The Right State

Jim Webb (D-VA) and the Democrats have suffered a huge defeat when his plan to give soldiers as much home time as they are deployed was crushed when fellow Virginian John Warner (R-VA) voted against the amendment.  Webb’s plan would have effectively ended US efforts against al Qaeda in Iraq.  Since the 2006 midterm election, the Democrat Party has been single minded in their approach to the war—end it by any means necessary, even if it means undermining the troops.   John Warner’s vote against the amendment this time has left political pundits wondering where he will turn next time.  The liberal left has been poking fun at vacillating senator much like Republicans did against John Kerry’s ‘I actually voted for the war, before I voted against it’ speech.  The right hails the renegade senator from Virginia as a hero. 

To paraphrase the immortal words of John Kerry, Sen. John Warner actually did vote to shorten the Iraq war before he voted to lengthen it.

Just two months ago, the courtly Virginia Republican went to the Senate floor and sided with his Democratic colleague from the commonwealth, Jim Webb, on a plan that would shorten troop deployments in Iraq. Yesterday, he went to the same place to announce that he would now vote against the same bill.

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) said Warner made him proud to be a member of the Senate.  Democrats on the other hand accused the senator of caving in to White House pressure.  So, where do the loyalties of the senior senator from Virginia lie—probably somewhere in between goat and hero.  But there is always a price to be paid for being the goat, just ask John McCain.

For years McCain has reveled with the media attention which came with the moniker of maverick.  And now he is paying the price in the polls as conservatives have turned against him.  Republicans have not forgotten nor forgiven the maverick for his shenanigans or his contempt for conservative values. 

John Warner too has earned the ire of Republicans, but with one caveat: Warner does not intent on running for reelection in 2008.  That decision is one we can all live with since the Virginian has been acting less and less like a Republican.  Warner’s questioning of General Petraeus in the Armed Services Committee made the Senator look even more like a Jane Fonda, white flag flying Democrat.  In the end I guess we can all be appreciative that Warner finally came to his senses and decided to support the troops and the mission after all.  Failing that, he can always retire. 

Tags: Democrats, War by Chuck
No Comments »

Usama bin Laden has finally come out of whatever cave he was hiding in and has spoken to the United States.  While the speech rambles on a number of topics, there are some interesting tidbits: like chastising the Democrats for their actions (and lack of actions) and giving the Democrats their marching orders.

“And here is the gist of the matter, so one should pause, think and reflect: why have the Democrats failed to stop this war, despite them being the majority?

…”So in answer to the question about the causes of the Democrats’ failure to stop the war, I say: they are the same reasons which led to the failure of former president Kennedy to stop the Vietnam war….

…And I tell you: after the failure of your representatives in the Democratic Party to implement your desire to stop the war, you can still carry anti-war placards and spread out in the streets of major cities, then go back to your homes, but that will be of no use and will lead to the prolonging of the war….

Bad Democrats.  They had their chance to lose this war…I mean they had their chance to end this war and failed.  The terrorist leader is harsh in his criticism of the Democrats, but he gives them another chance.  But first, Bin Laden then goes on to make sure he has the Democrats‘ attention by mentioning some of their most treasured issues: “global warming” and the American system which makes “the rich richer and the poor poorer.”   Then he instructs them they must end this war and turn to Islam. To be sure, the Democrats are falling all over themselves to comply with their  high leader.

The Democrats are kowtowing to their prodigious leader and are preparing the groundwork as the date nears for General Petraeus to make his report.  Like a good Democrat, Dick Durban is discounting the report calling it the Bush-Petraeus report.  Other Democrats likewise have fallen back on their old placard and are attacking the troops once again.  This good soldier is doing nothing more than doing the incredibly difficult job that was given to him.  It is too bad the Dems can not withhold their attacks on Gen. Petraeus until he has given his report.  And then they can attack the report all they want.  But to Democrats, there is no difference between attacking the idea and besmirching the person.  Typical Democrats.

