.
“His words bring pain to those who are serving and their families….his words also continue to show the rest of the world that free speech is alive and well in the United States.”
Sigh.
If all he was doing was bringing “pain” to our troops and their families, I could possibly agree with you.
But AAAAA, his words are doing more than that… his words are bringing death. His words result in the spilling of American blood. They don’t just bring pain; they bring an agony beyond description. Those who would destroy us; those who would kill you without a second thought… those who would kill our children with a smile on their faces are uplifted by these comments. They point to them… they use them as recruiting tools… they say, “See, even Americans in government think Bush is a murderer.”
And as a result, people will die because of his words as surely as if he pulled a .45 and put a bullet through their heads himself. And these things are ramping up, BBBBB. These words and these types of words are rippling through our society… and they play a role in the increasingly strident actions by leftists in this country, both individually (your article about the Marine’s burned flag) and as groups (Those Code Pink idiots and many school districts/colleges and so forth trashing military recruiters.) as they become emboldened by their leadership.
Who stands to pay the price? Who stands to bleed?
Our people, CCCCC…Yours and mine. These kinds of words may result in the deaths of our sons. And on that, I again defer to Oliver Wendell Holmes, who I believe cherished free speech as much as any man can, when he wrote:
"[w]hen a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
I guess the question is this: are we at war? Do we have “men fighting?” And if we do, then why do we have to “endure” these “utterances?” Is there to be no accountability or responsibility for those who provide aid and comfort to our enemies with their words? Or are we limited to only acting against those we give money, weapons, or intelligence to when it comes to that provision of treason? At a minimum, this is called Sedition; (which I recognize is, apparently, no longer illegal) at a maximum, it’s called treason.
Article III Section 3 says this:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The law:
the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
Right now, for example, we have an American, Adam Gadahn, under indictment for treason… because he’s spoken supportively of al-qaida on videos.
Forgive me, but I honestly can’t ferret out the difference between what democrat leaders like Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Stark and Durbin say and anything Gadahn has said, except for one minimal detail: the impact of the words spoken by these people is geometrically greater and more harmful than those of a moron like Gadahn. Yet HE is indicted for treason… and THEY are not? What happened to HIS “absolute right?”
Imagine, if you will, where we would be had sentiments such as those uttered by these people had been said on the floor of the House or the Senate during World War 2?
In the end, we cannot base our policies or our actions on what, for example, Togo or Curacao may think about how we administer our own civil rights in THIS country. Is what the rest of the world “thinks” worth the lives of those Americans who WILL die unnecessarily because Stark and those like him indulge themselves by raping the concept of free speech as they engage in their efforts to destroy the morale and reduce the capabilities of the Armed Forces of the United States?
This is, I believe, a war for our survival. When, in our history, have Members of our government ever taken the floor of the House or the Senate during a time of war, to denounce our military or our President? Why hasn’t this happened before? Why is it happening now?
That Congressman Stark could proclaim to the world that our military has, as one of its missions, the task to “blow up innocent people;” or that our President finds the decapitation of our soldiers “amusing” is a classic definition of precisely what Justice Holmes was referring to in his opinion.
I again refer to my little scenario, where you, 1LT DDDDDDDD, have to send some kid out on patrol on a route Black. He’s scared (Who wouldn’t be?) and he’s hearing it. He wants to know why he should put his ass on the line when members of his own government have just issued a blanket indictment against him for “blowing up innocent people.”
What do you tell him, Lieutenant? You NEED this guy. You need him to cover your back. You need him to do the mission.
But a congressman has just accused him and 150,000 of his coworkers of slaughtering innocents. And the Speaker of the House thanked him for doing so.
What do you tell him PFC Smith? Threatening him isn’t enough. Putting him in the stockade isn’t enough… you ain’t got one or a hundred stockades big enough to lock up those who think these same things.
How do you keep this kid and thousands like him from just saying, “Ahhhh, fuck it.” and tossing down his M4 while he refuses to go out for a meaningless mission where he has a high probability of bleeding for people that not only don’t care, but who condemn him because he’s there?
Every time, EEEEE. Every time these people make these attacks, they’re attacking HIM. Every time they get up there, like Stark got up there yesterday, they’re jamming a shiv into his ribs and twisting it. Every time they say these things, they bring agony down on the troops and their families. Every time they say these things, they’re increasing the likelihood that this kid, and others like him, are going to die. Every time they say these things, they strengthen our enemies… while they weaken us.
You indicate: If we are going to have free speech, we need to have it be absolute.
I would submit to you that there is not, and never has been anything approaching “absolute” freedom of speech in this country. Don’t believe me? Knock out a quick email to the White House threatening to kill the President. See what that gets you. See if, in fact, such a thing as “absolute” freedom of speech does exist.
Is such an absurd example to illustrate a point beyond the pale? I don’t know. But it is a fact.
