January 25, 2007
Posted on the Wall Street Opinion Journal Online, by James Taranto, an exchange between Sen. Schumer (D. NY) and David Gregory on the 'Today' Show.
Gregory: But how can the public really buy [that] the Democrats support the troops but don't support the mission? How can you do both?
Schumer: Well, that's the difficulty. A resolution that says we're against this escalation, that's easy. The next step will be how do you put further pressure on the administration against the escalation but still supporting the troops who are there? And that's what we're figuring out right now.
As many have continually said, you cannot "Support the troops, but not the mission." Anti-liberty Democrats eager for power are discovering their rhetoric may sound good, but placing it into action is next to impossible.
If, as the anti-liberty left keeps claiming, it is easy to do, why are the Democrats in the Senate having trouble "figuring it out?"
Talk as this demoralizes our troops and ends up costing lives. I recall hearing the same nonsense of cutting off funding and support when in Viet Nam myself and yes, it did me feeling downhearted.
Our Military people fighting today deserve and merit the best, as was done for the troops in World War Two. They have the spirit and the drive to win, as our Military always has.
Democrats grabbing power and carrying on like this to score political points underscores their confidence and lessens their chance of success, leaving them feel they are fighting for nothing, defending an ungrateful nation.
That spirit is shown in the son of junior Senator from Virginia, James Webb, who ripped at President Bush after the State of the Union Speech. Says Lance Corporal James R. Webb, “For me not to respond to the country’s call, I’d be letting myself and the history of my family down.”
Since Senator Webb is one of those staunchly opposed to the war but 'supports the troops, not the war,' perhaps he can "figure it out' to his own son.
Being in power during war carries with it an awesome responsibility. Disheartening your own troops while they are fighting far away is not "supporting the troops."
Lew
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Democrats Trying to "Figure Out" How To Support The Troops
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
What about the Republican Senators?
[note: Usually I despise (and tune out) the sort of conversation where someone points out something bad about an individual in one party, followed by unrelated accusations related to individual (or individuals) in the other party; however since you are into criticizing the whole political party and its view, I think it is relevant to point out the view of the other major political party].
From USA today
--- start quote from article ---
The four-hour committee debate produced far more consensus than the roll call indicated, exposing deep misgivings in both parties about Bush's plans.
Only Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said he backed the president's policy. He said he is doing so "as a final attempt" to bring stability in Iraq. Other Republicans who opposed the resolution made it plain their vote should not be interpreted as support for Bush's plan.
--- end quote ---
The war, and how we should proceed argument does NOT have to be republicans against democrats. It can be about debating the different sets of beliefs which drive the different views.
(I am going to respond to your last response in your previous post, tonight when I have more time).
Coboble, do you expect a conservative to be supportive of liberals that are undermining not only the President, but the troops in the field?
I have consistently stated I am a conservative first and a Republican second. I have also been critical of several Republicans, RINOs as we call them.
"Views" of either "party" come in second to my desire to see our troops receive all the support and backing they need to accomplish the mission they are on, disabling terrorism.
Members of either party that just criticize without offering a viable alternative to acheive VICTORY fall under my scrutiny, as little as that means.
As for "criticizing the whole political party and its view," need I remind you that it was Senator Schumer who said "WE."
Odd you can't see that I do not criticize Lieberman, Zell Miller, Ed Koch and other Democrats that also wish to see this fight through and our troops succeed.
You don't mention every Senator or Congressman by name, you often mention the Democratic Party in your blanket criticism.
Hence, your title to this post
"Democrats ...";
Anyway, moving on;
How about the non-Democrats who are with them on this bill, and the rest of the Republicans (minus the one) who won't support the bill however make it clear that they are not in favor of the President's policy?
How do you feel about only ONE Senator being willing to say he backed the President's policy?
Is this some left wing slant. I did not get this from a far left leaning news source.
Coboble, I didn’t start blogging to be ‘fair and balanced,’ I started to express my personal views and opinions, which are opposite those of today’s modern Democrat party led heavily by the liberals who opposed our effort in Viet Nam and sold us out back then.
Not to offend, but I'm not interested in being "fair and balanced" when the other side is being "down and dirty."
As for this resolution, which one are you talking about? The one I linked to in the article only had the support of one RINO, Chuck Hagel. The rest on the committee, even if not happy with Bush’s plan to reinforce the troops that the left is whining as too many being killed or wounded, see the light and that no campaign contributions will be coming their way should they openly support such a resolution that in essence undermines the troops.
As to the “ONE Senator supporting” Bush’s policy, show me where you got that one from. I’m not aware of anything that only one Senator is supporting, other than Hagel being the ONLY Republican (RINO) supporting the non-binding resolution against the troop reinforcement.
Post a Comment