Democrats: Fully Invested In Our Defeat In Iraq
From today’s WSJ online (subs req) entitled “Awaiting the Dishonor Roll”
Congress has rarely been distinguished by its moral courage. But even grading on a curve, we can only describe this week’s House debate on a vote of no-confidence in the mission in Iraq as one of the most shameful moments in the institution’s history.
On present course, the Members will vote on Friday to approve a resolution that does nothing to remove American troops from harm’s way in Iraq but that will do substantial damage to their morale and that of their Iraqi allies while emboldening the enemy.
What else needs to be said about the real intentions of this once respectable Democrat Party?
the next time you hear Reid, Biden, Kerry, Clinton, or Kennedy claim that Bush and the GOP are “politicizing the war” think about their pathetic “non binding resolution.”
The motion at issue is plainly dishonest, in that exquisitely Congressional way of trying to have it both ways. (We reprint the text nearby.) The resolution purports to “support” the troops even as it disapproves of their mission. It praises their “bravery,” while opposing the additional forces that both President Bush and General David Petreaus, the new commanding general in Iraq, say are vital to accomplishing that mission. And it claims to want to “protect” the troops even as its practical impact will be to encourage Iraqi insurgents to believe that every roadside bomb brings them closer to their goal.
So they can talk all day and night on the House and Senate Floor as they have been doing for the past few days about “supporting the troops” etc. But what do the “troops” think?
As for how “the troops” themselves feel, we refer readers to Richard Engel’s recent story on NBC News quoting Specialist Tyler Johnson in Iraq: “People are dying here. You know what I’m saying . . . You may [say] ‘oh we support the troops.’ So you’re not supporting what they do. What they’s [sic] here to sweat for, what we bleed for and we die for.” Added another soldier: “If they don’t think we’re doing a good job, everything we’ve done here is all in vain.” In other words, the troops themselves realize that the first part of the resolution is empty posturing, while the second is deeply immoral.
John Kerry Redux:
We aren’t prone to quoting the young John Kerry, but this week’s vote reminds us of the comment the antiwar veteran told another cut-and-run Congress in the early 1970s: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” The difference this time is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha expect men and women to keep dying for something they say is a mistake but also don’t have the political courage to help end.
If this “non binding resolution” does not qualify as being overtly treacherous, traitorous, and treasonous behavior I don’t know what does.
A newly confirmed commander is about to lead 20,000 American soldiers on a dangerous and difficult mission to secure Baghdad, risking their lives for their country. And the message their elected Representatives will send them off to battle with is a vote declaring their inevitable defeat.
And that is why we call them the Defeaticrats…
Iraq, War On Terror | Gregg | 
February 15, 2007 7:54 pm
Well they EVEN Said we were defeated today…THEY HAVE NO SHAME AND TODAY PROVED THEY HAVE NO BRAINS. I had a laugh AFTER they voted and a Democrat Congresswoman was talking about HOW TO SPEND THE MONEY WE WILL SAVE NOT FIGHTING THE WARON TERROR..She has all the Democrat talking points…but she forgets that the money she is spending is DEFICIT already! Oh, no matter..as long as Dems get the booty!
While our Brave Soldiers fight on the dems like Hollywood James Murtha..Plot how to take away REINFORCEMENTS and funding..and brags to the liberals HE WORKS FOR IN HOLLYWOOD he will make it impossible for the War to Continue..SO SAD THAT SUCH HATRED FOR ONE MAN CAN PUT AT RISK AN ENTIRE COUNTRY. WE HAVE KERRY GIVING HIS AUTOGRAPH TO THE IRANIAN MULLAHS IN DAVOS..THE DEMS BACK HOME CALLING OUR TROOPS NAZI’S ..I GUESS WE KNOW WHAT GROUP THE DEMS ARE WORKING FOR AND IT SURE ISN’T AMERICANS! They are so stupid..just like Jimmy Carter ..they refused to stand up and support our allies…and incidentally..just what does obama think Australia is? During WW2..our only solid allies were the United Kingdom and all its people..Canada, and Australia..FDR was so smart that when we went to North Africa and were landing in the midst of the Vichy French..HE ACTUALLY HAD OUR TROOPS TELL THEM THEY WERE COMING…OUR VICHY FRENCH IMMEDIATELY OPENED FIRE..AS PUNISHMENT..THE ENTIRE FRENCH NAVY WHICH HAD RUN THERE TO HELP THE NAZI’S WAS SUNK..WE NEED A FEW MORE MEN IN CHARGE LIKE THAT NAVY LEADER..NOT FDR…GIVING A WARNING TO THE ENEMY! OF COURSE, WE ALL FORGET THAT AS THE JAPANESE HEADED TO PEARL HARBOR …FDR WAS DINING WITH THEIR AMBASSADORS…SO MUCH FOR DEMOCRAT DIPLOMACY!