As a society, we cannot have absolute freedoms. To have such a thing absolves us from individual responsibility. Absolved of that responsibility, as our government leaders seem to be, they’re encouraged to go farther and farther and farther in their allegations. And in so doing, they’re whipping up an element that is easily led, and that has a nefarious motive… an element who does not wish this country well.
If we are not at war, then none of this really matters. If we are, then feel free to point out where our freedoms have not been temporarily subjugated for the duration of that war in a dozen different ways… everything from the draft, where millions of men have been FORCED to serve in the military, many against their will, at risk of life and limb… perhaps the ultimate suspension of freedom possible in the last century, to the suspension of habeas corpus, to the internment of tens of thousands based on their race (an all too likely possibility to happen again if this country sustains yet another massive attack… with those of the Muslim persuasion being forced beyond barbed wire.) and a host of other forms of censorship.
Do these people have an absolute right to release classified information? Is there ANY line that cannot be crossed here? And if there is, then why don’t those lines include the treasonous and or seditious utterances of political opportunists who could care less what damage they do… damage that you ADMIT they do, but damage you would allow them to do… encourage them to do.
As I write this, it’s about 0100. It’s raining. Before I call it a night, I’m going out to my 24 foot tall flag pole. The Flag of the United States is flying there, fluttering in a breeze from the south, I think.
I keep the flag up around the clock, FFFFF. I have it lit up at night by a rather unsophisticated system of a photo cell, a small battery charger and a 55 watt fog lamp from Schucks Auto Supply. It comes on when the sun goes down, and it goes off when the sun comes up.
I will look up at the flag, as I frequently do… the flag that I, my brothers… and even-my-waste-of-skin, no-redeeming-value step-father served under in countries around the world… sometimes with people wanting us really, really dead.
But in all the years and places I served, no one ever compared me or my brothers or step father (A Pearl Harbor survivor, come to think of it) with the Nazi’s, or claimed our mission was to kill innocents, or stated that the President found the deaths of American troops “amusing.”
I will look up at the flag this morning and I will fear for my country, KKKKK. (as a brief aside, I will also pray that the almost 4,000 Americans killed over there will not have died in vain, and that the 30,000 or so wounded will not have bled for nothing… outcomes that these scum want with a passion.)
And up until the past couple of years, I never used to fear. But I feel that way now because far too many people are willing to chant “principle” while the house burns down around them.
That is why, in part, I disagree with GGGGG on his appeal. I disagree with him because of the relative outcomes.
If GGGGG is right, and the appeal overturns the decision, then negative impacts will be the order of the day, but GGGGGs principles will be shiningly intact. People will suffer mightily because of it, but man, his PRINCIPLES will be intact… and he will have been right.
OTOH, if he’s wrong (and as I’ve pointed out, I believe he IS wrong) then it will be very, very difficult for this to happen, which is the best outcome for several people but GGGGG’s principles will be shattered.
So, HHHHH… which way should we go on this? GGGGG certainly has the right to appeal.
Precisely like every American alive has the right, a right I devoted over 14 years of my life to protect, to oppose the War in Iraq.
Now, in pressing his point, is it OK for GGGGG to hide behind HIS “absolute” freedom of speech to achieve HIS goal? Is it OK for HIM to lie, distort, exaggerate, accuse the judges and the courts of slaughtering innocents while claiming that opponents to his position are “amused” by the deaths of Americans generally, and the deaths suffered by the Tribe in the past specifically?
Is it?
And if it isn’t… then please explain why it IS OK for those people in Congress to do that very thing to achieve THEIR political goal. Good God, IIIII… if you sell a product in this country and lie about it, you can go to prison and be heavily fined. But if you get up on the floor of the Senate and say things designed to strengthen our enemies, things that will get our people KILLED… well, nothing happens, because, after all, you have freedom of speech.
At least with GGGGG, very few people would die if he were to engage in those tactics. But people are dying in Iraq every day, in part because a political decision has been made to divide us in the name of power. People… not just us… are dying over there because our tea leaves are easily read by an intractable enemy... an enemy that becomes convinced with every fringe leftist speech that if they can… just… hang on a little longer…. The great satan will be defeated and a slaughter of Biblical proportions will commence.
In the military, on at least 5 separate occasions, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. I would like to think that I have and do. But if, as I believe, we are at war, then the right to attack and denigrate those we send out to do the fighting and dying is not absolute. There are a wide variety of ways to express opposition to the War or any other policy of our government at every level.
But none of them should cause injury to our soldiers. None of them should strengthen our enemies and increase their resolve.
To my mind, statements like Mr. Starks do precisely both.
Imagine, if you will, that our sons go to fight in this war. Imagine that they are called upon to spill their blood.