Obviously bin Laden came out with this video because al Qaeda is losing in Iraq and losing badly.  The troop surge is working and the Patraeus report is sure to say so.  But we can be sure that  the Democrats will answer bin Laden’s call and sully the honor of General Petraeus and denounce the troops in the field.  We can be sure they will renew their calls for America’s defeat in Iraq and America’s defeat in the GWOT in general.  The fifth column is alive and well in the United States, it is called the Democratic Party. 

Tags: Democrats, Iraq, War by Chuck
No Comments »

If the left in this country can not see what Iran is doing and is planning on doing, they are truly blind. For the last three years liberals have called for the United States to pull the troops out of Iraq. (Whacked out liberals like John Murtha have even proposed re-stationing the troops all the way over in Guam. Obviously he never looked at a map) For the last few years Iran has directly and indirectly interfered in the affairs of Iraq (and denying their involvement) After three years of this constant whining about Iraq by the Democrats, along with their willing accomplices in the MSM, the American people have finally turned against the war. Still, I would imagine a majority of Americans could not even state why the US needs to pull out without regurgitating cut-and-surrender talking in the media. Just the US needs to leave because Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, or some other liberal talking head said so. These talking points do nothing but hurt America.

Seeing blood in the water, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has come clean with his plans for Iraq.

“The political power of the occupiers (of Iraq) is being destroyed rapidly and very soon we will be witnessing a great power vacuum in the region,” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said.

 

“I can tell you there will be a power vacuum in the region. We are ready with other regional countries, such as Saudi Arabia, and the people of Iraq to fill this vacuum.”

“They are trapped in the swamp of their own crimes,” Ahmadinejad said. “If you stay in Iraq for another 50 years nothing will improve, it will just worsen.”

Sometimes I wonder who is quoting whom. If I had someone read me the quote, I don’t think I would be able to tell the difference between quotes from Democrats or from our enemies. That alone should scare all Democrats, but it doesn’t.

Now the Iranian President tells us what he will do when we leave, which is what Republicans have been saying all along. He will occupy Iraq. If you think the Middle East is dangerous now, just wait until Iran takes over. It will make 9/11 look small and insignificant in comparison.

The Democrats have hobbled the President in conducting this war at every turn; from the ‘warrentless wiretaps’ fake scandal, to trying to close down Gitmo, to accusing US soldiers of torture, to….you name it. They have denounced the US and our soldiers here in the US and overseas. They have called our troops murderers (John Murtha). They have called our troops terrorists (John Kerry). They have said that we can not win (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and others). They have called our troops stupid (John Kerry again). They have railed against the President in a time of war. They have called for a deadline for troop withdrawal. They have done everything they can do to rally the terrorists and demoralize our troops. The simple truth is that the Democrats own defeat. They want defeat for the US in order to make short-term political gains at the ballot box. And then when Republicans call them on it, the Dems say we are questioning their patriotism. And yeah, I guess I am. I will question the patriotism of anyone whose words places greater danger on our troops. I will question the patriotism of anyone whose vile words of hate are used against us by our enemies. I will question the patriotism of anyone who calls our troops murderers and terrorists. And I will question the patriotism of anyone who supports terrorist ‘civil’ rights over the safety of our troops.

Herb Denenberg of ‘The Bulletin, a Philadelphia family newspaper says it most succinctly.

In 2007, we are also in a two-front war against Iran, Syria, and other terrorist groups such as al-Qaida. But we are not fighting back. Instead, we are at best ignoring and denying the reality of what’s happening and at worst waving a white flag (Sen. Harry Reid), denying we’re under attack (ex-Sen. John Edwards) or in appeasement mode (Sen. Barack Obama).
One of the reasons we can be oblivious to the fact that we are under attack is our so-called mainstream media, which I’ve often described as anti-American, anti-military, anti-conservative, anti-Bush, pro-terrorism and pro-America’s-enemies. It deals in biased and fraudulent journalism that is so distorted and one-sided that it denies us a real picture of the world.