By the time the Democrats finish defeating their own country..they will be raising the crescent flag over the capital and the White House…SO MUCH FOR THE DEMS! THEY ARE A SORRY EXCUSE FOR WHAT THEY CALL THEMSELVES..PATRIOTS!
First off, I do agree that a bunch of democrats are way overboard in terms of their rhetoric. This resolution is a joke and saying we are defeated already is an insult to every soldier over there. It maybe a true statement (I have sincere doubts about whether we will ever have victory. I don’t think we will ever be defeated though. Just this middle of the road constant fighting), but you don’t do and say what congress is doing now.
But it is not a new thing for congress to openly attack how a war is being run. The whole “we are defeated” wording is what is new. There are some very interesting books that talk about how republicans openly attacked FDR’s handling of World War II (and I happen to own a number of magazines and newspapers from the 40s that would make you think it was 2007 and FDR was a republican the way some congressmen were questioning FDR’s competence. And you would be amazed at how some congressmen and papers reacted to the victory at Iwo Jima.)
Now as for Caron’s comments, I would suggest reading some history books before continuing to use World War II references. There is not much correct in anything you wrote about World War II, or has been so oversimplified that it makes no sense. I don’t blame you. Most die hard conservative pundits use incorrect facts on World War II events and those lies have a way of being repeated.
If you are really interested in learing about the real events of World War II and getting a better understanding, I can certainly suggest a number of very good books and first hand accounts. But I do believe it is important that everyone start understanding the facts of World War II and stop pushing inaccuracies.
Optimist,
I happen to know a good deal about WW2. Perhpas you can enlighten us as to the “lies” to which you refer. All of Caron’s statement appear to me to be grounded in historical fact. Perhaps I am missing something?
Gregg
I do not know as much about WWII as I should, so I will leave that to you big, intelligent people. lol.
I would just like to say that I am ashamed of the House, the Senate, (ie, the people in it), and the press. Do they not understand that our enemies can READ?
I’m get more ammo. I may even get another weapon. If anyone has a problem with that, go suck on an egg. I don’t care.
Gregg:
No problem. I consider it a privilege to start putting historical fact back into misconceptions about World War II.
I’ll take Caron’s thoughts first:
1) “Our only solid allies were the United Kingdom and all its people..Canada, and Australia.”: This is very wrong. Here are the lists of the war dead from just our main allies:
- China: 10 million
- France: 562,000
- India: 1.5 million
- Soviet Union: 20-40 million
- Yugoslavia: 1 million dead
- Belgium: 85,000
- Greece: 413,000
- Phillipine: 118,000
- Brazil: 1000
- USA (to put things in perspecitive): 295,000
A proportion of these were from before the US even decided to enter the war. Which is why many British and French historians sometimes roll their eyes when Americans say they “won” the war.
2) “FDR was so smart that when we went to North Africa and were landing in the midst of the Vichy French..HE ACTUALLY HAD OUR TROOPS TELL THEM THEY WERE COMINGâ?¦OUR VICHY FRENCH IMMEDIATELY OPENED FIRE..”
- Well, she got the we warned them at the beaches part correct. But she makes it sound like FDR personally did this. Actually, this was an agreed upon tactic pushed by Eisenhower and his general staff.
