comments:
I have to admit, I doubt if a lot of those people even believe in patriotism.
My guess is they think it is a sort of primitive tribal ritual and the world would be better off without it.
So, yes I question their patriotism.
It is best to understand that patriotism is not the question,the question is do they have a shared humanity?
No,we are all merely extras in the grand drama that is their lives,props that can be arranged and moved hither and thither, with no more significance than a child arranging its toys,to be abandoned when something else catches their attention.
Hmmm. Peter (Jamie, correct me if I'm wrong) but if I'm not mistaken, you've just described either massive narcissistic personality disorder, or straight out sociopathy.
Well, Mark, I think if you read what Bush has said, or what Don Sensing said, you';d find they both agree that questioning the policy is entirely in bounds.
But that's not the issue. As Barone puts it:
"The Democrats are trying to relitigate the prewar intelligence issue in the hopes of delegitimizing this administration. But in delegitimizing the administration, they also tend to delegitimize the efforts of the U.S. government, including military personnel, in Iraq and generally in the war against Islamic terrorism. To the extent they delegitimize the United States, they are hurting the cause of freedom for millions of people. I do not say the Democrats are being unpatriotic, a word they seem fixated on. So far as I am aware, no responsible Republican has charged that they are unpatriotic; John McCain refused Bob Schieffer’s invitation to do so. But I do say this: The Democrats who are peddling the Big Lie of “Bush lied” are doing so either (a) deliberately to injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world or, as I think, (b) with reckless disregard of whether they injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world. What they are doing may suit their political needs, but it hurts our country."
So, you pick: malicious liars, or lying fools who think that they would rather re-acquire power in a United States weakened and at greater risk than before?
That is the point on which I question their patriotism.
Today Bill Clinton, the man who wrote the Iraqi Liberation Act, came out and said the invasion was wrong.
These people are unprincipled.
Now I know that Democrats say, yes, Bill did write the Iraqi Liberation Act but he did not have the balls to actually pursue the policy, ergo he is innocent.
But I beg to differ, helping the create a situation when it is politically advantageous and then abandoning it when it is not is not shrewd or careful, it is mercenary and devious.
And Hagel is looking out for number one. He is a man who would be King.
George Bush has not tried to gain Democratic support
No Dems voted for the authorization to use force?
he has not engaged seriously with the international community
There are 33 nations participating in the coalition. The lack of French whores and Russian backstabbers might be considered a plus to some.
he has not asked the American public for any kind of sacrifice
Those who have enlisted or agreed to serve as officer are responding to something. Sacrifice by every individual American is hardly necessary - any more than it was during the entire Cold War.
he has continued to push a divisive domestic agenda
According to about 20% (at most) of the population.
he has shown little interest in funding anti-proliferation efforts
False - anti-proliferation funding has been increased.
he has declined to put adequate resources into Afghanistan
??? Perhaps in the alternative universe that you call home but no one is complaining in this universe.
he has done nothing to fix an intelligence operation that's quite obvously broken
Except fire Tenet and replace him with Goss - for a starter.
"he has stonewalled every investigation into the failures that allowed 9/11 to happen."
Now, that's just plain stupid as well as false.
You are not a serious individual in the least, Mark. I don't think you fit in well here at all. There are other blogs where your point of view would be applauded. Spending time on those sites would probably be a better use of your time.
I won't be replying to you any more. You're a waste of time.
mark:
If you think we need more resources in Afghanistan go ask the international community, after all it is an international effort.
As for Hagel, Bush carried Nebrasaka with 66% of the vote so maybe Hagel should start representing the views of his state rather than showing off.
Bush does engage other countries, in fact since he has been president we have actually had visiting heads of state who aren't Arafat.
But the devisive charge is really out of bounds, time and again Bush has reached out to the opposition and time and again he has drawn back a nub.
So maybe you really don't know what you are talking about.
How is Clinton going to keep that up when wifey poo voted for the invasion and he supported it?
Not to mention the fact that he bombed Iraq in 1998 on the grounds that Saddam would not give up his weapons.
When he said we should remove Saddam did he think he would just wave his magic wand [snicker] and make all the bad stuff go away?
I agree Clinton and Carter should shut up.
Well, actually ...
Clinton's remarks came when he was taking questions about the U.S. invasion, which began in 2003. His response drew cheers and a standing ovation at the end of the hour-long session.
Clinton said the United States had done some good things in Iraq: the removal of Saddam, the ratification of a new constitution and the holding of parliamentary elections.
"The mistake that they made is that when they kicked out Saddam, they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure of Iraq. ... We never sent enough troops and didn't have enough troops to control or seal the borders," Clinton said.
So Clinton is saying the invasion was a Good Thing, but that mistakes were made in the post-invasion.
Now, one might argue with this: personally, it strikes me as if to suggest it would have been better for Germany if we had gotten rid of Hitler and left the Nazionalsozialisten in charge. But I don't think it can be rightly read as saying the invasion was a big mistake.
George Bush was more interested in using the war as a partisan club than he was in actually fighting terrorists.
This is a LIE!
And outright LIE!
It's playing politics with our nation's security. Criticize the policy NOT the policy maker.
This type of rhetoric is outrageous.
I mean SHUT UP and WIN THE WAR! Dammit
Mark, you're getting your talking points from the markdown aisle. Shinseki was not fired, and in fact retired on his scheduled retirement date, a date he'd scheduled more than a year before.
It does, however, correspond very closely, down to wording, to the Democratic Party talking point from the last election --- one which would have required that Rumsfeild and the Administration know in April of 2002 that Shinseki would make this comment in February of 2003 in order to presciently set his retirement date to exactly the scheduled date of the end of his term.
mark:
You are full of it.
For anyone to say that Bush or Blair went into Iraq for political gain is utter nonsense.
And to call Bush a dry drunk who has failed at everything he has done is [as Syl said] a lie..an outright lie.
seneca:
I made the mistake of reading a headline and thinking it actually represented the truth. I should have known better.
mark:
I think I have mentioned before that people would be far more likely to read your post if you edit them.
That last one was far more of a commitment than I am willing to make.
Post a Comment