My message to Democrats is simple: wake up. Ahmadinejad wants to take over the Middle East and spread hisIslamic Revolution to the world. This will be the first step in a never ending cycle of violence against the West, and it will all begin in Iraq. And to think, all of this would start because of a power vacuum when America leaves too early. So wake up, Democrats! When America’s enemies are delighting in our ‘defeat,’ something is wrong. We can either face our enemies head on, or we can start running. Of course the only problem with running away is that you never know when to stop.

Tags: Democrats, Iran, Iraq, War by Chuck
No Comments »

Where is Nancy Pelosi’s military-hating mouthpiece when we need him? John Murtha is a representative from Pensylvania who irresponsibly accused US soldiers in Haditha with murder even before the investigation of the incident had been completed. According to Uncle Jimbo at BlackFive, the soldiers blamed with the killing and covering up the evidence have been exonerated. What most people do not understand that warfare is almost never pretty and sometimes when war is really ugly, civilians die. It is an ugly fact of war, it happens.

Kathleen Parker from the Chicago Tribune has a good commentary on how America’s views on warfare are being used against us.

Americans struggle with the horror of civilian casualties, while insurgent and terrorist forces in Iraq devise ways to effect more, not fewer, civilian deaths. What we deplore, and punish, they celebrate. And replicate. There is a difference, one that is both our strength and our weakness. Though some Americans, like other mortals, are capable of inhumanity, our national conscience compels us to examine the impulses that degrade our character and purpose.

Our attention to moral warfare — always our goal, if not always met — also nourishes our enemies, who suffer no such burden. They know that demoralization and flagging commitment tend to follow our moral introspection.

Americans have never liked civilian casualties and have gone to great lengths to prevent them. Soldiers have endangered themselves in order to protect defenseless Iraqis. Seeing this internal conflict within the Americans, the terrorists have hid among the civilian population in order to create even more casualties.

John Murtha is well aware of this fact. And yet he has continued to besmirch our soldiers’ good names. Murtha’s conduct is typical of liberals of his strip; to hell with the process, blame the soldiers first and foremost. And if the good people who are defending us should be hurt in the process, so be it. As long as Murtha’s standing goes up among his real constituents: the far left.

What I do not understand is why the good people of Pennsylvania continue to reelect this man when he should be defeated by a by someone more responsible. Or at the very least, he should be censured by Congress. The people of Johnstown, Pennsylvania are a good people and are rightfully proud of their soldiers. I would doubt were seriously they know of the vile things their Congressman has been saying about our military.

Kathleen Parker finishes up her commentary with this statement:

Other Haditha investigations may yet lead to findings of guilt in some cases. Meanwhile, second-guessing how Marines should act under hostile fire before the facts are known is not only unfair, but dishonors the immense courage required to survive in the midst of such an incommunicable experience.

Well said. Murtha’s website is predictably silent of the exoneration of these fine soldiers.

Tags: Democrats, Iraq, War by Chuck
No Comments »

In the post 9/11 United States, you would think members of Congress, particularly Congressional leaders, would know what the war on terrorism is all about, who we are fighting, and their religion.  If you said yes they do, you would be wrong.  Unfortunately, members of the FBI were not any better.  The Patriot Post has some quotes and analysis from some Congressional Quarterly questions.

In a sit-down interview with Congressional Quarterly earlier this week, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the five-term Texas Democrat and incoming chair of the House Intelligence Committee, flunked a pretty simple quiz.

When asked whether al-Qa’ida was Sunni or Shi’ite, Reyes answered, “They are probably both.” He then compounded his ignorance: “You’re talking about predominantly? Predominantly—probably Shi’ite.”

Wrong. Very wrong. In fact, al-Qa’ida’s raison d’etre is the purification of Sunni Islam, which Osama bin Laden considers tainted by the Saudi royal family’s personal corruption and alliance with the United States. Shi’ite Muslims, on the other hand, are heretics deserving of death for their perversion of the “one true religion.”