And then, having made that sacrifice, imagine one of this country’s leaders standing on the floor of the House, in front of a microphone, looking up with so much sincerity. He looks up at the camera, and in effect, he says: “Hey, LLLLL. I just heard your son got blown to pieces by an IED yesterday. What’s the matter? Why wasn’t he out killing women and children? After all, that IS their mission, isn’t it? Gee, that’s really too bad, but who cares… and those guys have every right to kill our kids that WE SENT OVER THERE TO FIGHT FOR US.”
While no member of congress has yet to say such a thing (yet)… the impact, the meaning of Mr. Stark’s words were precisely that.
That wouldn’t bother you just the tiniest bit? Or would you just shine it on, because, after all, the speaker in question has the RIGHT to say what he or she wanted because of an absolute freedom of speech?
How far does that apply, MMMMM? You wouldn’t have a problem with one of your kids getting in your face and calling you every name in the book, due to their “absolute right of free speech?”
Or is that “different” somehow?
As far as that goes, what if JJJJJ doubted YOU? What if they began to say, so others could pick it up, that you were incompetent; that this is a done deal and there’s nothing you can do it about it; that you’re a moron, constantly beating up people who disagree with you and so forth? Theoretically, as long as the checks keep coming in, they have the right to say anything they want, right? Never mind that such pronouncements would cripple your ability to get the job done; after all, they’re just exercising their rights, aren’t they?
What would you reaction to that be? I mean, when you go into a meeting with a business, there’s very little chance you’d be coming out dead, right? How long would it take for you to them to jam it, and quit?
What’s the difference, NNNNN? Why shouldn’t OUR troops just say Screw You and walk away?
As our leaders continue to devalue our young men and women, it’s a matter of time until these more fringe elements begin to put those words into action. At some point, is it much of a stretch to imagine these sheep getting back into the spitting, “baby killer” screaming episodes and the like at our troops?
I, personally, didn’t have to go thru that kind of thing, but maybe it’s because I was sending out a vibe that said “I’ll break your jaw if you whip that kind of bullshit out on me.”
As I stated before, there is no freedom without responsibility. And that our country does not hold these people accountable for their words is not something to be proud of, as their efforts weaken our military, strengthen the resolve of nutburgers around the world, and heap insult on some of the finest men and women this country has to offer.
Oppose and be damned. But do it in such a way that the end result is not the death and maiming of a bunch of people who serve this country because they were stupid enough, and mislead enough, to actually believe it wasn’t meaningless; that their sacrifice and that of their family wasn’t a joke; a waste of time, money and effort.
Showing posts with label Murtha. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Murtha. Show all posts
Monday, May 04, 2009
Excerpts from letters ABOUT Iraq... and democrats playing politics with American blood.
.
July 30, 2007
I’ve been giving our chat in the car concerning the war and the freedom to oppose our actions in Iraq with the seeming dichotomy of my statements concerning opposition and commitment to the troops… my observation that once Congress voted to allow the invasion, their entire job became one of supporting our efforts there; your astonished reply that they should have the right to protest; your football coach analogy; my “once the play has started” response… my position that those speaking out in opposition to our Iraq involvement should run their remarks through what I would call the “filter of benefit.”
Like millions of others in this country, I haven’t been particularly happy with the “peace” of our post-Iraq invasion. We’ve badly mishandled that time frame, and I cannot defend the Administration’s actions either leading up to, or since, the invasion of Iraq occurred. But here’s where I again point out that the “how” we arrived here lacks any particular significance of the fact that we ARE here.
The discussion of those issues, taken in the perfection of 20/20 hindsight, will go on for decades. It will, I believe, extend much longer and much farther than the post World War Two examination of President Roosevelt’s actions up to and during that war… the “what did he know, and when did he know it” examination.
We’re in a day and age where political segments in our society are not motivated by the best interests of this country, unless those interests happen to coincide with their thirst for political power. The end result?
Blinded by the objective, politically motivated people who should know better will say anything; do anything; to achieve their goal of power.
People who should know better shove common sense aside in the interests of gaining power. They say and do things deliberately designed to assault the American people with a Chinese water-torture approach of changing our perception in an effort to achieve their aim.
Not because such a change is right for this country. Not because such a change is right for any given situation. But instead, entirely for the purpose of achieving political power. And, as a veteran of 14 years of service to the country, I submit to you that abusing a freedom to gain stark political power fuelled by the blood of those who believe what they’re doing DOES matter… goes far beyond the purpose, definition and need for “Freedom of Speech.”
For example, 3 months ago, when Senator Reid said the surge was a failure even before it was remotely completed, and the war is “lost;” his position was not based on a desire to do what is right; or to do what is in either the best interests of the Iraqi’s or of our military, who are spilling their blood by the thousands to achieve a worthy goal.
