Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularity  Erm, when were we ever losing in Iraq? Was there some point where the insurgents were actually beating the American soldiers over there?
Furthermore, I never understood the argument that certain news organizations or those of us who opposed the war "want us to lose". Can someone clarify this for me? Have large numbers of people (including those liberal news organizations) actually said this specifically? |
Please do not lend what may be your well reasoned sensibilities to those who do not have your understanding of the overall situation.
There are some who actually see the current administration as the enemy and so they have cheered our failures in Iraq as a way of spiting GWB, Cheney, the Neo-Cons, the GOP, the Right Wing, Conservatism, America, the Democratic system of government, man made laws, big business, free enterprise, capitalism, the White Man and/or Christianity.
But the Democratic Party has simply played with the war as a political football by which they sought and seek to gain political power.
Such cynicism and callous disregard fro the consequences is repugnant and irresponsible.
Quote:
Even as American soldiers have fought a fanatical enemy on the battlefields of Iraq, their president has been condemned as a deceiver who led them to war through “lies;”[2] as a destroyer of American liberties;[3] as a desecrator of the Constitution;[4] as a usurper who stole his high office;[5] as the architect of an “unnecessary war;”[6] as a “fraud;”[7] as a leader who “betrayed us;”[8] and as a president who cynically sent the flower of American youth to die in foreign lands in order to enrich himself and his friends.[9]
These reckless, corrosive charges are made not by fringe elements of the political spectrum, but by national leaders of the Democratic Party, including a former president, a former vice president and presidential candidate, and three members of the United States Senate (among them a one-time presidential candidate). These attacks occurred not after years of fighting in Iraq, when some might regard the result as a “quagmire,” but during the first months of the conflict, when the fighting had barely begun. They were made not over a war that was forced on Americans, or surreptitiously launched without their consent, but a war authorized by both political parties. They were directed not merely at its conduct, but at the rationale of the war itself—in other words, at the very justice of the American cause.
Although they voted for the bill to authorize the war, leaders of the Democratic Party, such as Senator Hillary Clinton, turned around after it was in progress and claimed that it was “George Bush’s war,” not theirs.[10] They argued that Bush alone had decided to remove Saddam, when in fact it was a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who made regime change the policy of the United States.[11] They argued that the war was “unnecessary” because Iraq was “no threat.”[12] But who would have regarded Afghanistan as a threat before 9/11? They maintained that because the war in Iraq was a war of “choice,” it was therefore immoral.[13] But every war fought by America in the twentieth century, with the exception of World War II, was also a war of choice.
Above all, they claimed the president had manipulated intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and thus the premise of the war. But copies of the National Intelligence Estimate on which the president’s decision was based were provided to every Democratic senator who voted for or against it. The findings were confirmed by government intelligence agencies around the world, including those of France, Britain, Russia, and Jordan.[14] In other words, President Bush could not have manipulated the intelligence on which the vote was based and the war was actually authorized.
FrontPage Magazine |
When you attack your own leadership during war you encourage your enemy to fight on longer and stronger.
They should have been indicted on charges of sedition.