The Patriot Post has more, but this just shows how uninformed these supposedly informed members of Congress really are.  This is not a Democrat or Republican problem.  This is an American problem.  We have members of Congress who are supposed to be knowledgeable enough about the war and Islam to protect this great country, but instead they are decidedly ignorant.  Somehow, I do not feel safe with these windbags in power.

The FBI is just as bad.  This is scary.  The very people who are tasked with our protection do not even know who we are fighting.

Tags: War by Chuck
No Comments »

The Democrats are so used to rewriting history.  It is truly amazing how they can play both sides of the fence so easily when it comes to bashing the President.  In the aftermath of the report by the Iraq Study Group, the Dems are out in force saying the report was what they were saying all along.

Democrats on Wednesday praised a bipartisan report on Iraq as a step forward, with key senators calling it a rebuke of White House policy.

The newly released report says the United States must change its Iraq strategy to tackle a “grave and deteriorating” situation there that could lead to chaos.

Sen. Carl Levin, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, took a jab at the White House.

“The report represents another blow at the policy of ’stay-the-course’ that this administration has followed,” the Michigan Democrat said. “Hopefully, this will be the end of that stay-the-course policy.”

Levin, referring to Democrats’ election victory in November said, “the American people rose up against staying the course in Iraq, because it was not working.”

In the run-up to the mid-term election, the Democrats called for the US to pull out of Iraq or to re-deploy all of which means only one thing: cut-and-run.  How Carl Levin can say that a document, which is pushing for the US to stay in Iraq, could possibly be the same as their position of running away?  The differences between the two positions could not be starker.  The Bush administration called for the US to win (this is a word the Democrats should look up in the dictionary) in Iraq, the Democrats called for the US to leave.  The Iraq Study Group has also called for the US to stay in Iraq. Not quite the same thing.

Then Levin made this incredibly idiotic comment.

“Only a political settlement by the Iraqis can end the violence in Iraq, and the military force that we have there cannot do that for the Iraqis,” said Levin, who spoke after a briefing on the report by its co-chairmen.

Levin was not alone in advocating a negotiated or ‘political settlement.

Democrat Sen. Joseph Biden, who said that although he didn’t disagree with anything in it, he has “concerns about what may not be in the report relating to urging the Iraqis to have a political settlement.”

Today is December 7, the anniversary of the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.  I wonder if President Roosevelt thought about a political settlement with Japan afterwards.  There was not a chance he would have entertained such an  outrageous thought.  If the Roosevelt had advocated ‘a negotiated settlement,’ many in Congress would have called for his impeachment.

There was a time when the Democrats wanted and understood winning.  President Wilson did not want a negotiated settlement in WWI.   President Roosevelt did not want a negotiated settlement during WWII.  But there was a world leader who lauded his efforts at negotiating with Adolph Hitler before the start of World War II and that was Neville Chamberlain.  His position is much like those of in the Democratic Party today.  Give in, cut-and-run, give up and leave.  Chamberlain’s appeasement made Germany that much harder to defeat.  The Democratic plan of leaving, appeasement, and quitting in Iraq would make the extremists that much harder to defeat as well.

Like the Balkins before WWI, the Middle East is the new powder keg of the world.  Added to the mix is Iran and Syria, who are sending, funding, and training terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They are killing our troops, spreading their version of Islamic extremism around the world and creating chaos in a region already on the brink outright war.  These are the people with which the Democrats want to negotiate?

It is impossible to negotiate with Islamic extremists who are trying to kill us.  To negotiate now would be the same as giving up, leaving, or cutting-and-running.  It is too bad that the Democrats are not like their predecessors of the past.  The difference between the two can be tied to one word: win.  The old Democrats knew what the word meant.  The Democrats today believe the word is too divisive to use.  After all, we don’t want to make the terrorists feel bad.  They have feeling too, you know.

President Roosevelt would roll over in his grave if he found out how his party had become the new Neville Chamberlains, always ready to give appeasement a chance.

Tags: Democrats, Iran, History, Iraq, War by Chuck
No Comments »

The noise from the right has been loud, long, and sustained. Their combined voices have told Nancy Pelosi to say ‘no’ to Alcee Hastings for chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. And it looks like we have been heard.