It is, instead, a stark and vicious position entirely motivated by the desire to gain political power, no matter how many deaths that goal costs, no matter how much positions such as those fracture our country, no matter how much statements such as those strengthen our enemies.
And BBBBB, statements such as these DO strengthen our enemies. And that goes to the heart of the matter.
When our leaders speak, what they say matters. When they speak irresponsibly, people die. And the blood of those deaths; the pain and agony those words garner… when do their authors take responsibility for what they’ve done?
Every freedom this country has is filtered thru limits. The classic limit on Freedom of Speech is to falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Why do such restrictions exist?
Oliver Wendell Homes wrote: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
Holmes went on:
"[w]hen a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
For Senator Reid to utter such remarks, knowingly false, is to increase among ourselves AND our Allies a clear and present danger from our democrat-emboldened enemies who really, really would like to destroy us; not unlike the Schenck scenario anticipates.
In this day and age, words and the meaning of words have impacts far beyond those I believe were anticipated back in the 1900’s. I want to reiterate: I have absolutely no problem with opposition to the war.
But expressions of opposition should be based on what is best for our country and our military, thousands of whom have paid the ultimate price because this Nation asked them to. And opposition to the war should have been expressed BEFORE we went; not after. You cannot put the men and women who’ve been blown to pieces and/or killed back together again when you insist on telling them they’ve bled for nothing.
And with each utterance comparing our troops to Nazis, that’s what they do. With each utterance, telling us that we’ve already lost, that’s what they do.
Those expressions should not, CAN NOT, be made in such a way that it hurts our forces or strengthens our enemies. And those in government who lead the opposition, both political and to the war in Iraq, frequently and thoughtlessly express their opposition in ways that achieve that very outcome.
Every time our political leaders cast doubt on the mission, it negatively impacts the troops. It plants the seed of doubt. It impacts morale, and as a result, it impacts capabilities and effectiveness.
So, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume you’re a platoon leader (Which puts you at the rank of 2nd or 1st Lieutenant.) and PFC Snuffy Smith comes up to you one day and says,
And if you can’t convince him of those facts, what does that do to his effectiveness and capabilities? And more importantly, what does it do to YOUR effectiveness and capabilities, and those of your unit; because you’ve got to know that he’s not the only one?
You’ve got to have SOMETHING, you’ve got to be able to give this 19 year-old SOMETHING to hang onto.
And frankly, AAAAA, I can’t, realistically, answer that question. I only put 10 years in as an NCO/officer, and that wasn’t enough to imbue me with the magic formula to undo the damage Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Kucinich and those like him have done to our soldiers. I’m just not smart enough, or experienced enough.
The basis for this opposition is entirely a result of a strategic political reality: that strong support for the war and our mission by the democrats would eliminate any possibility of gaining them the majority in Congress or gaining democrat control of the White House. As a result, our people are bleeding. Unnecessarily.
Democrats oppose this war because they know they’d be relegated to political footnote status if they didn’t. They claim they express the will of the American people, but they make that claim without acknowledging that they are the ones primarily responsible for designing and developing that will… all, of course, in the name of seeking and achieving raw political power.
I posted this little snippet below on a Camaro board I’ve been on for 6 years or so… the language is a little rough, but it’s how I felt at the time, when confronted by one of the “support the troops, but not their mission” types:
July 30, 2007
I’ve been giving our chat in the car concerning the war and the freedom to oppose our actions in Iraq with the seeming dichotomy of my statements concerning opposition and commitment to the troops… my observation that once Congress voted to allow the invasion, their entire job became one of supporting our efforts there; your astonished reply that they should have the right to protest; your football coach analogy; my “once the play has started” response… my position that those speaking out in opposition to our Iraq involvement should run their remarks through what I would call the “filter of benefit.”
Like millions of others in this country, I haven’t been particularly happy with the “peace” of our post-Iraq invasion. We’ve badly mishandled that time frame, and I cannot defend the Administration’s actions either leading up to, or since, the invasion of Iraq occurred. But here’s where I again point out that the “how” we arrived here lacks any particular significance of the fact that we ARE here.
The discussion of those issues, taken in the perfection of 20/20 hindsight, will go on for decades. It will, I believe, extend much longer and much farther than the post World War Two examination of President Roosevelt’s actions up to and during that war… the “what did he know, and when did he know it” examination.
We’re in a day and age where political segments in our society are not motivated by the best interests of this country, unless those interests happen to coincide with their thirst for political power. The end result?
Blinded by the objective, politically motivated people who should know better will say anything; do anything; to achieve their goal of power.
People who should know better shove common sense aside in the interests of gaining power. They say and do things deliberately designed to assault the American people with a Chinese water-torture approach of changing our perception in an effort to achieve their aim.