Before the invasion (Operation Torch), a French Vichy Commander, General Charles Mast (a very interesting character actually), had been working to underine any sort of French resistance to an allied invasion of North Africa along with a number of other French officers. They were breaking their oaths to do this and would have been killed if caught. And the Germans would have used that as a cause for occupying the rest of France. US General Mark Clark actually met with Mast on a secret mission before the invasion. Along with reports from a US spygroup called the 12 apostles, General Clark gave a report to Eisenhower and FDR that French reistance was expected to be very light if they knew it was US forces and not the British invading.
Charles Mast actualy begged for more time to bring other commanders into the equation. He was not given extra time.
So General Clark gave the thumbs up to the idea of letting Vichy forces know. It actually worked in a number of instances, and it worked in a number of places. Other places where Vichy commanders that were pro-Nazi/anti-Britih there was tough resistance. There are many reasons why there were pro-Vichy commanders.
Those same French forces that resisted quickly joined forces with the US, and were a huge part of the push across North Africa and up through Italy. We could not have won without them.
3) “AS PUNISHMENT..THE ENTIRE FRENCH NAVY WHICH HAD RUN THERE TO HELP THE NAZIâ??S WAS SUNK.”
- This is wrong. The French naval forces that engaged allied forces were stationed in North Africa already. And French naval officers were very anti-British. This was due to the British killing 1000 French sailors at the naval battle of Oran and Mers-el-Kebir (which I agree was a good idea by the British, but probably not something that endeared them the French Naby). And the battle started with several very interesting commando raids by US and British detroyers that immediately put French naval forces on the defensive.
4) “NOT FDRâ?¦GIVING A WARNING TO THE ENEMY! OF COURSE”
- This statement shows that Caron only knows that a warning was given. And not the reason why or its consequences. Good and bad came from that warning, and the choice to do so was based on solid evidence that if Vichy forces knew it was the US forces then lives would be saved.
I highly recommend reading the books “Meeting the Fox” and “Army at Dawn” to get a decent overview of this.
5) “WE ALL FORGET THAT AS THE JAPANESE HEADED TO PEARL HARBOR â?¦FDR WAS DINING WITH THEIR AMBASSADORSâ?¦SO MUCH FOR DEMOCRAT DIPLOMACY!”
- This is silly in a number of ways. If you blame FDR for working diplomatic relations with the Japanese and underestimating them, then you also have to indict every naval commander, every Army general, every congressman and the entire secret service. And hey, while we are at it, let’s indict George Bush Senior for not knowing Iraq was going to invade Kuwait.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack. And every allied nation was still trying to work diplomacy with the Japanese. Britain, Netherlands, Australia, etc. Except China, which had been fighting alone for a decade.
Caron seems to just hate FDR because he was a democrat.
So there is where Caron is wrong. Using historial details without knowing the why’s behind them is her mistake.
Now onto the lies sections, conservative pundits often throw out statements such as “Europe owes us for saving them from Germany twice,” and it is “unamerican to question the president during war. We didn’t do it during World War II,” are the lies I am talking about. And things like Michelle Malkin’s horrific book on using Japanese american concentration camps as justification for racial profiling is another example of conservatives lies versus historical facts around World War II. I actually agree with racial profiling at some level, but her book was junk history at best.
World War II is one of the US’s finest hours. In the end, it was the US citizens and not the democrats or republicans that won. In fact, the general US citizen and the armed forces were amazing despite the silly politics that republicans and democrats waged during the war. Citizen soldiers should be celebrated, and the great events that happened then should not be misunderstood now for silly political games amongst liberal-haters and Bush-haters.
Perhaps you should check Your FACTS..I do not hate FDR I admire many things he did ..including Helping England before we joined the WAR while HIS own Party was Furious..I can give you real facts on Vichy French and FDR’s shout out telling them we were coming ashore to FREE them..and YES, the French have never forgiven us for Destroying their Navy which WAS moved to N. Africa..and it was Destroyed ..as a payback to killing so many Americans when they naively landed after it was announced!
As far as Republican attacks..lets just say..there was a Republican Candidate running against FDR and when he was told the way to Win is to attack FDR on the war..HE REFUSED TO DO THAT..HIS COUNTRY AND WINNING THE WAR WAS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT!