House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi has told Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings that he will not be the next chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the two Democrats announced Tuesday.

“I have been informed by the speaker-elect that I will not serve as the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the 110th Congress. I am obviously disappointed with this decision. As we learn in Ecclesiastes, however, for everything there is a season,” he said in a press statement.

“Congressman Alcee Hastings and I have had extensive consultations, and today I advised him that I would select someone else as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Alcee Hastings has always placed national security as his highest priority. He has served our country well, and I have full confidence that he will continue to do so,” Pelosi said in a separate release.

For some odd reason, Pelosi thought that we would just accept a man who has previously accepted bribes to be chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Her ‘trust me’ is not good enough. Anyone who would accept bribes may also sell secrets. And that is one thing we can not allow to happen.

I have no delusions that Pelosi has decided to do what is right. She has already faced defeat when her candidate for the House Majority Leader, the corrupt John Murtha, was rejected overwhelmingly by the Democrats. The writing is on the wall and it says more defeat will follow if she selects an impeached judge for the chairmanship of the super-important House Intelligence Committee. Only this time the defeat will not come from the Democratic Party, but from the American people who see that Pelosi can not be trusted with selecting good leaders with impeccable integrity.

Further signs that Pelosi does not know what she is doing can be demonstrated by her lack of understanding of the situation in Iraq.

House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters on Wednesday that she feels it is “sad” that President Bush continues to blame Iraqi insurgent violence on al Qaeda.

“My thoughts on the president’s representations are well-known,” Pelosi said. “The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again.”

Pelosi’s idiotic statements come on the heels of a press conference by General Caldwell in which he outlines what al Qaeda has been doing in Iraq.

Pelosi’s statement also followed a press briefing in Baghdad earlier today, where a US military spokesman was unable to state clearly what role al Qaeda plays in Iraq violence.

Displaying a series of slides and charts, the spokesman for the multinational forces in Iraq claimed that “since October of 2004, we have now killed or captured over 7,000 al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists.”

According to Major General William Caldwell, because Iraq still has a “government moving forward” with “institutions in place,” and because al Qaeda in Iraq seeks “anarchy” instead of power, the current situation should not be considered a “civil war.”

Let’s put all of this into perspective. The military has captured over 7,000 al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, including some of Osama bin Laden’s lieutenants. And our troops have captured documents which show that communications between bin Laden and his followers in Iraq have tried to foment sectarian violence. These two points are well-known and documented. So for Nancy Pelosi to say that al-Qaeda is not in Iraq is plain wrong. She is either being deceptive and partisan in her speech or she is totally ignorant of the situation in Iraq. Neither of these two qualities make a good leader.

Considering her bad choices for leadership posts and her lack of knowledge about Iraq, Pelosi is obviously well over her head as the new Speaker of the House.

Tags: Democrats, Iraq, War by Chuck
No Comments »

For years, the New York Times has claimed its First Amendment right under the Constitution to print whatever it wanted.  They leaked secret military planning for Afghanistan, selective leaking of the NIE, and the leaking of the financial data mining  of terrorists.  All of these were highly classified secrets the New York Times felt the world had a right to know.  The defense the Times has been using may be starting to come unraveled as the courts see a ‘compelling interest’ on the part of federal prosecutors to know who leaked a planned raid on two Muslim charities.

The Supreme Court refused Monday to shield the New York Times and two of its reporters from a prosecutor’s probe into who leaked word of planned raids on two Muslim charities five years ago.

The decision clears the way for federal prosecutors to review the phone records of the two reporters for several weeks in the fall of 2001. The prosecutor, U.S. Atty. Patrick J. Fitzgerald in Chicago, says the records will help point to the source of the leak.

The New York Times maintains it has a 1st Amendment right to protect the confidentiality of its sources. Floyd Abrams, the newspaper’s lawyer, said, “There has been no claim of wrongdoing against the Times reporters. The only thing at issue here is a leak investigation in which the government seeks to obtain information on who spoke to the journalists.”