Not because such a change is right for this country. Not because such a change is right for any given situation. But instead, entirely for the purpose of achieving political power. And, as a veteran of 14 years of service to the country, I submit to you that abusing a freedom to gain stark political power fuelled by the blood of those who believe what they’re doing DOES matter… goes far beyond the purpose, definition and need for “Freedom of Speech.”
For example, 3 months ago, when Senator Reid said the surge was a failure even before it was remotely completed, and the war is “lost;” his position was not based on a desire to do what is right; or to do what is in either the best interests of the Iraqi’s or of our military, who are spilling their blood by the thousands to achieve a worthy goal.
It is, instead, a stark and vicious position entirely motivated by the desire to gain political power, no matter how many deaths that goal costs, no matter how much positions such as those fracture our country, no matter how much statements such as those strengthen our enemies.
And BBBBB, statements such as these DO strengthen our enemies. And that goes to the heart of the matter.
When our leaders speak, what they say matters. When they speak irresponsibly, people die. And the blood of those deaths; the pain and agony those words garner… when do their authors take responsibility for what they’ve done?
Every freedom this country has is filtered thru limits. The classic limit on Freedom of Speech is to falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Why do such restrictions exist?
Oliver Wendell Homes wrote: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
Holmes went on:
"[w]hen a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
For Senator Reid to utter such remarks, knowingly false, is to increase among ourselves AND our Allies a clear and present danger from our democrat-emboldened enemies who really, really would like to destroy us; not unlike the Schenck scenario anticipates.
In this day and age, words and the meaning of words have impacts far beyond those I believe were anticipated back in the 1900’s. I want to reiterate: I have absolutely no problem with opposition to the war.
But expressions of opposition should be based on what is best for our country and our military, thousands of whom have paid the ultimate price because this Nation asked them to. And opposition to the war should have been expressed BEFORE we went; not after. You cannot put the men and women who’ve been blown to pieces and/or killed back together again when you insist on telling them they’ve bled for nothing.
And with each utterance comparing our troops to Nazis, that’s what they do. With each utterance, telling us that we’ve already lost, that’s what they do.
Those expressions should not, CAN NOT, be made in such a way that it hurts our forces or strengthens our enemies. And those in government who lead the opposition, both political and to the war in Iraq, frequently and thoughtlessly express their opposition in ways that achieve that very outcome.
Every time our political leaders cast doubt on the mission, it negatively impacts the troops. It plants the seed of doubt. It impacts morale, and as a result, it impacts capabilities and effectiveness.
So, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume you’re a platoon leader (Which puts you at the rank of 2nd or 1st Lieutenant.) and PFC Snuffy Smith comes up to you one day and says,
“You know, Sir, I’m from Las Vegas, and Sen. Reid is my senator. When he says the war is lost, and the surge is failing, I have to ask myself: Why should I go out on patrol and risk my life for nothing? And how does Sen. Durbin get away with comparing me to a Nazi?”How do you respond? How do you reply? How do you get Smith to believe what he does IS important? That what he does IS worth putting his ass on the line?
And if you can’t convince him of those facts, what does that do to his effectiveness and capabilities? And more importantly, what does it do to YOUR effectiveness and capabilities, and those of your unit; because you’ve got to know that he’s not the only one?
You’ve got to have SOMETHING, you’ve got to be able to give this 19 year-old SOMETHING to hang onto.
And frankly, AAAAA, I can’t, realistically, answer that question. I only put 10 years in as an NCO/officer, and that wasn’t enough to imbue me with the magic formula to undo the damage Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Kucinich and those like him have done to our soldiers. I’m just not smart enough, or experienced enough.
The basis for this opposition is entirely a result of a strategic political reality: that strong support for the war and our mission by the democrats would eliminate any possibility of gaining them the majority in Congress or gaining democrat control of the White House. As a result, our people are bleeding. Unnecessarily.
Democrats oppose this war because they know they’d be relegated to political footnote status if they didn’t. They claim they express the will of the American people, but they make that claim without acknowledging that they are the ones primarily responsible for designing and developing that will… all, of course, in the name of seeking and achieving raw political power.
I posted this little snippet below on a Camaro board I’ve been on for 6 years or so… the language is a little rough, but it’s how I felt at the time, when confronted by one of the “support the troops, but not their mission” types:
“So, when you see any troop that's served over there... say, a JayDDD (one of the board members in the 101 Airborne serving in Baghdad right now) ... make sure you tell him: ‘I support you. I just don't happen to think that what you were doing over there was worth a f@$%.’
Head on over to the nearest military or VA facility set up to help the troops when they come home... to treat their wounds... to do the best we can to heal them. Make sure that they all know how you feel about the blood they spilled. And start going to a few military funerals. Make sure that everyone there knows your position on the war.
I mean, f@^& CCCC... you know more about it than anyone... your superior position on the matter would be hard to deny... and letting these people know that their sacrifice, and that of their loved one(s) is ‘bogus’ would be just the thing to improve their morale, and REALLY show your ‘support’ of the troops.”
