Comments on: US Military Consequences Of Anticipated Democrat Iraq Policy http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/11/15/us-military-consequences-of-anticipated-democrat-iraq-policy/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:12:34 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Amy Proctor http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/11/15/us-military-consequences-of-anticipated-democrat-iraq-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-58669 Amy Proctor Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:19:40 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/11/15/us-military-consequences-of-anticipated-democrat-iraq-policy/#comment-58669 This is absolutely correct. As a military wife, the elections have devastated my moral, although the soldiers are tougher than I. If this were an ordinary election, i.e., not during war time, dealing with Republican losses would be a matter of fact. It's happened before and will happen again. But for all the talk of "we support the troops", this sends an incredibly confusing message to the guys serving in Iraq in particular, and also Afghanistan. If "we" support the troops, why did we just give a high five to their enemy whom they fight on the ground on a daily basis? If "we" support the troops, why did we just cement the theory that pulling out of Iraq is best, making every military death truly in vain? Everybody knows the Democrats do NOT support the troops except in rhetoric when they consistently parrot the identical talking points of Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, other al-Qaeda leadership and the rest of America's enemies. Part of the problem is, of course, Democrats are too concerned with understanding the terrorists, never referring to them as such and giving them constitutional rights to plot to blow us out of the water. Democrats do not recognize that we actually HAVE an enemy. Nancy Pelosi said last week about the Dem plan for Iraq, "This isn’t a war to win, it’s a situation to solve. And you define ‘winning’ any way you want, but you must solve this problem.” So Democratic leadership cannot even define "winning" and don't see this as a war. Why? Because they're too sympathetic with the enemy. Yes, this makes soldiers feel very supported. I lived through the Clinton presidency. My husband enlisted in 1993. It was bad, because no one respected the commander in chief and the only big government jobs Clinton boasted of slashing were, you guessed it, MILITARY POSITIONS. National defense became weakened and our commander in brief's reputation throughout the world made soldiers feel embarrassed to travel abroad. But they sucked it up. This, however, is devastating not just in morale but in reality. I can take the Dems ruining the phenomenal economy or screwing up health care and education, but a withdrawal would make every soldiers' death totally in vain. Cindy Sheehan will get her wish. We have Iraqi friends my husband made from his year in Baghdad with the 82nd ABN DIV. I got an e-mail from a Catholic Iraqi priest, Fr. Bashar, just before the election saying, "Vote Bush". He said we cannot pull out because Iraqi blood will be spilled in the streets like we've never seen. I know what he meant by "Vote Bush". Vote Republican because voting Democrat could have horrible consequences. That President Bush can veto any withdrawal legislation and Congress doesn't have the votes to override his veto, unless a large amount of Republicans abandon us again. This is absolutely correct. As a military wife, the elections have devastated my moral, although the soldiers are tougher than I. If this were an ordinary election, i.e., not during war time, dealing with Republican losses would be a matter of fact. It’s happened before and will happen again.

But for all the talk of “we support the troops”, this sends an incredibly confusing message to the guys serving in Iraq in particular, and also Afghanistan. If “we” support the troops, why did we just give a high five to their enemy whom they fight on the ground on a daily basis? If “we” support the troops, why did we just cement the theory that pulling out of Iraq is best, making every military death truly in vain? Everybody knows the Democrats do NOT support the troops except in rhetoric when they consistently parrot the identical talking points of Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, other al-Qaeda leadership and the rest of America’s enemies. Part of the problem is, of course, Democrats are too concerned with understanding the terrorists, never referring to them as such and giving them constitutional rights to plot to blow us out of the water. Democrats do not recognize that we actually HAVE an enemy. Nancy Pelosi said last week about the Dem plan for Iraq, “This isn’t a war to win, it’s a situation to solve. And you define ‘winning’ any way you want, but you must solve this problem.” So Democratic leadership cannot even define “winning” and don’t see this as a war. Why? Because they’re too sympathetic with the enemy. Yes, this makes soldiers feel very supported.

I lived through the Clinton presidency. My husband enlisted in 1993. It was bad, because no one respected the commander in chief and the only big government jobs Clinton boasted of slashing were, you guessed it, MILITARY POSITIONS. National defense became weakened and our commander in brief’s reputation throughout the world made soldiers feel embarrassed to travel abroad. But they sucked it up.

This, however, is devastating not just in morale but in reality. I can take the Dems ruining the phenomenal economy or screwing up health care and education, but a withdrawal would make every soldiers’ death totally in vain. Cindy Sheehan will get her wish. We have Iraqi friends my husband made from his year in Baghdad with the 82nd ABN DIV. I got an e-mail from a Catholic Iraqi priest, Fr. Bashar, just before the election saying, “Vote Bush”. He said we cannot pull out because Iraqi blood will be spilled in the streets like we’ve never seen. I know what he meant by “Vote Bush”. Vote Republican because voting Democrat could have horrible consequences.

That President Bush can veto any withdrawal legislation and Congress doesn’t have the votes to override his veto, unless a large amount of Republicans abandon us again.

]]>