Two years ago, lawyers for the newspaper went before a federal judge in New York and won an order that barred the prosecutor from examining the phone records.

But in August, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that order in a 2-1 decision. The prosecutor has a “compelling interest” in learning who tipped off the reporters to the planned raids, thereby “endangering federal agents” and permitting the “targets to spirit away incriminating information,” said Judge Ralph K. Winter in the appeals court opinion.

“We see no danger to the free press in so holding,” he added. “Learning of imminent law enforcement asset freezes or searches and informing targets of them is not an activity essential … to journalism.”

The Supreme Court has never squarely ruled that the news media has a 1st Amendment right to protect its confidential sources. On Monday, the justices turned down an emergency plea from the Times in a one-line order.

The question is, do the investigations stop here?  The Times have been involved in so many leaks which have harmed America’s war on terror. These leaks were not done because of the people’s right to know or the First Amendment rights, but they were leaked to harm a sitting president they did not like.

Now, its time to pay the piper.   Hopefully, the indictment of Judith Miller will be but the first of many who have knowingly printed classified documents. This should be the first of many salvos across the bow of the MSM who feel it is their duty to determine what needs to be classified and what does not, who is an enemy and who is not, who is a terrorist and who is not.

And while I am involved in wishful thinking, it would be nice if the media were on the side of America and her troops, at least every once in a while.  Unfortunately this may never take place.  This is going to be a long war against people who want to kill us and our way of life.  The New York Times seems to have chosen sides and now they are paying for it.

Tags: Terrorism, Bias, War by Chuck
No Comments »

Senator Chuck Hagel as one of the darlings of the mainstream media is once again calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.  The MSM goes as far as calling this RINO a “leading Republican senator.”  Oh, please.  Only in his wildest dreams would he ever be considered a leading senator for the Republican Party.  His plan is the same one the Democrats have been advocating since before the election, cut-and-run.  But there are several problems with his plan including a lack of knowledge of US history.

“Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation — regardless of our noble purpose.”

Oh, really?  I wonder if the Senator remembers the history of Germany, Japan, or South Korea.  In each nation there was war, desolation and no hint of a democratic form of government. Now, each of these countries has a thriving democracy.  The United States can and has imposed democracy on other countries.  And it has worked.  Hagel is so used to shooting off at the mouth that he does not even know what he is saying.

In Sunday editions of the newspaper, he wrote that the U.S. “misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam.”

For a guy who does not know his history, Chuck Hagel sure does like to talk.  He is like so many of these other idiots who like to compare the war in Iraq with the war in Vietnam.  What a moron.  There are several good comparisons to Vietnam.  First is the fact that both wars were very unpopular.  Secondi s that we were winning, just like we are in Iraq.  Third is that many in Congress were tired of facing criticisms from their constituents on their support for the war and so they forced the administration to seek a negotiated peace with North Vietnam even though Vietcong were losing and losing badly.  Misguided politicians sought a political peace and withdrawal (cut-and-run) on the doorstep of a military victory.  The communist north did not renew their attempted conquest of the south for another three years and so this was in a US victory.  Three years after we pulled out of South Vietnam, the north attacked once again.  While the US won this war, we lost because we did not make sure the country was strong enough without our help.

The big difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that an unstable Vietnam only hurt the region.  An unstable Iraq has deadly implications for the entire world because of terrorism.  Once again it is Congress who are losing their nerve and it will be Congress who will be responsible if we are attacked once again.

Paul from Powerline pretty much nails Chuck Hagel in one short sentence.

Hagel may not be the biggest fool in the Senate, but after reading his piece in today’s Washington Post I’m at a loss to identify a bigger one. Hagel insists that “there will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq.” But if the U.S. leaves Iraq and, with our soldiers gone, al Qaeda establishes a base for terrorist operations, that sure sounds like defeat. And if our forced exit, to which Hagel will have contributed, becomes a huge morale victory and recruiting tool for terrorists, as less dramatic past U.S. exits have, surely that would be a defeat too.