The clearest illustration of that reality is that it really doesn’t matter what the Petraeus report says; it will not matter what results of the surge may be; in the name of political power and political power alone, it will not matter.
The democrats have backed themselves into a corner. If they adopt and support our continued efforts in Iraq, then they lose the fringe left and they lose any credibility with the American public.
POLITICALLY, they have no choice. They have no desire to take any action that will cast doubt on their judgment, and were they to do anything except hammer Bush, no matter what the report says, their house of cards would collapse and it would be 1994 all over again.
And they would rather cut off their cranks with dignity then admit they made a mistake in judgment or that their positions were, and are, motivated by anything other then what’s best for the country OR that anything they’ve said or done resulted in one hair on one troop’s head being slightly damaged.
Freedom of speech? You bet. But when you’ve been elected and you’ve got a title in front of your name, you had better damned sure be willing to stand up and make the phrase “With freedom, comes responsibility,” mean something.
And right now, the Reids, Pelosis, Murthas and the like aren’t losing any sleep over anything they’ve said or done. Because, after all, it’s all in a good cause, and none of those kids dying for us belong to them…
Do they?
Friday, March 27, 2009
Every once in a while the leadership of the United States military can be utter, complete, blithering idiots: - Murtha Award Sparks Vet Outrage
.
H/T to BlackFive and others.
The democrat leadership of Congress consist primarily of political scum and bottom feeders. Among them are the usual suspects: Pelosi, Reid, Durbin... and Murtha.
Congressman John Murtha is scum.
Although a former Marine, Murtha sold his soul in the name of fringe leftist politics.
He sold out his fellow Marines in an abortive attempt to become House Majority
Leader.
That he sold out his fellow Marines, provided aid and comfort for our enemies, and worked very hard to destroy the lives of some of the finest young men our country can produce, however, is beyond discussion.
*******************************************
But his actions now should be decried for what they are...John Murtha is partnering with Code Pink seditionists who are demoralizing our wounded soldiers while they recover at Walter Reed Army Medical Center! They are actually trying to get into the hospital (and have gotten in) to meet with our wounded soldiers.
*********************************************
CodePink are leftist scum, precisely like Murtha.
MURTHA'S ANTI-SURGE PLAN
Posted: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:05 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Congress, Security
Instead of Mr. Murtha actually rating the Navy's Distinguished Public Service Award, he rates our scorn and our pity. But for the Department of the Navy to award this stain on the military ANYTHING besides the Alfred E. Neuman Award for the Non-Jumping of Fire Hydrants is a disgrace and an insult to Service Members and veterans everywhere, and certainly an insult to all past and future recipients of this now worthless "award."
Murtha is one of the few individuals I know that make me ashamed to have worn the uniform. And he rates NOTHING but our contempt.
Murtha Award Sparks Vet Outrage
More:
H/T to BlackFive and others.
The democrat leadership of Congress consist primarily of political scum and bottom feeders. Among them are the usual suspects: Pelosi, Reid, Durbin... and Murtha.
Congressman John Murtha is scum.
Although a former Marine, Murtha sold his soul in the name of fringe leftist politics.
He sold out his fellow Marines in an abortive attempt to become House Majority
Leader.
How "distinguished" this despicable buffoon's Vietnam service may be is up for some debate.The primary reason for their ire stems from the congressman's statements in May, 2006, that a squad of Marines who responded to an IED ambush and short firefight in Haditha, Iraq, rampaged through the village, murdering civilians "in cold blood."
Murtha made those comments in the heat of the 2006 congressional mid-term election campaign, in a move some political analysts saw as an attempt to stoke the anti-war vote for a Democratic takeover of the House.
The former Marine and distinguished Vietnam veteran continued his accusations in
follow-up media appearances before an official Pentagon and Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation had been completed.When the dust settled more than two years later, six of the eight Marines and Sailors accused of crimes in the Haditha incident had their cases dismissed, one was found not guilty and the last has been continued indefinitely.
That he sold out his fellow Marines, provided aid and comfort for our enemies, and worked very hard to destroy the lives of some of the finest young men our country can produce, however, is beyond discussion.
*******************************************
But his actions now should be decried for what they are...John Murtha is partnering with Code Pink seditionists who are demoralizing our wounded soldiers while they recover at Walter Reed Army Medical Center! They are actually trying to get into the hospital (and have gotten in) to meet with our wounded soldiers.
*********************************************
CodePink are leftist scum, precisely like Murtha.
