Enemies Or Allies? The Democrat's Quandary
It has been a very interesting and enlightening week of events. The week started with Osama Bin Laden lecturing the United States on the Iraq War, global warming, and the failures of our democratic society. Then on Monday, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and delivered a mixed status report on the progress of the troop surge in Iraq. At the same time that the decorated 4 star general was sitting before the pompous politicians, the waning readership of the New York Times was treated to a full page ad by MoveOn.org that said “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”.
These events are linked in more ways than the obvious Iraq War connection. I believe that the week’s events were a glaring indication of who the leadership in the Democratic Party have aligned themselves. The comments and attitudes of the “distinguished” senators, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, and the New York Times clearly show that they have allied themselves with some very unlikely company.
After reading the transcript of Bin Laden’s speech, I recognized a very familiar tone. The tone, opinion, and topics we all heard before over the past several months. Osama stated several times that this was a war that we could not win. He said that we are caught in the middle of a civil war. Before I continue, it was interesting that Osama claimed we were caught in a civil war, but then claimed that his terrorist organization was winning this war with the United States. Bin Laden echoed the Democrats when he blamed the neocons and singled out Rumsfeld and Cheney. He also rambled on about global warming and the administration’s refusal to sign onto the Kyoto accord. He even blames “Big Corporations” for controlling the country and driving us to war for profit.
Those are just a few of the “highlights” of Osama’s assessment of the Iraq War and our country. Did anyone else besides my partisan self, notice that Osama and the Democratic leadership have the same talking points? The leaders in the House and Senate have been very outspoken against the war and have said that they support the troops but not the war. How does anyone, besides the “intellectuals”, believe that they are supporting the troops when they are saying exactly the same things as our troop’s enemy? I guess the question to be asked is, Is Osama echoing the Democratic leadership, or is the leadership echoing Osama? In either case it is not a position of support of our troops. I have criticized the Democratic party for their rhetoric against the war, saying that our enemies and our men in women in uniform see the same speeches. It emboldens our enemies and hurts the morale of our soldiers in harm’s way.
Before the General ever opened his mouth to start with his report, he was subjected to insult after insult by the anti-war members of the committee. Senator Lantos was the first to question the war hero’s integrity. Senator Clinton also questioned Petraeus honor and integrity while she took her 833rd position on the war. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed that the General’s plan was unacceptable because he disagreed that the surge had seen military success. The Democrats have claimed that the report was untrue because the White House staff had written the report. The problem is that these same Democrats wrote the legislation that required the White House to report on the outcome of the surge. The Democrats also complained that Petraeus himself was not going to come before the committee to testify. When Petraeus and the White House agreed to send the General and the Ambassador to testify, they whined that he wasn’t going to be honest and it would be a waste of time. When did we arrive at a time when one of our country’s most decorated soldiers is insulted and accused of being a political hack? Isn’t a bit hypocritical of any politician accusing anyone else of dishonesty?
The New York Times has had declining subscriptions over the past few years. When reports of the “paper of record” discounting advertising rates for an organization that open accuses our top military commander of treason, is it any wonder why their sales have slipped? The New York Post reported that MoveOn.org paid $65,000 for the full page ad. They also reported that the normal rate for a full page ad was over $180,000. Why did MoveOn receive a discount? Was it politically motivated? Since Rudy Giuliani has announced his plans to take out a full page ad in the New York Times to rebut the MoveOn ad, we only have to wait to see if the Times will charge the same discounted rate to Giuliani’s campaign.
I firmly believe that everyone has the right to say whatever they want about the General, the war, or the President. I have just as much right to question their patriotism and their desire for the United States to be victorious in the stabilization of Iraq. I believe that the Democrats have taken the positions that they have on the war and the surge solely for political purposes. They realize that if they do not take a hard line on the surge and the war, their financial backing from fringe groups like MoveOn will dry up faster than Hillary Clinton changing her political positions.
These events are linked in more ways than the obvious Iraq War connection. I believe that the week’s events were a glaring indication of who the leadership in the Democratic Party have aligned themselves. The comments and attitudes of the “distinguished” senators, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, and the New York Times clearly show that they have allied themselves with some very unlikely company.
After reading the transcript of Bin Laden’s speech, I recognized a very familiar tone. The tone, opinion, and topics we all heard before over the past several months. Osama stated several times that this was a war that we could not win. He said that we are caught in the middle of a civil war. Before I continue, it was interesting that Osama claimed we were caught in a civil war, but then claimed that his terrorist organization was winning this war with the United States. Bin Laden echoed the Democrats when he blamed the neocons and singled out Rumsfeld and Cheney. He also rambled on about global warming and the administration’s refusal to sign onto the Kyoto accord. He even blames “Big Corporations” for controlling the country and driving us to war for profit.
Those are just a few of the “highlights” of Osama’s assessment of the Iraq War and our country. Did anyone else besides my partisan self, notice that Osama and the Democratic leadership have the same talking points? The leaders in the House and Senate have been very outspoken against the war and have said that they support the troops but not the war. How does anyone, besides the “intellectuals”, believe that they are supporting the troops when they are saying exactly the same things as our troop’s enemy? I guess the question to be asked is, Is Osama echoing the Democratic leadership, or is the leadership echoing Osama? In either case it is not a position of support of our troops. I have criticized the Democratic party for their rhetoric against the war, saying that our enemies and our men in women in uniform see the same speeches. It emboldens our enemies and hurts the morale of our soldiers in harm’s way.
Before the General ever opened his mouth to start with his report, he was subjected to insult after insult by the anti-war members of the committee. Senator Lantos was the first to question the war hero’s integrity. Senator Clinton also questioned Petraeus honor and integrity while she took her 833rd position on the war. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed that the General’s plan was unacceptable because he disagreed that the surge had seen military success. The Democrats have claimed that the report was untrue because the White House staff had written the report. The problem is that these same Democrats wrote the legislation that required the White House to report on the outcome of the surge. The Democrats also complained that Petraeus himself was not going to come before the committee to testify. When Petraeus and the White House agreed to send the General and the Ambassador to testify, they whined that he wasn’t going to be honest and it would be a waste of time. When did we arrive at a time when one of our country’s most decorated soldiers is insulted and accused of being a political hack? Isn’t a bit hypocritical of any politician accusing anyone else of dishonesty?
The New York Times has had declining subscriptions over the past few years. When reports of the “paper of record” discounting advertising rates for an organization that open accuses our top military commander of treason, is it any wonder why their sales have slipped? The New York Post reported that MoveOn.org paid $65,000 for the full page ad. They also reported that the normal rate for a full page ad was over $180,000. Why did MoveOn receive a discount? Was it politically motivated? Since Rudy Giuliani has announced his plans to take out a full page ad in the New York Times to rebut the MoveOn ad, we only have to wait to see if the Times will charge the same discounted rate to Giuliani’s campaign.
I firmly believe that everyone has the right to say whatever they want about the General, the war, or the President. I have just as much right to question their patriotism and their desire for the United States to be victorious in the stabilization of Iraq. I believe that the Democrats have taken the positions that they have on the war and the surge solely for political purposes. They realize that if they do not take a hard line on the surge and the war, their financial backing from fringe groups like MoveOn will dry up faster than Hillary Clinton changing her political positions.
posted by Troy Stouffer at
10:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home