Yep!  It is bad enough to have Democrats losing their nerve, but we have a spineless Republican losing it too.

Tags: Iraq, War by Chuck
No Comments »

BlackFive has a link from YouTube in which political analyst Lawrence O’Donnell has a meltdown after suffering a severe bout of guilt because he was a coward for not having served in the military. He goes on to state that the soldiers serving in Iraq have no connection with those staying at home. What a bunch of rubbish. By extension what he is saying is that there is something wrong with those who would serve in the military. I, for one, am offended by his comment. I did serve in the military. I have friends who have served and are serving in Iraq. I and they relate well with each other and our respective families and friends. What O’Donnell is actually saying is that he does not relate to the military. And why not, he views the military as an unnecessary evil. Froggy from BlackFive is right, O’Donnell is trying to play on both sides of the fence. He says the military is made up of good people who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Then, he goes on to say that those who do serve are somehow disconnected from the society they are charged with protecting. The real problem is that he does not understand the military or those who would fight to save this great country. People like him do not understand how anyone could voluntarily fight for a country as bad as the United States.

O’Donnell is not alone in suffering from this massive case of guilt for not serving and blaming the US for every contrived grievance at the same time. Many in the liberal blogoshere feel the same way. I found this reply below the YouTube video.

How is a so called all volunteer army any different from an all mercenary army?
I would support a mandatory national service. It might even encourage the military to create more peacekeepers with language skills. How useful is knowing how to blow up tanks in the marketplace after the end of enlistment?

Now our proud and courageous American soldiers are no better than mercenaries? These moonbats have really lost it. To these truly idiotic morons, there is no need in this world for the military. To prove it, this moonbat compares the military’s need to blow up a tank with the civilian need to…blow up a tank. What utter nonsense, the value of one does not compare to the other. I spent four years in the United States Air Force repairing F-15 Eagles which protected the eastern seaboard from Soviet incursions during the Cold War. Our planes had to be ready to encourage the intruding Russian Bear to leave US airspace, which happened fairly frequently. For these loons to say that my service to this country is not important because the civilian world does not have F-15s is incredibly stupid.

As if we need any more proof that the left has lost touch with reality, look at how Ron Jacobs from Couter Punch views our soldiers who fought and died during the Vietnam War. (His views represents much of the left in this country)

In fact, George Bush recently commented during his visit to Vietnam that the basic mistake made by the United States during its murderous campaign in Vietnam was that it quit before victory was achieved. (emphasis added by TRS)

Once again our soldiers are called murderers or worse. The left has nothing but contempt for a military that it does not understand. The military men and women who serving in Iraq have not lost touch with their civilian counterparts, it is the liberals who have lost touch with our soldiers. Our brave men and women in uniform in Iraq face death to defend this country from all our enemies. As a result, our cowardly liberal friends are feeling guilty. They are too scared to serve, the pansies.

To rid themselves of this shame, the left must stop the war. Then there would be no need for their guilt. Much like the left’s campaign against the Vietnam War in the 1960s, liberals plan another protest on the very day the new Congress is to take their seats, January 27, 2007. Their call is for an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

To make sure enough people show up to make a difference, these moonbats are trying to include just about anyone with a beef.

…it is important that people do show up for this protest. And every other protest against the war coming up in the future. After all, it is the protesters who decide the course of the movement, not the so-called leadership or any of their Democratic pals.

How long will it be before the left becomes even more unhinged and starts calling our brave soldiers: baby killers? For them, this would be straight out of the liberal handbook. Blame the President, then Congress, and finally the soldiers who are fighting this war. They want to end this war at any cost, even if it means the US is less safe than before. Ending the war would remove the scarlet letter clearly stamped on their foreheads—G, for guilt; S, for shame; or C, for coward. Any of these letters would fit. As a result, it also means that the removal of the letter becomes imperative. Ending the war becomes worth any price they or this country has to pay. Such is the penalty for their scarlet letter.

Tags: Moonbats, War by Chuck
No Comments »