MURTHA'S ANTI-SURGE PLAN
Posted: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:05 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Congress, Security
From NBC's Mike Viqueira
Rep. Jack Murtha (D) says that he has figured out a way to stop Bush's so-called troop "surge" before it is completed, while still maintaining Speaker Nancy Pelosi's pledge not to cut off funding for "troops in the field." He tells MoveCongress.org in a Web cast this morning that he plans to attach strings to the president's $100 billion war funding bill that will effectively force the Administration to stall the troop increase.
The provisions he proposes include:
-- prohibiting the Pentagon from sending people back into battle until they have had a year at home after being deployed. He says he has figured out that in order to fulfill the surge requirements, the Defense Department would have to send people back after seven months at home;
-- prohibiting the Pentagon from extending tours;
-- ending the Pentagon's "stop loss" policy;
-- and prohibiting the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.
He says that the Pentagon would have to "certify" that any units deployed in the future were "combat ready." In addition, Murtha says that he is "considering" adding provisions to close Guantanamo and "bulldoze" Abu Ghraib. If his measures are enacted, he says, "they won't be able to continue, they won't be able to do the deployment." Murtha's defense appropriations subcommittee is the first stop in Congress for the president's $100 billion request for the remainder of this fiscal year. He says that it will be reported out of committee on March 15 and taken up by the House shortly thereafter.
***************************************************
So, this moron, like Reid ("The war is already lost") did all they could for pure political gain to strengthen our enemies and harm our military for purposes of political expediency. Their politics demanded a sea of American blood be spilled to keep them afloat, and they did all they could to make that happen.
Their words generally, and Murtha's particularly, emboldened and strengthen terrorists and wounded the morale of the very military THESE clowns (and yes, they ALL voted to send troops over to Iraq) sent in the first place.
Instead of Mr. Murtha actually rating the Navy's Distinguished Public Service Award, he rates our scorn and our pity. But for the Department of the Navy to award this stain on the military ANYTHING besides the Alfred E. Neuman Award for the Non-Jumping of Fire Hydrants is a disgrace and an insult to Service Members and veterans everywhere, and certainly an insult to all past and future recipients of this now worthless "award."
Murtha is one of the few individuals I know that make me ashamed to have worn the uniform. And he rates NOTHING but our contempt.
Murtha Award Sparks Vet Outrage
March 26, 2009
In one of his last moves before leaving office March 13, then-Navy Secretary Donald Winter quietly awarded 19-term Democratic congressman John Murtha (Pa.) with the service's highest civilian honor.
Citing Murtha's "courageous leadership, vision, and loyalty to the men and women of the Department of the Navy," Winter presented the influential chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's defense panel with the Navy's Distinguished Public Service Award, an honor bestowed in "those extraordinary cases where individuals have demonstrated exceptionally outstanding service of substantial and long term benefit to the Navy, Marine Corps, or the Department of the Navy as a whole," a Murtha release stated.
The award generated little publicity when it was given to Murtha in early March, but as news of the honor trickled out, some veterans groups ignited a firestorm of protest.
Poll: Should the Navy reconsider Murtha’s award
The primary reason for their ire stems from the congressman's statements in May, 2006, that a squad of Marines who responded to an IED ambush and short firefight in Haditha, Iraq, rampaged through the village, murdering civilians "in cold blood."
Murtha made those comments in the heat of the 2006 congressional mid-term election campaign, in a move some political analysts saw as an attempt to stoke the anti-war vote for a Democratic takeover of the House. The former Marine and distinguished Vietnam veteran continued his accusations in follow-up media appearances before an official Pentagon and Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation had been completed.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Leave it to the Icelanders: A simple plan to get us to agree to the Obama fiscal vision (Or as most realists put it, "Nightmare.")
.
I'm a cynic. Of course, anyone reading this blog for more than 30 seconds has already divined that factoid, but I admit it. Cynicism in this day and age of our MSM acting as if they all answer to the President's Press Secretary should, to a greater or lesser degree, become a component in us all.
I do not agree with Mr. Obama's bailout plan. I've been staunchly opposed to the scam known as TARP. The handling of the latter, wherein billions of our dollars were redistributed to banks; many of which have not, well, exactly chosen to use them as they were intended, has negatively impacted the former... and WHAT a surprise THAT has been, eh?
Meanwhile, President Obama is out there like a duck, outwardly placid but shilling his butt off to get congressional support for his latest fiscal fantasy, yet another trillion dollars to bury us with out here in the Hinterland.
Well, thanks to the fine folks in Iceland that have resigned, causing their government to fall (meaning new elections will be held to determine replacements... you've got to love a parliamentary, proportional representative system) I've come up with a way to get us to ALL agree to the Obama Plan.
The beauty of it is simple.
Our democrat-controlled government wants us generally, and Congress specifically, to support this massive, horrific waste of money. OK, fine: here's how it can be done.