And lets not remember there are numerous pics of the Japanese leaving the White House aa Pearl Harbor began..Yes Sir..it was a Sneak attack..FDR never said he was talking them OUT OF ATTACKING and FAILED..so Re Read the history.. and get the time line down!
Yes, it was our Finest hour, besides the Civil War and the Revolution..but had we gone to war earlier it would have been less costly in money and lives. But Hitler and Stalin had a peace pact…all the Unions were protesting WAR..lucky for the Brits Hitler was a Liar. Once he attacked the Communist State..all our UNIONS stopped Protesting!
As for the Allies..Poland, France, India..China 10,000,000 and ..America 295,000..over a million American Soldiers spent time in England staging to go to europe..More than 295,000 Americans died fighting..few of your “allies” were actually killed in war..rather many were killed by Hitler..and the russian figure is a good one..no army with pitchforks avoids massive losses.
Some of your countries listed were already surrendered and only their refugees, lucky enough to have escaped actually joined with the Brits to fight. and the rest were British Subjects..Colonies..at that time the Sun never did set on old England.. Even Canada was an English territory and not Quite free of English Rule..perhaps you forget the British Empire?
You cannot count Hitler’s victims as our allies..Hitler, just for fun actually killed 6,000,000 more because they were Jews, Gypsies, Gay, or he just didn’t like the color of their eyes. aS FAR AS JAPANESE CONCENTRATION CAMPS..THAT WAS A DEM..FDR WHO DID THAT..Did you know we had one in Boston for Italians and germans considered “untrustworthy”…bet ya didn’t ..we do not talk about that..nor do we discuss a Black republican elected to State wide office..attorney general and to the US senate BEFORE LBJ came along…Stop reading one sided history and open your mind. Talk to the Vets in your area..or make a trip to Normandy and view the graves ..
I am far from a shrieking conservative..you would be very surprised at things I support..but in the end I support watching my family go to work and school SAFELY..I support woman having freedoms unheard of in Osama’s and Sadaam’s world…I support freedom of Religion for ALL..and I above all support a country that is not an occupier and that has been a symbol of Freedom for millions upon millions of people around the world…What I do not support is pandering Politicians who worry about getting elected and WANT TO REVOTE BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T WIN! One thing I do detest is Tyrants and Leaders who kill their people..like Sadaam, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Min, and Stalin and Castro…I do not like the UN avoiding DARFUR….and I do not think the US Military should be a “meals on wheals” operation for a world that favors tyrants …
Perhaps if you thought about what your future would be like under Mullah’s ..or perhaps if you lived in Muslim Europe and had your car burnt and couldn’t afford a new one..you’d rethink your one sided view.
Caron:
And so I understand your logic, only the allies that fought starting after December of 1941 count. Interesting logic.
And good thing those crazy Russians turned those pitchforks into T-34 tanks and Stalin’s organs. Amazingly, you managed to insult every Russian World War II vet in one sentence.
But instead of trying to explain things rationally to you, I will simply suggest you head down to the library and get some books written by actual historians on World War II.
And never question my patriotism or my respect for World War II veterans again. You get one pass at that.
T
PS: Wow, that whole mullah thing was a bit off base from the rest of your rant. Interesting logic you have going there.
I was listening to last night’s Michael Reagan show and more uninformed World War II banter was thrown around. Michael Reagan went off about how in World War II we didn’t have any rules of engagement tying our hands like we do now.
Incorrect statement. There were strict rules. Silly ones too. Like men being court martialed for stealing white sheets from houses so we could be camoflaged in the snow. Or during Operation Market Garden we were under orders to not demolish civilian houses, even if german tanks were behind them (if you have seen Band of Brothers, you know what I am talking about. That is a true story.) And we did not torture prisoners.
We had plenty of rules of engagement in World War II that put our soldiers at added risk. Sure it was easier to tell who the enemy was, but there were still some strange rules.
So last night was another example of how conservative radio folks just aren’t using correct history and are holding up World War II as some ideal to prove their political views, when the reality is much different.
Now, you can definitely argue our rules of engagement today are silly. Fine argument. But using World War II to prove how it should be done is incorrect.