1. Obama and the democrat leadership come out and explain, IN DETAIL, what the plan is... AND WHAT IT WILL ACCOMPLISH. By that end, I mean, where we'll be be in 6 months, 12 months, 18 months and so forth. That way, we will ALL get the chance to see if the plan is worthwhile, plus we'll have the advantage of being able to see in the future for purposes of financial stability.
"Where we'll be" to my mind means where interest rates will be, oil, home starts, employment, the stock market, 401k's, all retirement plans and the like, GDP and GDP growth and so forth will be if we do this plan, and what will happen if we don't using the same criteria. Obama's all ABOUT "transparency," right? (well, maybe he isn't, but STILL)
After all, our government HAS to know what the impacts will be... right? Otherwise, they're doing this just to do it, and THAT can't be true... can it?
2. When this passes... and if Obama and the democrat leadership (Obama, Biden, Clinton, Reid, Murtha, Pelosi, Emanuel, et al) are wrong, then they all resign from office.
That is, if they make these promises, and if, at 6 months, 12 months, 18 months and so forth, they have failed to deliver... then they resign. Immediately.
What's not to love? Right now, these clowns have zero buy-in. They want all of US to assume ALL of the risk, while they share all of the glory if it works.
You want me to sign off on this?
Then put your asses on the line for it, just like you're putting OUR asses on the line for it.
Otherwise, they risk NOTHING, and WE risk EVERYTHING. As it is, they're risking our country. The least THEY can do is risk their jobs, like they're risking ours.
Simple enough plan, don't you think? Win - win and all that?
.
I'm a cynic. Of course, anyone reading this blog for more than 30 seconds has already divined that factoid, but I admit it. Cynicism in this day and age of our MSM acting as if they all answer to the President's Press Secretary should, to a greater or lesser degree, become a component in us all.
I do not agree with Mr. Obama's bailout plan. I've been staunchly opposed to the scam known as TARP. The handling of the latter, wherein billions of our dollars were redistributed to banks; many of which have not, well, exactly chosen to use them as they were intended, has negatively impacted the former... and WHAT a surprise THAT has been, eh?
Meanwhile, President Obama is out there like a duck, outwardly placid but shilling his butt off to get congressional support for his latest fiscal fantasy, yet another trillion dollars to bury us with out here in the Hinterland.
Well, thanks to the fine folks in Iceland that have resigned, causing their government to fall (meaning new elections will be held to determine replacements... you've got to love a parliamentary, proportional representative system) I've come up with a way to get us to ALL agree to the Obama Plan.
The beauty of it is simple.
Our democrat-controlled government wants us generally, and Congress specifically, to support this massive, horrific waste of money. OK, fine: here's how it can be done.
1. Obama and the democrat leadership come out and explain, IN DETAIL, what the plan is... AND WHAT IT WILL ACCOMPLISH. By that end, I mean, where we'll be be in 6 months, 12 months, 18 months and so forth. That way, we will ALL get the chance to see if the plan is worthwhile, plus we'll have the advantage of being able to see in the future for purposes of financial stability.
"Where we'll be" to my mind means where interest rates will be, oil, home starts, employment, the stock market, 401k's, all retirement plans and the like, GDP and GDP growth and so forth will be if we do this plan, and what will happen if we don't using the same criteria. Obama's all ABOUT "transparency," right? (well, maybe he isn't, but STILL)
After all, our government HAS to know what the impacts will be... right? Otherwise, they're doing this just to do it, and THAT can't be true... can it?
2. When this passes... and if Obama and the democrat leadership (Obama, Biden, Clinton, Reid, Murtha, Pelosi, Emanuel, et al) are wrong, then they all resign from office.
That is, if they make these promises, and if, at 6 months, 12 months, 18 months and so forth, they have failed to deliver... then they resign. Immediately.
What's not to love? Right now, these clowns have zero buy-in. They want all of US to assume ALL of the risk, while they share all of the glory if it works.
You want me to sign off on this?
Then put your asses on the line for it, just like you're putting OUR asses on the line for it.
Otherwise, they risk NOTHING, and WE risk EVERYTHING. As it is, they're risking our country. The least THEY can do is risk their jobs, like they're risking ours.
Simple enough plan, don't you think? Win - win and all that?
.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Bush Derangement Syndrome: taken to extremes. (Warning for language)
.
BDS typically angers me. Many of our leftist government leaders are infested with it: Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, Durbin... they've all caused American blood to be spilled by supporting the enemies of this Nation.
But this case pushes the envelope a little further. Read it... it speaks for itself. But the people I've named here have made me ashamed to have been in government. And they've done nothing to cause me to reconsider that conclusion. And many leftists have expressed these same sentiments, and we do nothing in response.
This is the effort of a moron who neatly removed himself from the gene pool (thank God) as he shot himself after he failed in his bank robbery/mass murder attempt.
Info's from Michele Malkin, who's doing a great job as always.
Info's from Michele Malkin, who's doing a great job as always.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)